CIPA JOURNAL Incorporating the transactions of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys
November 2017 / Volume 46 / Number 11
Employee compensation Shanks v Unilever: outstanding case reveals no outstanding benefit
No patent? Use copyright and database right Technomed v Bluecrest
1-CIPA Journal_OFC_Sept-17-FIN.indd 3
More changes to the CTM Regulation Alicia Instone
UDR: pleading difficult to follow? Andrew Clay
Tribal immunity shields US patent from IPR Kilburn & Strode
Going Remote... Buenos Aires, Argentina Heather Lane
03/11/2017 12:38:43
3-IFC-premier cercle_1.indd 3
03/11/2017 12:00:52
Contents 14 24
16 & 19
UP FRONT
ARTICLES
EDUCATION
3
19
51 52 54
President’s address
Stephen Jones 4
No rest for a President
24
Dr Tony Rollins 6
Chief Executive’s report Council Minutes
Allergan’s patent shield
Gavin Wai and Kristina Cornish 26
Lee Davies 7
Employee compensation
Alasdair Poore
Unregistered design right
58
Andrew Clay 30
Lee Davies
No patent, no problem
66
Isabel Teare and Mark Pearce
Institute events West Midlands meeting Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court 2017 CIPA Life Sciences Conference Intellectual Property Enterprise Court
NEWS
DECISIONS
PERSONAL
10
33
EPO decisions
44 46 48
Bristows
60
PEB student surveys
Rob Taylor 11
Host a trainee patent examiner
34
Sanam Habib 11
Overseas report
Amanda R. Gladwin 12
Regulatory Performance Assessment Consultation
14
CTM Regulation – Part 2
16
Employee-inventor compensation
Lee Davies Alicia Instone (Fellow)
Paul Cole
Volume 46, number 11
1-pp01_Contents1_1.indd 1
IPO decisions
Barker Brettell 36
Trade marks
Bird & Bird
The not-so-secret diary Going Remote Obituaries Announcement
100 Years of Patent Crown Officers
THE PINKS Recruitment International Courses and events Support
NOVEMBER 2017
59-71 60, 62 60, 64 60, 72
CIPA JOURNAL
1
03/11/2017 13:06:07
NEWS
solution is provided by considering the organization as a collection of individual and distinct enterprises and considering the technology, operations and profits of each enterprise individually rather than overall as in the findings of the hearing officer. It follows that the reasoning at paragraph 59 based on overall group profits is fundamentally incorrect because although it pays attention to the size of the employer’s (overall) undertaking it pays insufficient attention to its nature. 16. It should be noted that the present proceedings went before the Court of Appeal at an earlier stage [2010] EWCA Civ 1283, where Jacob LJ observed in relation to the “too large to pay” problem at [17]: “Unilever was (and according to Mr Alexander still is) contending that although £23m royalties might be a lot for some companies, by Unilever standards it is not a lot and so the patent was not of outstanding benefit to Unilever. He pointed to the words in section 40(1) “having regard to the size and nature of the employer's undertaking”, suggesting they meant that inventor/employees of big companies had to show a larger benefit to their employer than inventor/employees of smaller companies. I am far from convinced that Parliament meant that inventor/ employees of large companies should get less or no compensation for a particular invention compared with what they would get if they had been employed by a small company. It may indeed be the other way round in that a large payment may be too much for a small company to able to afford and that was what Parliament had in mind.” 17. In his conclusions at the above time, Jacob LJ said at 34: “It follows that I would allow the appeal. The parties should be able to agree the consequential order. 18
CIPA JOURNAL
1-pp16-18-shanks unilever_3.indd 18
NOVEMBER 2017
SHANKS v UNILEVER
