Investors come in all shapes and sizes – from professionals to friends or family members. This spectrum results in an investment risk profile that is related to the investment experience, the familiarity with the investment opportunity and the independent advice provided prior to the investment decision.
The friends and family end of the spectrum also has additional ‘emotional’ complexity, that in an ideal world would not play a part in the decision, but in reality can be a significant factor.
While the professionals will have a team of experts to advise them, friends and family often rely on emotion to make the investment decision. While this is understandable, it greatly increases the risk of a bad outcome which can include the loss of friendships and family disputes. Investors of all kinds should take the opportunity to offer counsel to the investee, rather than getting swept up in the excitement of investing or overwhelmed by the enthusiasm and apparent knowledge of the investee.
Best practice is to expect a well-researched business case, including worst case analysis with detailed justifications for any assumption regarding markets and competition.
If emotion has to play a part, then the best approach is to write off the investment at the beginning and have no expectations of the outcome, any positive outcome is then a bonus.
Unfortunately, we often speak to disappointed investors and generally we find that the key mistakes were made at the very start of the project by not approaching the investment in a professional way. As the saying goes, ‘preparation prevents poor performance’, which includes appropriate due diligence on the subject matter, markets and the investee. A sceptical stance will offer more investor protection and flush out any ‘soft’ proposals (i.e. if the investee is not able to offer sufficient evidence to support a proposal).
This may appear difficult with friends and family, but a third party opinion from a business advisory can be a sensible way to avoid conflict of interest and bad investments, as well as wasted investee efforts, thus a benefit to all concerned.
To reap the rewards of artificial intelligence and machine learning, biotech companies must overcome the legal, regulatory, and commercial hurdles.
Developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are playing an increasingly influential role in the pharma sector. FDA approvals of AI algorithms have increased exponentially over the past few years (1), and the AI healthcare market is predicted to reach US$6.6 billion by 2021 (2). A 2019 survey of pharmaceutical and biotech professionals by ICON suggested that 80 percent of survey respondents were using, or planning to use, AI technologies (3). The trend has driven the formation of new partnerships between the tech and healthcare industries; for example, AI startup Concerto HealthAI is currently working with BMS, Pfizer, and Astellas, to support precision oncology initiatives, while Roche’s acquisition of Flatiron Health and Foundation Medicine provided proof-of-concept that clinically meaningful insights can be generated through large-scale analysis of genomic and clinical data (4). Meanwhile, major tech players, such as Google, IBM and Microsoft, have all taken steps into the biotech space; among other developments, 2019 saw the announcement of several new healthcare-related collaborations by Alphabet-owned Verily (5), and a partnership between Microsoft and Novartis aimed at integrating AI across clinical development and commercialisation (6).
The use of AI in drug design is considered speculative right now. At the time of writing, no AI-designed drugs have been approved and very few have reached clinical trials. UK-based startup Exscienta was the first company to put an AI-designed drug into clinical trials (7). In collaboration with the Japanese pharmaceutical firm Sumitomo Dainippon, Exscienta succeeded in reducing the development time of its OCD drug to just twelve months. The drug is currently undergoing phase I trials.
The COVID-19 outbreak has created a new sense of urgency as researchers race to develop treatments. There is greater interest than ever before in accelerating the drug development process. With the spread of COVID-19 outpacing the capacity of global healthcare systems, alliances between the pharmaceutical and tech sectors have become more influential than ever in combating the spread of the disease. Though there has been great optimism about AI’s potential to assist in drug development, the COVID-19 crisis may reveal which approaches can truly deliver.
Several companies are already employing AI-mediated approaches to combat the pandemic. BenevolentAI, for example, has applied its proprietary AI platform to the prediction of COVID-19 drug candidates (8). The software highlighted members of the numb-associated kinase (NAK) family as potential targets for treatment, and identified baricitinib, currently used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, as a potential therapeutic agent based on its antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, and safety profile. Meanwhile, South Korean company Deargen’s deep learning technology has identified the antiretroviral atazanavir, used for the treatment of HIV, as another possible candidate (9).
US-based biotech company Insilico Medicine has taken a different approach. Rather than attempting to identify commercially available drugs that could be repurposed for the treatment of COVID-19, the company employed AI to accelerate the synthesis and validation of new drug candidates. Their platform has identified six new small molecules, predicted to target a key viral protease, which they suggest could be synthesized and tested for efficacy. Meanwhile, Moderna, the first company to bring a COVID-19 vaccine into Phase 1 trials, suggested that its $100 million investment in digital technologies (including AI) was a key factor in its ability to push products rapidly through the development cycle. Indeed, the speed at which Moderna responded to the emergence of the novel coronavirus is considered unprecedented. Phase III trials have already begun for the company’s mRNA vaccine.
