LICENSING EXECUTIVES SOCIETY

Britain and Ireland

NEWS EXCHANGE
Issue 75: October - December 2000

(Return to News page)

It was recently reported that a US biotechnology company plans to employ genetic engineering techniques to create a strain of chickens with extra large breasts (to yield more meat). The firm, AviGenics of Athens, Georgia, has also come up with a novel method of monitoring and regulating proliferation of its genetically modified (GM) birds once they are sold on to breeders.

Research into avian transgenesis - a technique involving the insertion of foreign genes into the DNA of birds in such a way that the genes are passed down to the birds' offspring - has thus far focused mainly on the use of birds as 'bioreactors'. By adding specific human genes into the DNA of chickens, companies such as AviGenics hope to be able to turn the poultry into living drugs factories. Human therapeutic proteins produced within transgenic chickens would be recovered from the whites of eggs laid by these specially modified birds. Drugs produced in this manner could be used to treat a wide range of human disorders.

However, in addition to the established 'farmaceutical' approach, AviGenics also plans to harness transgenic technology to develop poultry with improved agronomic traits. Through genetic modification, it should be possible to produce chickens with improved disease resistance, faster growth rates and, of course, bigger breasts.

The GM birds would obviously be extremely attractive to poultry breeders and, in order to control their proliferation and ensure that only licensed breeders would be able to use these valuable chickens, AviGenics is developing a novel 'genetic encryption' method. A unique sequence of DNA would be engineered and inserted into the chicken genome, thereby indelibly marking the birds as originating from AviGenics. Since the unique sequence would be passed down to any offspring of the GM chickens, it would also mark the birds of future generations. This would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for unlicensed breeders to rear the GM fowl undetected.

It remains to be seen how the public will react to the appearance of GM meat on the supermarket shelves. Given the continuing adverse publicity surrounding GM crops, it seems unlikely that GM poultry products will escape the protests.

Dr. Michael Douglas
Wilson Gunn M'Caw (Biosciences Unit)

President's Diary

The Toronto Conference and LESI - Your Society - are you making the most of your membership?

I have just returned from the excellent LES US/Canada International Meeting in Toronto, which, with the Educational add-on meetings on 'Professional Development' on Sunday and Thursday and the International Delegates meeting on Friday and Saturday made for a strenuous week of activity.

The LES US/Canada conference is always well attended, providing many opportunities for networking within the USA and Canada, and this year approximately 1400 delegates registered.

The highlight of the conference was the presentation by Timothy Hoelter - Vice President, Harley Davidson, illustrating how a brand can be used to turn round the fortunes of a company.

Stephen Powell's report on the Professional Development Modules appears on page 6 of this newsletter.

The workshops are always extremely interesting but with over 80 workshops to choose from in 15 parallel sessions it was difficult to decide which to attend. There was certainly plenty of choice for everyone!

Healthcare, Biotech and e-commerce were prominent. I attended a particularly interesting e-Commerce workshop concerned with 'The Evaluation of Internet Assets'. This is a difficult problem, which will have to be addressed with increasing frequency.

The International Delegates Meeting held on Friday and Saturday covered a great variety of issues. The principal role of LESI is to act as an umbrella organisation controlling the professional status to which each national body should adhere. One of its other important functions is to assist members in each technology discipline. It has a large number of 'Industry Committees' that meet to discuss a variety of topics of particular relevance. It also aims to arrange, or to help arrange, workshops at all levels both Nationally and Internationally. This year two new committees, University/Research and Automobile have been formed to address specific issues in those areas.

Although the committee meetings take place during the International Delegates Conference, all members are invited to attend. It is realised that this may not be practicable for everyone, as it would mean spending another two days at the conference. However, most of the committees' correspondence is now sent by e-mail and the committee reports will shortly be available on level 3 of the LESI web site. I encourage you to read the reports and to seriously consider becoming a member of a committee in an area of your own particular interest. You will find it an interesting and valuable experience.

