 |
LICENSING EXECUTIVES SOCIETY
|
Why doesn't academia use licensing more?'by Roger Ford Chair of Innovation and Technology Strategy University of Salford I suspect that the simple answer to this question lies in the fact that licensing agreements are usually between organisations and although universities appear to be large multifaceted operations, they are in fact a collection of highly focused individuals. Consequently it is only when a university develops its own structured technology transfer function that licensing is seriously considered. One of the major roles of a university is to create new understanding by means of research which is, primarily, individually instigated and led. Publish or perish is the order of the day, and commercial exploitation is normally someway behind. The main exception is where a clear market advantage can be achieved by virtue of the scientist being ahead of the general market. In these circumstances, the inventor can create a science-based start-up company without really leaving the laboratory. This situation is, however, extremely rare and commercial exploitation of an academic's invention usually represents a complex and difficult operation. It is important for a university to encourage 'inventors' to exploit their ideas commercially. Normally neither the university nor the academic have easy access to the finances or the expertise to develop and exploit the outcome of their work. It is surprising, therefore, that universities do not make greater use of licensing. Potentially this route can return benefits and rewards to the university in a more consistent manner than the more glamorous route of the academic led technology 'start-up' company. One of the reasons universities find licensing so difficult is the inability of the inventor and potential licensee to find a common financial understanding. This, coupled with the natural concerns of the academics that they are losing control of 'their' invention to a commercial world they neither understand nor trust. In this environment the decision to create a small start-up company becomes highly appealing. Such a move retains their involvement in the invention, the decision does not appear to be so rapid or the conclusions so final. In addition there is status to be gained from being involved in a technology venture business and many of the harsh realities of starting a business can be eased by continuing to work within the university infrastructure. As a result, many of these university-based start-up companies are 'hobby' organisations without hunger for success. In the long-term this strategy is neither the best for the academic, the university or even the technical health of the country. These small technology enterprises can, in fact, produce barriers to the smooth technology transfer of new ideas between universities and industry. A properly organised and financed licensing organisation within a university, which assists the academic with both the establishment of a potential licensing proposal and supports the negotiation of a deal, produces greater professional and financial gain to both the individual and the university. Since inventions in universities arise largely from curiosity-driven research, the outcomes are unlikely to be closely aligned or developed to meet the needs of the market. This will give rise to a conflict between the commercial value as perceived by the potential academic licensor and the degradation of value to the potential licensee due to high-risk development costs. Possible industrial licensees 'lose interest' and are not willing to work with the academic to align the idea to the needs of the marketplace. With technology in such an early stage of development, it is easy for the commercially minded to dismiss the value of an idea and create a confrontational situation to the disadvantage of everybody. In business it is necessary to ensure that all opportunities are investigated to achieve a return on the expensive research investment made by the company. The advent of companies such as Yet2.com who are eager to assist in the trading of pre-developed IPR, and the development by them of an international market place for the licensing and sale of such property, is evidence of how seriously companies are looking at alternative development opportunities. Companies are not only considering licensing those product opportunities which do not fit with their core capabilities but are using this 'electronic market place' to put a value on all their IPR. This is a very important development since it helps to define the axioms of value determination for these previously non-traded commodities, and demonstrates that companies are willing to license in technology opportunities. At present the Patent Office is working with the UK universities organisation AURIL to ensure that new technologies are displayed on a web site. I am concerned, however, that this is only adding to the complexity of bringing potential licensees and academic licensors together. Universities must work in the same places as industrialists if the best licensing deals are to be achieved. If new opportunities and inventions are going to be exploited then their technical and commercial development should be undertaken using the best professional and financial support available. A full investigation of a possible licensing strategy needs to be considered and supported by universities, even if it means the creation of a harsher commercial environment for those academics wishing to create technology start-ups. Government needs to encourage universities to help academics make the correct exploitation decisions. They also need to consider ways to encourage commercial organisations that are looking for technologies to work constructively with the academics. Top President's Diary
