Amazon has been granted a patent for using delivery drones for surveillance. The company has said that this is primarily the customer’s benefit, to survey for damage or anything out of the ordinary to the property. In this article for The Robotics Law Journal, Andrew White, part of Mathys & Squire’s expert IT & software team, provides his expert commentary.

Although it is still unclear as to whether Amazon will follow through with developing this technology in the immediate future, it is likely to raise eyebrows, particularly with privacy and security concerns, but also with competitors likely to want to move in a similar area and being potentially cut off through Amazon getting this patent first. Andrew White, UK and European Patent Attorney at Mathys & Squire, and David Emm, Researcher in the global research and analysis team at Kaspersky Labs, examine the issues surrounding this patent and the evolution of delivery drone technology.

Andrew White, Mathys & Squire

In general, Amazon’s patent (US10313638) describes how delivery drones (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAVs) may be used to perform secondary tasks, once their primary task of delivering a package has been completed, and providing they still have sufficient resources left. The secondary task may be a surveillance action that may include flying over a house of a different user who has consented to surveillance and gathering surveillance data. The surveillance data may then be analysed to determine if there is a ‘surveillance event’ – which may include a garage door being left open, a broken window, a detection of graffiti or a fire. An alert may be sent to the user of a service provider if a surveillance event has been detected.

Importantly, the patent focuses on how to deal with surveillance data from users who have not consented to surveillance, and the claims (and thereby the scope of protection afforded) of the patent are directed towards how the surveillance data is processed so as not to include image data from someone who has not consented – a clipped surveillance image is created that obscures or removes image data from an unauthorised area, i.e. an area that has not consented to surveillance.

So, in some ways the patent could actually be good news for those concerned about privacy – it shows how Amazon is keen not to obtain surveillance data from those who haven’t subscribed.

Notably, Amazon had to limit the scope of protection obtained (i.e. limit the claim scope) in light of an inventive step objection raised by the US Patent Office over US 2016/373699 filed by a company called AeroVironment. Having such objections raised by a patent office is relatively common and is part of the process that most patent attorneys would go through to get a patent granted for their clients. According to its website, AeroVironment specialises in tactical unmanned aircraft systems and tactical missile systems. The AeroVironment document also relates to how to address and limit privacy abuses resulting from commercial and governmental aerial surveillance.

It is important to note that patents are negative rights – meaning that they permit the patent holder to prevent others from doing what their patent covers – but it doesn’t mean that they can automatically do what the patent covers. There may be other stakeholders in this relatively crowded UAV space that also have patents which Amazon may infringe and/or needs to negotiate a licensing deal with in order to do what their patent describes.

It is also important to note that patents can take a while to get granted – this patent was originally filed in 2015 – and in the interim business plans and the commercial realities of the situation can change and
evolve. While it can be fun to speculate on patent filings and what this might mean for future consumer technology, quite often the technology described in a patent never comes to fruition, whether that’s because the commercial strategy has changed in the interim or because it is deemed that there isn’t sufficient commercial interest for such technology to warrant the cost of taking it to market. For an example, see: https://www.wired.com/2013/03/apple-patents-realistically/.

It also appears that Amazon has only sought protection for this invention in the US, and not anywhere else. This may indicate that it doesn’t consider it as important an invention, as typically when applicants consider inventions to be very important, they would cover a number of territories, such as Europe, China, Japan and South Korea, also.

David Emm, Kaspersky Labs

The obvious one from our perspective relates to privacy. The fact that there is this device which has lots of capability – thermal cameras, regular cameras and obviously geolocation and the rest – and is therefore potentially privy to quite a lot of information. The question is then: ‘what happens with the information?’

Clearly, Amazon is talking about ring-fencing it so that it excludes what’s in the peripheral vision of the drone, so if you’re looking at my property, you’re not necessarily gathering information on the property next door. Which is fair enough but if a company has the ability to do something there’s always the risk that they might utilise that. I’m thinking specifically of digital assistants where initially, for example with Amazon Echo or Microsoft’s Cortana, they stated that just waited for the wake up command before it would record any information but then it turns out that actually sometimes they’re more alert than that, staying alert to whether someone calls out the name. And then it goes even further than that and turns out that they’re just recording huge chunks of information that’s being analysed. They’re saying that this is just to make the things smarter, make it more effective, sharpen up its ability to hear what’s being said, but what people worry about is when you’re at home you’re very unguarded and it might be privy to lots of personal information.

