Scotch Whisky and BlockchainModern technology meets ancient craft

also in this issue,healthcare’s AI-drivenfuture, how McDonald'slost its Big Mac trade markand will 2019 be the yearself-driving vehicles shiftup a gear?

Business Intelligence

Business Intelligence Q1 2019Welcome to the latest edition of Business Intelligence. Click on the links below to read an article and click an authors name if you would like to contact them by email. We hope you enjoy the latest editon and if you would like further information about any of the articles, or about how Marks & Clerk can advise on your intellectual property, then please email newsletter@marks-clerk.com

Brexit and Intellectual Property update

Brexit Update

The USPTO’s guidance on computer-implemented inventions - a European view

Beyond pharma - medtech and antimicrobial resistance

Healthcare's AI driven future

Distillers secure product provenence

2019: the year self-driving shifts up a gear?

Unwired Planet: one small SEP for man, one giant leap for FRANDkind

Campbell's v McDonald's: lessons for FMCG brand and trade mark holders

IP tribunal in Chinese Supreme Court

Opportunity knocks in enterprise and educational virtual reality

Canada adopts Madrid Protocol

While much uncertainty remains, recent developments don’t significantly alter our previous advice regarding Brexit and Intellectual Property (IP).

It remains the policy of Marks & Clerk to prepare for a ‘no-deal’ Brexit. This would be the most disruptive of all potential scenarios, so planning for it will give the best chance of being prepared whatever the eventual outcome.

Trade marks in particular are likely to be impacted. Many trade mark holders in the UK will hold an EU Trade Mark (EUTM) which – pursuant to the EU Trade Mark Regulation – offers trade mark protection in all EU countries, including the UK. Once the UK leaves the EU then, save for any transitional arrangements that may be agreed, EUTMs will no longer cover the UK and so it may be prudent to register an equivalent UK trade to ensure no loss of protection.

The UK government has published guidance indicating that, even in the case of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, it will seek to ensure no loss of protection for holders of EUTMs or registered community designs (which also only apply across the EU) once the UK leaves. One means of achieving this proposed by the Government is for existing EUTMs to be ‘cloned’, creating an equivalent right covering the UK.

Businesses holding EU-derived IP rights should continue to consult their IP advisers to ensure no risk to IP protection post-Brexit. As a firm withlong-standing bases in the UK and other EUcountries, Mark & Clerk will continue to advise on both UK and EU matters, and represent clients before the EU Intellectual Property Office whatever the eventual outcome of Brexit.

While the UK might be leaving the EU, Marks & Clerk is not. Our Brexit committee continues to monitor the situation closely as the politics plays out. For further detailed guidance as to how a ‘no- deal’ Brexit would impact IP rights, please click here and please contact us for further information about what Brexit means for your IP.

Graham Burnett-HallLondongbhall@marks-clerk.com

With the original Brexit deadline of 29 March drawing closer, we are still no clearer on whatBrexit deal the UK and the EU might finally settle on. With the PM’s deal already having beenrejected twice by Parliament, and the EU suggesting extending the article 50 deadline to eitherApril 12 or May 22 – depending on what can be achieved in Parliament in the meantime – theprospect of ongoing delays to Brexit, or a disorganised ‘no­deal’ Brexit look ever more likely.

Tom FarrandLondontfarrand@marks-clerk.com

Business Intelligence Q1 2019

Subject Matter Eligibility

The EPO has a long-established and consistent practice for examining the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, which is based on a body of case law that has evolved gradually over many decades. In contrast, the USPTO’s practice for examining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been less consistent, and has seen particular upheaval following the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International in 2014.

In order to improve the consistency and predictability of the USPTO’s application of § 101, the new guidance on subject matter eligibility identifies the following three “groupings” of patent ineligible “abstract ideas”:

a. Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;

b. Certain methods of organizing human activity

– fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviours; business relations); managing personal behaviour or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and

c. Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).

The USPTO’s new “groupings” closely correspond to some of the exclusions from patentability that have existed in Europe for over forty years. For example, the “mathematical concepts” and “mental processes” groupings identified by the USPTO are similar to the exclusions on “mathematical methods” and “methods for performing mental acts” that are set out in Article 52(2)(a) and (c) EPC. Although the “certain methods of organizing human

activity” grouping does not at first glance correspond to one of the European exclusions, the USPTO’s examples of such methods all relate to subject matter that would be excluded from patentability In Europe as being a “method for doing business” under Article 52(2)(c) EPC.

We anticipate that the USPTO’s guidance on subject matter eligibility will lead to a greater divergence between USPTO and EPO practice. In view of the previously-mentioned similarities between the USPTO’s new “groupings” and the existing exclusions in Europe, most inventions that are found to be unpatentable by the USPTO will continue to be unpatentable in Europe. However, there are likely to be areas of technology that are unpatentable in accordance with the EPO’s established practice, but which fall outside the USPTO’s groupings. For example, graphical user interfaces (GUIs) are difficult to patent at the EPO, but seem not to be covered by the USPTO’s groupings. For those areas of technology, we expect the USPTO to adopt a more permissive approach than the EPO, thus increasing the divergence of the two offices’ practices.

"The USPTO’s new “groupings” closely correspond to some of the exclusions from patentability that have existed in Europe for over forty years."

Claims for a “Practical Application of a Judicial Exception”

An interesting aspect of the guidance on subject matter eligibility is the creation of a new safe harbour for claims directed to a “practical application of a judicial exception”.

In Step 2A of the USPTO’s test for assessing subject matter eligibility, it is necessary to ask whether a claim is “directed to a judicial exception”, such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea. The claim is patent eligible if it is found not to be directed to a judicial exception. Conversely, further analysis

of the claim is needed if it is found to be directed to a judicial exception, with the possibility that the claim will be deemed patent ineligible.

In accordance with the guidance on subject matter eligibility, a claim is judged not to be directed to a judicial exception if the claim recites a practical application of that judicial exception. The claim is thus found to be patent eligible.

The USPTO’s guidance mirrors recent changes to the EPO’s practice for examining mathematical methods, as set out in the November 2018 edition of the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO (Chapter G-II, 3.3). Under the EPO’s new practice, a mathematical method can contribute to the technical characterof an invention if the claim is limited to a specific“technical application” of the mathematical method. In this case, the mathematical method is capable of distinguishing over the prior art when inventive step is examined by the EPO.