LES UK and Ireland is part of LESI, which is a worldwide organisation founded in the USA and having over 5000 US and Canadian members. Our thoughts extend to our US/Canadian colleagues in their tragic losses on 11 September. Though we are not presently aware of any LES members who lost their lives, there will be many who have lost friends and colleagues and to them and all US citizens we extend our deepest sympathy. With the summer break now over, September marks the beginning of the LES year. I have just attended the first council meeting of 2001-2002, the beginning of my second year as President. It is hoped that having a President for two years will bring more consistency and assist council in organising events such as the Annual Lunch and Annual Conference. The added advantage will be that the Vice Presidents will also have two years to prepare for their term as President. Council meets, at the most, 8 times per year. It is, therefore, unable to make speedy decisions and to this end four new, but very small, committees have been set up. These committees will enable members to obtain information and, we hope, to offer assistance in those areas covered by each committee. The new committees mirror to some extent the organisational structure of LESI and are intended to lift the workload from the President, who previously had to make most decisions or to refer them to a full council meeting. This inevitably caused undue delays. The President also had to organise most of the major events, including the London meetings, the Annual Lunch and Annual Conference and AGM. We hope the new structure will attract busy people to participate in one or more of the committees and, in time, to serve as Vice President and President in the knowledge that the committees will lessen the workload. The four new committees are:
The Nominations committee's principle task is to suggest members for council and for the other committees. The serving President will be the chair with other members being the Vice President and approximately three other past presidents. The roles of the other committees will be explained in later issues of News Exchange. Chris Goodman
INTO NEW DOMAINS Part IBy Judith O'Keefe and Mark Rasdale.* Introduction: The registration process for the new ".info" and ".biz" top-level domain names (TLD) (approved by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in November 2000) is underway. These domains are in high demand given their cross-jurisdiction and cross-market appeal. In an attempt to thwart would be cybersquatters, pre-registration procedures are being implemented, so that trademark and service mark owners may claim rights to the new TLDs from the outset. The implementation procedures for the new .info and .biz" TLDs are quite different. An applicant wishing to apply for the new domain names must make a separate application for each domain name. The registry operators, Afilias.com (www.afilias.com) for the .info TLD and NeuLevel.com (www.neulevel.com) for the .biz TLD, are implementing the registration process through ICANN approved registrars. .info This TLD is a domain for any business or individual. A sunrise period for applications ran from 25 July to 27 August 2001, during which time owners of registered trademarks or service marks with national effect prior to 2nd October 2000, could pre-register .info domain names relying on registered trademarks or service marks. The validity of such claims were not assessed by Afilias during this period, although certain evidence was required to establish entitlement to pre-register. There was then a fifteen day quiet period when no registrations were accepted. Following a seven day start-up period, during which ICANN accredited registrars submitted lists of names for registration into a randomised process, the formal registration of the .info TLD opened to the general public from 12th September 2001, on a first come, first served basis. It is expected that .info domain names will be capable of use on or about 19 September 2001. Sunrise Disputes The sunrise challenge process commenced on 28th August 2001 and is designed to address disputes over domain names registered during the sunrise period. All such challenges must be filed no later than 26th December 2001. To make a challenge to a sunrise registration a complainant must show one of the following:
Upon expiry of this challenge process period, the only available remedies for those with complaint are through the courts or the ICANN Universal Domain Resolution Policy (UDRP). .biz The .biz TLD is available for bone fide commercial or business purposes only. Neulevel administered an IP claim service for trademark owners until 8th August 2001, which enabled trademark owners to submit claims of ownership of a registered or common law trademark or service mark before the domain name application process was opened. Such an IP claim results in:
An IP claim is not an application for a .biz domain name but all IP claims are submitted into an IP claims database. NeuLevel is accepting pre-launch applications for registration of domain names until 17th September 2001. During this period any domain name application will be accepted provided, when compared against the IP claims database, it does not conflict with an IP claim, in which case the applicant and IP claimant will be informed of the conflict. The IP claimant may challenge the application through the STOP procedure outlined below. From 26th September until 30th September 2001, NeuLevel will award each domain name and, if there is more than one applicant for any one domain name, it will be awarded on a random basis. After this time any registration matching IP claims is put on hold for thirty days, while the IP claimant can contest the name using the STOP procedure. The .biz TLD will be capable of use from 1st October 2001. Disputes Disputes over domain names awarded during the launch phase can be dealt with under the STOP procedure. STOP is a once-off remedy available in respect of .biz domain names randomly awarded during the launch phase for which IP claims were made. The STOP claimant must show:
If the IP claimant is successful, the original registration will be transferred to it. If the IP claimant is unsuccessful, the registration will remain in the name of the registrant. After the end of the launch period the only available remedies will be through the courts or the UDRP. Conclusion As the pre-registration procedures draw to a close, it is likely that disputes will remain, albeit in lesser volume than may have been. In Part II of this article, the writers will examine the extent to which the pre-registration procedures for .info and .biz domain names address concerns over a new surge of domain name disputes, and will outline the available options for those who may have missed the pre-registration procedures. *The authors are practising solicitors in the e-Commerce and Technology Group,
©All rights reserved. |
Top
SOFTWARE - THE NEED FOR ADEQUATE PROTECTIONThe software industry is expanding rapidly in terms of new areas to which software is being applied and in terms of the amount of software being generated within each area. It is becoming increasingly sophisticated and substantial resources may be required to develop particular applications in terms of man hours and hence capital. Those engaged in this area of technology include the one-man operation through to small to medium-sized companies. Often they are not in a position to finance, from their own resources, their capital requirements and there is therefore a need for outside loan capital and risk investment. The only assets of the company suitable for providing security may be the software. That security will be as good as the extent to which the rights in the software can be enforced, and the certainty with which the outcome of any enforcement proceedings can be predicted. It is axiomatic that one can only license that which one can stop at law. A licence is no more than permission to do that, which would otherwise be an infringement of a right. If the acts requiring the authorisation by the owner are limited in scope, then so too are the limits of the monopoly within which the licence will be granted. That, in turn, may have a bearing on the initial payment and the royalty which can be commanded. There is also the problem relating to the extent to which a prospective licensor can feel comfortable about disclosing sensitive details of his source code to an interested prospective licensee. Obviously, if the protection is less than satisfactory, then the prospective licensor will be advised not to disclose sensitive information until a binding contract has been entered into in which the deficiencies in the legal protection are supplemented by contractual rights. Lastly, it can be expected that the degree to which there is unauthorised use of, or false claims to, independent ownership in software will increase if it becomes generally known that the legal protection granted to software is of limited scope. The result could well be a disincentive to risking time, effort and money on developing new applications. That would not be in the public interest. COPYRIGHT PROTECTION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS In the UK, the protection granted to "computer programs" was fudged by amending the Copyright Act 1956 to treat those programs as a literary work for purposes of copyright protection. That provision was carried over into the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. A similar provision has been adopted in EC Directive 91/250 as part of harmonising the laws of the EC in this area. Similar provisions are also to be found in the Berne Convention, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the TRIPS Agreement. Literary copyright does not provide adequate protection for software as this word is used in its wider sense. Firstly, the protection in all the above-mentioned provisions is directed to "computer programs". It is questionable whether embedded software, for instance, a chip for operating a washing machine, can be called a computer program. Second, the protection is limited, in its primary form, to restraining unauthorised reproduction of the work. There is no protection for the content of the program such as innovative ideas and novel principles underlying the particular software. Without a benign approach by the courts, the unauthorised adoption of the same ideas and principles present in particular software, used without reproducing the way in which they are expressed in that software, does not infringe the literary copyright in that software Yet it is those very ideas and principles that give value to the software and which the developer needs to protect. Third, it is virtually impossible to discharge the heavy onus placed on the