Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [ Lords ]

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Second Reading Committee debate: House of Commons
Monday 16th January 2017 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, it might be helpful if I remind Members that the Second Reading of this Bill is being debated in Committee, rather than in the Chamber, because it is a Law Commission Bill. Under Standing Order No. 59, Law Commission Bills stand automatically referred to a Second Reading Committee. As this is a Second Reading debate, no Member may speak more than once without the leave of the Committee. Permission is conventionally granted, however, to the Minister moving the motion to do so, at the end of the debate.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee recommends that the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank the law commissioners for bringing the Bill to the House in this state. It has had a consensual passage through the other place. I recently inherited the role of Minister with responsibility for intellectual property from Lucy Neville-Rolfe, who has gone to the Treasury, and I am pleased to be responsible for introducing the Bill to this House.

The intellectual property regime is crucial to the UK’s economic growth. IP-intensive industries are estimated to generate more than 25% of UK employment and 37% of UK GDP. IP is also vital to protecting and building our strong research base, creating economic growth from our fantastic universities and world-class scientific research. The importance of IP is reflected in our manifesto commitment to make the UK

“the best place in Europe to innovate, patent new ideas and set up and expand a business.”

The Bill is just one of a number of ways in which the Government are taking action to improve the IP regime. We have brought the unitary patent and Unified Patent Court one step closer, giving businesses the option to protect their inventions in up to 25 countries with a single patent. Furthermore, the Digital Economy Bill, which left the House in December, contains important IP provisions, including reforms to the penalties for copyright infringement.

Of course, improving the IP regime is not limited to legislation. The Intellectual Property Office is continually improving its services and increasing the availability of digital IP tools. We also continue to make considerable progress through international harmonisation of IP laws and practice, as well as IP education, outreach and enforcement activities on a number of fronts.

The Bill is of narrow scope but fits perfectly with the Government’s wider work on the IP regime. It gives effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission following in-depth analysis and extensive consultation. The Law Commission is a statutory independent body, tasked with reviewing the law to ensure that it is modern, fair and fit for purpose. Like other Bills resulting from the Law Commission’s work, the Bill follows a special parliamentary procedure that facilitates uncontroversial but important law reform.

I am grateful to colleagues in the other place who have given the Bill their detailed attention. Their enhanced scrutiny, as required by the special procedure, is greatly appreciated. In particular, the Special Public Bill Committee considered detailed evidence from industry, the legal profession, the IP judiciary and others. I am also thankful to the Law Commission and stakeholders who have worked together and with Government to produce and refine these much-needed reforms. As a consequence of those efforts, the Bill comes before us in very good shape.

I will briefly explain the complex and specialist aspect of our IP framework with which the Bill is concerned, namely unjustified threats—that is, a threat to sue for infringement of an IP right where no infringement has taken place or where the IP right in question is invalid. The considerable financial burden of IP litigation means that many businesses seek to avoid it at all costs. Small businesses in particular are disproportionately affected by the drain that such litigation places on their limited time and resources. The mere threat of being sued for IP infringement can therefore drive customers or retailers away from an entirely legitimate business. As a result, unjustified threats can cause significant commercial damage. To combat that, the threats provisions have existed in some form for more than 100 years. They offer much-needed protection and provide appropriate remedies to those affected by an unjustified threat.

Unfortunately, the existing threats provisions are not as effective as they should be. They are overly complex and have developed in a piecemeal fashion across the different IP rights. The law is inconsistent and difficult to navigate as a result, which is why the Government asked the law commissioners to review this area of law in detail in 2012. The Law Commission made a number of detailed of recommendations, which are reflected in the Bill. It substituted new threats provisions for old within the relevant parent Act for the relevant IP rights: patents, trademarks and both registered and unregistered designs. The main clauses repeat the same substantive law across each of those rights.

There are five main parts to each clause. The first sets out a clear test for whether a particular communication contains a threat. The second sets out which types of threat trigger the threats provisions. The third gives guidance on what can be safely said. The fourth sets out remedies and defences. The fifth introduces an exemption so that threats claims cannot be brought against regulated professional advisers acting under instruction.

