Journal

Covid recovery

We are, we all fervently hope, beginning to emerge from the worst impacts of the Covid pandemic. Economic life isn’t exactly back to normal, but it is heading in the right direction. But a combination of Covid and Brexit has ravaged our economy, and continues to do so. Supply chain crises, staffing shortages in many sectors, export difficulties: we aren’t in terribly good shape. We do, however, have to try and make the best we can of where we find ourselves. Bewailing how we got here (which I frequently do) isn’t particularly helpful.

It has been heartening to hear that trade mark and patent activity has been reasonably vigorous over the past 18 months.

The hope, though, has to be that it is intellectual property that will provide the greatest help towards recovery. It isn’t too far-fetched to say that it is patents and trade marks that will in the long run make the greatest difference to our economic future. It is innovation, and the legal framework that underpins it, that will be the most important ingredient of that future. And in this respect it has been heartening to hear that trade mark and patent activity – and the demand for service from attorneys in both fields – has been reasonably vigorous over the past 18 months, despite the rigours of the pandemic and accompanying lockdowns. It varies, of course, from sector to sector and firm to firm, but my worst initial fears about a falling-off of activity don’t seem – so far at least – to be being realised.

There was some mixed news for the world of intellectual property in the recent Budget. Looking at the announcements on research and development, there were some welcome bits and pieces. The extra £400m for Innovate UK was one of these. The £800m announced – albeit spread over five years (it’s the oldest trick in the Treasury book, announcing five years’ worth of money as if it’s one) – for the new “Aria”, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, was encouraging. This agency was apparently the brainchild of Dominic Cummings, and everything will crucially depend on the specifics of how it is set up, what its remit is, and how it operates. The devil, as always, will be in the detail.

The underlying picture isn’t as good, however. We had originally been promised an overall total of government support for R & D of £22bn a year by 2024/5. That target has now been pushed back to 2026/7, two years later. Chancellors (of all stripes) do tend to be rather good at committing to funding many years in advance, and then subsequently adjusting the dates.

Government funding matters, of course, because a lot of publicly-funded research spins off into new ideas and products that get taken up by the private sector and need patent or trade mark protection. But the central point remains very clear, and very important, and I do wish the government had gripped it more firmly: if we are going to build our way out of the economic malaise, it’s the things that contribute to intellectual property, and that need to be protected by IP law, that will lead the way. Let’s not forget the sheer importance of this mission, which we are all embarked upon.

Lord Chris Smith, Chair of IPReg, November 2021