claimant to show copying, save in the most obvious and blatant instances of copying. It is seldom possible to obtain direct evidence of copying and, invariably, the claimant is put to showing that the similarities between the original and the copied work are such as to lead an expert to conclude that one work derives from another. It does not, however, require much effort on the part of an unscrupulous defendant to produce evidence which suggests that the alleged infringing work had a separate origin. That can then be supported by the contention that the similarities in the original and alleged copied software can be explained by the fact that both parties were seeking to accomplish the same objective. This position has been exacerbated by the fact that most of these programs are now developed on a computer, which allows dates to be changed with relative ease. This makes detection of pre-dating virtually impossible. Fourth, the attributes of software differ so much from those of a literary work as to provide only limited protection when it comes to applying the relief available for literary works. This is to some extent addressed by the Directive but there remains the onus on the claimant to show that there has been substantial reproduction of the expression of the innovative idea or novel principle, and not merely adoption of those principles and ideas expressed in a different form. In a nutshell, copyright only gives protection, in its primary form, against reproduction of the software. There is a great need for protecting innovation and novel ideas in software, in the same way that they are protected in inventions and registered designs, by an outright monopoly. THE INADEQUANCY OF PATENT PROTECTION The United States Patent Office has recently become more flexible in granting patents relating to software, e.g. for business systems. The European Patent Office has granted patents in respect of the "technical effect" produced by software and, even there, it is becoming more flexible, followed by the UK Patent Office. The patent system does not provide an answer to the protection of the bulk of software now being generated. The system involves examination of applications and is therefore too costly in terms of what is required for software protection in most instances. It is also too time consuming - by the time the protection is granted and can be enforced, the software is likely to have been superseded as a result of new developments. Furthermore, patents are granted in terms of "inventions", as defined. Software does not fit happily within the scope of the definition. The requirements for novelty and lack of inventive step may also be too high for the purposes of software. The infringing acts available in respect of patents also do not meet all the requirements of software. Thus the primary form of infringement of a patent is the unauthorised "making" of the protected invention. The term "making" is hardly applicable when it comes to protecting software. This opens the door to the courts seeking to interpret the word in the way that may produce a just result but which creates, subsequently, odd situations as arose, for instance, under Copyright Designs Act 1968. FUTURE STEPS TO PROTECT SOFTWARE The Commission is presently taking soundings in regard to amending the provisions relating to patents in the EC. That is the wrong route - rather than adopting inadequate existing legislation, the current investment in software and the potential for future massive development and investment in this field justifies putting in place, at this stage, legislation dedicated to the specific needs of software. That will allow the legislation to be updated in accordance with the undoubted developments that will take place in the future, instead of having to stretch even further the provisions dealing with the protection of literary copyright and patents. What is required is an absolute statutory monopoly in the same way as enjoyed by inventions and registered designs. There will therefore have to be a self-financing deposit system in respect of both the source code and the object code. The fee will have to be high enough to limit applications to those that are worthy of protection so as to avoid a flood of applications, each generated at the mere touch of a key. The deposit system should be digitally based. That should not give rise to any problems, as the subject matter will already be in digital form. The system will have to be designed to facilitate searching by the public, or specially qualified searchers, and the taking of digital copies for further study should be available. That will require storage of the deposits in digital form and possibly for the design of a special search engine. A classification system may also have to be evolved. The particular aspect of software for which protection is sought will have to be identified in the application with sufficient precision to allow third parties to establish whether or not they will infringe. The application may include a statement identifying that for which protection is sought rather like a "claim" in a patent specification. There should be a requirement as to novelty, perhaps on an EC or worldwide basis. There should also be a requirement as to the innovative step, so that mere practice and obvious steps in the software field cannot be the subject of protection although this requirement may not be as high as for a patent. There will be no examination, other than as to formal requirements. The criteria for protection will have to be