I hope that the Committee has found that brief explanation helpful. The provisions have been the subject of a great deal of detailed work, including at the Law Commission stage, with a wide range of stakeholders, including the Law Society, and during the Bill’s scrutiny thus far. The new provisions form just one small part of the wider IP regime that is so important for this country’s prosperity, but they are nevertheless worthy and important reforms that will make a real difference to UK innovators, inventors and designers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

This has been a good debate, during which we have been graced by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby on his 60th birthday. Inventors and manufacturers in Rugby will have followed our proceedings with interest, and I am glad that they will have heard members on both sides of the Committee express support for the Bill. I am grateful to them for acknowledging that the Government have taken up the Law Commission’s good work. Getting the threats provisions right is important in supporting our creators, innovators and businesses—large and small—and, as I have said, I am grateful to the hon. Members who have contributed to our brief but useful debate.

Turning to some of the points raised, threats to manufacturers or importers and their equivalents rightly will not trigger threats actions. That will allow rights holders to approach the trade source of a potential infringement. Manufacturers and importers are likely to be able to assess whether a threat to sue is justified. Having invested in the product in question, they will also be more willing to challenge a threat, if required. The provisions therefore encourage rights holders to approach the most appropriate person or business while protecting others, such as retailers, from unfair approaches and unreasonable threats. Making threats to primary actors actionable would stifle the ability of rights holders to enforce their rights. We therefore believe that the Bill strikes the right balance, and there is no evidence that stakeholders want that aspect of it to change.

On remedies, the threats provisions are just one crucial part of the wider toolkit available to those seeking to resolve genuine issues, and can be used alongside a range of alternative dispute resolution measures, such as mediation, to resolve disputes without resorting to litigation. For example, the IPO itself provides a flexible, quick and effective IP mediation service, which helps parties who are in dispute to reach agreement. There is simply no evidence that the sensible current remedies are deficient.

Reform of the threats provisions is long overdue, and this small but well-formed Bill will allow us to deliver valuable change now. It will help businesses to negotiate fairly in IP disputes, provide clarity and bring much-needed consistency to the complex area of IP law. I am pleased to have had this opportunity to discuss these issues, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert—

“(c) commissioning a product for disposal.”

This amendment would ensure the commissioner is treated the same as the manufacturer in the case of infringement. This would make it consistent with the arrangement for trademarks.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. In my speech on Second Reading last week, I noted that it is essential that the Bill makes sufficient provisions to protect manufacturers from unjustified threats. The Government, in bringing forward the Bill, made the claim that manufacturers and importers of infringing products do more commercial damage than retailers, stockists and customers. It has also been suggested that manufacturers, having invested in the product, are better placed to determine whether a threat of infringement proceedings is justified.

The amendment would ensure that commissioners and manufacturers are treated on an equal footing and go some way to protecting manufacturers. Such an arrangement already exists in trademark law. Any company that instructs or commissions work that applies a trademark it does not own is treated as a primary infringer and can be written to freely. That is not the case for patents and designs. In such cases, the manufacturer is instead treated as the primary infringer. They can be written to freely, but under the Bill’s provisions the person or company that commissioned the manufacturers to do the work cannot be written to without fear of a threats action.

That is perhaps more troubling when we consider the unequal relationship that often prevails in such cases. More often than not, it is a larger company that commissions work and instigates the infringement of a design or patent, while the company carrying out the work is a smaller manufacturer, perhaps a small or medium-sized enterprise based in one of our constituencies. Many of those smaller manufacturers will not realistically be in a position to insist on indemnities in the contracts with the commissioner. We know how unequal contract negotiations often are between large companies and smaller companies in their supply chain. The manufacturer will get dragged into infringement action, as they can be written to freely, but the real prime mover is protected by the provisions in the Bill. As they stand, the provisions allow infringing commissioners to hide behind manufacturers, who would not be protected. This amendment would prevent such circumstances arising and I urge the Minister to accept it.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve in Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central for her amendment, which gives us a chance to discuss this important IP legislation again in more detail. The existing IP legislation defines clearly those acts that can infringe intellectual property rights. It is essential that the threats provisions are entirely consistent with those definitions of infringement. Otherwise, we would create a real mess for businesses in this area. The amendment would mean that threats made to someone “commissioning” an allegedly infringing product will not give rise to a threats action. The person commissioning would be treated in the same way as a manufacturer or importer. However, commissioning infringing goods is not itself an infringing act in any of the existing statutory definitions. That is an important point.