I hope they can also now agree on what amounts to a "fair share" for Professor Shanks.” From this, it is beyond doubt that Jacob LJ had concluded that Professor Shanks was entitled to compensation, and that the proper thing for Unilever to do was to negotiate and agree an appropriate sum within a short time after the date of the decision in October 2010, his words almost amounting to a direction for the parties to do that. It is also apparent on the face of the decision that both Longmore LJ and Kitchin J agreed with him. It is difficult to understand why that strong advice from three experienced judges was disregarded. 18. It is submitted that decisions over many years have had the collective effect of defeating the intention of Parliament under section 40 that those who make outstanding inventions should be rewarded. It is self-evident that it is in the interest of the UK as a whole that individuals of outstanding merit and creativity should be attracted to and should pursue careers in the scientific and engineering disciplines. Young people should have positive examples not only of scientific success but also proportionate rewards, if not on the scale of those given to successful actors, musicians and footballers then at least on a comparable scale. Public policy should be redirected in that way as Parliament plainly intended when section 40 was passed. The fact that the only successful application in the nearly 40 years since the present Act came into effect is Kelly v GE Healthcare [2009] R.P.C. 12 demonstrates the limited extent to which the various tribunals have been prepared to follow the Parliamentary intention. A new and more generous approach is therefore both supported by the above-mentioned case law concerning the evaluation of invention and plainly needed. Also see the article on the next page.
Timeline: Shanks v Unilever 8 September 2004 Admission of relevance of benefit 9 June 2006 Proceedings commenced in the IPO 10 November 2006 Unilever’s Counterstatement filed November 2008 Expert evidence filed by Prof Shanks December 2008 Supplementary statement of case 19 May 2009 IPO refuses to allow alternative case 3 December 2009 Prof Shanks’ appeal succeeds (Ch Div) 25 November 2010 Judgment of Court of Appeal (No.1) March/April 2012 Trial of Professor Shanks’ claim in the IPO 21 June 2013 IPO judgment 23 May 2014 Appeal to the High Court 4 August 2014 Appeal to Court of Appeal 31 December 2014 Permission to appeal refused on the papers (Lewison LJ) 17 June 2015 Permission to appeal granted on oral renewal of application (Floyd LJ) 20 July 2015 Costs-capping order 15–16 November 2016 Hearing of Professor Shanks’ appeal before the Court of Appeal 18 January 2017 Judgment of the Court of Appeal (No.2) www.cipa.org.uk
03/11/2017 12:16:43
Employee compensation: just a pipedream? Shanks v Unilever1: Outstanding case reveals no outstanding benefit
Cases on employee compensation for inventions of outstanding benefit are few and far between2, and rarely successful. Shanks is another such case. It has been reported previously in this Journal (most recently March [2017] CIPA 53). Paul Cole has submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, reproduced at page 16. This note written by Alasdair Poore (Fellow) provides some background as well as revisiting and reviewing some of the points coming out of the dispute both of general relevance and specific to employee compensation claims – the basis of an appeal from the Comptroller, the nature of undertakings and the test for outstanding benefit (and at least some things which are not likely to be taken into account) in the context of inventor compensation claims, and something about timescales and costs.
Volume 46, number 11
2-pp19-23-employee compensation_5_RED.indd 19
S
hanks v Unilever is notable for several features: the long delay (from 2004 to 2017, with an intermediate appeal) with the case getting to the Court of Appeal the second time, on the substantive issue of “outstanding benefit”; the invention itself is from 1984 and the patents, except the US, expired in 2005; and the wealth of arguments that have taken up the courts’ time. Key issues were: what was the business “undertaking” whose benefit was to be assessed (on which there was agreement across the tribunals); could outstanding benefit include what the undertaking might have made but in fact did not3; could or should the assessment of benefit have taken into account a range of factors from how the invention came to be made, through the rate or return, to Unilever’s overall turnover; a number of points around the amount of the benefit; and what a fair share would have been.
