Issuu

CIPA JOURNAL Incorporating the transactions of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys

June 2018 / Volume 47 / Number 6

The problem with secret prior art Careers in Ideas – Raising awareness of IP with students Chris Burnett

1-CIPA Journal_OFC_June.indd 1

Brexit Studies lands the EUIPO in hot water Jennifer McDowall

Pre-qualification supervised practical training Victoria Swan

Doctrine of equivalents challenged in Singapore

Not-so-secret diary of a CIPA President Andrea Brewster

04/06/2018 13:02:58

Industry 4.0: IP Marks & Clerk is at the forefront of innovation and IP protection for leading global brands and exciting new ventures in software, AR/VR, IoT and AI. Working closely with business leaders and technical experts, we help our clients devise commercial and creative IP strategies to best leverage their inventions and shape Industry 4.0. We want to hear from attorneys who are passionate about technology and about their careers. We have fantastic teams and offer great direct client opportunities across all our UK ofﬁces. Let’s talk. lets-talk@marks-clerk.com

2-IFC-M&C_1.indd 4

04/06/2018 13:05:49

Contents

UP FRONT

ARTICLES

EDUCATION

Doctrine of equivalents challenged in Singapore

Careers In Ideas

Gladys Mirandah & Jehanna Ruth Huerto

Trainee Patent Examiners

The problem with secret prior art

Michael Caine

55 56 61 62 64 67

Study Guide to the Patents Acts (2018) Informals’ update Bolar and related exemptions FD4 Study Guide Institute events Non-institute events Life Sciences Conference

Awards and elections

Chief Executive's report Lee Davies 4

Council Minutes

Lee Davies

NEWS 6

General Data Protection Regulation CIPA’s Head of Media wins Award Overseas report

Combating misleading mail

IPTA conference – Melbourne

Amanda R. Gladwin IPO update

State Emblems

Jennifer McDowall

Sanam Habib

DECISIONS

PERSONAL

IP Inclusive update

57 58 60

Announcements The not-so-secret diary Going Remote

Obituary – Tim Roberts

Patent decisions

Beck Greener 33

Rules of Procedure of the EPO Boards of Appeal

IPO decisions

David Pearce & Callum Docherty EPO decisions

Andrea Brewster

Bristows 36

Trade marks

Lucy Holloway

Bird & Bird

IPReg Training Protocol

Victoria Swan

US update: improper Markush grouping

Finnegan 31

Stephen Jones

CIPA consultation response Patents Committee 12

Chris Burnett

Designs

Benjamin Kavanagh

THE PINKS 68

Volume 47, number 6

1-pp01_Contents1_1.indd 1

International; Support; Courses & Events; Recruitment JUNE 2018

CIPA JOURNAL

05/06/2018 08:08:50

The problem with secret prior art Why the European approach to conflicting applications is most suited to a first-to-file system. By Michael Caine, Davies Collison Cave Pty Ltd

he need for international harmonisation of substantive patent law was recognised by WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) in November 2000, leading the SCP to focus its efforts on concluding a Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT)1. Despite numerous meetings and the preparation of a number of drafts of a possible SPLT, the negotiations were put on hold in 2006. In view of the continued interest of many WIPO member countries in progressing negotiations in relation to substantive patent law harmonisation, including all members of WIPO’s Group B, the Group B+ was established to move forward on substantive patent law harmonisation2. One topic currently being considered by Group B+ is conflicting applications. A conflicting application is a patent application having a filing date (or priority date) earlier than that of an application or patent under consideration, but which was published later. Efforts towards reaching an international consensus in respect of the treatment of conflicting applications have thus far failed. In the past, one of the main areas of contention in relation to the way conflicting applications should be treated was the insistence by the United States (US) that such applications should be considered as prior art for the purpose of assessing inventive step in addition to novelty. Such treatment of conflicting applications was considered to be unacceptable to all other countries operating under first-to-file principles. However, with the commencement of the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011, and the replacement of the old first-toinvent patent system with a new “first-inventor-to-file” regime, it might be expected that one of the major stumbling blocks to reaching an agreement in relation to the treatment of conflicting applications would be removed. Unfortunately, this