satisfied by the proprietor only once the validity of the registration is challenged in a court. This will remove the cost and time involved in examining the ninety-nine percent of applications that will not be litigated. The term will be ten years so that there is a chance of the software having some commercial value when it comes into the public domain. The entire term or only part thereof may be the subject of licences of rights. The system of protection under literary copyright has advantages, despite its limitations, and should be retained. Likewise patent protection for software has its advantages, again despite its limitations, and should be retained but not extended. The proposed legislation will therefore not have any effect on the current provisions. There may be an overlap in the protection obtained under the proposed protection and under patents and copyright, but overlapping protection has not proved to be a problem in the past. ADVANTAGES OF SUGGESTED SOFTWARE PROTECTION There is a growing public awareness of the difficulties involved in proving successfully that copying has taken place. This can be expected to give rise to a greater incentive on the part of copyists to change the way the innovative step or principle is expressed in "copied" software in order to frustrate the attempts of the proprietor of the copyright to obtain redress. The need is therefore for a form of protection that provides an absolute monopoly. This need exists particularly amongst start-up companies and small to medium-sized companies which are not in a position to finance the cost of litigation resulting from the misappropriation of their software by copying, let alone take on the significant commercial risks of not succeeding. The present legal position is also not in the interests of the public. Protection under the laws of copyright contains no incentive to put into the public domain novel and innovative ideas. While the patent system does provide that incentive, very little software is capable of patent protection and, indeed, relatively few applications are filed to protect software under the patents system when compared to the amount of software that is being developed and in need of greater protection. Many feel that it is that incentive to disclose, in return for an absolute monopoly, that has driven the technological development this past century and, particularly, over the last decades or so. The above-mentioned proposal seeks to achieve the same beneficial result in the field of software. At the end of the day, the decision as to whether or not to disclose the software and enjoy the monopoly lies with the developer - the proposal does not impose the need to register on him. There may be resistance in certain quarters to extending the protection given to software because it is felt that it should be freely available. The experience under the patent system tends to negate that view. The existence of a barrier in the form of a statutory monopoly encourages further innovation in order to find a way round the barrier and that often leads to an extension of and an improvement in the technology. This must be in the public interest. THE NEXT STEP FORWARD The world is becoming increasingly dependent on software, used in its broadest sense. That position will continue to develop. The starting point is an enquiry, perhaps by a technically-knowledgeable judge, to gather together all the views and suggestions for inclusion in a report in the form of, perhaps, a green paper and then to develop that into a white paper with proposals for a bill. That will allow all views and suggestions to be considered and formulated into an effective piece of legislation, which others, such as the European Commission, can follow. The need has arisen for dedicated legislation, tailored to meet the specific requirements of software. That need will continue to grow, possibly at an accelerating rate. Now is the time to make a start on getting suitable legislation in place. P LUDI LOCHNER B.Sc LL.B
Top
BIOTECH COMPANIESInforming the Investor Whilst there has always been concern about the risks taken by small private investors who buy shares in biotech companies, the "bursting of the dotcom bubble" has led to renewed calls for increased investor protection. However, as this article demonstrates, there are already in place stringent requirements and procedures designed to inform the investor, so far as reasonably possible, about the company and the risks associated with its business. For a UK biotechnology company, the main routes to an IPO are through admission to trading on the London Stock Exchange, through the "Official List" and Alternative Investment Market (AIM), or NASDAQ Europe (formerly EASDAQ), a Belgian-based international trading platform. The rules and requirements that govern each market differ significantly (for instance, the Official List is more difficult to enter and heavily regulated than either AIM or Nasdaq Europe) but the underlying principles are the same. All IPOs require the issue of a publicly available offer document or prospectus. This is a key document for the investor and gives comprehensive details about the company and its activities. The directors of the company will be personally responsible for ensuring that:
There are various sanctions available to ensure compliance by directors with their obligations. These sanctions range from censure (private and public) to criminal penalties and gaol terms. In addition, investors may be entitled to take legal action against the directors or the company to recover any loss. A company which is considering an IPO will usually be advised by a lead adviser (called the "sponsor" for the Official List and "nominated adviser" for AIM), usually an investment bank or broker, together with other advisers such as lawyers, accountants and patent agents. The lead adviser takes overall responsibility for ensuring that the company and its directors are properly prepared and suitable for an IPO on the chosen market. Each of the advisers will take its responsibilities very seriously. A failure to do so could harm its reputation, and may also give rise to legal liability or result in its exclusion from future IPO work. This will apply, in particular, to the lead adviser, the various lawyers and accountants involved, and any patent agents and technical experts whose reports are included in the prospectus. The lead adviser will almost invariably insist on warranties, undertakings and indemnities from the company, the directors and, sometimes, the major shareholders (if different). These will require disclosure to the lead adviser of all relevant information and compliance with the relevant requirements. To ensure the company and its directors are suitable for an IPO and compliance with all necessary requirements, the company and lead adviser usually carry out a comprehensive due diligence and verification exercise using lawyers, accountants, patent agents, technical experts and other consultants. Any director who has been through such an exercise will recognise how painstaking and time-consuming this can be. A comprehensive and complete body of legal, financial, technical and other information and documentation concerning the company must be prepared and copied, as appropriate, to the various advisers involved. Using this information and documentation, the advisers will identify any issues that need to be resolved before the IPO can take place or that should be disclosed in the prospectus. Often, this leads to substantial extra work and possible delay. In parallel with due diligence, the company and its advisers will prepare a draft prospectus. The prospectus will then have to be drafted and checked to ensure that it discloses sufficient information about the company, is accurate and not misleading, and otherwise complies with all relevant legal requirements and market rules. An essential part of this process is "verification". This involves going through the prospectus, line-by-line, page-by-page, to ensure so far as possible that every statement is true and can be supported by documentary evidence, even going so far as to require educational certificates and payslips from directors to verify their biographical details. Finally, in the case of IPOs on the Official List and Nasdaq Europe, the prospectus has to be officially approved before it is publicly issued. In the case of AIM, the nominated adviser is responsible to the London Stock Exchange for confirming compliance with the relevant requirements. Particular risks associated with the company's business may have to be disclosed in the prospectus under the general requirement that it must contain sufficient information to enable the investor to make an informed assessment about the prospects of the company. However, market rules normally require a discussion of any special or material risks and risk factors. For many biotech companies, these discussions usually take up a separate section running to several pages. Lastly, there is usually a prominent statement that tells the reader to consult a qualified adviser if in doubt about the contents of the document. After IPO, the company's directors will be under various continuing obligations to keep investors informed of significant developments that may affect the performance and prospects of the company. Depending on the circumstances, breach of these obligations may enable the relevant authorities or exchanges to take various types of action. In any event, if a failure to comply becomes known it will usually result in a loss of investor confidence in the company and the directors. For most biotech companies, an IPO and further funding rounds represent the only way to attract sufficient capital to develop their products and make a profit. The system is designed to ensure that the investor is as fully informed as reasonably possible about the company and to minimise the risks involved. In this way, investors can take an informed choice about the inherent risks they must take in return for the opportunity of seeing their investment grow and pay dividends. Richard Binns* and Bryan Driscoll Pharmaceutical & Medical Group, Simmons & Simmons, CityPoint, One Ropemaker Street, London EC2Y 9SS
Top POP CORN INSTEAD OF PILLS?Women seeking birth control may soon rely on farmers as well as pharmacists, thanks to research being carried out in California. Scientists at San Diego-based biotechnology firm Epicyte Pharmaceutical, Inc., in conjunction with the Scripps Research Institute, have developed genetically modified crops programmed to produce 'human' antibodies that attack sperm. The crops can be harvested to produce a plant-based contraceptive jelly. Normally, antibodies produced by the human immune system do not react to sperm. However, in rare cases, women have been found to produce antibodies that bind and inactivate sperm, thereby rendering these women 'immune-infertile'. By isolating the specific human gene responsible for regulating the production of these anti-sperm antibodies and inserting it into the cells of maize plants, Epicyte