The amendment would therefore create an anomalous situation in which a threat to sue for infringement could safely be made to someone who is not, under the definitions, an infringer at all. There is no situation in which such a threat could be justified. The amendment would remove protection from people who are not actually infringers. That cannot be right. Treating commissioning as if it were an infringement, just for these purposes, would also bring confusion and inconsistency more widely to the law of infringement.

I want to make it clear that there is no inconsistency with the situation found in trademark law, to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central referred. The provisions in the Bill relating to trademarks do not allow threats to be made for “commissioning”. The phrase

“causing a person to apply”

simply clarifies what is covered by the existing infringing acts in the Trade Marks Act 1994, in line with established case law. The amendment therefore seeks to address an issue that does not exist. For those reasons I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for his clarifications and comments. Can he address my central point, which is that small manufacturers are in an unequal relationship with those commissioning the products to be manufactured, and the provisions in the Bill may put them at greater risk than those who are commissioning the infringing product? Will he consider ways in which small manufacturers can be better protected in the circumstances that I outlined?

[Joseph Johnson]

I am happy to attempt that. Manufacturers will benefit from the way these provisions prevent distortions in the wider marketplace. No evidence has been presented to the Government that stakeholders want that important aspect of the provisions to change. Manufacturers are already given considerable protection by the way in which the provisions prevent threats being made to others. Given that manufacturers are often the worst affected by unjustified threats made to those further down the supply chain, it is their customers who are scared off by threats of infringement proceedings. That is why the provisions allow anyone aggrieved by the threat to make use of the provisions, not just the recipient.

[Chi Onwurah]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Chi Onwurah]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 15, after “do,” insert “or claims to do,”.

This amendment deals with people or companies who hold themselves out as the primary infringer: ie, they claim to be the manufacturer or importer of a product (and therefore can be written to freely) when, in fact, they are not.

One of the virtues of the Bill is that it seeks to simplify and improve the workings of IP law and reduce the number of infringement cases brought before the courts for mistaken or outright false reasons. The amendment would enhance that aspect of the Bill by further reducing the scope for unnecessary litigation.

The amendment would allow people or companies that claim to be the primary infringer—that is, the manufacturer or importer of the product—to be communicated with freely by the rights holder, until it is clear that they are not the rights holder. That is a detailed point, and it may seem to be an obscure change, but it is important, otherwise I would not have tabled the amendment.

Under the Bill, the rights holder would not be able to communicate with a party falsely claiming to be the primary infringer, as that would run the risk of triggering the Bill’s provisions. If the amendment is agreed, the provisions would allow for communication from the rights holder until it is clear that the retailer or stockist is not, in fact, the manufacturer. That would reduce the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises—supporting SMEs is a constant theme of ours—and other organisations, because there would be fewer court actions and more such matters would be dealt with in the right way, which is directly between the participants. As such, I argue that the amendment is entirely in the spirit of the original Bill, and I ask the Government to accept it.

[Joseph Johnson]

In order to provide much-needed protection to retailers and customers, it is crucial that the IP threats provisions encourage rights holders to communicate with the trade source of an infringement. To facilitate that, the Bill sets out a clear statement of those acts that will not trigger an unjustified threats action.

The amendment would introduce circumstances where threats made to those further down the supply chain, such as retailers, would not give rise to an unjustified threats action. Those are exactly the people who should be protected by these provisions. The amendment would introduce the new concept of “claiming” to manufacture or import a product, and that is an inherently vague concept. It would no doubt be very difficult to prove in court and therefore the risk of satellite litigation on the point is considerable. Introducing the new concept would mean less certainty for businesses. It would likely be a long time before they would have clarity from case law about what constitutes “claiming”, and the additional complexity is unwelcome. The aim of the Bill is to help to clarify this area of law and make it easier to navigate.