CIPA JOURNAL

2-pp16-27-art-OZ_secretprior_12.indd 16

JUNE 2018

is not necessarily the case. Although the US has introduced a new patent law based primarily on first-to-file principles, the AIA carries with it some elements and principles from the old first-to-invent system. This includes the way conflicting applications are treated. Under the AIA not only are earlier filed but later published applications considered relevant for the assessment of both inventive step and novelty, as in the old first-to-invent system, but the grace period provisions included in section 102(b)(1)(B) and (2)(B) also appear to import firstto-invent principles. While the AIA is referred to as a “first-inventor-to-file” system, owing to the grace period provisions the patent is not always awarded to the first inventor to file. An inventor who publishes an invention and then seeks to rely on the grace period will prevail over an independent inventor of that same subjectmatter who files an application first, but within that grace period. Publication of the invention by the independent inventor during the grace period will also not interfere with the ability of the inventor who published earlier to obtain a patent for that invention. Both of these grace period provisions accord a right of priority to an inventor based on their publication of details of the invention, rather than the filing of an application in respect of that invention. Non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting is another carryover from the first-to-invent system, as well as being a carryover from the old pre-TRIPS law according to which patents received a 17-year term from the grant date. In order to have a meaningful and productive discussion in relation to the treatment of conflicting applications, it is important for those involved in the negotiations to have a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental differences between “first-to-invent” and “first-to-file” systems, particularly in relation to the way approaches to deal with www.cipa.org.uk

05/06/2018 10:36:36

conflicting applications have developed within these systems. It is important to note that the descriptors “first to invent” and “first to file” are in fact references to the way conflicting applications are treated according to the respective systems. It should therefore come as no surprise that laws and principles hat have been developed to satisfy one of these systems may not function as well in the other system.

First-to-invent system As the name suggests, a first-to-invent system, such as the previous US system, accords priority to the first inventor. Various practices and principles were developed over the years to ensure that first inventors received full protection for the inventions they had conceived and for which they sought protection. An earlier filed application that was unpublished at the time a later application was filed was true prior art, in the sense that it represented evidence that someone other than the

Volume 47, number 6

2-pp16-27-art-OZ_secretprior_12.indd 17

later applicant had made the same or similar invention at an earlier time. Of course it was also possible to “swear behind” such earlier filed applications if the applicant could evidence having made the invention prior to the filing date of the earlier application. These earlier filed applications were considered to be “secret” prior art because they were not available to the public (or to the later inventor) at the time of filing the later application. The term “secret prior art” is an apt term to describe such earlier applications. Accordingly, in the first-to-invent system, it was necessary to find some inventive advance in the later application over and above the disclosure of the earlier filed application before the later applicant could be awarded a patent. This all seems fair and reasonable in a system designed to award patent rights to a first inventor. According to information published online by Ladas and Parry LLP on 7 May 20143, the US patent system has operated

JUNE 2018

CIPA JOURNAL

05/06/2018 10:36:38

PERSONAL

GOING REMOTE

Going Remote By Lucy Holloway (Fellow)

o far all of these articles have been about how working remotely has affected me. I’ve talked about what it’s been like working with my new “colleagues” in different countries and different time zones. I’ve talked about the challenges of achieving a decent work-life balance when everything around me is changing constantly. What I haven’t talked about yet is how it’s affected the folks back home. I can’t help but wonder if my absence is making their lives harder. I’d love to think it wasn’t. So far Remote Year has been a hugely positive experience for me – it would be great to think that somehow it was having a positive impact back home too. When I’m not halfway across the world (it’s Morocco this month) I’m part of a relatively large team at Barker Brettell that’s headed up by our senior partner. In the interest of scientific enquiry, I decided I’d do a quick survey. Don’t hold back, I told my colleagues, no names will be named. But please be honest and tell me truly: how much of an effect has my absence this year had on you? To my surprise, the prevailing answer has been not much at all. I’ve had no complaints from our (clearly charming, smart and awesome) paralegals. Yes, they’ve had to get used to scanning things in and emailing them to me when otherwise they would have left them on my desk, but we’re mostly paperless now so that’s not an enormous burden. They’ve also had to adjust to a slightly new system of diary management. On balance, though, that’s no harder than chasing round looking for files, and on the positive side my whole team can now see at the click of a button how busy I am... or not, as the case may be. My attorney colleagues have seen even less impact. Occasionally, they’ve had to press send on online filings if I’m wrestling with my VPN (I owe a couple of people thank you calzones for this – they know who they are). Sometimes they get picked on for urgent queries when it’s too late to get an answer from me. But other than that, all they’re missing is my sparkling feedback on their drafting and witty comments on official actions. The largest effect my absence has had has probably been on my trainee, who is, sadly, no longer my trainee. Face-toface contact is just so much better than talking over the phone, so it hardly seemed fair for me to keep responsibility for his training – plus if I’m in Vietnam and fast asleep when urgent input is needed that's less than ideal. The main loser in this