Background Unilever employed Professor Shanks. Unilever is of course an industrial giant, but like many industrial giants, it is made up of different corporate entities, and also of different business divisions. Shanks was employed by Unilever UK Central Resources Ltd (“CRL”), which also employed a large number of Unilever’s other research staff. The business area in which he was working was biosensors for process control and process engineering. While working in this unit he came across the idea using of capillary action – as in liquids being attracted up narrow tubes – to load liquid to the sensor element of a biosensor. He carried out some experiments at home using his daughter’s microscope equipment/ chemistry set, and the result was an invention for which Unilever filed a patent application in 1984. This matured into EPC patents NOVEMBER 2017
CIPA JOURNAL
19
03/11/2017 12:37:02
PERSONAL
Going . . . e ot Rem
A
nd so to Buenos Aires, which I’ll admit right away might just have swept in at the eleventh hour and stolen the crown as my top city of the year. It may not have the relaxed beach-side vibe of Koh Phangan, the lush jungle of Medellin or the vibrant colours of Cusco – each of which gets ten out of ten for “wow factor” – but it’s the first place all year I can realistically see myself living long-term (if London wasn’t calling me back: parents / HR / bank-manager, don’t panic!). Somehow, it’s got just the right combination of all the home comforts you need but enough exoticness to keep me intrigued. To anyone already familiar with Argentina this may not come as a great surprise – they don’t call BA the Paris of South America for nothing. But for this newbie, I was not expecting to step off the short flight from Peru to find the pilot might have taken a wrong turn and delivered us back to Europe. In Córdoba, our home last month, the architecture, food and even the weather would not feel out-of-place in most European cities – and in BA it’s even more so, with large swathes of the city centre having been modelled on Paris back in the 1800s. Plus, unlike any of the other countries I’ve been to recently, even I could pass as a local. Until I open my mouth of course, because my Spanish still leaves a lot to be desired. But spend a little time here and you’ll find it’s very much not Europe. A few blocks away from the majestic buildings around the Plaza de Mayo, the equally historic streets become a jumbled mixture of beautiful old houses, interspersed with mid-twentieth century apartment blocks with not much going for them in terms of aesthetic glory. Try getting that through conservation area planning regulations in the UK…! And while neighbourhoods such as San Isidro in the north might look like something out of the Home Counties, only a few miles away there are people living in what can only be described as shanty town conditions. (I feel I ought to point out this is not why I like
46 CIPA JOURNAL
4-pp46-47-Going Remote_2.indd 46
NOVEMBER 2017
GOING REMOTE
Buenos Aires, Argentina By Heather Lane (Fellow)
BA so much – but it is a stark reminder that we’re not in Bedfordshire any more, as it were.) Some of those areas are on the up, though. La Boca, for instance – right beside the port which gave BA its original raison d’etre – was very much a red-light district in the past. Now, it is better known as the birthplace of that most famous of Argentinian dances, the Tango. Legend has it that started as a sort of scuffle between men waiting in line for… umm… services rendered, which turned into a way for them to show off their prowess (and hopefully get bumped to the top of the queue), and ultimately evolved into the intimate, leg-tangling dance we know today. Having had one lesson, I can confirm that it’s every bit as difficult as it looks. La Boca, meanwhile, has become a multi-coloured must-see, attracting so many tourists with its Sunday market that there’s even a guy dressed up as Maradona charging $10 for a photo with him, should you be as fútbol-crazy as the Argentines.
Buenos Aires, and the undercurrent of real life there, is fascinating.