When it comes to using AI in the drug development process, companies need to consider how they create and protect their intellectual property (IP) – especially with the trend towards personalised medicine. With some products being applicable to just a handful of patients, there is likely to be a greater emphasis on patents that capture the potential value across all stages of the clinical development process – not only the final product. In particular, patents will need to protect novel strategies for accelerating drug discovery, improving patient selection, and enabling treatment optimisation, as well as methods of data capture and the analytics underpinning them.
Obtaining such protection will not be without its challenges. In Europe, for example, the approach of the European Patent Office (EPO) to patentability in this area is still evolving. In 2018, the EPO updated its Guidelines for Examination to include, for the first time, specific guidance on how the patentability requirements for algorithms and computer programs should be understood in the context of AI and ML. Meanwhile, in decision T 0694/16, the EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal acknowledged that a claim directed to the use of a known drug in a purposively selected patient subgroup could be considered novel, even where the identified subgroup overlapped with the previously treated patient group (10). This decision paves the way for patentability of existing drugs that have been identified by AI and ML platforms, such as those used by BenevolentAI and Deargen, as potential candidates for repurposing.
In addition, broader questions arising from the use of AI are likely to impact approaches to IP in biotech. Standards for inventiveness may need to be revised, as AI interprets and processes information in an entirely different way to a human inventor. Under current law, to obtain a patent, the invention must not be obvious to a person of skill in the relevant field, on the basis of publicly available information. Yet questions will arise as to how this standard should be applied in the context of AI-generated predictions. While it could still be argued that Insilico’s novel protease candidates are within the scope of what could be achieved by a skilled synthetic chemist, for example, this type of algorithm could conceivably identify drug candidates that are entirely non-obvious to a human expert, but nevertheless an obvious outcome of the application of AI. The more commonplace these methods become, the more difficult it may be to determine the inventiveness exclusively by reference to the perspective of a human inventor.
Such applications of AI also raise issues around the nature of inventorship. Currently, inventorship is generally considered to reside with the person who developed the AI. Yet this situation is likely to become increasingly complex as the capabilities of AI develop and the role of human supervision becomes less prominent. There are currently no specific legal provisions addressing the notion of AI as an inventor. And most jurisdictions require the named inventor to be a natural person (11). Both the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) and the EPO recently rejected applications because the named inventor was an AI named DABUS, despite acknowledging that the criteria for patentability were met, and the UKIPO has now updated its Manual of Patent Practice to explicitly exclude the AI being named as an inventor.
But this is unlikely to be the end of the issue. As technologies developed by unsupervised learning algorithms become more prominent, we’re probably going to see more cases where the extent of the developer’s oversight is increasingly insufficient to justify human inventorship – bringing the issue back to the fore.
As more companies switch to AI- and ML-driven approaches, the case law will necessarily develop to take account of such issues and ensure that AI-driven biotech inventions do not risk slipping through the gaps in current IP law. Drug development is a notoriously costly process, and the chance of not being able to obtain a return on investment is likely to significantly disincentivize innovation. The field also needs a balance between ensuring companies can protect the value of their investment and making sure that the monopolies do not unduly limit the potential for progress. Ensuring that a consistent approach to patenting AI and ML inventions will also be important here. Patents require public disclosure; without robust systems for protecting IP, companies may increasingly choose to protect novel AI and ML processes as trade secrets – depriving the research community of the opportunity to build on their progress.
These are fundamental issues and navigating them will be complex, requiring careful consideration and close collaboration with stakeholders across the pharmaceutical and tech industries. Addressing these uncertainties surrounding the role of AI within the biotech field will be essential to move towards an era where the industry can truly embrace technology.
So far, few drug development predictions made by AI have been validated, and the extent to which many of these technological solutions can be implemented in the real world remains to be seen. Critics have also alleged that, although AI may be faster than medicinal chemists at identifying novel drug candidates, the development process for these drugs does not necessarily lead to better outcomes. Nevertheless, the risk of failure is an unavoidable part of drug development and achieving the same outcomes at an accelerated rate now, more than ever, appears a goal worth pursuing. Validation of AI predictions is likely to be expensive and time-consuming, especially where they require the synthesis and trial of new compounds or large-scale clinical trials. Companies investing in this kind of research need to be convinced that the chances of success are worth the risks.