When drafting patent applications for inventionson the borderline of patent eligibility, we suggestthat any technical use cases of the invention are described and claimed. For example, if the invention could conceivably be used to control a specific technical system (such as an industrial process, or a device other than a general purpose computer), measure a physical property, or optimise the communication or storage of data, then this should be disclosed. Drafting the application in this manner will provide a possibility of overcoming a § 101 rejection in the U.S., or an inventive step objection in Europe, by limiting the claims to a specific use case of the invention.

The USPTO’s Guidance onComputer-ImplementedInventions - a EuropeanviewPhilip CupittBirminghampcupitt@marks-clerk.com

On 7 January 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)published two guidance notes on its practice for examining subject mattereligibility and clarity of claims for computer implemented inventions. In thisarticle, we compare the USPTO’s new guidance with the established practice ofthe European Patent Office (“EPO”), and provide practical suggestions fordrafting patent applications that will satisfy the requirements of both patentoffices.

Functional Claim Language

It is common for claims for computer- implemented inventions to include functional language, such as “means for performing X”.

In Europe, the use of functional language is often the simplest way to draft claims that cover all of the many ways in which some inventions can be implemented in software. The use of functional claim language is permitted by the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO (Chapter F-IV, 3.9.1), which notes that there is no particular preference among the different types of wording that are commonly seen in practice (e.g. “means for”, “adapted to”, “configured to”, etc.).

"Under the EPO’s new practice,a mathematical method can contribute to the technical character of an invention if the claim is limited to a specific “technical application” of the mathematical method."

However, it has long been the case that functional claim language is problematic in the US. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), a claim that recites a “means” or “step” for performing a function, but without reciting the structure that performs that function, is construed to cover the structure that is described in the specification (and any equivalents thereof). Thus, whereas functional claim language typically has a broad scope in Europe, it can have a much a narrower scope in the U.S.

The USPTO’s guidance on clarity provides helpful suggestions on functional terms that should be avoided when drafting claims. In addition to avoiding the words “means” and “step” that are mentioned in § 112(f) itself, other terms to avoid include: “mechanism for”, “module for”, “device for”, “unit for”, “component for”, “element for”, “member for”, “apparatus for”, “machine for” and “system for”.

However, the guidance points out that there is no fixed list of terms that will always result in a claim being interpreted in accordance with § 112(f), nor is there a fixed list of terms that will always avoid such interpretation. When drafting claims, we suggest that functional language is used with care. Where appropriate, one should consider using terminology that implies a structural limitation. For example, the claim term “means for calculating” could alternatively be expressed as “a processor configured to calculate”. The latter wording is broad, yet should be acceptable in both the U.S. and Europe. To keep open the option to use broader functional language in Europe, the “Summary” section of the description could include additional statements of invention that use “means for” language.

Content of the Disclosure

The guidance on clarity also emphasises the importance of ensuring that a patent specification contains a complete disclosure of the invention.

In Europe, it is necessary for the patent specification to disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art (Articles 83 and 100(b) EPC). Failure to comply with this requirement is a ground for refusing an application or revoking a patent. In practice, however, it is rare for the EPO to invoke this ground when refusing applications, or revoking patents, for computer-implemented inventions.

Whereas the EPO’s approach to examination places very few requirements on the draftsperson, the USPTO’s guidance on clarity is a reminder that, when drafting a patent application for a computer-implemented invention that will be filed in the U.S., the specification should disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed functionality. In this regard, the guidance defines an algorithm as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task”.

The algorithm may be expressed as a mathematical formula, as prose, as a flow chart, or in any other suitable manner. Care should be

Business Intelligence Q1 2019

"...we suggest providing thenecessary disclosure of thealgorithm through a combinationof a flow chart (in the drawings)and a detailed writtendescription of each step of theflow chart."

taken to ensure that the disclosed algorithm issufficient to perform all of the functionality that isclaimed. Failure to disclose an algorithm can resultin claims of the U.S. patent or application beingfound to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) andlacking written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).

In general, we suggest providing the necessarydisclosure of the algorithm through a combination ofa flow chart (in the drawings) and a detailed writtendescription of each step of the flow chart. At thevery least, the flow chart should include a stepcorresponding to each step of the independentmethod claim(s). The flow chart should ideally alsoinclude a step corresponding to each step of thedependent method claims but, to allow moreflexibility for amendment at the EPO, the descriptionshould make clear which steps are optional.

Business Intelligence Q1 2019

In 49 of the countries surveyed by the WHO, for example, it was found that antibiotics meant to be held in reserve for when first and second resort drugs fail, accounted for half of all prescribing.

Mongolia was found to have the highest level of prescribing globally, with 64.4 doses issued per every 1000 people, followed by Iran and Turkey with 38.8 and 38.2 doses respectively. No matter which countries are the worst or best behaved when it comes to using antibiotics appropriately, however, the global movement of people and goods ensures that AMR is a challenge for all of us.

Beyond pharma

While novel pharmaceuticals are vital when

mitigating the effects of ever-evolving pathogens, they are not the only solution. Often what is driving over-prescription of antibiotics in countries such as those named in the WHO report, is not a wilful decision to use antibiotics unnecessarily, but rather risk aversion.

If a patient presents with symptoms that could equally be those of a common cold or a serious bacterial infection, and there’s no clear way of being sure which is the correct diagnosis, then most of us would likely opt to prescribe antibiotics, rather than risk the patients’ health. This is where better diagnostic technology becomes a significant tool in fighting AMR.

If technology can be developed that allows clinicians in rural Mongolia and elsewhere to diagnose patients quickly and accurately, as well

as make the distinction between bacterial infection and less serious complaints, then this will go a long way towards stemming over-prescription.

Medtech

Like the pharmaceutical industry, the medical devices and technology (medtech) industry has also been responding to the AMR challenge. At Marks & Clerk, we recently worked with Nesta – the innovation foundation – on a report looking at the levels of innovation geared towards AMR in the medtech industry.

Our findings give some cause for hope, but also reveal that there is some way to go if medtech is to make a meaningful contribution to stopping the over-prescription of antibiotics. While, for example, we have seen a generally upward trend in patent filing in the field of point-of-care (POC) diagnostic devices over the past 10 years, this has in recent years plateaued and perhaps gone into reverse.