Details of the LESI committees and their members may be found in the LESI Annual Directory.

At Toronto we formally welcomed Singapore as a member country of LESI and discussions with India are proceeding with a view to membership in the near future.

LES Britain & Ireland are now arranging meetings for the Autumn and Spring, in London and the regions. I look forward to meeting you at one or more of these events.

Chris Goodman
President LES Britain & Ireland

Top

Licence Royalty Audits - Why do Licensors need to consider them?

Companies, Universities, Research organizations and individuals spend substantial sums of money researching, developing and commercialising technologies that are either acquired or developed internally. Technologies include Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks, know how, trade secrets and franchise rights. These represent a substantial investment in, what is now recognised internationally as Intellectual Capital.

There are a number of forms of commercialisation of such capital and one of them is by way of licensing for a return of royalties and other payments. This article simply raises the question 'as a recipient of royalties, are you comfortable that you are receiving all royalties due to you?'

The majority of licencees do not pay the correct amount of royalties. On average, royalty underpayments can range from between 5% and 10% of their normal royalty obligation. These underpayments are usually only highlighted after a detailed forensic licence audit which takes place at the licencee site. The reasons for underpayments are set out in more detail below.

The current situation:
In the past, few entities have questioned the accuracy of royalty returns made to them by licencees. The concept of questioning one's 'partner' has not found favour internally. In addition, we have found that there is some inertia in carrying out audits, due to the perceived lack of financial benefit to an organisation. This is however changing; increasingly, given greater awareness of the financial benefits to the bottom line, licensors are taking the issue of accurate royalty reporting seriously.

Earnings accruing as a consequence of errors from an audit can be of benefit to the licensor in two ways:

• A lump sum payment for back royalties underpaid
• Increased royalties received during the remaining licence life as a result of erroneous payment calculations in the past

• Maintaining an effective internal control procedure which is subject to scrutiny
• Maintaining a commercial relationship with your licencee; licencees will be in no doubt of your willingness to pursue your audit rights

Why are errors made in calculating royalties?
The majority of underpayments are made as a consequence of inadvertent error. In the vast majority of cases, financial advisors, who have little knowledge of IPR, prepare royalty calculations. In a number of cases licencees have proactively endeavoured to minimise the royalty cost using techniques that are to their own advantage. Whilst some creative accounting techniques have merit, the calculations may neither reflect the intention of the parties nor what is set out in the licence agreement. The consequences of either type of error may well be a significant loss of income for the licensor.

Two examples of areas where a number of errors occur are:

• in establishing the product base (and relative value) that is ultimately subject to royalty
• in adjusting for the impacts of transfer pricing between multinationals in the same group

What are the costs involved in undertaking an audit?
Firms specialising in this area of work generally charge a fixed hourly rate for the assignment. However, there are firms that will work on such assignments on a contingent fee basis or on a hybrid of fixed and contingent rates. In such a scenario, a licensor has the comfort of working with a fixed cost of reduced hourly rates and a contingent fee only if the audit results in income generation. The rates charged will also vary territorially.

Which firms specialise in royalty auditing?
Most significant accounting firms are able to assist in such areas of work. However, in recent years the five significant UK accounting firms have set up dedicated departments to address the whole issue of providing value for managing Intellectual Capital.

Beyond the large firms, a number of smaller firms, principally focused on royalty auditing, have been established to meet the needs of this specialised area.

An effective audit strategy
Part of the process should include a detailed input from relevant financial experts when negotiating finance and audit clauses in the agreement in the first instance.

All licensors receiving significant royalty income need to consider an effective and proactive licence audit strategy as part of their overall financial control process.

Such strategy encompassing a review and control process needs to be substantial in considering objectives, means, costs and benefits. As with any 'corporate' objective which ensures the maximisation of value within an entity, time and effort needs to be devoted to the subject; the ends, in this case, usually do justify the means.