The challenges of using and validating AI can be emphasized by looking at the healthcare sector and diagnostics. Recently, an AI algorithm developed by Google Health in collaboration with Imperial College London made headlines for out-performing human radiologists in the diagnosis of breast cancer. A meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic performance of deep learning algorithms and healthcare professionals suggested that algorithms performed at least as well as human experts in diagnosing a wide range of diseases from medical imaging. However, the authors noted that very few of the studies they analyzed were carried out in conditions that realistically reflected clinical practice. And we must remember that the margin for error is low. Despite the interest in using AI to diagnose patients, the reality is that any mistake could cost lives. This risk is particularly problematic for unsupervised algorithms, which generally offer little insight into the processes underlying their final output, leaving healthcare professionals unable to determine whether anything critical may have been missed. Further work is needed to demonstrate the extent to which algorithm-based approaches to diagnostics could lead to tangible benefits for patients and healthcare systems. Even the most advanced machine learning models are limited by the quantity and quality of the datasets they are trained on, and in the healthcare sector, much of this data may still be inaccurate, incomplete, or biased towards specific populations. Furthermore, algorithms cannot yet take the full clinical picture into consideration in the way that a human doctor would, nor are they able to account for the wider context of a problem, such as its emotional or economic impact.
Although new collaborations between tech giants and biotech or healthcare companies have the potential to drive significant technological progress, they also give rise to a new set of legal, ethical and regulatory issues, which must be resolved soon if progress is to be made at the speed envisaged by the tech sector.
As reported in November 2019, the Nanjing Intermediate Court made a first-instance decision between Huawei and Conversant in a standard essential patent (SEP) royalty dispute in China. This article provides two recent updates.
Conversant filed an appeal on 18 November 2019 to the first-instance decision at the Chinese Supreme People’s Court (CSPC). The appeal is still pending.
On 8 August 2020, one of Conversant’s Chinese patents, ZL200580038621.8, concerned in the first-instance decision was revoked and this decision was appealed. On 27August 2020, Düsseldorf Regional Court ruled on the corresponding German case that Huawei infringed Conversant’s patent EP1797659 (the same family with ZL200580038621.8), and Conversant didn’t violate its FRAND obligation. Düsseldorf Regional Court has prohibited Huawei’s activities in Germany, including selling UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System)-enabled devices.
Huawei immediately applied to the CSPC for an ‘anti-suit’ injunction against the German decision on the same day. The CSPC granted Huawei’s request just one day later to temporarily prohibit Conversant from enforcing the Düsseldorf Regional Court’s decision until the CSPC makes decisions for the Chinese appeal case. In case of violation of this decision, a fine of RMB 1,000,000 (around GBP 114,300) per day will be imposed from the date of violation.
The CSPC explained that the decision was made based on the following considerations:
August was indeed a very busy month for Huawei and Conversant. Behind the long-running litigation, we are now starting to see the use of ‘anti-suit’ injunctions. It will be interesting to see how their use develops globally. We will of course continue to watch the ongoing cases.
It has been known that the Nanjing Intermediate Court chose to use the ‘top-down’ approach formula to calculate the Chinese SEP royalty rate. In the recently published full first-instance decision, a detailed calculation has been set out as follows:
Step 1. Calculating the cumulative royalty in China from the global cumulative royalty
Based on general industry perceptions, the Nanjing Intermediate Court first determined that:
Step 2. Calculating the numbers of Chinese SEP patent families
The Nanjing Intermediate Court relied on the numbers of Chinese SEP families for 2G/3G/4G, as calculated by an IP consulting firm used by Huawei. Conversant, however, did not accept Huawei’s data, and further did not provide any approved data or sufficient evidence to overturn Huawei’s data. Therefore:
Step 3. Calculating the royalty rate for a single-mode mobile terminal product
For each standard, dividing the cumulative royalty in China by the number of Chinese SEP families gives the base rate of the SEP royalty of a single patent family for a single-mode mobile terminal product:
Then, the royalty rate for a single-mode mobile terminal product is calculated based on the base rate and the true value of SEP families. Here, N2, N3 and N4 are the true value of SEP families in the concerned patent package. In Huawei’s accepted evidence, N2 and N3 are 0 and N4 is 1. On balance, the court decided the royalty rate for a single-mode 4G terminal product is 0.00225% based on the range (0.0019-0.0026)%.