If we try to translate that across to something like the drone while Amazon – or indeed any other company doing this – might say, “We’re going to be very selective about what we have,” there’s always the worry of whether people will know what’s being collected, will they be informed? Will you be open about how that information is stored and how you might use it? And also about sharing it with other third parties – maybe other companies but also law enforcement agencies. There could be a good side to that; if it’s hooked into law enforcement and they’re able to alert them that something bad is going on at the property. We’re increasingly surrounded by smart devices which are very capable of collectively building up a very detailed picture of the lives we lead, where we go, what we do how we do it, what we’re interested in, what we like buying, and this is one more area where it’s possible to collect information. So the privacy issue is probably the one that will be foremost in a lot of people’s minds.

Whether it’s Alexa, or whether it’s a drone or any other technology, my own feeling on this is that companies that use these sorts of devices ought to be explicit about how it’s operating and what information it’s collecting and also giving people the opportunity to opt out of that. I might want a digital assistant or a delivery drone but actually I might want to say to them, “Please don’t collect any information from me”. The fact that you may have to prod and poke or that you find out further down the line that they’ve been collecting it and you didn’t know it is quite alarming.

It’s an all-or-nothing thing. If you want it, you accept the conditions, even if you don’t want all the conditions. It becomes a bit of a blunt instrument. People don’t read Ts&Cs or end user licence agreements and we know, even on mobile devices where it’s perhaps more straightforward when an app has permissions listed on there, we still tend to not check that out. We want the functionality that it brings and we just click through. That therefore gives people scope to hide between the cracks. We wouldn’t do it if we were buying a house. We wouldn’t necessarily read the information ourselves but we pay someone else to go through it carefully for us.

I see no reason why companies shouldn’t be open about what they’re doing with data. It’s interesting because if we look at some services online, such as Google, where you get a browser or an email address and you don’t pay for it. There’s a sense in which you can argue that maybe the data that they gather is the price that you’re paying for the free use of that service but in the case of something like a digital assistant or in the case of a service you would be paying for with Amazon to monitor your home’s safety, you would be paying extra for that service or for the product, so there’s less scope there to argue that you can’t complain about the data gathering because you’re getting a free service, because you’re paying in cold hard cash.

This article was published in the July/August edition of The Robotics Law Journal and the online version can be read here.

Gene therapy, i.e. the delivery of DNA or RNA into cells to treat disease, is at the cutting edge of medical research, and often makes the headlines. More importantly, recent developments have demonstrated the potential clinical impact that gene therapy can have in treating rare inherited diseases, as well as potentially some of the world’s most prevalent conditions. In this article for IBI (International Biopharmaceutical Industry) Journal, Mathys & Squire partner Anna Gregson explains more.

In April 2019, gene therapy made global news when the results of a Phase I/II safety and efficacy trial using gene therapy to treat infants diagnosed with X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID-X1) were published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The study provides the latest evidence of the potential for using gene therapy in modern medicine.

SCID-X1 is an inherited disorder of the immune system which results in major abnormalities in white blood cell production and function, including devastatingly low levels of T cells and natural killer (NK) cells, together with non-functional B cells. The condition was brought to the attention of the world in the 1970s with photos of David Vetter, who, in the absence of a suitable bone marrow donor (the only effective treatment at the time), had to be kept in a sterile isolation chamber and later became known as the ‘Bubble Boy’.

SCID-X1 is caused by mutations in the IL2RG gene, which encodes the common gamma chain, an essential component of a number of cytokine receptors which control the development and function of T cells, B cells and NK cells. In the present study, self-inactivating, HIV-1 derived viral vectors, containing IL2RG cDNA under the control of an EF1α promoter, were used to transduce blood stem cells (CD34+ cells derived from patient harvested bone marrow). The transduced cells were then infused into each of the patients following treatment to facilitate reconstitution.

The resulting effects on the patients’ immune systems were striking. Seven of the eight patients on the trial displayed normal levels of the various T cell populations within two to four months following infusion. NK cell populations were also normalised in many of these patients. Furthermore, protective antibody responses against various infectious diseases were shown in a sub-cohort of patients who received vaccination following gene therapy, indicating the presence of functional B cells.