Raja Sengupta
ShaSens, Chartered Accountants, London
Tel: 0208 863 6697
Fax: 0208 863 6294

The Irish Angle on Design
Implementation in Ireland of the EU Directive on the Legal Protection of Designs

Directive 98/71/EC on the Legal Protection of Designs is one arm of the EU strategy on completing the internal market in the area of designs, the other arm being the proposed Regulation on the Community Design, which will create a unitary Community Design Right.

This Directive has had a difficult passage. It was first proposed in 1993 and despite initial enthusiasm it quickly ran into political difficulties. The initial position of the Commission was that registration should only be available for those designs which are significantly different from designs already applied to products available on the market inside or outside the EU. Since agreement could not be reached, the matter went into the conciliation process and the Directive was finally adopted on 13 October 1998 and entered into force on 17 November 1998.

Member States have been given a three year period for its implementation, expiring on 28 October 2001 (Article 19) and may do so by primary legislation, regulation or otherwise. The recitals to the Directive state that a full-scale approximation of the design laws of the Member States is not necessary. What is required is harmonisation in those areas which most directly affect the functioning of the internal market. Provisions on sanctions, remedies and enforcement remain matters for the Member States, as do the procedural provisions concerning registration, renewal and invalidity and the effects of invalidity.

In Ireland, it was decided to implement the Directive by primary legislation. It was considered desirable since current Irish Design law, dating from 1927, is in need of modernisation. As a result, a new Design Bill was published this summer.

Changes Required to Irish law
The terms of the Directive necessitate certain key changes in domestic Irish law:

1. the meaning attributed to 'design',
2. the criteria for registrability and their meaning,
3. the introduction of a 'must fit' exclusion from registrability,
4. introduction of a grace period and
5. an extension of the period of exclusivity available.

New Definition of 'Design'
One of the principle motivations behind the introduction of the Directive was to provide a unitary definition of 'design' throughout the EU. Article 1 (Section 2(1)) provides that:

"'Design' means the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation. A 'Product' is defined as any industrial or handicraft item, including inter alia parts intended to be assembled into a complex product, packaging, get-up, graphic symbols and typographic typefaces, but excluding computer programs."

A complex product is one having multiple components, which can be replaced permitting disassembly and reassembly of the product, typically items such as cars.

These definitions introduce certain new concepts to Irish law. The present Irish requirement that to be registrable, a design must have 'eye appeal or aesthetic character' is missing from the new definition. Also missing is any requirement for there to be 'industrial applicability'. The product may in future merely be the carrier for the design, it being the 'design' per se which is registrable. Thus, a particular design may be developed for application to a lamppost, yet the same design as applied to a pencil may equally be protected by the registration. Likewise, a fixed building, which formerly was not registrable since it lacked industrial applicability, will arguably not be excluded from registration in future. This is sure to lead to difficulties for practitioners into the future.

Section 24 of the Bill provides that a design shall be classified, and Section 40 provides that the Patents Office shall provide details on registered designs on request accompanied by information to enable the Controller to identify the design. The existence of a registration and the class in which it is registered may be found in this way. No inspection will be possible until after registration

The design features, which may ground registrability, are widened and extended by the Directive and the Bill beyond those currently available. Note that the presence of the words 'in particular' in the definition of design, and 'inter alia' in the definition of product, provide scope for a further broadening of the definitions. The stated definition of design will enable designs for colour, texture per se and 'materials of the product itself' to be registered, by contrast to existing Irish law. It is interesting also that in future, packaging designs and get-ups as well as typefaces will explicitly be registrable, as opposed to only arguably so at present.

The design of a part of a complex product will be registrable in its own right, provided that it independently meets the criteria for registrability and provided also that it remains visible during normal use of the complex product. Normal use means use by the end user, excluding maintenance, servicing or repair work.

Ireland has recently enacted new laws in the areas of copyright and e-commerce. These together with the coming new design law are important elements in bringing Irish intellectual property law up to date.