2G: 0.0042% × N2 = 0.0042% × 0 = 0
3G: 0.0018 % × N3 = 0.0018% × 0 = 0
4G: (0.0019-0.0026)% × N4 = (0.0019-0.0026)% × 1= (0.0019-0.0026)%
Step 4. Calculating the royalty rate for a multi-mode mobile terminal product
Considering 2G, 3G, and 4G technologies contribute differently to the total value of an individual product, the weights (contribution ratios) of the three technologies are different. Therefore,
the royalty of a 2G/3G/4G multi-mode terminal product = (0.0042% × N2 × weight2) + (0.0018% × N3 × weight3) + [(0.0019-0.0026)% × N4 × weight4].
Here the weight2, weight3 and weight4 for 2G, 3G and 4G are 10%, 10% and 80%. Then, the royalty of a 2G/3G/4G multi-mode terminal product = 0.0042% × 0 × 10% + 0.0018% × 0 × 10% + (0.0019-0.0026)% × 1 × 80% = (0.0019-0.0026)% × 80% = (0.00152-0.00208)%.
On balance, the court decided the royalty for multi-mode 2G/3G/4G terminal products is 0.0018%, based on the range (0.00152-0.00208)%.
As seen above, the final calculated SEP royalty rates ruled by the Nanjing Intermediate Court are:
In addition to a myriad of new innovations focusing on hydrogen production, there are an equal number of companies developing technologies to use hydrogen safely and efficiently as an energy source.
Significant advances have taken place in recent years in both hydrogen production and its use as a source of clean energy. In a recent white paper from the International Energy Agency (IEA) titled ‘The Future of Hydrogen – Seizing today’s opportunities’ (IEA, 2019) produced ahead of the G20 meeting in Japan in June 2019, the potential for hydrogen as a source of clean, secure and affordable energy was heavily promoted, with the potential to decarbonise a number of high CO2 emitting industries such as long-haul air-travel and haulage, as well as chemical and steel production. As hydrogen production is not weather dependent, is has the ability to assist where variable output and intermittent renewable sources such as wind or solar may struggle.
While the potential use of hydrogen is widespread and its use in vehicles – particularly for public transport – has already begun, significant policy changes, and more importantly changes in attitude and industry support, will be required to fully take advantage of the benefits that hydrogen energy can offer. International demand for hydrogen is on the rise, and specifically in China, South Korea, the US, Europe and Japan, it is expected to increase up to 10 times over the coming decades. Many countries have therefore already begun introducing hydrogen energy strategies to roll out its use and to ensure that infrastructure and production can meet demand. The European Commission recently adopted a new strategy on the use of hydrogen and development of hydrogen technology in Europe, from research to production over the coming years (European Commission, 2020). In addition, in March 2020 the European Clean Hydrogen Alliance (ECH2A) was announced, bringing together multiple stakeholders to meet the hydrogen production and distribution needs across Europe (ECH2A, 2020). To help realise the growing demand for hydrogen production and hydrogen energy infrastructure/distribution, many high innovation companies across the world are developing new technologies for the safe and sustainable production, use and transportation of hydrogen.
One such innovator, a member of ECH2A and a client, is hydrogen generator designer and manufacturer, Enapter, with operations in Germany, Italy, Thailand and Russia (Enapter, 2020). Enapter has developed a patented technology based on Anion Exchange Membrane (AEM) technology that produces green hydrogen (H2) gas via the electrolysis of water, without the need for expensive and environmentally unfriendly noble metal or titanium plates, often seen in other electrolysis solutions. The solution is compact and offered as a single unit and as such is stackable, meaning that hydrogen production via the Enapter system can be easily scaled as demand dictates. The technology has already been implemented around the world for residential purposes and for rural electrification and microgrid storage. This latter use has been highlighted in a recent article by Forbes: ‘Hydrogen May be the Crucial Jigsaw Piece for Green Microgrids’ (Silverstein, 2020).
Enapter’s activities have attracted significant attention in Germany, homeland of senior founder Sebastian-Justus Schmidt, where the company has won in the ‘Industry’ category at the annual Handelsblatt Energy Awards (Handelsblatt, 2020) in January 2020. More recently, the German government has adopted a national hydrogen strategy plan for the production and use of hydrogen, which will likely further drive and incentivise innovations in this sector in Germany and further afield.
In addition to a myriad of new innovations focusing on hydrogen production, there are an equal number of companies developing technologies to use hydrogen safely and efficiently as an energy source. Many of these innovations have taken place in the development of hydrogen fuel cells in the automotive sector. The number of patents filed worldwide in this sector have reached in the thousands per annum over the last 10 years (Pohlmann, 2019). The companies mainly responsible for new filings in fuel cell technology have been Japanese automotive companies such as Toyota Motors, Honda, Nissan, and Korean Hyundai; although both Ford and General Motors have shown increased activity in recent years. A recent article by the American Chemical Society has highlighted the rise in innovations since 2009 focusing on mechanism of safe transportation and storage of hydrogen, through existing infrastructures centred around ammonia and methylcyclohexane, from which hydrogen can be later extracted (Sayfullin, 2020).