There is a significant lag between a patent being filed, and it showing on any patent register, so some of the decline we have seen will be attributable to that lag. Nevertheless, the lag is unlikely to accountfor all of this decline, and if this trend continues intocoming years it should serve to focus minds further on the challenge of AMR.

Number of patents aimed at POC diagnostics filed 2008 - 2017

Prioritising pathogens

Despite the decline in patent filings we’ve seen

aimed at POC diagnostics in recent years, the filings we have seen have been more focused on better bacterial diagnostics.

Analysis of patent filings reveals that, of the 374 patent applications indicating the pathogen type, the majority relate to detection of bacterial infection, with around a third relating to detection of viral infection, and a minority relating to fungal or parasitic infections. Interestingly, although the relative numbers of patent filings have decreased in the last five years, the percentage relating to the detection of bacteria has increased over recent years from 51% to 81%.

"Our findings give some cause for hope, but also reveal that there is some way to go if medtech is tomake a meaningfulcontribution to stopping the over-prescription of antibiotics."

This may point to increasing awareness of antibiotic resistance and misuse, and the importance of detecting bacteria correctly. Correctly detecting whether an infection is bacterial or viral in origin will undoubtedly reduce inappropriate use of antibiotics, and identifying a particular bacterial species and susceptibility of antibiotics will enable the correctnarrow-spectrum antibiotic to be chosen.

Antibiotics can be split generally into two separate camps: broad spectrum antibiotics, which work on a wide range of bacteria, and narrow-spectrum antibiotics developed for a specific bacterial infection. Prescribing broad-spectrum antibiotics is linked to the increased development of AMR and increases personal risk through the destruction of the body’s natural non-pathogenic bacteria. Thus, there is a significant role for narrow-spectrum, more specific antibiotics and diagnostic tests, which are able to specifically identify particular microorganisms.

Minds also seem to have been focused in the medtech world – as they no doubt have been in thepharmaceutical world – by the WHO’s publication ofa list of 12 ‘priority pathogens’. These are the 12

Beyond pharma:The role of medtechin tacklingantimicrobialresistancePaul ChapmanEdinburghpchapman@marks-clerk.com

A recent review published by the World Health Organisation threw the spotlightonce again on the issue of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and the ongoingmisuse of antibiotics around the world. Despite heightened public awareness ofthe challenge and potentially disastrous consequences of AMR, the WHO’slatest report reveals that much remains to be done with drastic overuse ofantibiotics still a reality in many countries around the world.

Business Intelligence Q1 2019

pathogens determined by the WHO to pose the greatest risk to human health and some of which exhibit resistance to multiple antibiotics. While it is too soon after the WHO publication to see any resultant filing activity, the percentage of applications specifically mentioning the types of bacteria in the WHO list appears to have reduced dramatically in the last five years. However, despite this decline, the percentage of filings relating to the detection of bacteria has increased.

IP’s vital role in healthcare’s

help predict how patients will react to certain therapies or even which patients are likely to become ill. AI and deep learning are also helping companies develop bespoke medicines and stimulate drug development. As such, the value of these innovations is potentially vast.

However, it’s clear that innovators will have to work with IP professionals to determine how these technologies can be protected, and with regulators to ensure that they meet the exacting requirements

jurisdictions. Europe, for example, does not allow for the patenting of methods of treatment.

Modulating the human microbiome is one of a number of innovative approaches being trialled for the treatment of a range of diseases including cancer. New therapeutic approaches like this create unique patent challenges and demand a creative approach to claim drafting.

Another burgeoning area of innovation is the world ofthat allow them to be used by medical professionals. healthcare apps which have the potential to make a

Challenging innovation

It’s clear that, alongside novel pharmaceuticals, better POC diagnostic devices have a significant role to play in stopping the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

"The nature of AMR, and the inversion of normaleconomics that itssolution demands, willcontinue to challengeinnovation in this area."

As with pharmaceuticals, however, the market for medtech devices aimed at AMR is frustrated by the nature of the problem. Just as there is an illogic to investing huge sums of money in the development of antibiotics which, to remain effective, must be used sparingly and so have a limited market, so too the medtech device which can be easily deployed globally to allow better diagnosis would necessarily have to be affordable, therefore limiting potential returns. So, while willingness and the technical capability are plentiful, investment is sometimes less so.

The nature of AMR, and the inversion of normal economics that its solution demands, will continue to challenge innovation in this area. Solutions must be found, however, to avoid returning to what many claim would be the medical ‘dark ages’ if our antibiotics are rendered ineffective by overuse.

futureGraham McGlashanGlasgowgmcglashan@marks-clerk.com

Artificial intelligence (AI) is pushing the boundaries of possibility in many industries, and healthcare is no exception. AI has the potential to deliver healthcare more efficiently, at a faster pace, and at a lower cost. As ageing populations and complicated illnesses continue to put pressure on healthcare budgets, the potential for self-management and preventative medicine will grow in importance, and new technologies can play an important part in enabling this change.

The introduction of new technology also brings challenges. However, the potential rewards for those devising the innovations that overcome those challenges can be significant and protecting innovation in this space with intellectual property (IP) will be vital.

AI and big data are becoming ever more central to the creation of models to assist relevant professionalsin making diagnoses and for predicting the efficacy oftreatments in the long and short-term. The potential for further innovation is huge.

For example, data-driven platforms could be used to

Perennial questions around effectively securing IP still remain when it comes to the complex area of AI.

While software can often be patentable, some is excluded, and early advice on patenting is strongly advised so that the strongest and most appropriate protection can be obtained.

"AI and big data are becoming ever more central to the creation of models to assist relevant professionals in making diagnoses."

Many stakeholders have called for clarity on the patentability of new technologies and the European Patent Office (EPO) recently issued updated and detailed guidance on how IP informs the development of AI. This provides more specific guidance on the examination of AI applications, under existing computer implemented inventions (CII) practice and case law.

There may be pitfalls in patenting AI-related healthcare innovations for the unaware.

For example, if the invention relates to personalised medicine, it is important to ensure that the claims are not too narrow, e.g. covering individual treatments rather than an entire concept or invention. With the trend being towards ever more personalised healthcare, there is a tension here and good advice may help innovators navigate it carefully.

