The Law Society has warned the Government that the UK could lose
up to 3 billion a year if a new patents court is based on
the European mainland. The warning comes following a report which
showed the impact on the intellectual property industry if the
court is not based in London.
The Law Society is urging Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke,
ahead of key negotiations with other European Union Governments,
not to compromise the UK's position as a leading innovator and
commercial legal centre by agreeing to the new court - Central
Division of the Unified Patent Court - being based elsewhere in the
European Union.
The Law Society, in conjunction with the Intellectual Property
Lawyers Association (IPLA) and the City of London Law Society,
point to a report by FTI Consulting LLP on the impact on the UK of
the Court's location outside the UK (Paris or Munich) compared to
London.
The key finding of the report is that the total cost to the UK
of a non-UK location for the Court would be at least 683
million, and potentially up to 2.95 billion.
Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson, who this week wrote
to the Justice Secretary on the matter, said: 'If the UK government
agrees that the new court should be based in Paris or Munich
instead of London, they will be turning away up to 3bn per
annum. There will also be longer term effects. We will see the UK's
intellectual property expertise disappear overseas.
'London and the UK is seeking to become the European centre for
commercial litigation and arbitration. That aspiration will be
diluted if the new court is opened elsewhere. At a time when the UK
economy needs all the help it can get, it would be unwise for the
UK Government to negotiate away a the new court, which will play
its part in the UK's position as a nation of innovators.'
The UK Government is expected to discuss the issue with other
European governments at the Council of Ministers on 30
May.
A recent report from the European Scrutiny Committee's confirmed
the view that the Central Division's location would bring
significant economic advantages to the host city.
Ends