60 CIPA JOURNAL

4-pp60-61-Going Remote_2.indd 60

JUNE 2018

situation is me. I no longer have his excellent assistance, whilst he’s now getting a new perspective on training from another qualified attorney at BB. So the impact on my own team has been relatively minimal, but what about the impact on the wider firm? Our head of IT, for instance, built me a virtual machine to remote into before I left back in January. He has also kindly put up with my many (but thankfully diminishing) VPN queries over the last few months. I was therefore somewhat trepidatious when I asked him how much of a hassle he’d found my remote escapade so far. To my surprise, I found myself described as an LMU (‘low maintenance user’). Apparently, supporting someone working in another country isn’t really any different from an IT point of view to supporting someone working from home in the UK – Laos or Lichfield, it’s all the same to him. For the most part it seems our firm has taken my working remotely in its stride. Why, then, when I asked my boss for his thoughts did I receive the terrifyingly ominous answer: “let’s talk on the phone”? Key facts: Morocco IPO: The Moroccan Office of Industrial and Commercial Property (OMPIC) – http://www.ompic.org.ma/en Equivalent of CIPA: No direct equivalent - new legislation in late 2014 made provision for OMPIC to hold a list of registered patent attorneys, and the criteria for entry onto the list. Number of Registered Moroccan Patent Attorneys: Not known Domestic patent applications by Moroccan applicants experienced a modest spike in 2013/2014, possibly in anticipation of the introduction of a new IP law at the end of 2014. Applications by foreign applicants have remained more or less constant over the last ten years, at about 800 national applications per year, and a similar number of PCT national phase entries. A European patent application filed on or after 1 March 2018 may now be validated in Morocco, providing a validation request is made and fee paid within the usual time limit for paying designation fees. It is not yet clear how many European applicants are taking advantage of this option.* * statistics courtesy of WIPO Statistics Database

www.cipa.org.uk

05/06/2018 08:07:18

PERSONAL

When I opened that email I genuinely thought that was it. Despite my feeling that these last few months had been going well, he was going to say this year really wasn’t working out for BB, and they’d be asking me to come home. To my great relief, when finally, I worked up the courage to call him, that wasn’t what he wanted to say at all. My remote working was indeed going pretty well, he said. I’m working hard and more than hitting my targets. But even so, remote working just isn’t quite the same as being in the office. He wasn’t going to cut my year short, but nevertheless he’d rather I was back in the UK. I thought about why that might be for a while after that call, and I realised that targets aren’t the only things affected when you leave the office to work abroad – relationships are too. By far the most common feedback I’ve received from those back in the UK is, “I’m jealous”. Whether or not any of my colleagues would (or could) opt for this nomadic lifestyle, I can’t blame them for thinking it looks appealing. The perception that I’m on a year-long holiday will persist no matter how much I bill out. I will admit, my Facebook posts probably aren’t helping my cause much.