www.cipa.org.uk
03/11/2017 12:56:04
PERSONAL
GOING REMOTE
Another big difference from home is how divergent the politics is, and that everyone has a strong opinion one way or the other (or at least a thorough understanding of both sides). Leaving Brexit aside, there’s such a large middle ground in the UK that it can be difficult to tell the options apart sometimes. Not so here, where the split is essentially between “Peronist” and “non-Peronist” parties. I’m not going to attempt to describe the two opposing viewpoints as I’m sure I can’t do the subtleties justice, but the point is the heated debate they inspire – resulting indirectly in protests and demonstrations every few days. And yes, that name is ringing a bell for a reason. Despite her untimely death at the age of only 33 back in 1952, the legacy of Eva Perón (Evita) and her husband Juan Perón lives on. To many, she remains a saintly figure – but her critics don’t pull their punches. Indeed, by the time of her death, she had acquired such enemies that, after her embalmed body had been on display for two years, it was “disappeared” by a new military dictatorship. She was eventually found, 16 years later (during which it was illegal to even mention her name in Argentina), interred in an anonymous grave in Italy. Her final resting place is now the Recoleta Cemetery here in BA – the grandest city of mausoleums you can possibly imagine. Now, reading this back, I realise none of those are
particularly convincing reasons as to why I should like BA so much. I should perhaps have spent this post extolling the virtues of medialunas, mate, Malbec and the many coffee shops strung along Palermo’s tree-lined streets. But I just find this undercurrent of … real life, I guess … fascinating. As I said, BA has me intrigued. Good old RY, saving the best for last. And on that note, this does bring us onto the elephant in the room – that my time with Remote Year is up. But so is my word limit. So, for the time being, I’m going to leave this as a “to be continued…”! It has to be said, though, I couldn’t imagine a better place than BA for our grand finale. Next month: Homecoming (via Bolivia!) Heather Lane (Fellow) is a Senior Associate at Gill Jennings & Every LLP, working remotely while travelling round the world with Remote Year. To see where Heather is now, and for photos, you can follow her blog at https://expatandtea.wordpress.com/ and on Instagram as @expat.and.tea https://www.gje.com/people/heather-lane/ www.remoteyear.com
Study Guide to the Patents Acts Doug Ealey (2017); £55 / £45 members +PP for outside the UK
Doug Ealey’s Study Guide to the Patents Acts sets out to achieve the opposite of such books as Visser and Hoekstra. Rather than provide exhaustive commentary on patent law for reference during the open book EQEs, it instead simplifies the law and commentary as far as possible to provide a bare-bones reference that can be readily learnt by students taking the closed-book UK finals. This book is designed to help prepare for the PEB FD1 (formerly P2) examination. The 2017 edition has been updated to incorporate recent changes in law and to revise the guidance on taking the exam. To order a copy please email publications@cipa.org.uk or visit www.cipa.org.uk/eshop/ To find out more on the FD1 / P2 Study Guide group on LinkedIn go to: https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=4425194.
Volume 46, number 11
4-pp46-47-Going Remote_2.indd 47
STUDY GUIDE TO THE PATENTS ACTS Doug Ealey
9th Edition
NOVEMBER 2017
CIPA JOURNAL
47
03/11/2017 12:56:14
PERSONAL
OBITUARY
Andrew Charles Serjeant 1934-2017 Andrew Serjeant's “pre-obituary”, with an introduction by the then editor Tibor Gold, was first published in the CIPA Journal in December 2010. Andrew passed away on 9 October 2017 and and we are re-publishing it in his memory. Many of us will remember Andrew. He was an extremely supportive and generous contributor to the Institute and the Institute’s activities, helping me amongst many others. He continued with that support despite the extremely serious accident that he suffered while on the ski slopes, overcoming his very serious injury to continue to play an active role within the Institute. We will all miss him. Alasdair Poore (Editor)
