Thursday, 27 January 2022

The UPC is now on the Final Stretch but the UK won't be Part of it


 









Jane Lambert

Art 1 of the Protocol to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court on provisional application provides that the following articles of the Unified Patent Court Agreement shall enter into provisional application upon the entry into force of that Protocol:  arts 1-2, 4-5, 6 (1), 7, 10-19, 35 (1, 3 and 4), 36-41 and 71 (3) of the Agreement and arts 1-7 (1), 7 (5), 9-18, 20 (1), 22-28, 30, 32 and 33 of the Court's Statute. The Protocol came into force on 19 Jan 2022 pursuant to art 3 (1) of the Protocol following the deposit by the Austrian government of its instrument of ratification of the Protocol.

The news is likely to be welcomed by businesses around the world - including some in the United Kingdom - that hold European patents designating Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden. That is because the Agreement is expected to reduce the cost of patent litigation in those countries.  It will be a significant factor when determining where to carry on research and development and the UK may lose investment as a result.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during normal business hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Monday, 3 January 2022

Intellectual Property Articles of the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement: General Provisions

Wallaby


 














Jane Lambert

On 20 Dec 2021, I introduced the UK's free trade agreement with Australia.  I reported that it consists of 32 chapters and that one of those chapters (namely Chapter 15) is on intellectual property.  Chapter 15 consists of 96 articles divided into 11 sections.  I indicated that I would consider the various sections of that chapter in due course.

Today I consider Section A of the chapter which is headed "General Provisions".  It consists of the following articles:

  • Art 15.1 Definitions
  • Art 15.2 Objectives
  • Art 15.3 Principles
  • Art 15.4 Understandings
  • Art 15.5 Nature and Scope of Obligations
  • Art 15.6 Understandings Regarding Certain Public Health Measures
  • Art 15.7 National Agreements
  • Art 15.8 National Treatment
  • Art 15.9 Transparency
  • Art 15.10 Application of Chapter to Existing Subject Matter and Prior Acts
  • Art 15.11 Exhaustion of Intellectual Property Rights, and
  • Art 15.12 Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions.
The only definition that I need to consider at this stage is the meaning of "intellectual property." For the purpose of this agreement, the term refers to all categories of intellectual property that are the subject of Sections 1 through 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement. That is to say, copyright and related rights, trade marks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, semiconductor topography designs and undisclosed information.

The objectives of the agreement are set out in art 15.2:
"The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations."

Each party is required by art 15.5 (3) to give effect to Chapter 15 but is free to determine the appropriate method of implementing it within its own legal system and practice.

Under art 15.5 (1), the parties affirm their existing rights and obligations with respect to each other under the TRIPS Agreement. They also confirm at art 15.7 that they have ratified or acceded to the following agreements:

(a) TRIPS Agreement;
(b) Paris Convention;
(c) Berne Convention;
(d) Rome Convention;
(e) WCT;
(f) WPPT;
(g) Marrakesh Treaty;
(h) Madrid Protocol;
(i) Nice Agreement;
(j) Singapore Treaty;
(k) Budapest Treaty;
(l) UPOV 1991;
(m) PCT; and
(n) PLT.

Each of those agreements is identified in art 15.1.

In art 15.4, the parties recognize the need to:
"(a) promote innovation and creativity;
(b) facilitate the diffusion of information, knowledge, technology, culture, and the arts; and
(c) foster competition and open and efficient markets,
through their respective intellectual property systems, while respecting the principles of transparency and due process, and taking into account the interests of relevant stakeholders, including right holders, service providers, users, and the general public."

The Parties acknowledge the importance of adequate, effective and balanced protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in art 15.5 (2) but are conscious of the need to prevent measures to enforce intellectual property rights from becoming in themselves barriers to legitimate trade. Accordingly, art 15.3 (2) provides:

"Appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the provisions of this Chapter, may be needed to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology."
Another important qualification to the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights concerns public health. Art 15.3 (1) permits each party in formulating or amending its laws and regulations, to adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development. Each party affirms the Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health at art 15.6 (1) with the following understandings:
"(a) the Parties affirm the right to fully use the flexibilities as duly recognised in the Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health;
(b) the Parties agree that this Chapter does not and should not prevent a Party from taking measures to protect public health; and
(c) the Parties affirm that this Chapter can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of each Party’s right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all."
It is specifically agreed in art 15.6 (2) that Chapter 15 does not and should not prevent the effective utilisation of Article 31bis of the TRIPS Agreement, and the Annex and Appendix to the Annex to the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, by art 15.6 (3) the parties recognize the importance of contributing to the international efforts to implement art 31bis of the TRIPS Agreement, and the Annex and Appendix to the Annex to the TRIPS Agreement.