In the UK, considerable efforts have been made to demonstrate the extensive production and supply of hydrogen with the awarding of significant government funding for large-scale projects such as Dolphyn, which integrates floating offshore wind turbines with integrated water treatment units and electrolysers, which could then pipe the hydrogen to shore; Hynet, which is based on Johnson Matthey low carbon technology and a consortium of other companies including Progressive Energy, Essar and SNC-Lavalin; or HyPER from Cranfield University which is based on a sorption enhanced steam reforming process developed by the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) (Crown Copyright, 2020).
Increasing innovation and heavy investment in research, and consequently in intellectual property (IP) assets such as patents, in the both the production and use of hydrogen has not been lost on the investment community worldwide. A Financial Times article published earlier this year (Sanderson, 2020) highlights investors’ interest in hopping on the hydrogen bandwagon as shares in numerous hydrogen production companies have soared, partially due to increasing large investments from a number of large multinationals and increased government subsidies.
Bosch has had a JDA agreement in place since 2018 with UK-based Ceres Power, which has developed a solid oxide based fuel cell technology as well as making an equity investment of circa £9m in the company, while UK-based developer of IP heavy businesses IP Group Plc had an 18.6% equity share in the business (IP Group, 2020). Earlier this year, Bosch increased its stake in Ceres Power to 18% following a share subscription (Proactive Investors, 2020), while IP Group recently sold some of its shares in the business.
Likewise, UK-based Electrolyser company ITM Power has recently entered into a joint venture with gas supplier Linde to form the new entity ITM Linde Electrolysis GmbH (ITM Power, 2020) following significant strategic investment by Linde in late 2019 (ITM Power, 2019).
European utility company Enel has announced that it will launch a hydrogen business in 2021 (Reuters, 2020), while venture capital (VC) interest in supporting early-stage hydrogen companies has steadily increased. BGF recently invested in fuel cell company Bramble Energy, while a hydrogen-focused VC fund called ‘AP Ventures’ was established in 2016 in London to support companies in the hydrogen value chain and already counts companies such as US Altergy (PEM fuel cells) and Norwegian ZEG Power (High purity H2 and CO2 production) amongst its portfolio companies.
Overall, it is clear that there is significant interest from private industry, the investment community and governments worldwide in further developing the hydrogen economy, although many realise that hydrogen remains too expensive (and the required infrastructure too intermittent) at this time to enable widespread adoption in the near term.
With so many innovations taking place in hydrogen production and use, and more generally across the energy sector, it is becoming increasingly important for these cutting edge energy companies to not only actively protect their technology via patents, but also to identify and actively protect other intangible assets including designs, trade secrets, software assets, algorithms and data as these assets not only drive growth and increase value in the business, but also provide a way of attracting investors to aid in the development and commercialisation of the technology.
In this article for Automotive World, partner Andrew White explores the implications of Nokia’s win in a recent dispute with Daimler over patented telecoms tech.
The automotive patent wars are heating up following a recent decision of the Mannheim Regional Court in Germany, which held that Daimler had infringed on a Nokia patent for connected car technology. The decision relates specifically to Nokia’s European patent EP2981103.
This case represents one of a number of 3G/4G/5G patents that are part of the Avanci patent pool with which other car makers, including BMW and Volkswagen, have already concluded licences to some degree or another. It has been reported that Daimler’s co-litigants in the proceedings were Continental, Huawei, Robert Bosch, TomTom, Valeo/Peiker and Bury, and this case is part of a wider litigation campaign by other members of the Avanci patent pool including Conversant and Sharp.
One of the key issues that Daimler disputes is whether, as a car maker, it is required to obtain a licence from Nokia to use the patented technology itself, or whether it should be the Tier 1 suppliers (in this case Continental) of the connectivity modules that should obtain the licence. This could have something to do with the royalties payable – because patent royalties are typically calculated as a percentage of sales price of the product sold, and so the percentage royalty on a complete car may be somewhere higher in absolute terms than the same percentage of a component part.
This decision only related to one of ten connected suits filed by Nokia against Daimler, and the litigation has garnered much attention from other automakers, suppliers and even politicians.