Ed.: This article requires some background. Every year, ex-Presidents of the Institute get together for a convivial dinner with the current President as their guest. S/he sings for his/ her supper by a short speech of a ‘State of the Union’ type to the assorted old codgers, sorry ex-Prezzes, with their hands cupped to their straining ears. As I say, the event is ‘convivial’. Andrew Serjeant alleges that I, as an ex-Prezz and now your Editor, complained about the difficulty of getting people to write obituaries of patent attorneys passing who retired a long time ago. So far so true as far as I can recall. But Andrew here goes further and alleges that I invited the assembled worthies to write their own obituaries now to save me the trouble later of finding an obituary writer. Well, for the third time, the event was convivial and so much so that I have absolutely no recollection of issuing such an invitation. Unfortunately, such was the conviviality (have I mentioned conviviality before? I forget) that I am in no position of refuting Andrew’s allegation. He, being a gentle and co-operative soul, has now produced this piece. I leave it to you all, exPrezzes or not, to judge if this was a Good Idea. 48 CIPA JOURNAL
NOVEMBER 2017
4-pp48-49-obituary-andrew serjeant_2.indd 48
I
welcome the Editor’s invitation to draft my own obituary. It will be a challenge to set the record on the right lines, warts and all, and in a way which will stand the changes of fashion and political correctness over the decades between writing and publication. I was President of CIPA in 1996/7. I made professional education the theme of my Presidential Year, and encouraged members to attend at least one CPD session. To facilitate this, I pressed for the arrangement of events in parts of the country where members seldom meet. In the Midlands, we had a meeting on the then-topical question of the support or influence of priority documents. We were addressed by Midland practitioners and by a Patentanwalt to give an international flavour. This was followed by a visit to a modern sewage plant and a grand dinner; as my partner Peter Smith put it at the time, influence, effluence and affluence. I made a positive attempt to utilise this Journal for the promotion of my Presidency by timing announcements to meet copy-dates. For example, my New President’s Address (May [1996] CIPA 304) was published two days after it was delivered. I was sacked from my first two jobs in the profession: I had the temerity to point out that I was not receiving the training promised at interview. Naturally, this led me to the Informals, where I was Hon Sec in 1963/4. Even there, a suggestion to current beneficiaries of the system that they should attend regularly and take part in the organisation displeased our representative on Council, and terminated my time on the Working Committee. Such turbulence on the part of a technical assistant could not be tolerated in a learned profession. My most notable achievement in the profession was the
www.cipa.org.uk
03/11/2017 12:30:47
PERSONAL
founding of the firm which still bears my name and thrives, years after my retirement, at least as well as it did in my time. I was never bold enough to set up on my own. I had risen to be one of only two partners at the time in a firm which while very successful was still dominated by family rather than professional considerations. When I left, I was fortunate to take with me the Leicester office: staff, clients and all. I was loyally supported by colleagues, professional, clerical and other, and as soon as practicable we set up the partnership which continues to this day. It is a pleasing characteristic of Leicester people that once they have a job they stay and work at it. Few of our people stayed less than ten years, and most continued for more than 20. I suppose it does help to be able to provide stable employment in an area which seems always to be in a state of depression. I was born in Egypt in 1934. My father was a civil engineer turned architect. His father was head of the State Railways, as had been his father-in-law, who was French, so I had an impeccable engineering pedigree. My mother came from a wealthy family of Greek merchants trading in the Mediterranean and Black Sea areas. She played hockey at international level, and represented Egypt at the Wimbledon Lawn Tennis Championships in 1931, where she beat the Welsh champion before losing to the eventual winner. I attended Oundle School and Clare College, Cambridge, where I read Natural Sciences, like so many other members of our profession. I came away with a love of chemistry, and so was professionally involved in the polypropylene saga up to the prolongation proceedings in the UK and former Dominions of the British Empire, and in the patenting of doxorubicin (Adriamycin™, a medicine of choice in the treatment of soft-tissue cancers) including finally its defence against a compulsory licence application in respect of the additional four years’ duration allowed under the 1977 Act. I have been a member of the London Rowing Club since 1953 and of the Leicestershire Lawn Tennis Club since the