In respect of all categories of intellectual property covered in Chapter 15, art 15.8 (1) requires each party to accord to nationals of the other party treatment no less favourable than it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property rights subject to the exceptions already provided for in, respectively, the Paris Convention, the Berne Convention, the Rome Convention, the WPPT, and the TIPRIC (the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits, adopted at Washington on 26 May 1989). Art 15.1 (2) provides that "nationals" for this purpose means "a person of a Party that would meet the criteria for eligibility for protection provided for in the agreements listed in Article 15.7 (International Agreements) or the TRIPS Agreement". In respect of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations, the above obligation applies only in respect of rights provided under the free trade agreement. However, art 15.8 (3) provides that art 15.8 (1) does not apply to procedures provided in multilateral agreements concluded under the auspices of WIPO relating to the acquisition or maintenance of intellectual property rights. A party may also derogate from art 15.8 (1) in relation to its judicial and administrative procedures, including requiring a national of the other party to designate an address for service of process in its territory, or to appoint an agent in its territory, provided that this derogation is:
(a) necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations that are not inconsistent with this Chapter; and
(b) not applied in a manner that would constitute a disguised restriction on trade.

Art 15.9 requires each party to endeavour to publish online:
(1)   its laws, regulations, procedures, and administrative rulings of general application concerning the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights;
(2)   subject to its law information that it makes public concerning applications for trade marks, geographical indications, registered designs, patents, and plant variety rights; and
(3) subject to its laws online information that it makes public concerning registered or granted trade marks, geographical indications, designs, patents, and plant variety rights, sufficient to enable the public to become acquainted with those registered or granted rights.
Both the Intellectual Property Office and IP Australia seem to satisfy this requirement already.

Art 15.10 (1) provides that unless otherwise provided, Chapter 15 gives rise to obligations in respect of all subject matter existing at the date of entry into force of the free trade agreement and that is protected on that date in the territory of a party where protection is claimed, or that meets or comes subsequently to meet the criteria for protection under that chapter. A party shall not be required to restore protection to subject matter that on the date of entry into force of the agreement has fallen into the public domain in its territory. Chapter 15 does not give rise to any obligation in respect of acts that occurred before the date of entry into force of the free trade agreement.

Section A ends with two miscellaneous provisions. First, art 15.11 states that nothing in that agreement prevents a party from determining whether or under what conditions the exhaustion of intellectual property rights applies under its legal system. Secondly, Australia and the UK affirm their commitment to work together through discussion and by the exchange of information at the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore under art 15.12.

I shall address Section B on Cooperation which runs from art 15.13 to art 15.19 inclusive shortly.   In the meantime, anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during normal business hours or send me a message through my contact form. 

Monday, 20 December 2021

The Free Trade Agreement with Australia

Discovery House, Head Office of IP Australia
Author Bidgee Licence CC BY-SA 3.0 Source Wikimedia Commons

 









Jane Lambert

On 16 Dec 2021, the Secretary of State for International Trade signed the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement (see the Department for International Trade's press release of 16 Dec 2021). The Agreement had been agreed in principle by the Prime Ministers of the two countries as I noted in The Proposed Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement on 17 June 2021. The full text of the Agreement can be found on the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website.

The Agreement consists of a Preamble, 32 chapters of substantive provisions some of which have their own annexes, four annexes and several side letters. The chapters cover:

Chapter 15 consists of 96 articles on intellectual property starting with "Definitions" in art 15.1 and finishing with "Environmental Considerations in Destruction and Disposal of Infringing Goods" in art 15.96.  The Chapter is divided into the following sections:
  • A.  General Provisions: includes definitions, objectives, principles, understandings in respect of the objectives etc.;
  • B. Cooperation: committee on IP rights, patent cooperation and work-sharing etc.;
  • C. Trade Marks and domain names;
  • D: Geographical indications;
  • E: Patents and data;
  • F: Undisclosed data;
  • G: Registered industrial designs;
  • H: Copyright and related rights;
  • I:  Trade secrets; and
  • J:  Enforcement.
I shall consider the various provisions of Chapter 15 and how they might affect IP practice in the UK in due course.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form at other times.

Sunday, 14 November 2021

IP in India

Photograph of India taken from a US Satellite

 



















The Department for International Trade has recently carried out a consultation on the top priorities for businesses and members of the public for a future trade deal with India and where they think the biggest gains from such a deal may lie. Any trade deal with India is likely to contain provisions on intellectual property and the topic was suggested as an option in several of the consultation document's multiple-choice questions.

According to An information note for the consultation relating to a Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and India, "intellectual property" is the UK's second-largest export to India amounting to £833 million.  The note does not explain how that figure is computed or of what it consists. It is, therefore, assumed to be royalties and other payments for licences, assignments and other intellectual property transactions.

For those thinking of investing in, or exporting to, India, the Intellectual Property Office has published a short booklet entitled  Intellectual property rights in India.  It lists the intellectual assets that are protected in India, the treaties and conventions to which India is party and the need to register patents, trade marks and designs with the Indian Intellectual Property Office.  Even though India has acceded to the Berne Convention, the booklet recommends the registration of copyright works with the Indian Copyright Office.  There is a section on IP enforcement that discusses civil litigation, criminal proceedings and other methods of dispute resolution.

