New figures suggest innovation in the UK has increased, but we are lagging behind other parts of Europe and Brexit could yet turn the clock back writes Karl Barnfather chairman of IP firm Withers & Rogers
The latest batch of patent filing data released by the European Patent Office (EPO) reveals that innovation activity in the UK has increased, which is always a good sign. However, dig a bit deeper and the true picture becomes clear– UK innovators are still not doing enough to protect their inventions, unlike those in many other parts of the world.
The total number of patent filings made to the EPO by UK businesses grew by 2.4 per cent to 5,313 in 2017, a sign that investment in innovation remains buoyant. Drilling down into the UK data for industry sectors, the number of patent applications for innovations related to civil engineering rose considerably – increasing by 20.2 per cent. Similarly, the number of pharmaceutical and biotech patent applications rose by 15.7 per cent and 25.3 per cent respectively. Patent applications for medical technology overtook transport as the UK’s most active technology field, with 364 patent applications made in 2017.
While these statistics suggest that innovation in the UK is increasing, it is significant that the UK’s share of the overall number of patent applications made to the EPO in 2017 remains low by comparison with some other countries. Ranked 17th in the table of countries that made applications to the EPO in 2017, innovators in the UK filed just 82 applications per million of population. Puerto Rico, Norway and Ireland ranked higher. Topping the table, innovators in Switzerland filed over ten times as many applications per head of population, which makes them the most innovative country in the world.
The problem of Britain’s underwhelming performance when it comes to commercialising its innovations is not simply due to a lack of government intervention
The outlook for UK innovation is improving strongly in some areas, however. The rise in patent applications related to pharmaceutical and biotech innovations is particularly positive and shows that UK-based businesses are active players in the development of new cancer drugs and other much-needed medicines. The high volume of filings in this sector could also be due to greater awareness and understanding of the value of patent protection. The sharp rise in the number of patent applications related to construction in 2017 may well be linked to current investment in several large-scale infrastructure projects, including Crossrail and HS2.
However, despite the chinks of light in the data, cultural issues still need to be addressed in order to ensure that UK businesses don’t lose ground to competitors. While the Government has indicated a willingness to support UK innovation, the economic uncertainty expected over the next few years, as Britain exits the EU, makes it even more important that the conditions are right to enable the UK to realise its innovation potential.
The Government’s Industrial Strategy has set out plans to boost the productivity and earning power of people throughout the UK, and in February the Government announced a new £90m fund designed to align the UK’s agriculture supply-chain businesses with AI, robotics and data science. While this is helpful, the Government has a more important role to play and this should be its main focus.
In particular, diversity and international collaboration should be recognised and supported to ensure that Brexit doesn’t negatively impact the UK’s ability to attract skilled research scientists and to facilitate research projects at university level.
Furthermore, it is vital that innovators are able to achieve a good return on investment after Brexit. To assist with this, the Government must ensure that British companies have access to key markets, with as few trade barriers as possible.
However, the problem of Britain’s underwhelming performance when it comes to commercialising its innovations is not simply due to a lack of government intervention. There is also an onus on businesses to ensure that they are nurturing and supporting innovation.
Taking lessons from nations where innovation is considered an integral part of growing a successful business, British companies should consider establishing ‘skunk’ works or labs to sponsor research activity within their own corporate structures. They should also make innovation part of their business strategy and set goals for achievement in the same way as they might set targets for financial performance.
UK companies may also need to reconsider what it means to be innovative. Instead of concentrating on the springboard effect that comes from being first to market, they should be taking a more long-term view of commercialising their innovations.
In today’s intensely competitive and fast-paced markets, the real value of innovation often comes from licensing deals or industry collaborations, where patented technologies are shared to accelerate change. Of course, a deep understanding of the value of intellectual property rights is critical to this way of working.
In short, if Britain wants to increase its share of EPO patent applications in the future, it must start by self-learning a new approach to doing business that fosters innovation in every way and at every level.
As I always do whenever patents are mentioned (and particularly by one of that brotherhood who our organ regularly allows to puff his services?) I make the same comment. Were the money necessarily spent UP FRONT on gaining access to intellectual property ‘rights’ spent by firms large and small developing their ideas -so that there really is something to make and sell at the end….there would surely be a much greater cake -individual and for UK Plc- to be shared. If patents are as important as KB says….then let him and his ilk provide their skills gratis and take a large(s) slice of the rewards. When achieved as that assure us they will be. Let them put their money (time) where their mouths are. Many other elements of the legal scam now do so: and presumably they have found it profitable? So why not patent agents?
Our editor usually spikes my posts in this area: perhaps this time?
The number of patent applications does not tell the whole story. The UK’s lower numbers may well be linked to less innovation at the stage of commercialisation of technologies (a longstanding weakness of UK business) but the UK has traditionally been strong in fundamental research. This may well lead to relatively low volumes of patents – but these will be of a much higher level of inventiveness and of hence of high value if effectively exploited and managed.
Intellectual property is surely akin to military intelligence -an oxymoron?
I think the main problem with the patent system is the cost of getting the patent & the ridiculous cost of keeping that patent, especially for individuals who can’t afford the costs. Also if you have managed to get a patent & some company decides to make your idea a reality with out any deals with you, it costs an absolute fortune for you to state that it is your idea or invention when you clearly have a patent for it. Why should you have to prove something that has clearly been filed in your name against some company who has loads of money to fight against you & in a lot of cases win. You have a patent and that should be it. I know there can be disputes about when the idea first arose, but that is up to the individual to patent it first. No one should be able to make your idea: if you find out what they are doing, they should be shut down immediately & pay costs.
As an inventor, I have very little time for the patent system or patent attorneys.
An inventor’s interest is to make money from his invention.The Patent Attorney’s interest is to make money off the inventor. And quite preferably right upfront – BEFORE the luckless inventor discovers his bright idea bombs (90% of patents never make it into the real world!).
I’ve yet to meet any Patent Attorney who does not volunteer that “… you have a fantastic idea there! You had best patent that immediately! …” Whenever I get this superficial response, I always test it by remarking “Good! I’m looking for enthusiasts like you. Tell you what, I’ll give you a share in the business in exchange for you doing the IP. OK?” The minute the attorney folds his tent at this proposition, so should you.
Either your idea is not worth it. Or the Patent attorney is not the expert in your field that you absolutely need – in which case, shop it around at a few of his competitors before making a final decision.
All a patent does is give you an “entry ticket” into the ring for a fist-fight in court to defend your claim to invention. After spending huge amounts on obtaining a patent this is a HUGE risk to take on. Because if you lose … and you have little resources to survive that loss … it can literally be game over for your entire life’s savings.
And even if you do have a solid patent, that doesn’t mean you’re heading to the bank. Commercial success depends far more on business acumen than on the patent. Being (or having) a good businessman/salesman is far more important. Good businessmen make money off good ideas regardless of the quality of the IP. Just look at Richard Branson.
And the risk of losing is VERY high – no matter what your patent Attorney says beforehand as he subtly eyes how much you have in your purse.