late 1960s. I continued to take part in sport to a great age, always with more enthusiasm than skill. In the early 1990s, together with my former Informals colleague the late Andrew Kerr, I was instrumental in founding IPSKI, a casual ski club in the profession, which went on to become an international association of serious skiers with hardly any British members. On the inaugural IPSKI holiday, I was momentarily blinded on passing out of the sunshine into the shade, skied into a shallow ditch, and broke my neck. The tale of my recovery is fully set out in August [1993] CIPA 276. This article attracted good wishes and congratulations from all over the world, and indeed was republished in a US patent attorney journal. My younger son Hugh did a sponsored cycle ride from Lands End to John O’Groats in aid of Stoke Mandeville Hospital (see January [1994] CIPA
Volume 46, number 11
4-pp48-49-obituary-andrew serjeant_2.indd 49
OBITUARY
Andrew Serjeant (1934-2017) as Vice-President of CIPA in 1995
41) and collected an astonishing sum of almost £15,000; friends contributed in their £5s and £10s, and IP associates in their £100s, or in two cases £1000s. This Journal became the family propaganda sheet. In later years, I became interested in family history; I used my own forebears of course as a framework for my investigations, but the fascination really lay in the amount I could find out about very ordinary people. Joan and I were married in 1962; she came to the attention of the elders of the profession when I was in a wheelchair and she attended Council meetings, and turned the pages of the documents for me, while ostensibly reading The Daily Telegraph. From an early age, Joan had a reputation that wherever she was, there must be a party going on. Later, her party-giving skills flourished in an environment where it was considered sinful to celebrate anything other than a festival of the Church. We have two sons: Paul, a computer engineer, and Hugh, a school teacher and formerly an investment manager, and four grandchildren who are our pride and joy. How better could I sign this off than as Just Another Very Ordinary Person
NOVEMBER 2017
CIPA JOURNAL
49
03/11/2017 12:30:49
PERSONAL
OBITUARY
Derek Woodman 1947–2017
D
erek Woodman, who passed away on 26 August 2017 after a short illness, just a few months after his 70th birthday, was a partner of Dehns (formerly Frank B. Dehn & Co.) where he spent his entire career. Derek was one of my first mentors in the profession. As a chemistry graduate he looked after a number of the firm’s pharmaceutical and chemical clients but also had an interesting practice in trade marks, and I worked with him in both areas. He taught me a lot about day-to-day practice and how to deal with clients.
Senior Partner for his remaining time with the firm. Derek took early retirement several years ago. He had always been a keen traveller and much of his time in retirement was taken up in travelling. His many friends and close family remember him as warm hearted, caring and erudite. He had many interests and was always able to come up with an explanation for anything technical or complex. In recent years, he took up gardening and transformed the small backyard of his house in Brighton. His family remember that he researched
Derek was one of those people who, in his generally unassuming but very effective way, made the world a better place.
In the mid-1990s he took on the role of Managing Partner of the firm, which was then a new position. Arnold Watkins, the Senior Partner at the time, recalls that Derek was at first reluctant but eventually was persuaded to change his mind. Under Derek’s management the firm expanded substantially during the next five years, moving to larger premises in London and in Brighton, and opening its first working office in Munich. With growth came many challenges, and Arnold describes Derek as a tower of strength, making a major contribution to the success of the firm during those years. At the conclusion of his term he became
50 CIPA JOURNAL
NOVEMBER 2017
4-pp50-obituary-Derek Woodman_1.indd 50
all of the plants and flowers thoroughly and knew the names and characteristics of all of them, and where in the garden they would be most likely to thrive. Although he left the IP world some years ago, he was the organiser of regular get-togethers for old boys and girls of Dehns, which meant that we would meet in the Summer and at Christmas. He was always there on those occasions with his smiling face and questions about how everyone was getting on. We will miss him very much at the next gathering, but I am quite sure that he would want us to carry on the tradition and have a drink or two in his memory.