This is a significant success, especially compared to the earlier attempts at treating SCID-X1 patients with gene therapy, which were reported to be associated with the development of leukaemia in some patients, or which failed to restore certain populations of immune cells in others (meaning a lifetime of immunoglobulin injections).

Although the authors of this study are careful to remind us that long-term follow-up will be needed in order to assess the durability and long-term safety of this treatment regime, the study gives an indication of how far things have progressed in the gene therapy sector.

Indeed, whilst gene therapy is generally considered to have been a very recent development, fundamental research in this sector goes back over half a century, with early proof of concept experiments demonstrating the replacement of defective DNA in cells using viruses. Some of the earliest gene therapy trials date back to the 1990s, and interestingly, these too were aimed at the treatment of a form of SCID (albeit ADA-deficient SCID which results from a mutation in the gene encoding adenosine deaminase). ADA-deficient SCID and SCID-X1 are, of course, exemplary targets for gene therapy, given they result from mutations in a single gene.

The present study comes at a time of significant activity in the gene therapy world. Research into gene therapies continues apace. In early May 2019, a new gene editing company, Verve Therapeutics, co-founded by Harvard academic Sekar Kathiresan, was launched. The aim was to develop a treatment to significantly reduce the risk of heart attacks, the world’s leading cause of death, with a single injection. The therapy uses nanolipids to target the enzyme PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9), which is involved in the production of so-called ‘bad cholesterol’, (also known as low-density lipoprotein).

The therapy was designed to shut down one of the two copies of the PCSK9 gene in a patient, mimicking a mutation which occurs in a subset of the population who have naturally low cholesterol and a reduced risk of heart attacks. The initial trial will be conducted in patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HoFH), who have statin-resistant high cholesterol levels. If successful, the treatment could be used more widely to significantly reduce the occurrence of heart attacks and associated fatalities.

Such advances are not restricted to the laboratory, with increasing numbers of potential gene therapies entering clinical trials and then into the clinic. In a recent statement, the FDA announced that it expects to approve between 10 and 20 new cell and gene therapy products per year from 2025 onwards, resulting from an anticipated 200 investigational new drug (IND) applications per year from 2020 onwards.

This increase in activity is said to reflect ‘a turning point in the development of these technologies and their application to human health’, which has been driven, in part, through the adoption of adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors for the delivery of gene therapy agents. The FDA has likened this increase in activity to that seen in the late 1990s with antibody therapies, following the development of platforms for producing fully human monoclonal antibodies.

At the end of 2017, the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine reported that there were 946 clinical trials underway investigating gene and cell therapy products, with new trials constantly being announced. In February 2019, for example, Gyroscope Therapeutics successfully administered the first dose in a clinical trial which investigated the safety and efficacy of their gene therapy candidate for the treatment of dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD), one of the leading causes of blindness in the world. Although traditionally gene therapy has been seen solely as a potential modality for the treatment of monogenic disorders, should this investigation be successful, it could widen our view of the applicability of gene therapies (given that dry-AMD is a multifactorial disease).

As shown by the data generated from the SCID-X1 patient trials discussed above, these advanced therapeutic modalities are showing success in the clinic. Novartis’ Luxturna, an AAV vector delivering a functional copy of the RPE65 gene to cells of the retina, has now been approved for the treatment of inherited retinal dystrophy in both the US and Europe, and follows in the footsteps of Strimvelis (an approved gene therapy for the treatment of ADA deficient-SCID).

With this flurry of successes has come (renewed) interest in gene therapy, highlighted by recent multi-billion dollar acquisitions by big pharma companies. For example, AveXis Inc. (who developed Zolgensma, a spinal muscular atrophy treatment candidate) was acquired by Novartis in 2018 for $8.7 billion. More recently, Roche paid $4.8 billion for Spark Therapeutics and its haemophilia treatment candidates.

This is good news for SMEs too, of which there are many who are building on the foundational research of the last few years to develop new and exciting gene and cell therapy products. The United Kingdom in particular is evolving into one of the leading places for the development of gene- and cell-based therapies. A world-leading combination of academics, large pharma, manufacturing facilities, contract research organisations, innovation agencies and pool of active investors, together with dedicated and co-ordinated advanced therapeutics research centres has provided the perfect ecosystem for these emerging companies to flourish.