Critically, the amendment would undermine protection for retailers and others further down the supply chain who inadvertently use ambiguous language, such as a reference to “our new product”. A retailer might easily imply, even accidentally, that it had made a product. Under the amendment, the retailer could lose all protection from unjustified threats. A rights owner may choose to rely on the public statement and issue a threat. By doing so, the rights owner chooses to risk that the recipient may bring a threats action. However, in the very unusual situation in which someone deliberately set out to entrap the rights holder, such behaviour would no doubt influence how the court would grant any remedies.

I am not convinced that there is an issue here that needs to be solved. If a rights holder is uncertain about whether a retailer is also a manufacturer, it can use a permitted communication to seek clarification. That removes the risk of an unjustified threats action. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central to withdraw her amendment.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for his comments. I agreed in my speech that the amendment could appear obscure, but the fact is that supply chains are increasingly complex. He talked about the amendment introducing the new concept of claiming to be a manufacturer, but it is not a new concept in practice, given the increasing complexity of global supply chains. It may be a new concept to the Minister.

It is incredibly important that the Bill supports small businesses generally, and in particular our small manufacturers. At the least, it should not put further barriers in the way of their effective commercial working, because it is our small manufacturers that we hope to grow into large manufacturers and create the high-skill, high-wage jobs that we all seek for our future prosperity. I ask the Minister specifically to take a further look at the amendment or to consider different ways of achieving the same objective.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

In the Bill as it stands, rights holders can refer only to current Acts without triggering the Bill’s provisions, and cannot refer to future Acts. That state of affairs seems to place an untenable level of burden on rights holders, and I ask the Minister to remedy it by accepting this amendment and—if he chooses not to do so—to detail his response to the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys,.

[Joseph Johnson]

It is crucial that the threats provisions allow rights holders to enforce their rights, but also that they encourage rights holders to communicate with the trade source of an infringement—those performing what are known as primary acts. For patents, that would include manufacturers and importers. The provisions will allow a threat to sue for infringement to be made to the manufacturer of a product, for example, a hair dryer. Threats can then also be made to that manufacturer for retailing that same hair dryer. Once the rights holder has found the manufacturer of the product, it is entirely sensible that the rights holder can raise all of the allegedly infringing acts they believe the manufacturer to be carrying out in relation to that product. That encourages sensible negotiation and helps to resolve the dispute.

However, the amendment would allow threats to be made to the same business for retailing similar hair dryers, even though the business in question is—for those products—merely acting as a pure retailer. That would chip away at the principle at the very heart of the threats provisions—that of protection for those further down the supply chain. The amendment would also blur the clear line between what does and does not give rise to a threats action, making it harder for rights holders to approach alleged primary infringers with confidence. In addition, the concept of “the same features so far as is material” is exceedingly vague and will create a great deal of uncertainty for business about whether products are, or are not, materially “the same”. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central to withdraw her amendment.

[Chi Onwurah]

I am disappointed that the Minister did not give more weight to CIPA’s concerns. His concern about the language being vague in certain provisions does not reflect the excellent work that I am sure could be done by his Department to make the language less vague. Equally, it does not reflect much of the language in existing provisions. However, I do not wish to test the patience—or, indeed, the presence—of the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Review of the impact of exiting the European Union on provisions within this Act

“( ) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the impact of the Government’s plans for exiting the European Union on the provisions within this Act, and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.” —(Chi Onwurah.)

A probing new clause to assess the impact of exiting the European Union on the provisions within this Act.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I agree that anything that reduces the costs of doing business across jurisdictions—with appropriate safeguards, of course—will be welcomed by businesses and companies that seek to do just that. Given that as we leave the European Union we will have to be more outward looking and focused on trade, immediately acting to impose extra burdens on businesses that might be seeking to invest in this country is not a particularly good signal. However, the Minister may well be about to provide us with every ounce of assurance possible and set out in full the Government’s intention with regard to our participation in the court.

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central again for her new clause and for the opportunity to touch on this morning’s court judgment. It was, however, delivered after the start of our proceedings, so I have not had the chance to look at it in full, although I can tell hon. Members that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will make a statement to the House at, I believe, 12.30 this afternoon, which will no doubt provide them with more information about the Government’s response.