A particularly helpful paragraph in the booklet suggests the following self-help considerations:
  • "Think about the design of your product, and how easy it would be for somebody to reproduce it without seeing your original designs; 
  • When you hire staff, have effective IP-related clauses in employment contracts. Also make sure you educate your employees on IP rights and protection; 
  • Have sound physical protection and destruction methods for documents, drawings, tooling, samples, machinery etc.; 
  • Make sure there are no ‘leakages’ of packaging that might be used by counterfeiters to pass off fake product; 
  • Check production over-runs to make sure that genuine product is not being sold under a different name." 
The booklet lists a number of typical problems faced by British businesses in India and suggests the following precautions:
  • "take advice from Indian IP rights experts at an early stage on how to protect your IP – prevention is better than cure; 
  • consult publications and websites on Indian IP rights and protection in general; 
  • carry out risk assessment and due diligence checks on any organisations and individuals you deal with; 
  • take professional advice from other experts – for example lawyers, local diplomatic posts, Chambers of Commerce and the UK India Business Council; 
  • talk to other businesses already doing similar business in India; 
  • consult agents, distributors and suppliers on how best to safeguard your rights; 
  • check with trade mark or patent attorneys to see whether there have been previous registrations of your own marks, or other IP, in India; 
  • stick to familiar business methods – don’t be tempted to do things differently because you’re trading in a different country."
The booklet offers some useful guidance on getting professional help in India.  

Since the publication of that booklet, the British government has appointed Ms Pragya Chaturvedi as our IP attaché in India.  Her job includes advising British businesses on IP issues in India, working with various government entities to raise IP awareness and engaging and assisting consular officials in different regions of Indian.  Ms Chaturvedi can be contacted at the British High Commission at Shantipath, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110021 on +91 (11) 2419 2100 or by email at Pragya.Chaturvedi@fco.gov.uk.

The European Commission operates an India IP SME Helpdesk which describes itself as a
"A first-line IP assistance service for European/COSME SMEs that operate or intend to access the Indian market and look to improve their global competitiveness."

It keeps a directory of 214 IP Institutions resources, publishes a regular newsletter on Indian IP law and holds frequent and regular in-person and online conferences and seminars and promotes many more that are held by other organizations.  The infographic 10 Tips to survive in India is particularly helpful: 

  1. "Identify your IP assets
  2. Plan in advance when it comes to IP!
  3. Adapt your IP strategy to the Indian market
  4. Carry out preliminary searches
  5. Protect your IP Rights
  6. Maintain your IP Right
  7. Monitor the market for infringements
  8. Be ready to enforce your IP Rights
  9. Work with Indian Customs
  10. Last but not least… Seek advice from IP Experts,"

The WIPO's India page links to the Copyright Office and the Indian Intellectual Property Office, the treaties to which India is party, India's primary and secondary IP legislation, statistics and a collection of other resources called IP in Action.

The Indian IP Office website holds comprehensive information on Indian patents, trade marks, design and geographical indications.  It publishes updated statutes and secondary legislation, a Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure a Manual of Design Practice and Procedure and a Draft manual of Trademarks Practice and Procedure and other guidance.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or any of its contents can call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Sunday, 24 October 2021

The New Zealand Free Trade Agreement: IP Provisions

Image Credit NASA/JPL-Caltech Public Domain Wikimedia Commons

 














Jane Lambert

According to the Department for International Trade, the Prime Ministers of New Zealand and the United Kingdom agreed in principle the terms of a  free trade agreement on 20 Oct 2021 (see UK agrees historic trade deal with New Zealand  DfIT press release 20 Oct 2021).  Copies of those terms have been posted to the British and New Zealand government websites).

Overview

The agreement in principle contains a short instruction and the following 32 sections:

  1. National treatment and market access for goods
  2. Rules of origin
  3. Customs procedures and trade facilitation
  4. Sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS)
  5. Animal welfare
  6. Technical barriers to trade (TBT)
  7. Trade remedies
  8. Cross-border trade in services
  9. Domestic regulation
  10. Financial services
  11. Telecommunications
  12. Temporary entry of business persons
  13. Investment
  14. Digital trade
  15. Government procurement
  16. Intellectual property
  17. Competition
  18. Consumer protection
  19. State-owned enterprises and designated monopolies (SOEs)
  20. Good regulatory practice (GRP) and regulatory cooperation
  21. Labour
  22. Environment
  23. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
  24. Trade and gender equality
  25. Indigenous trade
  26. Trade and development
  27. Anti-corruption
  28. Transparency
  29. Initial provisions and general definitions, final provisions
  30. General exceptions and general provisions
  31. Dispute settlement
  32. Additional outcomes.
The introduction makes clear that the agreement in principle does not create any legally binding obligations.  Work on a legal text which will be binding if it is accepted by the two governments is said to be substantially completed.  In accordance with the Change of Focus announced on 23 Sept 2021, this article will focus on the intellectual property provisions of the agreement in principle.

Intellectual Property

Section 16 of the agreement in principle promises provisions on copyright and related rights, design protection, trade marks, geographical indications (GIs), trade secrets, enforcement, patents and test data but nothing that will affect the price of medicines for New Zealand or the National Health Service. 