GOING REMOTE

The second most common feedback I’ve received is, “I miss you”. Which I have great sympathy with, as I miss everyone back home too. It’s isolating working remotely. I may be travelling with a community of fellow remotes, but they’re not patent attorneys. There’s no one here to bounce ideas off. I miss popping into my colleagues’ offices for their opinion on an examiner’s objection. I miss people popping in to see me and asking for my thoughts. As the year goes on I’m slowly losing touch with what’s going on back home and I can’t help but be a little sad about that. Working my way around the globe has been a fantastic opportunity and I can’t deny that I’m loving it. Yes, I’m still working (and working very hard). I haven’t packed it all in to go on a sabbatical for 12 months, or quit my job to backpack across the world. But nevertheless, I am aware that I’m not contributing to the wider team in quite the same way as I was before. That’s indisputably had an impact on those back home. I know I couldn’t be out here without their support – thanks guys! Lucy Holloway (Fellow) is an associate at Barker Brettell in Birmingham.

Infringement and Validity CIPA FD4 Study Guide £56 non-members - £47 CIPA members +PP for outside the UK Updated in 2018 by Philip Barnes, based on an original version by Nigel Frankland. For several years Nigel Frankland thought that there should be a study guide explaining to candidates what they need to do to pass the Patent Examination Board (PEB) FD4 (P6) (Infringement and Validity) examination. Nigel originally wrote the guide as he had seen many candidates who were not prepared for the examination. It has been updated for 2018 by a PEB examiner. Infringement and Validity is aimed at supporting any candidate taking this examination. The CIPA FD4 Study Guide, Infringement and Validity, is intended to introduce a trainee patent attorney to the realities of paper FD4 (P6) (Infringement and Validity) of the PEB. The book is addressed to a candidate who has been active in the patent profession for at least two years, and who has met the eligibility requirements for the examination. To order a copy please email publications@cipa.org.uk or visit www.cipa.org.uk/eshop/

Volume 47, number 6

4-pp60-61-Going Remote_2.indd 61

JUNE 2018

CIPA JOURNAL

05/06/2018 08:07:21

CPD & EDUCATION

INSTITUTE EVENTS

Institute Events For a complete list of CIPA events please see the website – www.cipa.org.uk/whats-on/events

Wednesday 13 June 2018 Webinar

Mentoring FD4 (P6) PEB candidates – advice and guidance Time: 12.30–13.30 This webinar is delivered by a current FD4 (P6) examiner and is free of charge for Fellows who support trainees in their preparation for this challenging examination. How to approach the examination will form part of the introduction, including reviewing some of the published mark schemes and examiner’s reports. Common issues will be addressed and some myths and legends should be dispelled. CPD: 1; Prices: £0 (members £0) Thursday 14 June 2018 Webinar

IP Outside Your Comfort Zone: Patent Searching

Join CIPA alongside IP Inclusive, FICPIUK and AIPLA for The Diversity in IP Breakfast Meeting 2018. Breakfast will be served from 8am accompanied by a chance to network before going into the panel discussion from 8:30am. Prices: £0 (members £0) Friday 15 June 2018 Seminar

US IP Law and Practice Location: Staple Inn Hall, High Holborn, London, WC1V 7QJ Time: 17.00–20.30 Join CIPA, CITMA and FICPI with the AIPLA for an afternoon seminar at Staple Inn Hall. The talks will cover US/UK perspectives on a range of patent issues. See http://www. cipa.org.uk/whats-on/events/us-ip-law-andpractice/ for more details. CPD: 2.5; Prices: £126 (members £84)

Time: 12.30–13.30 This webinar will help you better understand the structured nature of the information within a patent document and how it relates to the patent search process, as well as provide awareness and tips to enable you to carry out effective and efficient patent searches in support of your patentability, freedom to operate and validity assessments. CPD: 1; Prices: £72 (members £48)

Friday 15 June 2018 Social

The Diversity in IP Breakfast Meeting 2018 Time: 08.00–09.30 Location: Staple Inn Hall, High Holborn, London, WC1V 7QJ

62 CIPA JOURNAL

4-pp62-63-CIPA-events_2yyyyy.indd 62

JUNE 2018

Saturday 16 June 2018 Social

IP Ball 2018 Time: 19.00–01.00 Location: Gladstone Library, The Royal Horseguards Hotel, Whitehall, London

Time: 08.00–17.00 Our course is in two parts. The first is a remote learning module, in the form of prerecorded webinars and an accompanying printed training manual. This part can be completed any time within a two-month window, at the student’s convenience. The second part is a one-day workshop in London. The workshop includes two mock hearings, one before an “examining division” and one before an “opposition division”. All delegates will have the chance to participate actively in these hearings, and will receive coaching in case preparation and presentation. CPD: 8; Prices: £468 (members £468) Tuesday 19 June 2018 Seminar

Munich CPD Seminar Location: Technical University of Munich, Institutsbau Arcisstraße 21, D-80333 Time: 17.00–20.30 We are pleased to announce the 2nd CIPA Munich Seminar in June 2018! We expect talks and updates from the UK IPO and the European Patent Office and will also be followed by a drinks reception.