Whilst the hive of activity should encourage researchers and innovators working in the gene therapy sector, the challenges facing this sector should be kept in mind. Even positive clinical trial results and regulatory approval will not ensure success, as exemplified by the withdrawal of Glybera, which became the first gene therapy product to be approved in Europe in 2012. Eye-watering price tags (Glybera reportedly cost €1 million per treatment), small patient populations, and complex regulatory exercises are just a few of the challenges facing the industry.

There appears to be consensus in the industry that innovation in commercial-scale manufacturing methods will be key in order to bring costs down and facilitate availability of these often life-changing therapeutics to patients. The production of AAVs has, to date, been one of the key hurdles to overcome. Unlike other viruses, AAV requires an additional ‘helper’ virus in order to allow them to replicate in cells. Whilst methods have been developed to eliminate the need for these helper viruses, through the generation of producer cell lines expressing key helper virus genes, empty vectors (i.e. AAV particles not containing the gene therapy construct) is still a major issue requiring expensive and time-consuming purification methods in order to produce the required titres. Importantly, SMEs developing  and trialling gene therapy products should always look to the future to ensure that their methods/processes are scalable when necessary.

As well as the complex manufacturing methods and state-of-the-art facilities required to produce gene therapies (in particular, the viral vectors used to deliver nucleic acid), the costs of these agents also reflect the lengthy and expensive journey of a gene therapy from the bench to bedside. Companies in this sector should carefully consider and protect their innovations to ensure their efforts are not only safeguarded, but also recompensed.

Whilst patent protection of the gene therapy products themselves (i.e. vectors, nucleic acids, formulations, etc.) is apparent, companies should also bear in mind innovations in their manufacturing processes and the like. As indicated above, manufacturing innovations are likely to be key to the success of gene therapy; protection of these aspects can be a useful strategy to maintain exclusivity (even beyond the patent life of the product) and generate additional income through licensing. Of course, in order to obtain a patent, one must adequately disclose the innovation in the patent application, and as such, timing is likely to be crucial.

The gene therapy sector faces numerous challenges, not least from a regulatory, safety and, indeed, ethical perspective. Despite this, as the SCID-X1 study has shown, gene therapy represents one of the most powerful treatment modalities available to date, which, in many cases, can provide life-changing results. A concerted effort from those in academia, industry and policy will be required to continue this success, making safe and effective gene therapies available to wider patient populations. The current excitement around this technology is likely to attract a flurry of new players to the market and, as such, intellectual property will be a vital foothold for those wishing to establish their position in this field.

Indeed, the recent UK ATMP Investor Day (co-sponsored by Mathys & Squire) gave 11 such companies the opportunity to pitch to life sciences investors. Mathys & Squire Partner, Anna Gregson, who spoke at the event and has extensive expertise in this technical field, noted: “The UK has an incredible ecosystem for cell and gene therapy research – with supporting organisations such as the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult, an active investment community and a thriving research community. All these factors together enable the UK to produce world-class cell and gene therapies; as evidenced by the calibre of the SMEs who pitched at the UK ATMP Investor Day. It is a really exciting time to be involved in cell and gene therapy research, and I am thrilled to play a part in supporting SMEs in this space!”

This article was originally published in the Summer 2019 edition of IBI Journal.

The European Patent Office (EPO) has issued updates for two cases being considered by the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA); G 2/19 and G 1/18.

In the Autumn of 2017, the EPO’s Boards of Appeal moved from their location in central Munich to Haar, a suburb near to Munich but which is a separate municipality. In G 2/19, the EBA was, in essence, asked to decide whether holding oral proceedings in Haar was compliant with the EPC. The board has now said yes, it is compliant.

The decision in G 2/19 was good news for G 1/18, which was heard in Haar. This case relates to a point of law referred to the EBA by the President of the EPO, namely whether an appeal filed outside the two-month time limit of Article 108 EPC is to be deemed as ‘not filed’ or as ‘inadmissible’ – this determines whether or not the appeal fee (currently €2,255) can be reimbursed. The EBA has now issued an opinion that a failure to meet the two-month deadline of Article 108 EPC means that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed, and that an appeal fee paid under those circumstances should be reimbursed by the EPO.

For further information about these recent cases, or for any other general queries about EPO prosecution, opposition and appeal work, please get in touch with the Mathys & Squire team.