Copyright  

In respect of copyright, the New Zealand government has agreed to extend the term of copyright for authors of literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works by 20 years within 15 years of entry into force of the agreement.  At present, s.22 (1) of the New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 provides a term of the life of the author plus 50 years.  The term of copyright for computer-generated works and works of unknown authors will be increased from 50 years to 70.  There are likely to be similar extensions to copyright in sound recordings and films under s.23 (1) and communication works under s.24 (1).

The British and New Zealand governments have agreed to adopt (in the case of New Zealand) or maintain (in the case of the UK) artists' resale rights schemes on a reciprocal basis. For those who are not familiar with artists' resale rights or droit de suite, I covered the introduction of the British scheme in Copyright: Resale Right Directive to be implemented in New Year on 17 Dec 2005 NIPC Law, Copyright: Resale Rights Directive Implementation on 21 Dec 2021 NIPC Law and Copyright: Happy New Year for Artists on 1 Jan 2006 in NIPC Law.  Further information on the right can be found in this guidance from the Intellectual Property Office. New Zealand will introduce a resale rights scheme within 2 years of the entry into force of the agreement.  

Rights in Performances

The New Zealand government will extend the duration of rights in relation to performances mentioned in s.193 of the New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 from 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which a performance takes place to 70 years within 15 years of the coming into force of the agreement.

Both governments have agreed to adopt or maintain a public performance right for performers to cover communication to the public of phonograms,

Registered Designs

The free trade agreement will require the New Zealand government to make all reasonable efforts to join the Hague Agreement on Industrial Designs. This agreement facilitates the registration of industrial designs in much the same way as the Patent Cooperation Treaty facilitates applications for patents and the Madrid Protocol facilitates the registration of trade marks.  The United Kingdom has been a member since 13 June 2018.

GI

The governments have agreed to review the free trade agreement to ensure that the geographical indications of British agricultural produce and foodstuffs are adequately protected in New Zealand and those of New Zealand agricultural produce and foodstuffs in the UK in the following circumstances.  The first of those is if New Zealand introduces a bespoke scheme for agricultural products or foodstuffs, or substantively amends its domestic registration system.  At present, New Zealand wines and spirits may be registered under the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006. The other circumstance is if no changes are made to New Zealand's GI laws within 2 years of the entry into force of the free trade agreement.

Traditional Knowledge

The two governments will work together on the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on traditional knowledge.  The free trade agreement will contain provisions on genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expression,  For example, the agreement will provide for consideration of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources in patent examinations.   This will take account of the contribution of the Maori community to New Zealand (see Maori IP on the IP Office of New Zealand's website).

Other Provisions

There are references to wine labelling, medicines and medical devices that may require amendment of existing British and New Zealand IP laws in the technical barriers to trade section.   Similarly in the sections on telecommunications, digital trade, competition and SME.   I will explore those issues more fully when a draft text of the agreement is published.   One possible lacuna in the treaty will be the exclusion of a procedure for resolving disputes between investors and host governments.

Further Information

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on +44 (0)20 7404n 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message at any time through my contact form.

Thursday, 23 September 2021

Change of Focus

Winkel triple projection SW.jpg
Author Daniel R Strebe 15 Aug 2011 Copyright waived  Source Wikimedia Commons

Jane Lambert

During the 2016 referendum campaign, I wrote that the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union would profoundly affect the laws that protect investment in branding, design, technology and creativity (see Were we to go - what would Brexit mean for IP 26 Feb 2016 NIPC Law). I noted that the nature and extent of that change would "depend on the sort of relationship with the rest of the EU that we could negotiate in the two years allowed by art 50 (2) of the Treaty on European Union." After a plurality of voters had voted for withdrawal, I followed those negotiations in this blog in order in order to make an educated guess as to how this country's IP law would develop.

Although there may still be further negotiations between the UK and the European Commission over the Northern Ireland Protocol for the reasons I discussed in British Proposals for Renegotiating the Northern Ireland Protocol on 29 July 2021, they are unlikely to result in major changes to this country's IP laws.  The legal framework following Brexit is set out in my article How Brexit has changed IP Law of 17 Jan 2021 and presentation of 26 Jan 2021 (slides and notes).

While bilateral treaties such as the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan and the proposed Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement contain provisions on intellectual property, it is unlikely that any of them will require amending legislation. What might are the intellectual property provisions of the Trans Pacific Partnership which are incorporated by reference into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Chapter 20 of the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada, the successor to the North American Free Trade Agreement.   I shall therefore focus in future on those developments rather than bad-tempered exchanges arising from the withdrawal and trade and cooperation agreements. 

HMG has embarked on a great experiment of decoupling from neighbours and allies with shared interests in the world's richest trading bloc and forming new relationships with fast growing economies on the other side of the world.  It is by no means certain that that experiment will succeed and my change of focus should not be seen as an endorsement of the experiment. But it is more relevant to the startups and other SME and their professional advisors that form the bulk of my clientele and require practical advice on IP prosecution, licensing and enforcement in the UK and any new markets that may open up as a result of the government's activities.