Nokia claims the decision will help bring Daimler back to the negotiating table. However, the court set an extraordinarily high bond of €7bn (US$8.3bn) that Nokia would be required to pay if it wishes to obtain an injunction against Daimler. This is because of the possibility of an appeal coming to a different decision and therefore the potential damages that Daimler could incur as a result of a potentially unjustified injunction. Daimler seems confident that this won’t stop its ability to make and sell cars in the short term.
Due to the effect this might have on the wider auto industry, it is expected that if Daimler opts to appeal the decision, clarification would be sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
Many parties weighed in on the dispute, including the German Federal Cartel Office which, in June 2020, recommended that the Mannheim Regional Court suspend the case pending the referral of a number of questions to the CJEU. The questions touched on issues of competition law, querying whether Nokia, in holding such an important patent (relevant to a telecommunications standard) abused its dominant position for refusing to license to a supplier, and also whether the patent holder is free to pick which companies they license to.
However, the Mannheim Regional Court reportedly decided not to make such a referral to the CJEU because it held that Daimler was already unwilling to conclude a licence (because Daimler considered it should be its supplier, Continental, that obtained the licence). Since the decision was announced on 18 August 2020, Daimler has stated its intention to appeal the decision.
Regardless of the outcome (i.e. if Nokia opts to pay the €7bn injunction or if Daimler does indeed appeal), this decision strengthens the hand of the telecoms patent holders and those members of the Avanci patent pool. It appears that automakers are having to play catch up in a world that was, until recently, traditionally dominated by telecoms companies.
Commenting on the decision, Avanci provided the following statement: “While we don’t comment on the details of cases we are not party to, Daimler’s legal disputes with Nokia, Sharp and Conversant could still be resolved easily and quickly by Daimler taking an Avanci licence. Our vision of making patent licensing easier and more efficient has already seen 15 automakers, including Audi and BMW, join our one-stop platform. Our single Avanci licence covers thousands of cellular essential patents from 38 patent owners.”
This article was originally published by Automotive World in September 2020.
We are pleased to announce the promotion of attorneys David Hobson, Juliet Redhouse and Andrew White to the Mathys & Squire partnership. The firm now has 30 partners and 10 offices across the UK and Europe.
Working in the life sciences team, David Hobson has a background in biochemistry and represents UK and overseas clients in a range of industries. He demonstrates particular skill at drafting and prosecuting challenging life sciences subject matter through to the grant of commercially-relevant patents. David’s principal sectors of expertise include biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and food and beverages, encompassing enzyme biotechnology, therapeutic antibodies, and cell-based therapies. He is also experienced in providing therapeutic freedom to operate and validity advice, and handling opposition proceedings before the EPO. Some key hearings include: “Recombinant EPO” (Sterrenbeld Biotechnologie; Polymun Scientific Immunbiologische), “Modified Clostridial Neurotoxins” (Ipsen Bioinnovation; Merz Pharma), and “Antibody-Containing Stabilized Preparations” (Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha; Mathys & Squire).
Juliet Redhouse also works in the firm’s life sciences team, specialising in molecular biology, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology. With particular expertise in the areas of antibody technology, vaccine technology, protein and peptide based medicines, formulations, personalised medicine and diagnostic assays, Juliet is experienced in examination and opposition proceedings at the EPO, as well as drafting, prosecution, and management of global patent portfolios. She also advises clients on infringement, validity and freedom-to-operate.
Andrew White is part of the firm’s IT & engineering team, with extensive experience managing international portfolios in the med-tech, software, telecoms, and automotive sectors, with a specific focus on electric vehicle and AI-based technologies. Andrew is very active in the startup community, working with a number of accelerators and incubators, providing regular IP workshops and one-to-one IP clinics covering all aspects of IP ranging from ownership and licensing to patent filing strategies. He frequently presents at tech and startup focused events, and is regularly published in both IP and industry publications.
Commenting on the new appointments, partner Alan MacDougall said: “We are delighted to welcome these next generation partners to further enhance our high-level skills across two of the firm’s core sectors. Their promotions are testament to not only their success and expertise in their individual fields, but also to the passion and dedication they bring to their clients.
“We are confident that the firm will benefit from the appointment of such talented and focused individuals, who clearly represent the firm’s core values of both technical and commercial excellence and will continue to drive this focus as they progress their careers as partners. We wish David, Juliet and Andrew the best of luck as they join the Mathys & Squire partnership.”
This promotion news has been featured by The Patent Lawyer, The Patent Magazine, ICLG and World Trademark Review.
The firm is also delighted to announce the promotions of Miranda Kent, Alexander Robinson and Harry Rowe to managing associates. Congratulations to all!
In a landmark decision, the UK Supreme Court today upheld decisions of both the UK High Court (as reported here) and the Court of Appeal (as reported here). A copy of the decision can be obtained here.