Report by Y. M. McKeown
MacLachlan & Donaldson

European Patent System: All Change?

By Nigel H Jones, Chairman of EC Laws committee

There have been numerous reports over the years of proposed changes to the European patent system. The debate about introducing a single, Community-wide patent began decades ago, but has not (as yet) reached a conclusion. The debate was revived three years ago with the publication by the European Commission of a Green Paper asking whether users of the system were happy with it and, if not, how it should be changed. Three years on, the Commission has now published a draft Regulation, and leading political figures in Europe want the new patent system in place by the end of next year. Separately, the European Patent Office has set up a working party to suggest ways in which the existing system (the national and European Patent Convention routes) can be improved. Their proposals are also coming to a head, and will be debated at an Inter-Governmental Conference in London in October. This article briefly explains what the proposed changes are, discusses how likely they are to be implemented, and the overall timing. It will fulfil part of the role of the EC/Laws Committee, namely educating members on changes, which may affect their day to day licensing practice. We would also like to fulfil our second objective, namely lobbying on your behalf in relation to these changes. We can only do so if you tell us what your views are. So having read the article, please let me have your thoughts.

Background

As most readers will know, the current system in Europe involves obtaining and enforcing patents essentially on a national basis. Although applications can be filed through the European Patent Convention, this results in a bundle of national patents, not a single EU-wide right. They then have to be translated into all languages and enforced on a national basis, all of which is complex, expensive and uncertain.

As Europe moves closer to achieving its objective of a single, harmonised union, there have been increasingly urgent calls for the patent system to follow suit. Industry representatives have been particularly vociferous in supporting change, and these calls now appear to have been heard and acted on by the politicians.

Draft Regulation

The main elements of the draft Regulation are as follows:

• It will be possible to obtain a single, Community-wide patent by filing through the European Patent Office and designating the EU as a single entity. The Regulation will not affect the process up to grant, and post-grant opposition proceedings will also continue to be administered by the EPO under the EPC as now. Conversion between a European and a Community patent will be possible until grant (but not thereafter).
• The new patent will be applied for in one of the three EPC official languages - English, French or German - but there will be no obligation to translate into all other languages on grant. It will however be necessary to translate into the language of any alleged infringer before enforcing the patent against him. If accepted, this proposed change would very significantly reduce the costs of obtaining patent protection in Europe.
• A new specialised intellectual property court will be set up, to be called the Community Intellectual Property Court. It will form part of the European Court of Justice, based in Luxembourg. It will have exclusive competence to deal with actions for revocation, invalidity and infringement as well as declarations of non-infringement, and disputes relating to prior use. It will also be able to grant provisional measures, as well as having exclusive jurisdiction to award damages and other measures at trial. It will have two chambers, one to deal with matters at first instance, the other on appeal.
• National courts will retain competence for other matters relating to patents, including disputes over patent licences.

EPO's Working Party Proposals

The EPO's initiative is, as has been said, separate. It followed an Inter Governmental Conference of the EPC member states in Paris last Summer, and the working party on litigation (set up at the conference). It has come up with proposals very quickly and, in what it calls the European Patent Litigation Protocol, it proposes the following:

• A single court (at first instance and appeal)
• Dealing with infringement and validity together
• The single court should have a local presence in each member state
• The EPLP should specify the main principles of procedural law, with the more detailed rules of procedure and the practical organisation of the proceedings to be laid down in separate court rules

Issues to be addressed

The proposals in both documents are controversial. Many issues will need to be resolved before progress can be made on either proposal. It cannot make sense for both proposals to proceed - otherwise two new court systems will be introduced. So one must prevail over the other. It is unclear which that will be.