To reflect the change of focus I shall change the name of this publication from "NIPC Brexit" to "NIPC Internatiomal" and replace the monthly "Brexit Briefings" with targeted updates.   Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during normal business hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Wednesday, 1 September 2021

Brexit Briefing - August 2021

British forces on their way to Kabul to assist with the evacuation
Author Ministry of Defence Licence OGL v 3  Source Wikimedia Commons

 









Jane Lambert

August was the month the government might have expected some positives from brexit.  An aircraft carrier strike group steamed through the South China Sea for the first time since 1968 when Denis Healey withdrew British forces from their bases east of Suez.  Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng published plans for the UK to become a science and technology superpower in 9 years time (see UK Innovation Strategy 12 Aug 2021 NIPC Inventors Club). Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden promised "a world-leading data regime" by "forging new global partnerships and designing our own common sense data laws" (see Dowden's Data Protection Plans 27 Aug 2021 NIPC Data Protection).

None of those announcements was noticed because attention has focused on the rapid collapse of a régime in defence of which 454 British service personnel lost their lives.  What will be remembered long after the fleet has returned to its base will be the emergency parliamentary debate on Afghanistan and, in particular, the words of the former Prime Minister:  "Where is global Britain on the streets of Kabul?" MPs and peers had harsh words for the United States and its government in that debate.  The US government gave as good as it got by inferring that the UK authorities were partly to blame for the casualties of the terrorist attack by insisting on keeping the Abbey Gate open.

There have been tensions and spats between the US and UK in the past as Philip Stephens noted in his article, Kabul retreat leaves the UK on a bridge to nowhere (26 Aug 2021 Financial Times).  These have been forgotten and forgiven as the UK stayed close to the only giant in Liliput.  But the decision of the last two presidents to withdraw from Afghanistan come what may has made that giant appear old and feeble, especially in contrast to the vigorous, youthful giant that is emerging in Asia.  The Chinese government's newspaper, Global Times, was not slow to question the strength of the US  commitment to Taiwan in the light of the evacuation from Kabul.  Aspiring to be Greece to America's Rome may have made sense during the pax Americana.   With the legions in retreat, it is much less easy to justify.

Although there are no immediate signs of it happening, August may be the month in which the British public begins to rediscover the advantages of collaborating with its neighbours.  When the Prime Minister argued in Parliament that the UK had no choice but to accept the American withdrawal, at least one MP asked why the government did not explore the possibility of working with other NATO allies to ensure an orderly withdrawal of nationals if not the continuation of the mission.  It is already clear that several of the UK's neighbours have overtaken the UK and other English speaking countries in vaccinating their citizens,  Also, none of them is suffering the distribution difficulties caused by the shortage of  HGV drivers with the ending of free movement of labour.   No amount of free trade agreements with countries on the other side of the world will solve those problems but closer cooperation with the EU might.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Monday, 23 August 2021

First Meeting of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement Partnership Council

Author Furfur Source Wikimedia Commons

 











Jane Lambert

Art 7 (1) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part OJ L 149, 30.4.2021, p. 10–2539) establishes a Partnership Council consisting of representatives of the European Union and of the United Kingdom. Its purpose is to oversee the attainment of the objectives of the Agreement and to supervise and facilitate the Agreement's implementation and application.  The Council meets at the request of the EU or the UK, and, in any event, at least once a year.

The first meeting of the Council took place at Admiralty House on 9 June 2021 between 08:00 and 09:30.  It was attended by 44 delegates from the UK and 50 from the EU.  The British delegation was led by Lord Frost and Penny Mordaunt MP and consisted of representatives of the Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Manx and Channel Island governments and civil servants. The EU delegation was led by Maros Šefčovič and consisted of Commission officials and representatives of the EU member states.

The reason I have not mentioned this meeting before is that the minutes were published on 20 Aug 2021. Accompanying those minutes are the agenda, a statement from Lord Frost on the meeting and a summary of the UK's new relationship with the EU.   According to Lord Frost,  the meeting took place in a constructive atmosphere and marked an important milestone in the UK's new relationship with the EU as friendly trading partners and sovereign equals.  He added:

"As regards the substance, the UK emphasised the need to continue and deepen our close cooperation on customs and on sanitary and phytosanitary measures and encouraged pragmatism, on both sides, to minimise the barriers to trade being faced. On fisheries, the UK made clear that it will exercise regulatory autonomy within its waters, while continuing to take pragmatic steps to ease the transition to the new arrangements for EU fishermen including on licences. The UK noted the good progress in the area of law enforcement generally, but that further steps were needed before all Member States were able to deliver on the commitments in the Agreement. The UK encouraged swift progress on the UK’s association to Horizon, Euratom and Copernicus. The UK also raised issues faced by touring performers and noted the ongoing work with Member States to try to resolve these issues."

Meetings have also taken place between members of three of the specialized committees which were established by art 8 of the Agreement.   

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through this form at other times.

Saturday, 7 August 2021

Brexit Briefing - July 2021

Christmas Truce 1914
Author Harold B Ronson Copyrightexpired Source Wikimedia Commons


















On the first Christmas of the Great War, the fighting paused to enable both sides to bury their dead.  At least one football match took place between opposing troops. Luxuries from food parcels were exchanged as well as other simple kindnesses.  The suspension by the Commission of legal proceedings against the British government for alleged breaches of the withdrawal agreement is reminiscent of that truce.  There has even been a football match with Germany which England conveniently won.