This challenge is compounded in certain

real difference to outcomes. However, protecting the IP in apps, like algorithms and artificial intelligence innovations, is something that often greatly benefits from early advice from a specialist in the field to maximise the likelihood of obtaining strong protection. However, generally speaking, the apps most likely to be patentable will be those that find solutions to technical challenges.

Where large volumes of data are being produced, database rights may prove important. While a lesser known form of intellectual property, database rights can be exceedingly valuable and could apply if there has been a “substantial investment” in obtaining, verifying, or presenting the contents of a database.

While there may be no simple answers to the challenges in the healthcare arena, it can be hugely beneficial to understand how to identify your intellectual property, how to protect it, and how to use it to best effect.

And given the rapid speed of digital change, it is more important than ever to have a strategy in place to protect your intellectual property.

The guidance from the EPO is expected to help clarify the approach to overcoming challenges in drafting patent applications for AI-related inventions, but seeking advice from a Patent Attorney who specialises in AI and software inventions can be critical to obtaining protection.

The real challenge, nevertheless, will be to capitalise on the healthcare data we are all producing daily, and hone the innovations which can deliver the next generation of healthcare tech, developing products that patients can trust. Intellectual property has a huge role to play in accelerating the economic viability of AI and will be central to meeting those challenges.

AI-driven

Business Intelligence Q1 2019

Distillers’ secure product provenanceIt’s clear that Scottish distilling is an industry that refuses to rest on its laurels, and is continuously taking traditional techniques and marrying them to startling innovation. The industry remains at distilling’s cutting edge, and the rewards are significant against the backdrop of a major rise in international whisky demand that’s seen connoisseurs looking for ever more unusual and interesting products.

Of course, Scots have led the way in disruptive distilling for centuries. In 1826, Robert Stein, the so- called ‘Henry Ford of the Whisky Industry’ invented a method of continuous distillation, allowing spirit to be produced much faster and resulting in a 30-fold increase. Two centuries on, with over 120 active malt whisky distilleries now in operation, and that number set to swell, Scotland is still breaking the mould and reinventing the notion of what’s possible.

Three trends have taken hold, including alternative maturation/finishing in non-traditional casks, ultra- ageing, and premiumisation.

The industry is increasingly recognising the need to share ideas, collaborate, and take inspiration from the likes of coffee roasters and chocolatiers. Some have gone further.

As such, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised to see blockchain technology – which allows digital information to be distributed but not copied – forming an unlikely but pioneering alliance with our distilleries.

More typically associated with the world of FinTech, blockchain technology is applicable to many challenges, including the prevention of counterfeiting.

Only recently, Dunfermline-based Fusion Whisky and its partner Adelphi Distillery announced that their new release, The Winter Queen, would be a blend of European history and blockchain, engineered by fusing Scotch with malt whisky from the Netherlands.

It’s actually the second whisky to use such technology following the release of both Fusion Whisky’s Australian blend, The Brisbane, and two of Adelphi’s AD spirits, this year.

The Winter Queen was released to commemorate the coronation of Scottish princess Elizabeth Stuart – eldest daughter of King James VI of Scotland, King James I of England – who was crowned Queen of Bohemia 399 years ago. Crucially, more than six different malt whiskies have gone into the complex blend – and that’s where the blockchain comes in.

Essentially, for Fusion Whisky, blockchain is a uniquely secure method of authoritatively detailing the provenance of its product, allowing consumers to understand every stage of a whisky’s journey, from the field in which the barley was sourced to who bottled it

and when, while assuring them that no fraud has taken place.

In the case of The Winter Queen, the technology – developed for Fusion Whisky by Edinburgh tech firm Arc-Net – also gives the buyer the opportunity to discover more about Princess Elizabeth Stuart.

And in a very modern way, whisky aficionados are able to follow the story of their favourite tipple by scanning a QR code on the label. It’s refreshing to see how an ancient industry is embracing modern technology to stay relevant and reach new audiences, with such new technology having massive implications for the authenticity, accountability, and security they can offer customers.

It could also be a game-changer with both producers and consumers benefitting from the ability to access more information on each bottle of whisky than ever before, while eradicating any safety fears around the threat of counterfeits from unknown sources. In other words, potentially higher sales and, simultaneously, happier whisky drinkers.

Of course, with any emerging technology, there are drawbacks. For example, once an entry is made in a blockchain, it is impossible to correct.

The use of blockchain technology could also have implications for the approach that companies take to intellectual property (IP). For instance, if they adopt new technology, then they are likely to need to leverage new forms of IP beyond the trade marks which they have traditionally used to protect their brands.

It’s a complex area and requires careful management so it’s prudent to move quickly to secure any fresh inventions with the help of the right support and advice, ensuring that Scotland’s intellectual capital is not only protected but allowed to thrive.

After all, strong innovations require equally strong protection.

Campbell NewellEdinburghcnewell@marks-clerk.com

Business Intelligence Q1 2019

2019: the year self- driving vehicles shift up a gear?With investment announcements coming thickand fast, and testing taking place on ever more roads, might 2019 be the year of the self- driving vehicle (SDV)? A recent statistical release from the European Patent Office (EPO) might suggest so, or at the very least suggest that momentum is building in this important sector.

In 2017 the EPO saw nearly 4000 patent applications related to self-driving vehicles – up from 922 applications in 2011.This is a staggering 330% increase in just 6 years! To put it into context, filing in this area has grown more than 20 times as fast as patent applications generally at the EPO.

A dynamic new economic sector

The technological and social impacts of SDV will be wide ranging. Smart cities and smart vehicles will communicate with each other in real time, helping overcome the perennial issue of traffic while traditional models of car ownership may change as the line between public and private transport is blurred.

Beyond the hypotheticals however, what the latest EPO report also reveals is the growth of a whole new economic sector around SDVs. The report shows, for example, that while the top 25 companies in this space do account for a significant 40% of all patent filings, the remaining60% of filings are being undertaken by hundredsof smaller companies.

In this fledgling industry where the natural process of attrition, buy outs and mergers haven’t yet consolidated the market in the hands of a few key players, there’s a huge amount to play for.

If a relatively small company was to patent a truly unique technology in this area for example, it might be the case that they could then license that technology to the rest of the market – giving smaller companies a real chance to compete with some of the more established players.