As noted in the decision itself, the issues decided upon have major importance to the international telecommunications market and in particular relating to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). It holds that a UK court has the jurisdiction to, and may properly exercise a power to, both (a) grant injunctions and (b) determine royalty rates for a global licence of a multinational patent portfolio. It also holds that the English courts can be an appropriate forum to hear such matters.
The decision clarifies a number of disputed issues:
1. Whether the English courts have the jurisdiction to set a global FRAND rate
The Supreme Court looked to industry practice and noted that due to the size of telecom companies’ patent portfolios and the large number of SEPs, the “practical solution therefore is for the SEP owner to offer to licence its portfolio of declared SEPs” (paragraph 60). The court acknowledged that such a portfolio may include “untested” patents (which may be of questionable validity and/or not infringed) but held that “by taking out a licence of an international portfolio of generally untested patents the implementer buys access to the new standard. It does so at a price which ought to reflect the untested nature of many patents in the portfolio; in so doing it purchases certainty.” The court held that the commercial reality means that the licences must have international effect and therefore be global (paragraph 62).
The Supreme Court also held that the previous decisions by the High Court and Court of Appeal did not rule on the validity or infringement of a foreign patent, as that would be beyond their jurisdiction. Instead, the court held that the lower courts had looked to the commercial practice in the industry in determining what is FRAND behaviour. The Supreme Court noted that while it has not been industry practice to challenge patents that had been licensed as part of a global licence, “it might in our view be fair and reasonable for the implementer to reserve the right to challenge those patents or a sample of those patents in the relevant foreign court and to require that the licence provide a mechanism to alter the royalty rates as a result.” (paragraph 64). The court looked to practice in other jurisdictions and noted that, while foreign courts may not yet have gone so far, there appeared to be a willingness in principle (at least in the US and Germany) to do so (paragraph 84). As such the court concluded that the English courts do have the jurisdiction to set a global FRAND rate.
2. Whether the English courts are an appropriate forum to hear such disputes
It had previously been argued that China was a more appropriate forum for the action rather than the UK (not least because China represented a greater share of the relevant market than the UK). The decision noted that “how the dispute should be defined has been the main bone of contention between the parties” (paragraph 95) (i.e. are they proceedings relating to obtaining a global FRAND licence, or are they proceedings to enforce a national patent). The court held, however that “a challenge to jurisdiction on forum conveniens grounds requires the challenger to identify some other forum which does have jurisdiction to determine the dispute” … “In the present case, China is the only candidate which the appellants have put forward.”. In response to this, the court noted that “the Chinese courts do not, at present, have jurisdiction to determine the terms of a global FRAND licence, at least in the absence of agreement by all parties that they should do so. Even in the event of such an agreement … the prospect that the Chinese courts would embark on the exercise [is] no more than speculative.” (paragraph 97). As such, the English courts were held to be an appropriate forum.
3. How “non-discriminatory” do FRAND terms have to be?
This issue really focused on whether an SEP holder needs to license on comparable terms to similarly situated patentees (i.e. “hard edged”), or whether it is more general and only requires an SEP holder to licence according to market circumstances, which may for example allow lower rates as an incentive for licensees that enter into a licence earlier. The court looked to ETSI’s IPR policy (the body responsible for standard setting in Europe) and held that “the non-discrimination element in the FRAND undertaking is ‘general’ and not ‘hard-edged’” and that “since price discrimination is the norm as a matter of licensing practice and may promote objectives which the ETSI regime is intended to promote (such as innovation and consumer welfare), it would have required far clearer language in the ETSI FRAND undertaking to indicate an intention to impose the more strict, ‘hard-edged’ non-discrimination obligation”. As such, the court held that the FRAND terms are not ‘hard-edged’ and that different licence rates can be offered to different licensees.
4. The interplay between UK law and European competition law
This issue really relates to the conduct of the patentee and their obligation to make a FRAND offer in order to avoid falling foul of European competition law. The court held that the duty on the patentee to make a FRAND offer only arises when the alleged infringer has expressed its willingness to conclude a licensing agreement on FRAND terms. Although the court did not explicitly decide on this issue, they indicated that a patentee making a FRAND offer may represent a “safe harbour” from abuse of a dominant position (paragraph 153). The court did hold that it does not necessarily follow, however, that an absence of a FRAND offer necessitates an abuse of a dominant position. Instead “to answer that, due account has to be taken of the particular circumstances of the case” (paragraph 153).