The Christmas truce of 1914 did not last long and there is no reason to believe that the slightly improved relationship between the UK and its neighbours will last any longer.  There have certainly been enough provocations from the British media from exaggerated indignation over the announcement of visa waiver fees to visit Schengen countries to David Gauke's article Dominic Cummings’s solution to the Irish border problem would have been disastrous on 29 July 2921 in The New Statesman alleging a plot to drive the Irish Republic out of the European Union or at least out of the single market.  

From a brexiteer perspective, such a plot is not as mad as it sounds. It would have avoided customs checks in the Irish sea and on the island of Ireland.  It might even have worked.  There has been a lot of ill-feeling between Britain and Ireland over the centuries but the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic share a common travel area, a common language, the common law, a parliamentary system of government, close economic ties and even closer family ones.  Relations between Dublin and Brussels have been strained over Irish tax incentives to attract US tech companies and they may become strained again if the recent consensus on taxation is ever implemented.  It is not entirely fanciful to suppose that a time may come when the peoples of the UK and Ireland may find that they have more in common with each other than they do with the Continent and that they have more to gain from cooperating with each other than with their continental neighbours.

The suspension of legal proceedings has been viewed by some as a sign of weakness on the part of the EU. It is said that the Commission has been spooked by the threat in Northern Ireland Protocol: the way forward to invoke art 16 of the Northern Irish Protocol. I have to say that I do not think that is very likely. As I explained in British Proposals for Renegotiating the Northern Ireland Protocol on 29 July 2021, art 16 is intended only to bring short term relief should the application of this Protocol lead to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade.  It can be compared to a force majeure clause in a commercial contract.  A more likely explanation for the suspension of legal proceedings is that civil servants on both sides like to take their family holidays in August.

In his foreword to Global Britain in a competitive age which I discussed in my article of 19 March 2021, the Prime Minister wrote:
"In 2021 the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, one of the two largest warships ever built for the Royal Navy, will lead a British and allied task group on the UK’s most ambitious global deployment for two decades, visiting the Mediterranean, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. She will demonstrate our interoperability with allies and partners – in particular the United States – and our ability to project cutting-edge military power in support of NATO and international maritime security. Her deployment will also help the Government to deepen our diplomatic and prosperity links with allies and partners worldwide."

That task force has now arrived in the Pacific to the irritation of the Chinese government that was to be expected:

"The threat to freedom of navigation could only come from the one who deploys a carrier strike group to the South China Sea half a world away and flexes its naval muscles to heighten the military tension in that region." (Chinese embassy in London quoted by Frank Gardner in China warns UK as carrier strike group approaches 30 July 2021 BBC website)

What was perhaps less expected was its lukewarm reception by the USA.  Katherine Hille reported that US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin had suggested that the UK might be more helpful as an ally if it did not focus on Asia.  In a speech at an event in Singapore sponsored by the Institute of Strategic Studies, Mr Austin stressed that military resources were scarce and that the US and its allies had to work out the best way of sharing military burdens. “If for example, we focus a bit more here [in Asia], are there areas that the UK can be more helpful in other parts of the world?” he mused,  Hille opined that Mr Austin's remarks would come as a blow to HM government (see Katherine Hille Britain ‘more helpful’ closer to home than in Asia, says US defence chief 27 July 2021 Financial Times).

In addition to the negotiations to accede to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership which I mentioned in my Brexit Briefing for May 2021, the UK has become a dialogue partner to the Association of South-East Asian States (see the joint press release from the Foreign Office and the Department for International Trade UK becomes Dialogue Partner of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations 5 Aug 2021). The press release does not state what a "dialogue partner" actually does and it appears that the UK enjoyed that status through its membership of the EU until 31 Dec 2020.

Nevertheless, it is another quiet achievement for the Department for International Trade under Liz Truss, She is the minister who has escaped most of the criticism that has been levelled at the government.  Truss's department seems to be responsible for business with the EU now that the withdrawal and trade and cooperation negotiations are at an end.  It has published useful documents such as its guidance on EU business: data protection and copyright updated 9 July 2021.  Truss campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU in 2016 yet she has become the minister who has come closest to making brexit work. 

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or any of the topics discussed in it may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through this form at other times.  

Thursday, 29 July 2021

British Proposals for Renegotiating the Northern Ireland Protocol

Author Heenah Licence CC BY-SA 4.0 Source Wikimedia Commons

 











Jane Lambert

The pickle in which HM government finds itself over the Northern Ireland Protocol to the agreement between the EU and the UK for the UK's withdrawal from the European Union was hardly unexpected. If there is to be regulatory divergence between the UK and the EU there have to be customs inspections and formalities somewhere.  If the re-establishment of customs posts on the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is unacceptable to this country's European and American allies, then inspections and formalities have to take place between Great Britain and both parts of the island of Ireland.

