IPOS, Lloyd's and Antares launch IP litigation insurance initiative

This Kat realizes that just mentioning the word “insurance” to an IP person is likely to elicit a quizzical expression or even a yawn. This is so, even where the insurance addresses the issue of litigation costs, which is often the dirty little secret that goes unmentioned when an inventor of limited resources chooses the path of IP protection.

In the “start-up nation” environment in which this Kat practices, the inventor will likely bank on a business model built on the sale or other disposition of his IP, the sooner the better. Under such a view, litigation insurance is a form of middle-term thinking that largely lies outside the durational purview of such an inventor.

Consider the latest actions taken by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS, to its friends). There is perhaps no national IP office that is more focused on how it should/can take a proactive role in facilitating IP commercialization. When one joins this policy commitment to the financial resources and nous available in Singapore, any steps taken by IPOS in the direction of IP and insurance merit attention.

Already in September 2018, IPOS entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Lloyd’s Asia to work on the introduction of insurance products that would be useful to the innovation community. As a first step, the two bodies jointly organized a series of seminars that emphasized Singapore’s excellence in IP protection and commercialization and Lloyd’s experience in underwriting IP insurance.

IPOS has now announced the next phase in this project, in conjunction with Lloyd’s Asia and Antares Underwriting Asia, called the Intellectual Property Insurance Initiative for Innovators (for those who like the letter “I”, also to be known as IPIII). Starting from June 2019, inventors and creators who have Singapore-registered IP will be able to receive IP legal insurance coverage, called by Antares-- “Intellectual Property Legal Expenses Insurance”, in connection with their IP-based innovation activities. In its link, FAQ, Antares provides the following summary information about this insurance.
The policy pays the legal costs arising from:

• Allegations of infringement of your intellectual property - cover for legal fees to pursue a potential infringer;

• Allegations of infringement of someone else’s intellectual property - cover for legal fees to defend an allegation of infringement;

• Allegations of infringement against your licensee - cover for legal fees to defend an allegation of infringement made against a licensee;

• Disputes between you and your licensee - cover for legal fees to ensure a licensee performs within the terms of their licence agreement.

Please note the policy provides for the legal fees only and not for the liabilities or damages which may arise from any dispute.
The cost of IP litigation being what it is, this Kat is all for arrangements that can make the fee side more bearable. [Merpel says, "no more ursine-based adjectives, please".] Still, in a reflective feline moment, this Kat had several thoughts about this initiative.

First, what about trade secrets? As currently fashioned, it does not appear that trade secrets are included in the insurance cover. Given the centrality of trade secrets in facilitating innovation in various areas, this exclusion is troublesome. For example, will the lure of such insurance coverage lead inventors and creators to seek registered IP, rather than trade secret protection, even if it is less desirable, simply to be able to take advantage of the initiative?

Second, this Kat is curious to know how IP litigation insurance will impact on the nature and conduct of the legal representation. Will corners be cut or staffing reduced? Will the upshot be that the insurance-funded representation will be better than no representation, but will potentially be of a lesser quality than received by a party able to fund the representation directly from his own resources?

This Kat looks forward to further updates on IPIII and its impact on the funding IP litigation in support of innovation.

Picture on left is by Lazy Lightning and is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

By Neil Wilkof
IPOS, Lloyd's and Antares launch IP litigation insurance initiative IPOS,  Lloyd's and Antares launch IP litigation insurance initiative Reviewed by Neil Wilkof on Friday, June 21, 2019 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. It is interesting to see that the IPOS has thought about an insurance, at least for legal fees, for innovators or better what can be called SMEs.

    A while ago, in order to make the UPC more palatable to SMEs, the EU Commission (or was it another institution) launched the idea of a litigation insurance for SMEs. Dust has gathered and it seems that the idea of such an insurance is as dead as the UPC appears to be dead.

    Not only are the court fees beyond reach for SMEs, and if they lose their case, they will be heavily burdened in spite of the ceilings foreseen.

    Without such an insurance, the UPC is of no interest to SMEs in spite of all contrary messages uttered by the EPO or the EUIPO.

    Whether one likes to hear it or not, the UPC is something for companies having deep pockets, not for SMEs.

    Techrights. FINGERS OFF!!!!


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.