[Maria Eagle]

Will the Minister enlighten us about the Government’s intention towards the unified patent court agreement?

[Joseph Johnson]

I will happily come on to that in due course. I remind the hon. Lady that the Bill is not part of the ratification process for the unified patent court and we are in danger of straying off topic and beyond the scope of the Bill.

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the Government’s plans for exiting the European Union on the provisions of the Bill within 12 months of it coming into force. The Law Commission review that led to the Bill was of the existing threat provisions that apply to all patents, trademarks and designs that have force in the UK, including the relevant EU-wide rights. The Bill therefore applies the new threat provisions to EU trademarks and community design rights.

It is important that businesses in the UK are protected against unjustified threats in relation to their activities in the UK, regardless of whether those threats relate to infringement of a UK national intellectual property right or an EU-wide IP right that is in force in the UK. Not to cover EU-wide IP rights in so far as they apply to the UK would leave a large loophole and make the threats regime inconsistent across relevant IP rights.

In answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, there is no question of the UK leaving the European Patent Office and the international patent convention that underpins it. It is not connected to the EU.

The Bill also ensures that the threats regime is compatible with the proposed unitary patent and unified patent court, when they come into effect. The Law Commission did detailed work with legal and business interests on that specific point. For as long as we are members of the EU, the UK will continue to play a full and active role. Ensuring that the IP regime continues to function properly for EU-wide rights is an example of that. However, that position and our decision to proceed with ratification of the UPC should not be seen as pre-empting the UK’s objectives in the forthcoming negotiations with the EU. No decision has been taken on our future involvement in the EU IP framework once we have left. That will be part of the negotiations, which have not yet begun.

It is likely that the negotiations will still be in progress one year on from the point at which the Bill would come into force—the point at which the new clause would require us to report. The Prime Minister has been firm that we will not provide a running commentary on negotiations. Publishing the report required by the new clause could well undermine our ability to negotiate the best deal for Britain in this area.

In her speech on 17 January, the Prime Minster set out our negotiating objectives for Brexit. We seek an equal partnership between an independent, self-governing, global Britain and our friends and allies in the EU. The UK has one of the best IP regimes in the world and our work continues to support and develop that. The UK leaving the EU will not change that. We will continue to deliver high-quality rights-granting services, to lead the world in IP enforcement and to be a positive force in the international IP arena. In light of my remarks, I ask the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central to withdraw her new clause.

[Chi Onwurah]

Let me start by saying that I welcome the Minister’s clarification on us remaining a member of the European Patent Office. At least, I think it was a clarification; it was not entirely clear whether it was a clarification or simply an exposition on the current status.

In the Minister’s response to the questions put and the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, he did not seem to recognise the respect for Parliament and accountability to Parliament that—I do not want to try the patience of the Chair—today’s judgment has enforced and reflected. He gave that as a reason why he cannot deliver a report on the implications, but his position is highly inconsistent. My hon. Friend characterised it as sitting on the fence, but it is an inconsistent fence. It is almost like sitting on two fences that are one.

At the same time as the Minister said it is clear that we are a member of the European Union until we are no longer a member of the European Union, he also said that that was not to presuppose any of the negotiations. He then effectively refused to give any kind of report on the implications of the negotiations when throughout the world investors who are considering investing in the UK and the manufacturing of particular products will be in a state of uncertainty. As I am sure the Minister and everyone on the Government Benches recognise—we certainly recognise it on the Opposition Benches—uncertainty is the death knell for business. Business needs as much certainty as is possible.

Given that we are in such uncertain times, not to be prepared to offer a little more certainty by giving a report one year out on the implications for patents of such a big change in our legislative framework seems short-sighted. I hope that the Minister has now had time to reflect—and perhaps to look at the judgment on his electronic device—and feels able to consider supporting the new clause, which would create a not unjustified level of sharing of implications and reduce business uncertainty. I am sure we can all agree that that is important, as we move towards leaving the European Union. The Minister does not seem inclined to respond to my appeal, so I will press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [Lords]

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue a report on the impact of the Government’s plans for exiting the European Union on the provisions in the Bill within 12 months of it coming into force.