Immediately after the end of the implementation or transition period provided by art 126 of the withdrawal agreement, there was disruption in the supply of goods from Britain to Northern Ireland.  These led to street protests and calls for the denunciation of the Protocol if not the whole of the withdrawal agreement.  But there are signs that Northern Ireland retailers are sourcing more and more products from within Northern Ireland, the Republic or the rest of the EU.  That is, of course, weakening economic ties with Great Britain and strengthening ties with the Republic. Ultimately that could lead to the cession of Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic. While Irish unification would be welcomed by some in Great Britain it would be regarded as a calamity not only by Northern Ireland Unionists but also by many members of the British Conservative and Unionist Party.   

Mrs Theresa May was offered an arrangement similar to the Northern Irish Protocol but she rejected it on the ground that it was something that no British Prime Minister could accept.  That raises the question of why her immediate successor did just that.  Para 13 of the UK Government position paper Northern Ireland Protocol: the way forward (CP 502) published on 21 July 2021 offers the following explanation:

"However Parliament’s insistence in the BennBurt Act that the UK could not leave the EU without an agreement radically undermined the Government’s negotiating hand; and the final compromise, while delivering the fundamental aim of a clear Brexit, and recognisably based on the UK’s proposal, included several elements which would prove to cause difficulties subsequently: notably, though not only, the EU’s insistence on customs arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with detail to be worked out subsequently; and the failure to provide for Northern Ireland’s consent to enter the arrangements."

That does not make a lot of sense.  Had the government's negotiating hand not been "undermined" the government would have been free to take the United Kingdom out of the EU without any agreement on anything including the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.  That would inevitably have led to border controls and probably security forces to protect them.

The doleful consequences of the Protocol are summarized in para 20 of the position paper:

"Supply chains have been disrupted and costs increased, with staff redeployed to deal with new bureaucracy, impacting investment and growth. Consumers have seen real impacts: at least 200 companies in Great Britain have stopped servicing the Northern Ireland market; plants and trees long-sourced from Great Britain can no longer be stocked in nurseries or garden centres in Northern Ireland; supermarkets have reduced their product lines due to the delays and barriers in moving goods; and the costs of deliveries for those who do serve the market have continued to increase. The effects are felt more broadly too. Medicines are at risk of discontinuation because the hurdles to clear to reach the small Northern Ireland market make supply unviable. And pet owners, including those reliant on assistance dogs, have faced the prospect of unnecessary vaccinations and treatments, and bureaucratic certification hurdles simply to travel within the United Kingdom."

If this is true, the Northern Irish Protocol is clearly not working for the benefit of British suppliers to Northern Ireland but that does not mean that consumers in that province are going hungry.  There are signs that supplies from Great Britain are being replaced by supplies from Ireland and other EU member states (see InterTradeIreland Cross-Border Trade & Supply Chain Linkages Report).

In the position paper, the government is threatening to invoke art 16 of the Protocol.   It is hard to see how that will help.  The first paragraph of the article provides:

"If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol."

It would appear that "safeguard measures" taken under this article are to be proportionate, short-term and to be taken only in an emergency.  If such measures lead to an imbalance between the rights and obligations under this Protocol, the other party may take such proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance in accordance with art 16 (2).  Extensive consultations are required before a party may resort to art 16.

The revision to the Protocol that the British government appears to want is inspection-free entry of goods that are intended for consumption in Northern Ireland and full controls for goods intended for the Republic and beyond.   How this would work is not clear because most exporters to the Republic would be expected to choose the M4 to Fishguard or the A55 to Hollyhead rather than the long drive to Cairnryan. The only advantage of the latter would be the opportunity to smuggle. 

The other concession that the government seeks is to remove the resolution of disputes from the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. As EU law applies to the Protocol it is unlikely that there can be much movement there.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during normal business hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Tuesday, 6 July 2021

Brexit Briefing - June 2021

White Cliffs of Dover
Photochrom Film Collection  Copyright expired
 

















The transition or implementation period provided by art 126 of the agreement by which the UK left the EU expired on 31 Dec 2020 and commentators have been taking stock.   The British economy has not collapsed though some industries have reported difficulty,  On the other hand, the economy has not shown any signs of outperforming the economies of its continental neighbours.

Cabinet Office Policy Paper

The Cabinet Office has just updated a policy paper entitled Summary: The UK’s new relationship with the EU which it first published on 8 June 2021.  The policy paper purports to give an overview of what has changed, and what remains the same and refers to a special site at https://www.gov.uk/brexit for the detail.

Influence of EU Law

The first paragraph of that policy paper states that the UK has now left the EU Single Market and Customs Union which is entirely correct. It also claims that EU law no longer applies in the UK.  That is correct only in the sense that the British government no longer participates in EU legislation, courts in this country are not bound by decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union and judges can no longer refer cases to the court under art 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However, it ignores the incorporation of EU legislation and case law into the domestic laws of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the continuing right of courts in this country to have regard to judgments of the Court of Justice that have been or may be delivered since the end of the transition period.  Moreover, anyone in the UK who wishes to invest in, trade with or even visit the EU must continue to comply with EU law. 

Travelling to the EU

The right of free movement which was ensured by art 3 (2) of the Treaty of European Union no longer applies to British nationals.  There are now new rules for visiting the EU which are set out in the Passports, Travel and Living Abroad pages of the government website. Travellers are advised to take out comprehensive travel insurance, check that their passports meet new validity rules, and get any documents they may need to take their vehicles with them.  