This Saturday, 20 July 2019, marks 50 years since Neil Armstrong first stepped on the moon, and inspired millions around the world to enter careers in science and engineering.

In the intervening years, we have seen a shift in innovation in the space sector from previously state-owned activities to now private and commercial activities, operated by the likes of SpaceX, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic.  As a consequence, the protection of intellectual property in the space sector is rapidly increasing.

Blue Origin LLC, for example, have a number of patents granted to innovations ranging from multiple stage rocket systems and new composite structures for aerospace vehicles, to methods for compensating for wind prior to engaging airborne propulsion devices for enabling reusable launch vehicles to land.

Figure 1 U.S. Patent 8678321, “Sea landing of space launch vehicles and associated systems and methods”

Why protect innovations that are going to be used in space?

Because intellectual property (IP) rights are territorial rights, at first sight, the thought of protecting inventions that are going to be used in space may seem counter-intuitive.

However, the US Patent Act (35 U.S.C.§ 105) states that any invention made, used or sold in outer space onboard a spacecraft that is under the jurisdiction or control of the USA is considered to be made, used or sold on US territory.  Therefore US patents may indeed cover activities in outer space.

While many other countries don’t have similar provisions written into law, there are reasons those active in the space sector should look to cover territories other than just the US.  For example, before a satellite or innovation is actually in space, it is typically designed and made somewhere on Earth.  Patent rights can therefore cover those activities that take place on Earth.

However, careful thought needs to be given as to how such patents are drafted and where they are filed – what activities are you specifically looking to cover?  If the patent is to be directed to a physical object – e.g. a rocket or engine – then obtaining protection in territories where the object is designed, made and likely to be launched from (both by you and a competitor) seems prudent.  But what if the patent is to be directed towards a new method – such as a new way a satellite may communicate with objects on Earth?  In such cases the patent claims need to be carefully drafted to capture only the activities that are performed on Earth within their scope – otherwise there may be a case of “divided infringement” where the patent is never actually infringed because not all steps of the claimed method are performed in the territory which the patent covers.

The space sector in the UK is growing fast

A recent report from the House of Commons Committee on Exiting the European Union noted that the UK space sector has trebled in size in real terms since 2000 and captures between 6.3 and 7.7 % of the global market, with a turnover in 2014/15 of £13.7 billion.  This figure looks set to grow.

The UK is a world leader in the development of small- and micro-satellites, and the UK Government has committed to enabling low-cost space launch from the UK by 2021, with the view to developing commercial spaceports in the UK.  The protection of the intellectual property in such small- and microsatellites is as important as it is for intellectual property in any sector.  If such small- and microsatellites are to be launched in the UK, then patents covering the UK will cover the making, importing or use of any such satellites in the UK, which is particularly relevant if they are to be launched from the UK.

There are therefore good reasons why those active in the space sector should consider obtaining patent protection as part of a wider overall IP strategy that acts to help preserve their R&D investment and helps them to achieve their long-term commercial goals.

The team here at Mathys & Squire has specialist expertise in protecting IP in the aerospace sector and already work with a number of businesses active in this thriving industry.  If you are looking to protect the innovations in your business, please get in touch with us today.

The extended version of this article has been published by Managing Intellectual Property – available here (login required).

We are delighted to share the new Mathys & Squire logo and brand.

Since Mathys & Squire was founded in 1910, the firm has grown and changed shape in many ways. From the move of our London office in 2014 from Holborn to the iconic The Shard, the acquisition of Coller IP in 2018, various new offices opening around the UK, to a brand-new office in Munich on 1 July 2019. We thought it was time to reflect our modern, innovative approach by refreshing and modernising our brand.

An important challenge in refreshing our logo was to meet the requirements of today’s ever-changing world; after over a century in the marketplace, Mathys & Squire’s new logo now represents a full-service firm with well-established IP specialists, leading the field with insight, innovation and quality.

Our constant strive for excellence is instilled in everyone who works in the firm and our unrelenting focus on delivering the best client service in the industry is what keeps pushing us forward.

To find out more about Mathys & Squire, click here.

Before:

After:

Mathys & Squire has featured in the Financial Times’ report of ‘Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms 2019‘.

2,727 clients and peers participated in the survey, with several thousand recommendations being made to recognise Europe’s leading firms for patent prosecution and patent strategy consultation services.

