OpenLobby.EU
Explore

IP FEDERATION

IP FEDERATION

The IP Federation represents the views of UK industry in both IPR policy and practice matters within the EU, the UK and internationally.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Compulsory licensing of patents

27 Jul 2023

The IP Federation represents IP intensive companies in the United Kingdom - a list of members is at: https://www.ipfederation.com/member-list/ The IP Federation supports the BusinessEurope position paper on compulsory licencing for crisis management submitted on 19 July 2023 and also available here: https://www.businesseurope.eu/publications/compulsory-licencing-crisis-management-businesseurope-position-paper
Read full response

Response to Review of the Designs Directive

30 Jan 2023

The IP Federation represents the views of UK industry in intellectual property rights (IPR) policy and practice matters within the UK, Europe and internationally. A list of members is at: https://www.ipfederation.com/member-list/ The IP Federation welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the European Commissions proposal for a directive (the Proposal) on the legal protection of designs (recast). As major users of Unregistered Community Designs (UCDs), Registered Community Designs (RCDs) and national design rights, IP Federation members believe that on very many measures, the EU design regime has been an unqualified success since its relatively recent inception. There has already been a significant convergence between EU member states in the area of designs law, which in combination with the Community Design regime has brought about significant benefits. Thus the IP Federation believes that any changes to the regime to achieve the proposed objectives should, where possible, be achieved by improved guidance and cooperation between the offices rather than legislative interventions. Nevertheless, the IP Federation supports many of the amendments to the legislation in the Proposal but would offer the following comments regarding certain elements of the Proposal. - Definition of design and product (Article 2) The IP Federation does not believe that there is any major unclarity in the existing legislation as to what can be protected as a design (e.g. the protectability of digital graphical user interfaces or interior design). The Federation is concerned that the amendments in the Proposal to Article 2 will not result in the objective of increasing legal certainty and may lead to increased uncertainty of already well-established legislative terms. For example, specifying that the definition of design includes the movement, transition or any other sort of animation of features, opens up questions such as whether animation of an existing design can in itself be sufficient to confer novelty and individual character. If so, then it may be possible for third parties to prevent a legitimate rights holder from animating their own design. Furthermore routes already exist in the present designs system for protecting animations by, for example, protecting static images of different stages of the animation. We therefore ask that any changes to the definition of design be rejected. - Principle of cumulation (Article 23) The IP Federation is in favour of demarcation between design rights and copyright to, for example, avoid copyright extending to technical subject matter. The design regime includes important safeguards to ensure that advances in technical function are excluded (and therefore remain in the purview of patent law with all of its requirements such as those of novelty and inventive step). Such safeguards are not necessarily explicit in copyright legislation and recent evolution of EU copyright law through decisions by the CJEU in cases such as Cofemel (C-683/17) and Brompton Bicycle (C-833/18) have led to questions over whether subject matter that was intended to be protected by UCD would necessarily already be protected by the much longer-lasting copyright. This would be the case if the requirement for originality in copyright law is interpreted to be a lower bar than those of novelty and individual character in design law. The IP Federation note that the Proposal maintains the principle of cumulation of design and copyright protection with the added proviso that the requirements of Union copyright law are met. If this principle is maintained then it would be desirable to ensure that Union copyright law be clarified to include the same exceptions to technical subject matter as contained in design law. Such clarification would, for example, assist in preventing copyright being used to circumvent the changes the Commission is proposing for completing the single market for spare parts in Article 19 of the Proposal.
Read full response

Response to Review of the Community Designs Regulation

30 Jan 2023

The IP Federation welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the European Commissions proposal for a regulation (the Proposal) amending Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2246/2002. A list of members is at: https://www.ipfederation.com/member-list/ As major users of Unregistered Community Designs (UCDs), Registered Community Designs (RCDs) and national design rights, IP Federation members believe that on very many measures, the EU design regime has been an unqualified success since its relatively recent inception. There has already been a significant convergence between EU member states in the area of designs law, which in combination with the Community Design regime has brought about significant benefits. Thus the IP Federation believes that any changes to the regime to achieve the proposed objectives should, where possible, be achieved by improved guidance and cooperation between the offices rather than legislative interventions. Nevertheless, the IP Federation supports many of the amendments to the legislation in the Proposal but would offer the following comments regarding certain elements of the Proposal. - Definition of design and product (Article 3) The IP Federation does not believe that there is any major unclarity in the existing legislation as to what can be protected as a design (e.g. the protectability of digital graphical user interfaces or interior design). The Federation is concerned that the amendments in the Proposal to Article 3 will not result in the objective of increasing legal certainty and may lead to increased uncertainty of already well-established legislative terms. For example, specifying that the definition of design includes the movement, transition or any other sort of animation of features, opens up questions such as whether animation of an existing design can in itself be sufficient to confer novelty and individual character. If so, then it may be possible for third parties to prevent a legitimate rights holder from animating their own design. Furthermore routes already exist in the present designs system for protecting animations by, for example, protecting static images of different stages of the animation. We therefore ask that any changes to the definition of design be rejected. - Principle of cumulation (Article 96(2)) The IP Federation is in favour of demarcation between design rights and copyright to, for example, avoid copyright extending to technical subject matter. The design regime includes important safeguards to ensure that advances in technical function are excluded (and therefore remain in the purview of patent law with all of its requirements such as those of novelty and inventive step). Such safeguards are not necessarily explicit in copyright legislation and recent evolution of EU copyright law through decisions by the CJEU in cases such as Cofemel (C-683/17) and Brompton Bicycle (C-833/18) have led to questions over whether subject matter that was intended to be protected by UCD would necessarily already be protected by the much longer-lasting copyright. This would be the case if the requirement for originality in copyright law is interpreted to be a lower bar than those of novelty and individual character in design law. The IP Federation note that the Proposal maintains the principle of cumulation of design and copyright protection with the added proviso that the requirements of Union copyright law are met. If this principle is maintained then it would be desirable to ensure that Union copyright law be clarified to include the same exceptions to technical subject matter as contained in design law. Such clarification would, for example, assist in preventing copyright being used to circumvent the changes the Commission is proposing for completing the single market for spare parts in the recasting of the EU Directive on the legal protection of designs.
Read full response