Issues that need to be addressed include the following:

• Staffing - Where will appropriately qualified judges come from to staff a single court of first instance?
• Procedure - What procedural rules will apply? For example, will there be UK-style discovery and cross-examination, or will the procedures be more 'continental'?
• Language - Which language(s) will be used before the court?
• Location - How will the 'local presence' requirement be achieved in relation to the EPLP proposal? And in relation to the draft Regulation, will the court be permanently based in Luxembourg as part of the ECJ, or will it be mobile?
• Constitutional - Some countries' constitutions require nationals to be judged in tribunals based in their country. How will these issues be overcome?
• Exhaustion of rights - The Regulation suggests that the patent can be licensed 'in whole or in part for the whole or part of the EU.' How does this affect exhaustion of rights and parallel imports?

None will be easy to resolve, and the suggestion that agreement can be reached and the details sorted out before the end of next year seems optimistic. But what is clear is that if the users of the patent system here do not express their views, they are unlikely to end up with a system that deals with their concerns. So if you have views on these proposals, and would like LES to convey them on your behalf to the Commission and/or the UK government, please let me know.

Scotland Region: Autumn/Spring Plans

Bi>Another busy, informative and entertaining year is planned by LES Scotland Region.

As usual, we are keen to encourage you to invite friends, colleagues and family to our meetings, if they are interested. Attendees from outside Scotland would be particularly welcome. Our 'Burns' Supper with a difference' is very popular event and for those of you living south of the border or over the water it would be a good time to arrange your business trips to Edinburgh! Check your diaries now!

On Tuesday 24thOctober, at ISI Centre, Glasgow and by popular demand we have arranged a sector-specific, afternoon workshop on the recent and proposed changes to Intellectual Property law as it affects the biotechnology sector.

Such changes to the law include the now implemented Biotechnology Directive in Europe, the recent US decisions on methods of doing business and allowable claims for genomic patents, through to the proposed Community Patent.

The impact on business of these changes is huge, rendering patentable what was previously unpatentable and restricting development plans due to increased risk of infringement. Financiers and shareholders are becoming increasingly knowledgeable about these matters. Are you keeping up to date?

The six speakers are experts drawn from the international arena and include a US Patent Attorney who specializes in biotechnology, experts in bio-informatics and representatives from the UK Patent Office. They will refer to changes in the law and recent cases in Europe and North America.

If Bio-tech is your area of interest please register for this important workshop today as numbers are limited and seats will be reserved on a first come first served basis.

On Wednesday, 29th November we have an evening meeting in Edinburgh, ' Health Cheques'. We have two speakers: Tony Bates, IP advisor to the National Health Service and Cathy Rooney, a Commercial Manager with the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service (SNBTS). Tony Bates will talk about the controversial issue of management and commercialisation of IP resulting from the £425M spent by the NHS on R&D each year. Cathy Rooney will present as a case study the recent commercialisation of SNBTS's world-leading research.

February sees our 'Burns' Supper with a Difference' in Edinburgh. This is a very popular event, and, as with last year's supper, not on Burns Night! Our entertaining speakers are brand developers from the drinks industry. The event is always a great evening out and, of course, is an excellent networking opportunity for those involved with IP, technology transfer and commericalisation.

Our evening meeting in Glasgow on Wednesday, May 16th , entitled, 'Super Models' encompasses a workshop and a tour of the Rapid Prototyping Centre (RPC). Dr Ion will show us the many and varied means of generating space models, prototypes and first-stage tooling. The relevance of prototyping in the design process will be explained by a member of the Design & Manufacturing Engineering Management Degree Course. Dr David Gow, Director, Rehabilitation Engineering Services, PMROH, Lothian Primary Care NHS Trust, with his 'bionic arm' will provide an example of the value of accurate models for evaluation and in commercialisation.

For further details of any of our events please contact Monica Flynn at m.flynn@ed.sac.ac.uk

Fundamentals of Intellectual Asset Management
An Education committee report on the first of the 'Professional Development' modules.

