CK3001MontaguevInfoCommissionerLiverpoolJohnMoores
Please see attached the short article relating to Public information requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, for information held by a University lecturer as private research, and when it will be ‘held’ by the University (and so disclosable) for the purposes of the 2000 Act.
Exchange of confidential information under a Non-Disclosure Agreement (or Confidentiality Agreement)
In most standard Non-disclosure Agreements (NDAs) the clause relating to the period for which the confidences should be kept between the parties (or third parties) will refer to a definite period of time, for example 5 years.
The period for which confidences are to be kept will run from either the date of the disclosure under the agreement, or from the termination date. The period hit upon is often a matter of instruction from the client, sometimes the client places such importance on the confidential information (invention, trade secrets, design, all manner of commercially or otherwise inherently sensitive information) that they would wish the confidences to be kept, if at all possible, forever.
In the University sector, given that there is a constant commitment to wide dissemination of knowledge or information through academic publication and other channels, shorter time periods of 5 years are often agreed, in light of the fact that so much information by its very nature ends up rapidly in the public domain.
A typical clause for general commercial use, or for research agreements would read:
‘The provisions of this clause [the clause setting out the confidences that should be kept – e.g. a large category including know-how, trade secrets, operations, plans, processes, copyrights etc] shall survive any termination of this agreement for a period of 5 years from termination.’
Some NDAs refer to a window of time, in which the confidences are exchanged, for example for 1 year running from the start date of the agreement, and so the only confidential information caught in the net is that exchanged in a defined period. In such cases, you need to carefully ensure that the confidential information is also (in another clause in the agreement!) to be preserved for an unlimited time, or for the temporal period of 5 years for example.
The above issues are under current review in regard to the precedents in current use. However, simply because the product of Research or information is often aimed to be in the public domain as quickly as possible, and widely disseminated, it does not mean that there are confidences that should be kept and for long periods of time.
Please find attached a Blog on the Schutz v Werit Patent case currently before the UK Supreme Court. As potential licensees, Universities would need to ensure what contractual rights they require when participating in the ‘manufacture’ of patented products, wherever the University might find itself in the chain.
CK0801FactorsaffectingIPlicensingdeals
Please see attached article (in the same theme as the previous article) relating to valuation of IP in licence agreements.
Please see the attached article reviewing the Intellectual Property Office publication entitled ‘Agreeing a price for Intellectual Property Rights’ which is becoming increasingly topical.
We have the Patents County Court capably supervised by His Honour Judge Colin Birss (producing some very interesting intellectual property decisions) which allows small claims in intellectual property, up to £5,000.00 to be adjudicated without wearing a proverbial hole in the small business’s pocket, or the small any persons’ pocket.
It is now proposed to introduce an accelerated patent application process via the Intellectual Patent Office (processing patents within 90 days). Faster trade marks examination, down to 5 days, instead of 10 days is also aimed at. There also proposals afoot to provide advice to small businesses and businesses generally, regarding exploitation of IP rights at home and abroad.
The above is of course subject to the ordinary challenges to patents and trade marks so such challenges would still need to be adjudicated.
The link to the Intellectual Property site is attached below. Never let it be said that Government does not bring hope and cheer at Christmas!
http://www.researchprofessional.com/news/article/1278887?i=1279052&__mhid=41964611
Please see the attached evidence review (from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation) in relation to improving the decision making in the care and support of older people; including the key concept that there is a ‘decision making ecology’ involving many influences on decisions about risk and trust in an ageing society.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/improving-decision-making-care