Well drafted intellectual property (IP) will be keyas companies race to become established in this market, ensuring innovation is both protected and exploited.

Technology v manufacturing

Alongside the emergence of a whole new manufacturing ecosystem around SDVs, another key theme to emerge from the report is that, of the top 25 filers in this market, traditional car manufacturers are in the minority. While there

are some expected inclusions – BAE Systems, Audi and Volvo for example – much of the list is made up of global tech and mobile companies.

Digital technologies are disrupting traditional business models in many ways, and the encroaching of tech companies into markets traditionally dominated by manufacturers is something we see in a number of sectors. In sectors ranging from medical technology to manufacturing, data driven tech companies are developing innovative products that are disrupting more established businesses. The EPO report would suggest that, as the world gears up for the next generation of transport, the same dynamic is at work in the automotive sector.

Vehicles will always have a significant physical component. As self-driving software becomes more important however, vehicles will come to rely as much on digital as they do on drive trains.

The IP challenge

Complicated software will be an essential component of SDVs and this poses a challenge to companies that have until now dominated the automotive sector but may lack some of the native digital expertise of their new competitors.

Securing IP on digital and data driven innovation requires different approaches as needed when securing intellectual property on manufactured goods. Likewise, the rapid evolution of technology in this area poses questions not just for innovators, but for intellectual property law itself. Who owns the IP on innovation created by an AI for example? As the tech evolves, so will the law and the EPO’s new AI guidelines have begun to unpick these issues.

What’s already clear however is that as SDVs drive digital innovation in the automotive sector, strategic and future proofed IP will be essential to those companies looking to capture this new market.

Steven BlakeBirminghamsblake@marks-clerk.com

Business Intelligence Q1 2019

Now is therefore a good time to take stock on what SEP holders and users should know about FRAND licences in the UK.

The UK Court will determine FRAND terms, including royalty rates, for a global licence which covers both UK and non-UK SEPs (not limiting itself to terms relevant to UK SEPs). This approach has received criticism from those who view it as the UK Court extending its jurisdiction impermissibly widely by interfering with issues relating to foreign property (in particular, foreign SEP validity which must be dealt with by the court in the SEP’s jurisdiction). However, the UK Court considers this issue to be separate from the subject of its decision: determination of FRAND licence terms. Determination of these licence terms is based on the scope and effect of the undertaking given when an SEP holder declares its patent as essential to the standard.

The UK Court is happy to make this

determination on a global basis, to help prevent SEP users from employing delay tactics in FRAND licence negotiations (a likely outcome where SEP holders are faced with the prohibitive costs of starting multiple proceedings in different jurisdiction to secure global FRAND terms by way of various country-specific decisions). The Court has also noted that various mechanisms can be built into FRAND terms (including different territorial royalty rates dependent on numbers of SEPs in a territory, and annual adjustments to account for change in the SEP landscape) to ensure that a global licence remains fair to users.

This capability is good news for SEP holders who wish to settle FRAND terms in one set of proceedings. It is less welcome to SEP users, who now have the burden of showing whether particular SEPs should not attract royalties (through separate patent revocation proceedings in the SEPs’ jurisdictions). A discontented user

should, however, be wary of any attempt to try to circumvent the UK Court’s authority on this issue via relief sought in subsequent foreign proceedings – previous cases have demonstrated that the UK Court is prepared to block these attempts (by way of an anti-suit injunction). If a user decides to simply ignore the UK Court’s FRAND terms, it will face an injunction against use of the relevant UK SEPs in the UK.

"The Court has also noted that various mechanisms can be built into FRAND terms to ensure that a global licence remains fair to users."

SEP holders can start proceedings, seeking an injunction against use of a UK SEP, without detailed and time-consuming negotiations with a user – the only requirement is that the SEP holder has given the user notice of the SEP infringement with a view to granting a licence on FRAND terms. A well- known protocol – previously established in the European court judgment in Huawei v ZTE – described the steps to be followed in order to obtain an injunction. The UK Court of Appeal has confirmed that it considers these steps to be best practice rather than mandatory, as long as the SEP holder has provided the user with the above basic level of notice. This approach works in the UK – where an injunction will not be granted in proceedings until all key issues (including the UK SEP’s validity) have been considered. However, there may be a need for the protocol to be considered mandatory in other jurisdictions where an injunction might be granted at an earlier stage.

When deciding appropriate royalty rates for SEPs, SEP holders will not be excessively constrained by the terms that they had previously agreed with a similarly situated licensee. A user cannot complain about different royalty rates if the rate they are offered is still considered fair and reasonable. (In other words, the Court of Appeal has decided that the correct approach to non-discrimination is the “general” rather than “hard-edged” approach.)

Whilst the Court of Appeal’s decision is especially welcomed by SEP holders, there are aspects that

can help SEP users too. This may be the case where a user is a direct competitor of the SEP holder (i.e. both are at the same level in the supply chain). In these circumstances, the holder may refuse to negotiate a licence arguing that this is not required under its FRAND commitments. Where a user seeks to challenge this, the UK Court can now ensure that the issueis dealt with on a global basis. Furthermore, theCourt has left a number of avenues open for users to explore where they consider that their particular circumstances warrant a departure from the above approach.

For example:

• A UK Court may refuse to assess a licence on a global basis where a SEP holder’s portfolio is very small, covering a limited number of SEPs and territories. As part of this, a user should consider whether there is evidence that the SEP holder normally engages in country-by-country licensing.

• A user might also seek to demonstrate anti- competitive effects of tying a SEP licence in one country to a SEP licence in another – through a detailed analysis of the actual effects of these tying activities. Such evidence may convince the Court that a global licence constitutes unlawful bundling and is not appropriate.

• Where a user considers that the court of another jurisdiction is more appropriate to determine FRAND issues (for example, because it is the place of manufacture or its SEPs form a larger proportion of the portfolio), it may wish to take a point on whether the UK is the proper or appropriate forum. Whilst other decisions indicate that this argument will not necessarily succeed, it is certainly clear that any such argument – and a corresponding application to stay the UK FRAND proceedings – must be made at an early stage.