Response to Standard Essential Patents

9 May 2022

Standards are prevalent across a large number of technologies and provide important technological advances that support innovation to the benefit of consumers. There are a range of ways in which standards are developed and licensed. This includes standards that were developed by consortia, formal standards development organisations and single companies. Standard essential patent licensing is not widely known about or understood, especially outside technology sectors where they are already widely used. This means that innovative businesses, large and small, will be ill-prepared to exploit the opportunities and overcome the challenges of the future, such as presented by the IoT revolution. Widely accessible and balanced information concerning standard essential patents, FRAND and licensing should be made available by a neutral platform to educate businesses, particularly SMEs which may well need to tackle licensing issues in the future. These are required so that businesses can be informed about the existence of standards and standard essential patents, possible need for SEP licensing obligations and the FRAND framework which apply to SEP licensing in advance of launching new products and services on the market. In an effort to balance the varied interests, IP Federation members agree that the following factors should be taken into account: 1. There is a crucial relationship between world-leading innovation and a system of IPRs which is balanced, informed, transparent, enforceable and effective. 2. SEPs generally require licensing on an international basis and inefficiencies and uncertainty may arise when national courts take different approaches in SEP disputes. The UK and EU should continue to be active in the international forums where SEP policy is being debated, and play their part internationally on the topic and to strive for a balanced and sustainable system capable of enabling licensing negotiations to be conducted, and disputes to be resolved, in a timely manner and, where possible, on an efficient basis. 3. Where possible, any proposed changes should be as a result of an evidence-led approach and should be consulted upon in an open and accessible forum of debate. 4. Dispute resolution, including litigation, should be accessible for large and small companies, whilst not undermining transparency. 5. There could be more transparency concerning both licence rates and who is licensed provided confidentiality of commercially sensitive information is properly observed. 6. It could be beneficial to improve information available on patent essentiality. In this regard we would note the European Commission’s JRC “Pilot Study for essentiality assessment of [SEPs]”. SEP landscape studies would also be beneficial if quality, thoroughness, neutrality and transparency can be ensured. There was also overriding consensus that as we move into the future, SEPs and knowledge of SEPs, will become increasingly important to global innovation and so the IP Federation requests that the Commission continues to engage with users of the IPR system, such as ourselves. Moreover, we offer our service, as ever, in this matter. For further details, please see the attached.
Read full response

Response to Data Act (including the review of the Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases)

25 Jun 2021

IP Federation’s response to the European Commission’s Inception Impact Assessment on the Data Act and amended rules on the legal protection of databases. Founded in 1920 in the UK, the IP Federation represents IP intensive companies who are extensively involved in business activity in Europe and internationally across a range of industries. Our membership includes companies that invest billions in developing and using AI technologies to build the solutions of tomorrow. In developing and using these technologies our members appreciate the importance of creating the right incentives to build, use and share AI technology, including the right incentives to share data. In particular, our members recognise the critical role data will play in innovation, driving breakthroughs across the diverse industry sectors of our membership including healthcare, manufacturing, cybersecurity and the automotive industry. Details of the IP Federation membership are given at https://www.ipfederation.com/member-list/ The IP Federation welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Inception Impact Assessment and supports the Commission’s ambition to foster data sharing and data driven innovation. The IP Federation recognises that digital transformation and innovation requires new ways to read, analyse and understand a vast array and amount of data. The IP Federation recognises that Machine Learning is the backbone of current applications of AI which rely on access to suitable training data, and we applaud the EUs steps to implement text and data mining (TDM) measures in the EU Copyright Directive to ensure copyright exceptions exist for both research and commercial purposes, providing all entities who have lawful access to the copyright work with the ability to unlock the benefits from AI. We therefore ask that the EU support the effective and harmonised implementation of policies that foster data sharing for AI innovation, such as the EU Copyright Directive’s Text and Data Mining exception. In any review of the Database Directive, our members urge the Commission to adopt an evidence based approach. Measures which at first appear to create incentives to generate data may in fact create barriers to use, therefore we urge the Commission to ensure an evidence-based approach to identify if any issues exist, particularly before considering the creation of new IP rights for data. Innovation is often facilitated by licensing and sharing of IP assets, and confidential information. Data sharing is increasingly important across many different sectors and we welcome the objective to promote voluntary data sharing. Such data sharing can drive valuable outcomes which can further encourage sharing by private organisations. Our members can provide examples of beneficial data sharing activities, not least in responding to the Covid-19 crisis. Private organisations must, however, also be able to rely on legal safeguards to exploit and protect their IP and data as they see fit. We look forward to inputting into the consultative process.
Read full response