The Bill does not take forward any EU obligations. The IP unjustified threats provisions do not derive from EU law. They are “home grown” provisions that were first enacted for patents back in the 19th century. The important protections provided by the Bill will not in themselves be changed by Brexit. Businesses pushed for clarity and certainty about how they can contact others over IP disputes, and the Bill will deliver that. Our leaving the EU does not alter that. Of course some IP rights are EU-wide, and the Bill will apply properly to those rights. The threats regime will be consistent across all relevant rights that have effect in the UK.

Furthermore, the Bill will ensure that our UK threats regime works appropriately with the proposed unitary patent and unified patent court when they come into effect. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) asked about the UPC following our exit from the EU. The options for the UK’s intellectual property regime after our exit, including our relationship with the unified patent court, will be the subject of negotiation, and it would be wrong to set out unilateral positions in advance. None the less, our efforts will be focused on seeking the best deal possible in negotiations with our European partners, and we want that deal to reflect the kind of mature co-operative relationship that close friends and allies enjoy.

As long as we are members of the EU, the UK will continue to play a full and active role, and making sure the IP regime continues to function properly for EU-wide rights is an example. The UK’s involvement in the EU IP framework after exit is not a matter for the Bill; it will be part of the EU exit negotiations, which of course have not yet begun. It is likely that those negotiations will still be in progress at the point at which the new clause would require us to report. Publishing the suggested report would be unnecessary and could well undermine our ability to negotiate the best deal for Britain in this area.

The hon. Gentleman asked about EU-wide IP rights on Brexit. Of course we are already talking to businesses and to other stakeholders about this important issue. There will be time to address it fully and properly during exit negotiations. Naturally, we will want to see the best outcome and one that supports our innovative businesses. He asked also about EU trade marks and designs. We recognise that users will want clarity over the long-term coverage of those rights. We acknowledge the importance of involving users in the consideration of these issues, and we are working with stakeholders at the moment to gather views on how to address their concerns.

The hon. Gentleman asked on a number of occasions about the EU trademark reform package and the directive. On balance, we think that the reform package is a good one, with modernisations that will make the overall system easier and cheaper for businesses to use.

We are committed to getting the right deal for the UK and we will work with Parliament to ensure a smooth and successful exit. The new clause would not help us in any of this work; it is unnecessary and potentially harmful to the UK’s interests. For that reason, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

[Bill Esterson]

I am glad that the Minister said that he was already having discussions with businesses; that is incredibly important. I urge him to make it clear very publicly, sooner rather than later, exactly what the nature of those discussions are. Businesses are already exceedingly worried about the consequences for intellectual property. I thank him for picking up the points that I made about the relationship between EU patent law and UK patent law. I think that he understands that a great deal of reassurance is needed. I do not agree that we would make life more difficult by having this requirement on Government. In fact, it is a sensible move. I would be surprised and very concerned if we did not see a degree of reporting back during negotiations on these and many other matters. None the less, he has put forward the Government’s view in response to the points that I have raised, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.



Clause 1

Patents

--- Later in debate ---

I am afraid that I did not follow some of the Minister’s counter-arguments to the amendment in Committee—for example, that the amendment would make it harder for rights holders to approach alleged primary infringers with confidence. In fact, our intention is precisely to increase confidence, especially among smaller businesses as they attempt to protect their intellectual property. Again, if the Minister will not do this through amendment 2, how will he? If CIPA is wrong, in what way is it wrong? If the language is vague—a point that the Minister made in Committee—why has his Department not suggested clearer language? With all the expertise here today and in the Department, it should be possible for the Minister to obtain the clarity of language to address the concerns we have raised. Did he actually ask for that kind of advice, clarification and language that would have addressed the problems, provided the additional assurance to smaller businesses and helped to alleviate some of these concerns? If not, why not?

[Joseph Johnson]

One of the key purposes of the Bill is to simplify an important but complex area of intellectual property law, making it more accessible and easier to use. One way in which it does this is by setting out a clear statement of those acts that a rights holder can safely refer to in a communication, and that will not trigger an unjustified threats action. This helps to encourage rights holders to communicate with the trade source of an alleged infringement. It would include those who manufacture or import patented products or use patented processes, for example. Such acts are known as primary infringements.