• Contrary to the findings of the first instance court (which found that only one set of terms could be FRAND), the UK Court of Appeal foundthat more than one set of terms, agreed betweena willing licensee and willing licensor, could be determined to be FRAND. The practical outcome

Unwired Planet: onesmall SEP for man,one giant leap forFRAND-kindDafydd BevanLondondbevan@marks-clerk.com

John de Rohan-TrubaLondonjderohan-truba@marks-clerk.com

A number of recent cases have bolstered the UK Court’s expertise on licensingof Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”), confirming its status as the venue ofchoice when seeking to resolve disputes over fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms and related issues. With the recent Court ofAppeal decision in Unwired Planet v Huawei, the UK Court’s approach isbecoming helpfully predictable for parties to FRAND disputes.

Business Intelligence Q1 2019of having a range of FRAND terms is that FRAND licences are likely to be litigated with reference to the end of the FRAND range whichis preferred by the SEP holder (because an SEPholder must only offer a licence on FRAND terms and it will inevitably choose terms within the FRAND range which best suit its own goals). The user can at least seek to narrow this FRAND range by providing detailed economic evidence to the Court regarding what the FRAND terms should be.

• More generally, all of the main UK cases relate to FRAND terms for telecommunications SEPs and their associated standards and FRAND undertakings. Where the SEP relates to a different technology standard, the actual undertaking given by SEP holders should be considered – to establish whether it imparts different obligations on the SEP holder regarding terms which are to be considered “FRAND”. Furthermore, one of the justifications for a global licence in telecommunications cases is the global nature of a mobile phone (which has to be capable of continuous use when crossing borders). This may not be true for other technologies that are the subject of SEP licensing disputes.

Aside from any particular advantages or disadvantages for SEP holders and users, both sides should note that negotiations which refer back to the UK Court’s approach can avail of a level of certainty in how particular issues will ultimately be decided (with reference to the growing collection of UK judgments) – this certainty can prove to be a powerful tool when negotiating FRAND licences.

As previously discussed here, in the EU McDonald’s European trade mark registration for ‘big mac’ was successfully cancelled by an Irish company, Supermac’s, due to the poor quality of the evidence filed by McDonald’s. Promotional materials, and website images were all deemed to have low evidential value. The EU Intellectual Property Office held that such evidence did not reflect a real commercial presence for the BIG MAC trade mark for the goods and services claimed.

In the USA by contrast, The Campbell Soup Company successfully registered the term ‘chunky’ as a trade mark. The general position is that a single entity should not be granted exclusive rights to a term which is descriptive of the goods or services for which registration is sought. However, Campbell’s was able to provide clear evidence that it has used and promoted the term ‘chunky’ in the US on such a scale that American consumers identify ‘chunky’ as trade mark indicating a soup which originates from Campbell’s.

The evidence submitted by Campbell’s was substantial and included evidence of extremely well known TV shows such as Saturday Night Live and

The Simpsons referring to Campbell’s ‘chunky’ brand, references to ‘chunky’ in the songs of well- known Hip Hop artists such as Ghostface Killah of the Wu Tang Clan, and evidence reflecting a $1 billion advertising spend on the brand since 1998.

The US Trade Mark Office held that the weight of evidence was sufficient to reflect that the term ‘chunky’ had entered into popular culture to the extent that, in relation to soup, the US consumer saw it as a trademark for products originating from Campbell’s.

What you should take away…other than soup and a burger

The outcomes of these cases highlight the importance of documenting your trademark use, to ensure that you are in the strongest possible positionto maintain or acquire strong enforceable trade markrights. It is essential that trademark owners, whatever their size, put in place a record keeping system which enables them to clearly reflect the use of their trademarks.

Campbell's vsMcDonald's: Lessonsfor FMCG brands andtrademark ownersGraeme MurrayManchestergmurray@marks-clerk.com

Two high profile decisions in the EU and USA have recently highlighted the importantrole that evidence of trademark use plays in the maintenance and acquisition oftrademark rights.

Use it or lose it!

If you own a trademark registration that is more thanfive years old it becomes vulnerable to cancellation ifyou cannot prove that you have used it for the goodsand services it covers. Additionally, if you are seekingto prevent third party use or registration of atrademark the third party can ask that you provideevidence of use of your mark to support your claim.

Unregistered Rights

If you have used a trademark for a period of time buthave not registered it, all is not lost. If you haveevidence to show that the trademark identifies yourgoods and services as originating from your businessthen you may be in a position to claim unregisteredrights. However, due to the uncertainties that canarise in relation to such unregistered rights, we wouldrecommend seeking registered trade mark protectionas soon as possible for all trade marks that youcurrently use.

Business Intelligence Q1 2019

In particular, according to provisions in the Regulations for the IP tribunal promulgated by the SPC on December 27, 2018, the IP tribunal shall hear all appeals against first instance civil judgments or rulings made by the Higher People’s Court, IP Court or Intermediate People's Court in cases concerning invention patents, utility model patents, new plant varieties, layout design of integrated circuits, know-hows, computer programs and anti-trust. The IP tribunal shall also hear appeals against first instance administrative judgments related to the above cases, and in addition to design patents. A transitional period has also been set meaning that, for all first instance judgements decided before January 1 2019, their appeals will continue to be handled by existing tiers of courts. The IP tribunal at the SPC only hears appeals against first instance judgments that are

newly decided after January 1 2019.

The IP tribunal currently has six court rooms which are mainly for appeal cases related to patents. There is also a technical investigation department formed by technical investigators who can provide support to judges to better understand some of the technical points raised in court cases.

With the setup of the IP tribunal at the SPC, the court hierarchy for patent litigations in China is effectively simplified. Instead of the conventional structure of basic or middle courts making first instance judgements and provincial-level high courts making second, final instance judgements, the SPC now takes high courts’ roles in making the second instance judgements. Deputy Chief Justice Luo

Dongchuan of the IP tribunal said, in a recent news release, that the move will "help prevent inconsistency of legal application and improve the quality and efficiency of trials”. The IP tribunal is also the first among all areas of law in China in which an attempt has been made by the SPC to consolidate second instance judgements.

It should be noted that litigation related to infringements on registered designs (which are alsoa type of patents in China) and trademarks in Chinado not benefit from this new arrangement. According to Luo, “cases related to high-tech, and cases involving electronics, machinery, and artificial intelligence are more closely linked to innovations, and the standard of judgement needs to be unified. At the same time, China has nearly 200,000 intellectual property court cases each year. A large number of online infringement and trademark infringement cases do not possess a strong technical nature and do not necessarily need to be promoted to the Supreme Court level.” Litigation related to infringements on registered designs and trademarks will continue to be dealt with by civil courts.