Response to Review of the Community Designs Regulation

12 Jan 2021

The IP Federation welcomes the opportunity to respond to the European Commission’s Inception Impact Assessment relating to Review of the Design Directive (“the Directive”) and Community Design Regulation (“the Regula¬tion”), which remains open until 12 January 2021. As major users of Un¬registered Community Designs (UCDs), Registered Community Designs (RCDs) and national design rights, IP Federation members believe that on very many measures, the EU design regime has been an unqualified success since its relatively recent inception. There has already been a significant convergence between EU member states in the area of designs law, which in combination with the Community Design regime has brought about significant benefits. Thus the IP Federation believes that any changes to the regime to achieve the proposed objectives should, where possible, be achieved by improved guidance and cooperation between the offices rather than legislative inter¬ventions. In the attached document we offer our views on the specific proposed Objectives and Policy Options
Read full response

Response to Intellectual Property Action Plan

14 Aug 2020

IP Federation’s response to the IP Action Plan Founded in 1920 in the UK, IP Federation represents IP intensive companies who are extensively involved in business activity in Europe and internationally across a range of industries – a list of members is at https://www.ipfederation.com. Not only do our members own considerable numbers of IP rights, both in Europe and elsewhere, but they are affected by the activities and IP rights of competitors and third parties. They may be either plaintiffs or defendants in IP related court actions, across the globe. IP Federation believes that a cost effective, high quality and balanced IPR framework is a critical component in industry’s present and future successes in the global economy and in social progress. We welcome the opportunity to provide comments on the Commission’s IP Action Plan to ensure that intellectual property can boost economic resilience both in the EU and beyond. The essential role of IP in the EU’s main ecosystems by stimulating innovation and development is widely recognised by our members. As set out in the roadmap, balanced IP polices are particularly important in helping towards an economic recovery following the outbreak of Covid-19. We agree that the EU already has a robust IP framework. Before embarking on the objective to upgrade the system for IP protection, we urge the Commission to ensure an evidence-based approach to support any changes through continued dialogue with stakeholders. In the area of artificial intelligence and IP, premature legislation may adversely impact innovation. The need for continued conversation on this topic is clearly demonstrated by public engagement in the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Draft Issues Paper on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence. Similarly, the need for modernisation of EU legislation on Industrial Designs should be evidence led. In this regard, the IP Federation sees clear evidence against the drastic step of imposing criminal sanctions for design infringement. Our members welcome consideration of ways to make the supplementary protection certificate (SPC) system less fragmented and would advocate the introduction of a single application and grant procedure via an appropriate central office for generating a bundle of national SPCs, or possibly unitary SPCs. We also support the Commission’s willingness to ensure effective and harmonised implementation of the Copyright Directive’s TDM exception, which will facilitate AI innovation and protect rights of content owners. Innovation is often facilitated by licensing and sharing of IP assets, and confidential information. As outlined in the roadmap, data sharing is increasingly important across many different sectors and we welcome the objective to promote voluntary data sharing. Such data sharing can drive valuable outcomes which can, further encourage sharing by private organisations. Our members can provide examples of beneficial data sharing activities, not least in responding to the Covid-19 crisis. Private organisations must, however, also be able to rely on legal safeguards to protect data that they consider to be confidential. The action plan states that “the implications of the IP framework for data sharing remain to be clarified”. As before, our members urge the Commission to ensure an evidence-based approach to identify if any issues exist, particularly before considering the creation of new IP rights for data. We welcome the objective to promote global fair play. Our members welcome the EU’s commitment to continued cooperation to enhance international substantive patent law harmonisation. To ensure that this competition is fair, the EU should maintain a strong, high-quality and coherent IP strategy when it comes to discussing any bilateral trade agreements. We applaud the Commission’s transparency in inviting stakeholders to provide comments on the IP action plan and welcome the opportunity to engage further on future proposals.
Read full response