5. The proportionality of injunctions
The court noted that the requirement when working with SEPs to license on FRAND terms meant that concerns surrounding the use of injunctions as a threat to obtain exorbitant royalty rates did not apply. The court held that “we are not in any event persuaded that there is any basis on which this court could properly substitute an award of damages for the injunction” (paragraph 163) and that “the threat of an injunction cannot be employed by the claimants as a means of charging exorbitant fees, or for undue leverage in negotiations, since they cannot enforce their rights unless they have offered to license their patents on terms which the court is satisfied are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.” The court also noted that “if the patent-holder were confined to a monetary remedy, implementers who were infringing the patents would have an incentive to continue infringing until, patent by patent, and country by country, they were compelled to pay royalties. It would not make economic sense for them to enter voluntarily into FRAND licences” (paragraph 167). As such, the court held that injunctions are proportional when considering SEPs.
This is a far-ranging decision with international significance. It holds that the UK is an appropriate forum to hear SEP disputes, that the English courts can set global FRAND rates, and that injunctions can be an appropriate remedy. It also provides further guidance on the conduct required of SEP holders and on the terms that they can offer to different licensees.
In this article for Vehicle Electronics, Mathys & Squire partner Andrew White discusses the case in which Nokia secured its win in a standards essential patent (SEP) dispute with Daimler.
In a ruling that took place on 18 August 2020 at the Mannheim Regional Court in Germany, Nokia secured a win against Mercedes-Benz car maker Daimler following a long-running IP dispute over the use of Nokia’s patented 4G technologies in its cars.
Of the ten infringement cases filed by Nokia against Daimler, this SEP case relates to connected car technology (European patent EP2981103B1).
This article was published as part of Vehicle Electronics’ guest blog in August 2020 – click here to read the full feature.
We are pleased to share the news that our partners have been featured in the latest edition of IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists. Martin MacLean, who have been listed in the guide for a number of years, as well as Anna Gregson and Dani Kramer, both newly ranked this year, are all featured in the 2020 edition of the guide, recognised as some of the world’s top IP value creators.
The research involves speaking to a wide range of senior corporate IP managers in North America, Europe and Asia, as well as third-party IP service providers, in order to identify these IP leaders whose business is the creation, development and deployment of strategies that enable IP owners to gain maximum value from their portfolios.
Standout praise for Mathys & Squire partners in this latest guide includes:
The ‘commercially savvy’ Anna Gregson is ‘the ultimate safe pair of hands no matter how challenging the brief. She puts her clients first at all times and is a delight to work with’.
‘Dani Kramer is a discerning choice of partner when dealing with complicated and sensitive patent matters, particularly at the European Patent Office. Highly intelligent, vastly knowledgeable and committed to excellence in client service, he engenders unshakeable trust.’
The 2020 rankings are available via the IAM website and a full press release is available here.
We would like to extend our thanks to our clients and contacts who provided comments to the researchers at IAM Strategy 300.
In a ruling that took place yesterday (18 August 2020) at the Mannheim Regional Court in Germany, Nokia secured a win against Mercedes-Benz carmaker Daimler following a long-running IP dispute over use of Nokia’s patented 4G technologies in its cars. Of the 10 infringement cases filed by Nokia against Daimler, this SEP case (2 O 34/19) relates to connected car technology (European patent EP2981103B1).
Representatives for Daimler disputed the requirement to obtain a licence themselves, as they considered that the suppliers (i.e. Continental) of the connectivity modules, that made use of the relevant patented technology, should obtain the licence, rather than the car maker itself.
The Mannheim court decision states that, aside from providing information and paying damages, Daimler now must stop using and selling the connectivity modules which utilise Nokia’s technology. The cost for Nokia to obtain an injunction against Daimler is a staggering €7 billion – one of the highest of its kind set by a German patent court. Nokia has not yet confirmed whether it will pay this security deposit, but if it does, the win to would help to strengthen its negotiating position with Daimler (and that of the wider Avanci patent pool members).
Looking at the current situation relating to SEPs in Germany, the Nokia patent (as part of the Avanci licence pool) in the present case between Nokia and Daimler strengthens the position of Avanci against carmakers as well as their suppliers in Germany.
However, carmakers are applying pressure on the German government to restrict the possibility of injunctions in Germany. At present it seems that the German government is willing to amend patent law in the direction the carmakers want, but it is unclear as to which extent. The present ruling, and in particular its effect on Daimler, will be closely monitored by the parties to argue what kind of restriction of injunctions in German patent law are necessary if at all. Daimler has already announced that it does not accept the ruling and will file an appeal, but it is not possible to predict long it will take before a final decision can be made.