Patent law firms could be recommended both in general and for specific categories that covered a range of specialist services. Mathys & Squire is delighted to announce that it has been recommended in the following sectors:

• Biotechnology & Food
• Chemistry & Pharmaceuticals
• Electrical Engineering

A full copy of the report can be accessed via the Financial Times website – here.

In this article for Managing Intellectual Property, Mathys & Squire Associate Alex Robinson provides expert commentary on whether the revised rules of procedure at the EPO’s Boards of Appeal are likely to improve efficiency.

Revised rules of procedure at the EPO’s Boards of Appeal and their focus on avoiding late amendments and submissions could see parties ‘front-load’ their arguments at an earlier stage, causing a headache for first instance divisions, lawyers say.

The revised rules were adopted after the latest meeting of the EPO’s oversight body, the Administrative Council (AC), at the end of June.

Among the changes are stricter measures for dealing with submissions made during an appeal and a tweaking of the rules on when cases can be remitted back to the decision of first instance.

The revised rules, intended to combat the EPO’s backlog, will come into force in January next year. Alex Robinson, patent attorney at Mathys & Squire in London, says the tightening up of amendments at the appeal stage could result in a “precautionary front-loading” of requests, amendments and supporting evidence into first instance proceedings.

Article 12 of the revised rules clarifies that any amendment to a party’s appeal case after it has filed its initial grounds of appeal will be “subject to the party’s justification and may be admitted only at the discretion of the board.”

Robinson says parties may take a precautionary approach in light of this and try to account for “every possible permutation of issues in documents filed in first instance proceedings.”

This, he says, would allow parties to keep the opportunity to address every possible point should the need arise during a subsequent appeal. He notes, however, that this could increase the workload of the first instance divisions.

Robinson says the boards were already quite strict on this, but that “by putting it into the black letter of the rules,” the EPO has taken away some of the discretion that the boards theoretically have under the current rules.

The new rules will not apply to cases where the grounds of appeal are filed before the start of 2020, or where a summons to oral proceedings has already been issued by then.

Robinson says this may prompt “a flurry of activity” in the next six months as attorneys whose cases would otherwise be subject to the new rules try and get in as many arguments and amendments as they can now, so as not to fall foul of any stringency in the revised rules.

Patent ping pong

A major reason behind the rule changes – approved during the AC meeting of June 26 to 27 – is to avoid first instance decisions being appealed and patents then entering a ‘ping-pong scenario’ between the first instance and appeal stages, adding to the office’s overall backlog.

Article 11 of the revised rules now says the board shall not remit a case unless ‘special reasons present themselves for doing so’.

Previously this part of the rules stated that the board shall remit a case to the department of first instance if fundamental deficiencies are apparent in the first instance proceedings, ‘unless special reasons present themselves for doing otherwise’.

Robinson notes that if a patentee appeals against a first instance decision, the boards will quite often send a case back, but that the new rules clarify that this will only happen if special procedural reasons are highlighted.

Robinson says: “The backlog is notorious and it’s a laudable objective to try and combat this. But some of the rules could be seen as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”

The EPO’s backlog is regularly bemoaned. However, critics have previously told Managing IP that the office’s latest strategic plan shows there is too much focus on trying to grant patents quickly rather than ensuring they are of sufficient quality.

The revised rules, although positive in limiting the scope for reassessment, could muddle things further by overloading first instance divisions with claims that may not be relevant at the time.

This article was first published in Managing Intellectual Property – click here to read the full piece via their website (login required).

All roads lead to Rome, all Silk Roads lead to China. With the latest, most ambitious Chinese initiative dawning upon us, it is essential for IP right holders to factor in the changes and challenges that come along with the One Belt One Road (OBOR) strategy. 

What is the OBOR?

The OBOR is a Chinese strategy which was initiated in 2013. Its aim is to forge closer economic ties by linking Europe and Asia through an improved transport infrastructure, consisting mainly of new rail routes, called ‘belts’, and new maritime routes, confusingly called ‘roads’.

The strategy has gained popularity rapidly, with over 80 countries adhering to the overall initiative since 2013.

The threat

One of the ‘belts’ connects China with Europe, with trains arriving in Paris and London and one of the main ‘roads’ will start in China and reach Italy through the Suez Canal, connecting with ports in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Seychelles and Africa on the way.