Amendments 1 and 3 seek to make it allowable to approach someone who explicitly claims to be a primary infringer. I am not convinced that there is problem that needs to be solved, but, in any event, there are two key points. First, under the reforms as they stand, a rights holder can already communicate with potential infringers of all types, including those identified by amendments 1 and 3. The Bill provides clear guidance on how this can be done. The provisions therefore make it easier for parties, including small and medium-sized enterprises, to communicate and resolve issues without the need for litigation. Secondly, it is perfectly allowable to make a threat to anyone so long as that threat refers only to manufacturing and importing, or other primary acts. Someone making such a threat would not be at risk of being sued, even if the recipient was falsely claiming to do those acts. For these reasons, as well as the additional complexity introduced, I do not accept that amendments 1 and 3 are appropriate.

Moving on to amendment 2, I agree it is important that issues of infringement can be raised early, before real commercial damage is done. For that reason, the Bill already allows threats to be made in relation to future or intended acts of primary infringement, so amendment 2 adds nothing in that regard. Furthermore, the Bill already allows the rights holder to refer to certain secondary acts when communicating with an alleged primary infringer. When someone is manufacturing an allegedly infringing product, the rights holder can also discuss the retailing of that same product. Users wanted this, as it is pragmatic and helps to save time and money, but it would not be right to extend this further and allow threats to be made to that same manufacturer about the retail or stocking of other products that they did not make themselves. That could damage businesses that retail products acquired from a legitimate manufacturer, and would disrupt the ability of that legitimate manufacturer to operate in the marketplace—an outcome that the threats provisions exist to prevent.

Finally, it is highly uncertain for businesses what would be considered to be “fundamentally similar” acts of infringement, as set out in the amendment, and litigation on the meaning would no doubt ensue. If the intention is to capture only similar products, I do not think that is achieved.

These amendments would introduce additional and unwelcome complexity. They would blur the line between who is protected from threats and who can safely be approached. Rather than benefiting rights holders, this could instead make getting legal advice more difficult and costly. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments.

[Bill Esterson]

We appear to have rehearsed, more or less word for word, what happened in Committee. I am disappointed by the Minister’s responses, because he does not appear to have picked up on the concern about the imbalance between larger and smaller businesses—a fundamental element of what we think is missing from the Bill as drafted. I would like greater clarity from him, but perhaps that will come as the Bill is implemented. I urge the Government to consider the impact on smaller businesses. On own label, apparently once the rights holder has found out that an own label product is not made by a supermarket, such action would have to cease or it would be covered by the legislation. That was certainly our intention in the amendment.

I hope that our points about the need to protect smaller businesses have been well made. I thank the Minister for his responses, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

[Joseph Johnson]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Intellectual property is crucial to supporting economic growth and a key part of our industrial strategy. I am therefore pleased that this small but important Bill is completing its passage today. The Bill will ensure that businesses, especially SMEs, are best able to make use of the IP regime. In doing so, it will help to deliver the Government’s manifesto commitment to make the UK the best place in Europe to innovate, patent new ideas, and set up and expand a business. The Bill brings clarity and consistency, making it easier and cheaper to solve infringement issues quickly and without litigation. It clearly defines how information can be exchanged to resolve disputes over IP infringement. It also means that legal advisers will now be better able to help to settle disputes without becoming embroiled themselves.

The reforms contained in the Bill are widely supported by stakeholders, not least because of careful research and consultation by the Law Commission. I thank the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission for their hard work and expertise in developing these reforms, and for the excellent support they have given the Bill during its passage. I would like briefly to highlight the value of the Law Commission special parliamentary procedure used in the passage of this Bill. The Bill has been strengthened by, in particular, the detailed scrutiny in the other place afforded by that procedure. I am grateful to hon. Members in this House, particularly those who served on the Committee, for their interest and for giving this Bill due consideration. My thanks also go to the hard-working Bill team and to Intellectual Property Office officials for their exceptional work.

The unjustified threats provisions are a valuable part of the wider IP regime and provide much needed protection. These reforms will ensure that those provisions are fit for purpose and make a real difference to our innovators, designers and businesses. I commend the Bill to the House.