"With the setup of the IP tribunal at the SPC, the court hierarchy for patent litigations in China is effectively simplified."

The establishment of this new IP tribunal is a further step by China towards the reform of its litigation system. We previously wrote about the implementation of IP courts in three major cities in China for hearing first instance IP trials starting in 2014, but the question left at that time was how to ensure the quality of second instance judgements given that the second instance judgements were still handled by over 30 provincial-level high courts spread from the western to eastern China, and across highly disparate regions. This often leads to a significant difference in trial time-scales among the provincial high-courts, and even more problematically, can lead to local protectionisms.

It is partly as a result of the subjective assessment

required for technical contents (e.g. inventive step in patent prosecution, and doctrine of equivalent in patent infringement) that we see this difference in trial time-scales.

The civil law system in China also lacks the precedent principle, leaving a huge amount of room for courts to interpret statute. With the IP tribunal at the SPC serving as the final judicial authority for patent cases, more uniformity of decision making and predictability of outcomes can be expected, which brings the Chinese court system in the IP aspect more in line with common law countries such as the USA and the UK. In addition, although China is in theory adopting a bifurcated system for patent infringement and patent right confirmation, the setup of IP tribunal at the SPC level seems to have ironed out such bifurcation from a technical point of view by centralising courts for the appeals. It is also interesting to observe that in this way, reforming of the legal systems from the judicial level overtakes that from the legislation level.

Any type of reform leaves questions unanswered, and there is no exception with the IP tribunal. Conventionally, the SPC plays an important role of accepting petitions of retrial on the grounds of second instance judgements or orders being erroneously decided. However, if the SPC now itself becomes the trial unit for second instance judgements then which authority is capable of further correcting trial errors made by the IP tribunal? Another concern is that with the centralisation of trial works at the SPC, will the trialspeed and efficiency remain unaffected? Without aspecific court system for lower value claims such as seen in the UK, people may wonder if it is really a good use of resources for the SPC to handle all appeal cases irrespective of the technological complexity, or the damages sought by the parties. The general public therefore will be expecting more judicial opinions and regulations from the SPC to close these loopholes.

IP Tribunal inChinese SupremeCourt hears allappealed patentcasesZephyr SuHong Kongzsu@marks-clerk.com.hk

On January 1, 2019, the Chinese Supreme People’s Court (SPC) inaugurated itsIntellectual Property (IP) tribunal located in Beijing, which becomes the topjudicial authority for patent cases as well as other highly technical IP cases.This represents a big leap forward in Chinese court litigation practice, andhighlights China’s willingness to harmonise its IP protection system with therest of the world.

Business Intelligence Q1 2019

Opportunity knocks in enterprise and educational virtual realityThe most recent XR Industry Survey, based on a survey of 595 augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) professionals, reveals some interesting trends for the industry, some of them expected, others more surprising. The patterns of investment and development in the different sectors which AR/VR are applicable – or potentially applicable – to, show the increasing utilisation of this technology beyond the games and entertainment fields that saw its birth in the nineties.

38% of respondents for example believe VR growth in the enterprise sector has been ‘strong’ or ‘very strong’, with an equivalent figure of 43% for AR.

At the same time however, some industries’ slowness to recognise the potential of AR/VR suggests that many still assume it has no serious role outside the games console.

The first point to take home is that the consumer sector (entertainment) and the enterprise sector (product design, training, product design and so forth) have experienced similar amounts of growth but the majority consensus is that this growth has been weaker than hoped in the consumer category. Enterprise seems to have experienced marginally more growth than consumer; this may be because entertainment applications still depend on the purchase and use of headsets which remain relatively expensive and unwieldy. Doubtless, this will change as the technology is refined and the time when VR images are beamed directly on to the retina is surely not far off; the basic technology having been around for over twenty years.

Alongside unwieldy technology, price also remains an issue, with 60% of respondents considering the price of head-mounted displays (HMDs) to be impeding increased adoption of VR/AR, compared to 34% who cited size and design of HMDs.

Alongside these challenges the survey also suggests some companies have pulled out of VR game development for the moment and mobile AR apps have yet to really take off, largely due to the costs considerations mentioned above.

The flipside of this is that there seems to be the greatest scope for growth in the enterprise sector because corporations are more able to invest in the expensive hardware than individuals. Education is the enterprise sector prioritising AR/VR the most and the most competitive one, despite the fact that it traditionally has much less spending power than industry – of respondents who reported that they are already using XR technologies, 23% were in the education sector. Architecture/engineering/ construction come a close second at 18%. Healthcare is quite low down on the list despite the obvious AR/VR potential in diagnosis and therapy, with just 7% of those using this technology being in

the healthcare sector.

These mixed messages give rise to the question, what are the main barriers to the wholesale embrace of AR/VR predicted in the nineties?

While headset design and price account for part of the problem, potential adopters are also deterred by the lack of proof of ROI (with half of respondents citing this as an issue) and the challenge of integrating the technology with existing systems and processes (32% raising concerns).

The survey also reveals an industry expectation that AR will blossom in the mainstream before VR does, in part because of the availability of open content development platforms like ARCore and ARKit which have no VR counterparts. Nevertheless, many industries see the benefit in the long term coming from combining both AR and VR and VR’s superior ability to create a fully immersive environment currently gives it the edge in training and educational applications.

Most survey respondents felt that AR/VR had had a somewhat or very positive effect on their business with VR just ahead in their estimation (83% compared to AR’s 69%), probably because the underlying technology is more mature.

The results of the latest survey are illuminating but also contradictory in places and it is difficult to extrapolate from it exactly what form future trends will take. One thing is clear however. Many potential customers – both industry and consumer – still remain to be convinced of the benefits of AR/VR or are just apathetic. To generate further momentum in this nascent industry, suppliers will have to invest more in product development and marketing to win them over. On the plus side however, this should pay dividends down the line for early adopters, especially if intellectual property can be developed to create significant barriers to entry for latecomers. Most end users who trial the technology quickly see the benefit and invest in it. There are a lot of potential customers out there to be won over.