Council members Chris Goodman, Christi Mitchell and Stephen Powell attended the first module of the above course on the occasion of the LES US & Canada Annual Meeting in Toronto. It proved extremely successful in attracting people from Industry and universities, with over eighty five people attending (and only one attorney!). As Alan Gordon (the presenter of the morning session) said, the module is intended to give a 'treetops' view of the topic with little in the way of legal details. He concentrated on the language of Intellectual Property, with Jay Simmons, the afternoon speaker, discussing the language of Licensing. The module is followed by three others dealing with opportunity assessment and entering and maintaining licence agreements. A certificate is awarded after attendance at all four. An advanced course comprising four further modules is already being planned.

Our main interest was to assess the possibilities for modifying the seminar for use in Britain. Clearly the details of IP law will need to be changed to reflect the position here, but we felt that the principles discussed and the balance between the various aspects meant that such a course would transfer well. We particularly liked the emphasis on trade secrets as the true source of all IP and the two group exercises undertaken, in which solutions had to be found for a number of problems which 'Charlie Creativity' had in the IP and licensing fields.

Allan Johnston, the course director in the United States, will shortly be making the course materials available, and the Education Committee of LES Britain & Ireland will be considering how to progress this exciting development. It should help attract new members to LES and to raise the organisation's profile.

Stephen Powell
Chair LES B&I Education Committee

2001 LES Pan European Conference
St Petersburg, Russia, Sept 15 - 18, 2001

The St Petersburg Conference next September is surely a date for your diary. An extensive conference with Plenary Lectures and workshops run by a series of international speakers is planned, covering topics of interest to all our members.

Take this opportunity to network, increase your knowledge and see the wonderful city of St Petersburg.

Officially named the 'Cultural Capital of Russia', St Petersburg is an exciting city. It has much more to offer than simply the Hermitage Museum and the Kirov Ballet of the Mariinsky Theatre. You would need a week to see the major landmarks alone!

It is a relatively new city, founded in 1703 by Peter the Great, but named in honour of St Peter. Nine years later it became the capital of Russia, retaining this status until 1918. During this time it accumulated the grandeur of the Russian Imperial Court and became one of the largest centres of culture, science and industry. It is the most Northern City in the world with a population of over one million, covering an area of 1400 square kilometres.

Situated on the River Neva it is often threatened by floods, the biggest of which occurred in November 1824 when the flood waters reached a level of 13.5 feet above the river's normal level.

There is so much to see and do in St Petersburg that we would need a whole book to cover it adequately but, for those of you wishing to find out more about the city, including accommodation, restaurants, attractions, history and ways of getting there, the website: http://www.cityvision2000.com is really excellent.

For those of you wishing to know more about the content of the conference please contact:

Valery Medvelev
Fax: 007 095 937 6101/6123

People News

Pax Technology Transfer Ltd, UK based international licensing brokers and consultants, recently announced the appointment of Mr John Allies as a Director of the company, effective date 1st July 2000. John will take particular responsibility for marketing, and for liaison with clients using Pax's business development and technology acquisition services. He joined Pax in 1999.

John Allies comes from Burmah Castrol plc where, as International Business Development Manager, he worked at the Fosroc International Ltd subsidiary with responsibility for licensing construction chemicals technology around the world. His previous appointment was Business Development Manager at Lucas Industries plc, responsible for licensing and strategic alliance projects.

'John brings additional international experience to Pax', said Chairman, John Emanuel, 'and his knowledge and contacts in Japan and the Far East will complement Pax's traditional strengths in the UK, continental Europe and North America'.

Apologies…
to Ben Du Pont, founder of yet2.com, wrongly captioned in the last issue of News Exchange.