We are, therefore, witnessing the development of a fast transport system that joins together new production countries in Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Africa, with western countries of destination. Add in the lower costs of production, the increasing number of free-trade zones and the less stringent customs controls along the OBOR routes and you’ve got yourself a very favourable environment for counterfeiting and organised crime activities.

The maritime routes will remain cheaper and thus preferred by counterfeiters in some instances, while the new railways provide for much faster transport, which could serve as a more appropriate method of ferrying a wide range of ‘limited life’ goods, such as pharmaceuticals and foodstuffs.

UK, EU and the OBOR

The European Commission has stated that the EU will be the final destination for at least one-third of Chinese exports, with an estimated value in excess of $600 billion per year. By 2020, it is suggested that this could reach $1 trillion.

With the UK set to leave the EU, right holders are concerned that due to a potential bilateral trade deal with China, the UK will become the destination for huge volumes of counterfeit goods, but that the UK will not deploy the corresponding levels of additional customs control. Moreover, there are concerns that post-Brexit, the cooperation between EU and UK customs could suffer, with the EU limiting access to its information and intelligence.

The solution?

In light of all this, both EU and UK right holders call for long term, policy preparation for the development of the OBOR strategy. They urge the West to take the initiative and improve the customs control capacity at ports, free zones and rail stops, and lobby for better control and expertise in the Southeast Asian, Central Asian and Eastern European countries.

As for the relations between the UK and the EU, right holders believe it vital that the two parties take joint responsibility and work together to ensure safety and security, even after Brexit concludes. This will certainly be a work in progress and we will be sure to keep you updated as things progress.

IP rights are valuable business assets and can be an important source of financing.

Virtually everything your business creates, that sets it apart from your competitors, is likely to attract some form of intellectual property (IP). It is, therefore, important to understand the significance of IP to your business and how you go about protecting it.

Registered rights such as patents, trade marks and Registered Designs are reasonably widely familiar, but many businesses are unaware of their less tangible, unregistered IP rights, that exist automatically when something is created, and require no registration procedure. These could, in fact, be hugely valuable assets in their own right. Examples include copyright, unregistered design rights, database rights, semiconductor topography rights, know-how, confidential information and trade secrets. It is well known, for example, that the Coca Cola recipe is one of the most valuable trade secrets in the world, and continues to set them apart from their competitors.

Here are some top tips on how to protect your business’ IP:

Identify what IP your business has (or could have)

IP cannot add value or help to grow your business if you don’t know it’s there. It doesn’t just help to protect the things that make your business unique, but can also help you to raise crucial funds in order to grow your business.

Understand the unregistered IP rights that already exist within your business

It is rare for a business to have no IP at all, so even if you don’t have any registrable IP, you may have unregistered rights which can be just as valuable.

Know when to keep your ideas confidential and when it is safe to share them

Whether it’s a trade secret or a patentable invention, confidentiality can be a crucial part of your IP strategy.

Identify registrable IP to best protect the key USPs of your business

Strategic use of registered IP, such as patents, designs and trade marks, can protect your USPs to give you the competitive advantage to grow your business or attract investment.

Create an IP strategy to help secure funding 

Whether you need to borrow against the value of your IP, secure grant funding or attract investment, the right IP strategy can help, whereas a weak or non-existent IP strategy can be detrimental.

Understand the financing options available to you

Investment (whether private equity, angel, grant-based or even crowdfunding) is not the only way to finance your business for growth. Sometimes, a more attractive, and potentially quicker, option is to simply borrow the money you need to implement your growth strategy.

There are a number of ways for a small business to borrow money to fund their growth, such as these peer-to-peer websites: Funding Circle, RateSetter and Zopa.

However, not all businesses are sufficiently ‘creditworthy’ to consider what is essentially an unsecured loan, and this is where your IP could really help. IP rights are not only valuable business assets, but they can also be an important source of financing, because an ever-increasing number of lending institutions are extending their businesses to provide loans on the basis of IP, and some banks use IP assets as a credit enhancer, so knowledge and understanding of all of your IP rights could be crucial.

The management and protection of your IP should be seen as an ongoing discipline that is aligned with, and an integral part of, your business planning and strategy. Unless assets are protected, why would a third party invest if there is nothing to stop rivals from copying ideas and innovation?

This article was first published in Business Game Changer magazine in July 2019.