has produced transgenic contraceptive corn. The plants' cellular machinery is versatile enough to recognise the human gene sequence, allowing the maize to produce contraceptive "Plantibodies" (registered as a European Community trademark). It is hoped that this patented (e.g. US 5639947; EP 0497904), plant-based technology, which is licensed to Epicyte by the Scripps Research Institute, will provide an efficient and economical means of manufacturing contraceptive products as well as a range of other pharmaceuticals. Epicyte has already developed corn plants that yield Plantibodies reactive to the herpes virus and envisages being able to produce a plant-based jelly that not only guards against pregnancy, but also acts to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Plantibodies for use in the treatment of respiratory and gastric infections are also being developed. The provision of cheap birth control and medicines is becoming ever more important, particularly in developing countries, and a system that allows pharmaceutically active proteins to be isolated from GM crop plants may prove to be a major breakthrough in this respect. The first of Epicyte's Plantibody products is due to enter clinical trials next year. Dr. Michael Douglas
Top News form LES GB & I Regional GroupsNEWS FROM LES NE REGION LES NE kicked off the LES B&I winter programme of meetings, when more than twenty members and non-members met at the Malmaison Hotel, Leeds, to hear Colin Campbell, Company Secretary & Legal Director of Channel 5, speak on the subject of "Rights for Broadcasters". As well as addressing the relevant legal issues, Colin explained the requirements of the ITC's code and the steps taken to ensure compliance. The meeting was followed by dinner, which provided an opportunity to continue the discussions with Colin and fellow diners. LES NE have an active committee led by LES B&I Past-President, Trevor Hunter, Chairman; Alison Murphy, Partner with Walker Morris, Secretary; Alastair Neill, LES B&I Membership Secretary, Treasurer; Liz Ward, Partner with Keeble Hawson and Lucas Bateman, Associate with Pinsent Curtis Biddle. Further meetings are planned. The next meeting will be held on October 25th (Thursday), when David Livesley of Yorkshire Fund Managers will be our speaker. We shall be meeting at Harvey Nichols department store, where they will clear part of the Ladies Fashions floor for our meeting, followed by dinner in their restaurant. Friends and colleagues are welcome. Trevor Hunter LES EAST MIDLANDS GROUP Meeting and dinner at Donington Manor Hotel.
Meeting: 17:30 for 18:00
On Wednesday 17th October 2001 we welcome Dr Kevin Slater from LumiTech as our speaker for the first meeting in the 2001-2002 meetings programme. In 1996, Kevin Slater founded LumiTech Limited with Dr Sharon Crouch. The objective of the company was to develop and manufacture diagnostic kits for use in cell viability research. In July 2000, the company was acquired by the US company, Cambrex Corporation, with Kevin staying on as CEO and Sharon as Technical Director. LumiTech's products now complement the existing BioWhittaker product range of cells, sera and media. In his talk, Kevin will describe the path that LumiTech took from initial concept to the Cambrex acquisition and how, in particular, his company made the most of the resources offered by regional, national and European government organisations. There is no charge for the meeting but the charge for the dinner is £25.00 per head. We welcome guests. For further information please contact:
LES Scotland Branch LES Scottish Branch started its 2001 - 2002 meetings early on 5 September in Glasgow with a talk entitled, "European Issues - so what?" The talk was an introduction to the bits that you really NEED to know about recent or proposed developments in European IP law and practice. As usual the meeting was well attended. Our Christmas meeting, "Sooty, sweep - and Sue!" will be at the Caledonian Ale House, Haymarket, Glasgow on 12th December. We will look at some recent litigation - particularly the impact of the Dyson case. By popular request we are holding what looks like an annual fixture for the Scottish Branch - a "Burns supper with a difference". As before it is not on Burns Night. We will have entertaining speakers, including a light-hearted look at tech transfer and Burns by Murdo Morrison of the Burns Federation. This event is an excellent networking opportunity for all involved in IP, tech transfer and commercialisation in Scotland. We welcome guests and partners. Please book early for this popular event. For further details please contact: Cathy Rooney
LES B&I Committees and Special Interest Groups Chris Goodman mentioned, in this edition's President's Diary, that council has agreed to form a number of new committees. The committees are always looking for new members. If you feel you have something to offer, a particular area of expertise, or a special interest and would like to be more involved with one of the groups, please contact the relevant committee chair (see page 3). Your Comments and Suggestions for Speakers We are constantly looking for ways to improve the Society for "you" the members and are always pleased to hear your comments and suggestions. We particularly welcome suggestions for interesting speakers. Please send any correspondence and suggestions to: John Roe, LES B&I Secretary,
Top New MembersCouncil has been pleased to welcome the following new members to the Society:
|
|
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, |