Simon PortmanCambridges.portman@marks-clerk.com

Business Intelligence Q1 2019

Through implementation of the Madrid Protocol, not only will Canadian applicants now have the ability to file International trade mark applicationswith the World Intellectual Property Organisation(WIPO), but applicants elsewhere around the world will be able to seek protection in Canada via the International trade mark system.

Previously, Canadians seeking to protect their marks overseas would have had to file applications in each country individually. Once the amendments to the Trade-marks Act come into effect, Canadian applicants will have the ability to obtain trade-mark protection in a number of counties by filing one application and paying one set of fees to WIPO to obtain an international registration (IR) - often referred to as a bundle of national registrations. Currently, WIPO’s Madrid System has 103 members, covering 119 countries, representing more than 80% of world trade.

After an IR is obtained, any subsequent changes to that registration can be recorded through WIPO by means of a single request. Therefore, instead of having to record an assignment or update the Applicant’s address in each country covered by the WIPO registration, the Applicant can simply record the change with WIPO.

There is also a benefit associated with the fact that there is only one registration to renew. An international registration may be renewed everyten years with the payment of only one fee. If atrade-mark owner holds an international registration which covers many countries, this can reduce the administrative requirements for portfolio management.

There are essentially three stages for a Canadian applicant to obtain an IR.

The first stage is to file a trade-mark application with CIPO (the “basic application”) for the trade- mark of interest (the “basic mark”). If the Canadian applicant already has a Canadian registration for the basic mark (the “basic registration”), then it can proceed directly to the second stage. A Canadian basic application is like any other regularly filed Canadian trade- mark application and must include a statement of goods and services. Although classifying goods and services in Canadian trade-mark applications according to the Nice Agreement is voluntary until June 17, 2019, it is required in a Canadian application or registration in order to be used as the basic application or basic registration to file an international application.

The second stage is to prepare and file the

international application. Although the Madrid Systemis administered by WIPO, the international applicationmust be filed with CIPO using WIPO’s e-filing system. Upon filing the application, CIPO compares the basic application or registration to the international application and confirms, for example, that the international application is identical to the basic mark, that the statement of goods and services in the international application is covered by the basic application or basic registration, and that the applicant of the international application is the same as the applicant of the basic mark or the same owner as the basic registration.

In the international application, the applicant designates in which of the 119 Madrid countries it is seeking trade-mark protection. There are three fees when filing an international application – a basic fee of 653 Swiss Francs if the mark is in black and white (903 Swiss Francs if the mark is in colour), a complementary fee of 100 Swiss Francs per country designated, and a supplementary fee of 100 Swiss Francs per class of goods and services beyond the third class. For certain designated countries, a country specific “individual fee” replaces the complementary fee.

Once certified by CIPO, the international application is sent to WIPO for formal examination. WIPO checks the international application for “irregularities”. There are three groups of irregularities, administrative irregularities, irregularities with respect to the classification of the goods and services, and irregularities with respect to the indication of goods and services. Once these are addressed, the IR is published in the WIPO Gazette. WIPO also issues a certificate of registration and notifies the Trade-mark Offices of the designated countries of the IR. However, the scope of protection of the IR is not determined until the third and final stage is completed.

In the third stage, the international application is substantively examined by the Trade-marks Office of each designated Madrid country under its respective domestic trade-mark law. Each Trade-mark Office has 12 months (or 18 months, depending on the country) to raise a provisional refusal against the IR, either because the IR does not comply with its domestic trade-mark law or because an opposition has been filed. A review, appeal, or response to an opposition is done in the Trade-marks Office of each designated

Madrid country in which a provisional refusal has been raised. Either protection for the mark is totally refused or protection is partially or totally granted. Alternatively, a Trade-marks Office may find that there are no grounds to refuse protection.

A peculiarity of the Madrid System is that it requires that the IR remain dependent on the basic application or registration for a period of five years from the registration date of the IR. If the basic registration is cancelled or not renewed in this five year period, the IR is cancelled and does not provide further protection. Likewise, if the basic application is refused or withdrawn, the IR is cancelled and does not provide further protection. In either of these cases, the applicant has three months from the date of cancellation to file a domestic application in each of the Trade-mark Offices of the designated Madrid countries where it would like continued protection. After five years from the IR date, the IR becomes independent of the basic registration or basic application.

By acceding to the Madrid Protocol, Canadians now have access to this streamlined system of protecting their rights in foreign jurisdictions. However, because there is a base fee for filing an application through WIPO in addition to each individual territory’s filing fees, if an Applicant is only seeking to protect their trade-mark in a small number of countries, it may be more economically efficient to pursue their rights by filing in each jurisdiction individually. This would also mean that any changes to ownership or renewals would have to be recorded in each country’s Trade-marks Office separately.

Additionally, because the international registration must mirror the Canadian application or registration upon which it is based, an applicant cannot seek protection through WIPO which is broader than that which they have in Canada. This could be a disadvantage to Canadian applicants because our system requires a very high degree of specificity in statement of goods and services which is not required in other jurisdictions. While filing applications through WIPO can be advantageous in some respects, there are some additional factors which Canadian trade-mark owners may wish to consider prior to filing an international registration.

Canada adoptsMadrid ProtocolLesley GallivanOttawalgallivan@marks-clerk.ca

Amendments to the Canadian Trade-marks Act initially passed in 2014 willcome into force on June 17, 2019. These amendments will bring changesto the manner in which domestic applications are treated by the CanadianIntellectual Property Office (CIPO) but will also implement Canada’saccession to the Madrid Protocol, the Singapore Treaty, and the NiceAgreement.

Ian GoodmanTorontoigoodman@marks-clerk.ca

Business Intelligence Q1 2019

Click to subscribe and recieve future editions of Business Intelligence direct to your inbox.

Business Intelligence is a newsletter produced by Marks & Clerk. Articles featured are intended to provide a summary of the subject matter only. Readers should not act on any information without first obtaining specialist professional advice. Copyright Marks & Clerk Properties Limited, November 2018.

Marks & Clerk offices are located in Beijing and Hong Kong (China); Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia); Singapore; Toronto and Ottawa (Canada); Paris and Sophia Antipolis (France); Luxembourg; Aberdeen, Birmingham, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, London, Manchester and Oxford (UK).

www.marks-clerk.com