The IP Ball Committee and CIPA would like to invite you all to the Once Upon a Time fairy tale ball, once again held in support of Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity. For more details see http://www. cipa.org.uk/whats-on/events/

CPD: 2; Prices: £120 (members £96)

Prices: £105 (members £105)

Join speakers Anthony Tridico, Gemma Barrett and Dominic Adair for this CPD webinar that will focus on interesting recent patent decisions to have come from the EPO and the US Courts.

Monday 18 June 2018 Seminar

EPO Oral Proceedings Course – June 2018 Location: Hallam Conference Centre, 44 Hallam Street, London, W1W 6JJ

Wednesday 20 June 2018 Webinar

US/EPO Patent Case-law Update Time: 12.30–13.30

CPD: 1; Prices: £72 (members £48)

www.cipa.org.uk

05/06/2018 09:38:19

CPD & EDUCATION

Thursday 21 June 2018 Seminar

Mock Oral Proceedings 2018 Location: CIPA, 2nd Floor Halton House, 20-23 Holborn, London, EC1N 2JD Time: 12.30–16.00 Via a live video-link between CIPA and The Hague, watch EPO examiners and EPA Chris Mercer enact a mock examining division hearing. Get an insight into the examiners’ thinking, not only during the oral proceedings but also while preparing beforehand and in the adjournments. CPD: 3; Prices: £96 (members £72)

Friday 22 June 2018 Webinar

UP/UPC experiences from an inhouse perspective: preparing for UP/UPC management, the opt-out decision & future UP filings Time: 12.30–13.30 This webinar follows on from the UP/ UPC webinar on the 4 June, and explores the actual experiences to-date with regard to preparations for the UP/UPC in an in-house IP department dealing with some 1000+ European patents and applications. This includes looking at training and involvement of the formalities officers, ensuring the case management system is ready and guiding the attorneys in their discussions with the businesses to see whether an opt-out should be considered. Speaker: Dr Maja Schmit CPD: 1; Prices: £72 (members £48)

Wednesday 27 June 2018 Webinar

UK Patent Case-law Update Time: 12.30–13.30 Join Jon Markham and James Porter for this CPD webinar covering important and interesting patent Volume 47, number 6

4-pp62-63-CIPA-events_2yyyyy.indd 63

INSTITUTE EVENTS

decisions in the last 12 months from the UK courts and the UK IPO. Topics will include ‘UK Court Decisions’ by Jon Markham, and ‘Decisions from the Comptroller’ by James Porter. CPD: 1; Prices: £72 (members £48)

Tuesday 26 June 2018 Administrators webinar

SPCs – extending patent life Time: 12.30–13.30 Supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) play a vital role in extending the duration of patents for pharmaceuticals and plant protection products which undergo regulatory approval before they can be marketed. In this webinar we’ll cover everything Administrators need to know about these important IP rights, including: • What are SPCs? • Why are they important to the pharma and agrochemical sector? • What is required to obtain an SPC? • The procedure for obtaining SPCs – filing, prosecution and grant. Speaker: Garreth Duncan CPD: 1; Prices: £72 (members £48)

Thursday 28 June 2018 Seminar

Tuesday 3 July 2018 Webinar

Attacking the Counterfeit Supply Chain at Home and Overseas Time: 12.30–13.30 Do you wonder what is going on in IP enforcement outside of patents? Do you want to improve your knowledge and understanding of why the UK is regarded as one of the world leaders in IP rights enforcement? You might like to join Huw Watkins for this CIPA webinar on Attacking the Counterfeit Supply Chain. CPD: 1; Prices: £72 (members £48) Thursday 12 July 2018 Social

Cambridge Happy Hour Time: 18.00–19.30 Location: The Alex, Cambridge, 22 Gwydir Street, Cambridge, CB1 2LL Join CIPA at the The Alex for the Cambridge Happy Hour! Please note, this is for members only and to gain entry you must book online prior to the event.