Existing European Health Insurance Cards ("EHIC") will continue to be recognized until they expire and similar benefits are promised under the Global Health Insurance Card ("GHIC").   Applications for new GHICs or replacements for the EHIC are directed to www.nhs.uk/GHIC but that link is broken.  The correct site is headed Applying for healthcare cover abroad (GHIC and EHIC).   As my EHIC expired on 21 June 2021 I applied for a GHIC through that website while carrying out research for this article.  I received confirmation that my application had been successful almost immediately.

Visitors from the UK are not allowed to bring a ham or cheese sandwich or indeed any other meat or dairy products with them when crossing the channel.  Almost all plants and plant products, including fruits, vegetables, flowers and seeds, require a phytosanitary certificate.  Pet passports can no longer be relied upon.  Although it is not mentioned in the policy paper, roaming charges are to be reintroduced from January 2022 (see Anthony Reuben EE to reintroduce Europe roaming charges in January 24 June 2021 BBC).  Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 on cross-border portability of online content no longer applies to the UK which means that British travellers can no longer access online content in the EU (see IPO Guidance Protecting Copyright in the UK and EU 30 Jan 2020).

Trade in Goods

Businesses now need to comply with new customs procedures, including UK export declarations and import requirements on entry to the EU.   Some industries have found it harder to adapt than others.   The Food and Drink Federation reported a 47% drop in exports in the first quarter of 2021 compared to the same quarter of 2020 (see Exports snapshot: Q1 2021).   On the other hand, sales to Australia, China, Hong Kong, Japan and Saudi Arabia actually increased slightly in that period.  

Difficulties had arisen in sales of certain foodstuffs to Northern Ireland which is now treated as part of the EU for some purposes but the Commission has agreed to extend a grace period for the export of chilled meats for the time being.  Lord Frost, who was one of the UK government's principal negotiators has admitted that he did not anticipate the difficulties that have arisen over Northern Ireland (see Government Didn't Expect Brexit To Be So Disruptive For Northern Ireland, David Frost Admits  Adam Payne 17 May 2021).  If that is really the case it is extraordinary because I warned of them in this blog as did many others in other publications (see Brexit Briefing March 2020 4 April 2020).  

One bit of good news in manufacturing was Nissan's announcement of a substantial investment in battery production in this country (see Nissan to create thousands of UK jobs in battery investment 29 June 2021 BBC website).  It is thought that the British government has invested or promised to invest a substantial sum in the project.  Even with this investment, battery production in the UK will be a fraction of that of Germany.

Trade in Services

The Trade and Cooperation Agreement did not make extensive provision for trade in services.   Talks did take place between Her Majesty's Government and the Commission on recognizing each other's standards as equivalent but these have ended without agreement (see Sunak: Financial services equivalence deal with EU 'has not happened 2 July 2021 The Guardian).   Happily, the Commission has recognized the UK's data protection legislation as broadly equivalent to its own which should ensure that the mutual exchange of personal data shall continue for the time being (see Jane Lambert Commission Adequacy Decisions 29 June 2021 NIPC Data Protection).
.   
There had been consternation earlier this year when Amsterdam appeared to overtake London in the trading of equities (see Philip Stafford Amsterdam ousts London as Europe’s top share trading hub 10 Feb 2021 FT).  London has recently recovered its position as the leading equity market (see Philip Stafford London reclaims top trading status from Amsterdam 2 July 29021 FT).  According to Stafford, London regained its lead through trading in Swiss stocks.

Free Trade Agreements

The rationale for Brexit is that the world's fastest-growing markets lie outside the EU and that any loss of trade with mainland Europe can be more than offset by increasing trade elsewhere. It is argued that commodity prices are lower ln world markets than in the EU because there are no external tariffs and that British negotiators can obtain more favourable trade deals for the British economy than EU negotiators because British interests no longer have to be weighed against those of other EU member states. So far, most of the agreements that the British government has concluded with countries outside the EU have been based on agreements between those countries and the EU. The agreement with Japan was slightly different (see Jane Lambert Agreement in Principle on a Comprehensive Economic Partnership with Japan of 12 Sept 2020 and An Introduction to and Overview of the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan of 28 Oct 2020), The prospective agreement with Australia is the first bilateral trade agreement to be negotiated from scratch (see Jane Lambert The Proposed Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement of 17 June 2021).  HM Government also opened negotiations for British accession to The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership on 22 June 2021 (see the Department for International Trade's press release Britain launches negotiations with £9 trillion Pacific free trade area 21 June 2021 DfIT website).

Further Information

I shall be monitoring and reporting on those developments over the next few months.   Anyone wishing to discuss this article or the Brexit experiment generally may contact me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during normal business hours or by sending me a message through my contact form at all other times. 

UPC Court of Appeal upholds the Mannheim Local Division's Decision on the Court's Jurisdiction in Fujifilm v Kodak

Musée de l'Élysée ,   Lausanne, World's First Photographic Museum Author Sandro Senn   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commo...