New Members

Council has been pleased to welcome the following new members to the Society:

• Mr Matthew Behan, Manager, KPMG; Mr Mark Clark, Head of Business Services Unit, University of Sussex;
• Mr Eamon Connolly, Solicitor, Herbert Smith; Mr Nigel Cooper, Director Bus. Dev. & Licensing, Ipsen International;
• Mr Benjamin Coppin, Managing Director, Envisional Software Solutions Ltd; Mr David Eastwood, Partner, KPMG;
• Dr Michael Edelman, Vice President - Europe, Yet2.com; Mr Michael Flaschen, Associate, Kirkland & Ellis;
• Ms Louise Fullwood, Pinsent Curtis; Mr Barry Gerber, Trade Mark Attorney, Marks & Clerk;
• Dr George Green, Vice President R&T, Hexcel Composites; Mr Tom Hockaday, ISIS Innovation Ltd;
• Mr Daryl Jones, Solicitor, Browne Jacobson; Dr Haydn Jones, Manager, Intellectual Property, Bookham Technology;
• Miss Shan Kennedy, Senior Manager, Arthur Andersen; Mrs Anna McKay, Manager, Roiter Zucker;
• Ms Helen Mullen, Senior Consultant, New Media Partners Ltd;
• Mr Alan Newbold, Bus. Dev. Director, Yet2.com; Miss Dawn Osborne, Partner, Willoughby & Partners;
• Mr Elliot Papageorgiou, Manager, Poise & Co Int.;
• Dr Elizabeth Potterton, IP Manager, Opsys Ltd.;
• Dr David Rodham, Technology Outreach Project, Zeneca Agrochemicals;
• Miss Irene Schmitt, European Sales Manager, Corporate Intelligence Com.;
• Mr Geoffrey Sturgess, Partner, Sherwin Oliver;
• Dr Matilde Valayer, Business Manager, Cancer Research Ventures;
• Dr Laus von Borcke, Licensing Manager, Zeneca;
• Ms Sarah Whalley Coombes, Solicitor, Field Ficher Waterhouse;
• Dr Sarah Weir, Cancer Research Ventures;
• Dr Ceili Williams, Patent Attorney, Stevens Hewlett & Perkins.

Obituary

John Gay 1922-2000

Members will be saddened by news of the death of John Gay on 1 August 2000.

John Gay's contributions to the life and development of LES B & I and LESI were truly seminal. He was a founder member of LES B & I and its president in 1972-73. He was deeply involved in the setting up of LESI and was elected its first president for 1973-74. In 1976 he was awarded the LESI gold medal. 1976-80 saw him in charge of the LESI Activities Committee.

John Anderson Gay was born on 25 September 1922. He served during World War II as an officer in the Royal Electrical & Mechanical Engineers. He then read Special Physics at University College, London, and graduated with honours in 1949. During 1949-56 he held various technical appointments with Standard Telephones, O.W. Roskill and Isotopes Developments Limited. He joined the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in 1956 and held the positions of Overseas Sales Manager, Licensing Officer and finally of Engineering Development and Exploitation Director. He left the UKAEA in 1980 to set up Anderson Broome Limited, a technology transfer consultancy, which handled many TT negotiations and licences worldwide.

John managed these commissions with consummate skill. In negotiations he sought to reach fair and reasonable 'win-win' agreements, making due allowance for the personal needs and ambitions of the negotiators. He was careful always to leave space for manoeuvre and compromise. His immaculate style and personal charm masked a steely core, which ensured that the key facets of the transaction were never compromised.

I was fortunate to be able to retain John's services as TT adviser during my work at the University of Warwick in the 1980's. Often, acting as lead negotiator, I was totally reliant on his wise counsel and full support in closing the deal. Working with John was always a pleasure. His clear brain and his gift for lateral thinking were great assets and his wealth of 'know-who' in the international licensing fraternity helped to avoid tedious and difficult confrontations.

John Gay was truly a 'man for all seasons'. His colossal contributions to the development of LES B & I and LESI and his services to the profession cannot be overestimated.

John is survived by his wife Pat, three daughters and one son.

Kurt Deutsch
20 September 2000

Top

NEWS Exchange is circulated as a service to members of the Society. Editorial contributions and advertising/insert enquiries are welcome and should be addressed in the first instance to the editor.

Editor: The Kudos Partnership Ltd,
Emerson Court, Alderley Road, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 1NX
email:s.ireland@kudos-uk.com

(Return to News page)