Tuesday 17 July 2018 Webinar

Professional ethics Time: 12.30–13.30 For more details see http://www.cipa.org. uk/whats-on/events/

EPO seminar for patent administrators Location: CIPA, 2nd Floor Halton House, 20-23 Holborn, London, EC1N 2JD Join us at CIPA for a full-day seminar for Patent Administrators. The goal of this seminar is to present procedural issues, examples and updates from specific formalities areas, as well as to engage participants in exchanges with EPO experts and other patent administrators. CPD: 3; Prices: £144 (members £96) JUNE 2018

CIPA JOURNAL

05/06/2018 09:38:23

PERSONAL

OBITUARY

Timothy (Tim) Wace Roberts 1937–2018

im Roberts, former IP Manager at Zeneca Seeds and international IP expert on plant biotechnology and genetics, died on 18 April at the age of 80 after a long struggle with cancer. He was CIPA President in 2001-02 and again in 2011-12 and served on CIPA Council from 1994. He was a member of several CIPA Committees and a leading member of the Life Sciences Committee [see the letter on page 65]. He also found time to act as General Editor of the European Patents Handbook and to support the educational work of the IP Awareness Network by writing a basic primer about the IP issues surrounding genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Tim was born in July 1937, the first of four children. He was educated at prep school in County Down, and subsequently at Sedbergh School in Yorkshire (now Cumbria). In 1956, he was awarded a scholarship to Trinity College Oxford and read chemistry, as his father had done before him. Whilst at Oxford, he met his wife to be, Dominica Forrest, who was studying law. He graduated in 1960 and, with his legal interests, later that year joined the ICI Plastics Division at Welwyn Garden City as a trainee patent agent. Benefiting from ICI's internal patent training scheme, established under the enlightened managership of Walter Scott, Tim qualified as a Chartered Patent Agent in 1964. In 1967 he transferred to ICI's subsidiary company ICI Plant Protection Ltd to head their Patent Section and, in 1993, was appointed IP Manager of Zeneca Seeds, one of the four separate businesses of Zeneca, newly devolved from ICI. It was during this time that Tim began to develop his

64 CIPA JOURNAL

4-pp64-66-obituary_3.indd 64

JUNE 2018

special interest and expertise in the IP and ethical issues surrounding plant biotechnology and genetic manipulation. After 35 years in corporate practice in ICI and Zeneca, Tim set about establishing himself as an independent consultant patent attorney in plant biotechnology and genetics working with Brookes Batchellor LLP (Brookes IP) in the UK and Kursheed Khan Associates in Pakistan. In this new role, he was in considerable demand, practising in many different countries as a lecturer, consultant and expert panellist. As well as CIPA, organisations which benefitted from Tim’s extensive knowledge and wisdom included WIPO, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), IP Federation, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), British Society of Plant Breeders, International Seed Federation and the Green Industry Biotechnology Platform. Tim had a well-developed and sophisticated sense of humour illustrated as follows. Whereas others might have adopted a conventional route to highlight the problems and inconsistencies of business method patenting, Tim instead filed a UK and subsequent PCT patent application addressed to a method of protecting jokes, a joke in itself – U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2006/0259306: Business method protecting jokes. His sense of humour and innovative approach to problem-solving was also evidenced during his time at Jealott’s Hill where, when particularly stressed he resorted to divert all incoming phone calls to another random internal number. This system worked well for a time (despite the confusion to the caller and random recipient)