One thing that everyone who knew and worked with Derek remembers is his infectious chuckle. He found humour in many situations and when he laughed his shoulders would shake up and down so that it was hard not to join in. Arnold Watkins has many memories of their working life but in all the years they knew one another and worked together he cannot remember a single occasion on which they exchanged a cross word. Derek was one of those people who, in his generally unassuming but very effective way, made the world a better place. I will certainly miss him as will his good friends, family and colleagues on whom he made a lasting impression. He did so in a quiet, gentle but very profound way, which only really becomes obvious when you realise he is no longer there. Stephen Jones
www.cipa.org.uk
03/11/2017 12:31:27
CPD & EDUCATION
INSTITUTE EVENTS
Institute Events For a complete list of CIPA events please see the website – www.cipa.org.uk/whats-on/events Thursday, 9 November 2017 Seminar
Patent Case Law – Bristol
Time: 12.30–17.30 Location: Bristol Marriot Royal Hotel, College Green, Bristol, BS1 5TA The CIPA Patent Case Law Tour is returning for 2017, all dates have been confirmed! The tour will focus on patent decisions to have come from the UK and US courts and the EPO Boards of Appeal in 2017. See other dates and venues on page 35. CPD: 3.5; Prices: £234 (members £156)
Monday, 20 November 2017 Seminar
CITMA/CIPA - An update on groundless threats
Patent Case Law – London
Join Sara Ludlam, 3volution LLP for this CITMA/CIPA seminar in Leeds, where she will explore in greater detail the Unjustified Threats Act which came into force in 2017.
CPD: 3.5; Prices: £234.00 (members £156.00)
Time: 12.30–17.30 Location: HGF Limited, 1 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9DX
CPD: 1 Prices: Free for members of CITMA and CIPA
The Impact of Biodiversity Legislation (Nagoya Protocol) on IP Practice Time: 12.30–13.30
Join CIPA for this CPD lunchtime webinar with guest speaker Dr. Michael Kock, Head Intellectual Property for Sygenta Crop Protection AG. This session will discuss the Nagoya Protocol; particularly focusing on the interface to IP.
Outside your Comfort Zone Time: 12.30–13.30
Outside Your Comfort Zone: An Introduction to Blockchain This webinar offers an introduction to Blockchain for practitioners across all technical disciplines, covering what Blockchain is, how it works and what the future may hold. Speakers: Philip Horler, Withers & Rogers LLP and Gilbert Verdian, Quant Network Ltd CPD: 1; Prices: £72 (members
CPD: 1; Prices: £72 (members £48) £48) 16-17 November 2017 Conference
Thursday, 23 November 2017 Seminar
The Wales Meeting 2017
Location: Whittlebury Hall, NN12 8QH
Time: 12.30 - 19.00 Location: The St David's Hotel, Cardiff, CF10 5SD
More details on page 58.
A full programme is available online.
2017 Life Sciences Conference
Time: 12.30–17.30 Location: The Honourable Society Of The Inner Temple London, Ashely Building, Middle Temple Lane, London, EC4Y 7HL
Tuesday, 5 December 2017 Webinar
Lawcare: Mental Health Matters Time: 12.30–13.30
Wednesday, 22 November 2017 Webinar
Wednesday, 15 November 2017 Webinar
Monday, 27 November 2017 Seminar
Elizabeth Rimmer, Chief Executive of the charity LawCare, will talk about why mental health matters in the IP community and highlight aspects of the culture and practices of the legal professions that can compromise mental wellbeing. This webinar is a joint project for IP Inclusive, CIPA and CITMA. It is intended for all IP professionals, and may be particularly useful for new starters to the profession and for those involved in management roles. Prices: £0
Wednesday, 6 December 2017 Seminar
Patent Case Law – Manchester Time: 12.30–17.30 Location: DoubleTree By Hilton, Manchester, M1 3DG
See other dates and venues on page 35. CPD: 3.5; Prices: £234.00 (members £156)
CPD: 3.5; Prices: £234 (members £156) Volume 46, number 11
4-pp51-cpd-events_1.indd 51
NOVEMBER 2017
CIPA JOURNAL
51
03/11/2017 12:33:59