until one day he forwarded his calls to the Jealott’s Hill site emergency number. This automatically put in train a series of alarms and internal security measures and the inevitable instruction not to repeat this in future. Many tributes have been given by those who knew Tim, a few of which follow: “Tim made a huge contribution to ICC’s work in intellectual property policy, especially in relation to genetic resources and traditional knowledge, his particular passion. Several members of the ICC IP Commission have said how sad they are to have lost a valued colleague whose commitment and perspectives they will miss. I have personally worked with Tim for about 25 years and have greatly appreciated his enthusiasm, open mindedness, sense of humour and kind nature. He will be missed by all of us here at ICC.” Daphne Yong-d’Herve, Chief IP Officer ICC “Tim was a great friend and adviser to the plant breeding industry, attending IP meetings at the International Seed Federation on

www.cipa.org.uk

05/06/2018 10:41:25

PERSONAL

the Society’s behalf. For many years he worked tirelessly with us in discussions with the UK IPO on the interface between patents and plant variety rights. He understood the intricacies and what was needed to make legislation workable, fair and relevant. He was one of a very small elite in his detailed knowledge of the Rio Convention on Biological Diversity and the implications of its relationship with IP for plant breeding and other businesses. He uniquely combined academic understanding with pragmatic business sense. Tim’s passing has left a big hole in our industry’s knowledge base and also in our hearts.” Penny Maplestone, CEO British Society of Plant Breeders “I was lucky enough to associate my practice with Tim from its start and we remained associated until 2015 when I was elevated as a judge of the High Court. Our common passion for patents and innovation always strengthened our bonds. With my practice being operated from Pakistan, Tim was always

OBITUARY

willing to help my country with advice as needed in patent and plant variety matters. Tim will always be remembered as a fine patent professional with expertise to handle intercontinental matters aimed to promote innovation improving lives of millions of people.” His Honour Zulfiqar Khan, High Court Judge, Karachi, Pakistan “Tim had been a consultant of the firm for many years and we benefitted greatly from the vast experience his distinguished professional career had given him. His gentle, helpful manner will be missed by all the staff here and we feel privileged to have worked with him.” Partners and staff at Brookes IP Tim maintained the highest ethical standards throughout his professional and personal dealings, often operating on a pro bono or reduced fee basis where he perceived the issues required it. Outside work, he played a large part in the Catholic parish of St. Joseph’s, Bracknell, and was widely praised for his reading in church. He enjoyed

chess and even learnt Japanese to O level standard following business trips to Japan for ICI. He also became proficient at wind-surfing which he continued to enjoy on holiday until two years ago. In 2007, when Sheffield University awarded him an honorary LLD degree, their public orator began with quoting from Trollope's Doctor Thorne: "He is very nice in every way and if you were not told, I don’t think you would know he was an attorney." This so well sums up Tim – the IP profession and all those whose lives he touched are substantially poorer – we will all miss him. Tim married Dominica on 8 April 1961. Together they raised five children, four of whom survive, 13 grandchildren and two greatgrandchildren. He has two surviving sisters, Gabriel and Priscilla; his younger brother Patrick died a few years ago. We send them all our sincere condolences for their loss. Steve Smith (Fellow)

Letters to the Editor Letters for the Editor and announcements can be e-mailed to: editor@cipa.org.uk

Tim Roberts – Life Sciences I have been asked, in my position as Chair of the Life Sciences Committee (LSC), to write about Tim Roberts who sadly passed away in April. I hope you will all forgive me if I add some personal comments too. Many of us on the LSC have known Tim for a very long time, in some cases for over 20 years. He was a very active contributor to the committee, and we often relied upon him for his expert Volume 47, number 6

4-pp64-66-obituary_3.indd 65

advice. He was an enthusiastic member of the committee, as well as always being very friendly and polite. He would author and co-author a number of position papers, his specialist subjects being both plants (he worked for ICI Seeds at Jealotts Hill, near Bracknell, before it became Zeneca) and genetic resources and their biological origin. Indeed, on many fronts, his expertise was second to none. In my opinion, he was one of the (if not the) leading expert

on the Nagoya Protocol concerning biological resources, and we were lucky to have him speak at several of the annual Life Sciences Conferences on this topic. He took a very keen interest in this area of law (in particular in view of the recently political forces which culminated in the EPO changing its rules on plants). He was always willing to assist and, in this respect, his special interests in certain aspects of biotech life sciences was unparalleled. He would JUNE 2018

CIPA JOURNAL

05/06/2018 10:41:28