Thursday, 13 March 2025

Gwynedd Innovation Conference

Lake Bala
Author Necrothesp Licence CC BY-SA 3.0  Source Wikimedia Commons

 











Jane Lambert

Yesterday's Gwynedd Innovation Conference took place at the Gwersyll Yr Urdd Glan-llyn on the banks of Lake Bala (Llyn Tegid), one of the loveliest parts of Wales.  Lakeside communities are rare in the United Kingdom.  I can think of Windermere and Ambleside in England, Pitlochry and Drumnadrochit in Scotland and Enniskillen in Northern Ireland.  They are all special places with an Alpine feel.  Bala is, however, unique because it abuts the largest lake in Wales and some would say the most beautiful.

Gwynedd is a massive county in Northwest Wales which occupies much of the territory of the medieval kingdom of Gwynedd.  The county has excellent secondary schools and a leading research university which have trained a disproportionate number of highly skilled men and women who have pursued glittering careers in business, government, academia, the arts and the learned professions in every part of the world except their own.   With such initiatives as the opening of the Menai Science Park and the Pontio Centre opportunities are opening for the movers and shakers of the region. Moreover, talented folk from outside are making their homes and settling up businesses there.

Yesterday's conference celebrated those developments.  We heard from Jonny Charlton who developed a light carbon tandem that is attracting worldwide attention, filmmaker Asa Bailey whose work has gone viral on YouTube and an executive from Ifor Williams Trailers Ltd., a Corwen company whose products are distributed around the world.  We also heard from representatives of the organizations that have assisted them such as Richard Fraser-Williams of Business Wales, Stella Peace of InnovateUK and others from Gwynedd Council, the Development Bank of Wales, the Welsh Government and Bangor University,

The event was initiated by the Menai Science Park.  It was chaired by the science park's managing director Pryderi ap Rhisiart and we heard from his colleagues Gwenllian Owen, Sion Wynne and Tom Burke,  Tom delivered presentations on tourism technology and agricultural technology both of which are vitally important as tourism and farming are mainstays of the Welsh economy.   They and others who worked on the conference but did not speak deserve many congratulations for their respective contributions to a very successful event.

M-SParc can build on this success.  A lady sitting behind me suggested future activities in places like Dolgellau and other towns in the former county of Meirionnydd, an idea which received an echo of appreciation,   

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on +44 (0)20 7494 5252 during UK business hours or send me a message through my contact form at any time.

Wednesday, 26 February 2025

Tips for Pitching to Business Angels

Guardian Angel by Bernhard Plockhorst
 












Jane Lambert

A business angel is an individual who provides capital to startups and other small and medium enterprises in return for shares or debentures. He or she may also offer advice, introductions to his or her connections and technical expertise. They are invaluable in that they are willing to take risks that would deter other investors.

The reason I am writing this article is that I recently attended a pitching event at which three business owners presented their investment proposals to a group of angel investors.  As the proceedings were confidential I can say nothing about the event other than that all the presenters were impressive and every proposition appeared to be viable.  

For those who are yet to make their first pitches as well as those who wish to learn more, I commend Stripe Inc.'s How to Pitch to Angel Investors by Stripe Inc.  According to Wikipedia, Stripe, Inc. is a multinational financial services and software-as-a-service company with offices in Dublin and San Francisco.  The article was last updated on 3 July 2024 and while it was not addressed to British readers its guidance is relevant to entrepreneurs in this country.

One of the questions that angels are likely to ask is: “What are the main risks for your business, and how do you plan to mitigate them?” Stripe offers the following answer:

"Acknowledge the risks facing your business, whether they are market risks, operational risks, or competition. Discuss your strategies for mitigating these risks, showing thayou have a realistic view of the challenges and a plan to address them."

That is not so very different from tthe simple five-point strategy for start-ups and other small businesses that I suggested in Business Planning and IP: A Practical Example 4 April 2018 in NIPC Inventors' Club:

  1. "Identify the main revenue streams for your business over the business planning period. List the profitable products or services that you supply or for which your receive royalties or licence fees.
  2. Consider the likely threats to those income streams. In most cases these are going to be commercial. Competitors will launch new products, reduce their prices or maybe consumer buying behaviour may change. Only in a minority of cases will you have reason to fear copying of your designs or technology or adoption of similar branding.
  3. Devise appropriate counter measures. In many cases these will be commercial too even if you fear copying or passing off. In some circumstances, launching a new model, re-branding, reducing your prices or finding new markets can be as effective and often cheaper and more certain than litigation. However, a commercial option is not always available or attractive. For those cases where it is not you may need to plan a legal response.
  4. Choose the optimum legal protection. Put yourself in the position of your customer and consider why he or she is likely to find your product attractive. Is it its appearance, the way it works or the reputation of your business? If it is the appearance of your product you should see whether you can register its design either for the UK alone or the whole EU. If its your reputation you should think about registering your business name or logo a trade mark. If it is the way the product works or is made a patent may be the best option. If it cannot easily be reverse engineered you could keep it under wraps as a trade secret. Maybe unregistered design right will be enough. Factors to take into account will include the shelf life of your product, the size and value of the market, whether you want to sell it abroad and all sorts of other matters.
  5. Make sure you can enforce your legal protection. Although bootlegging, counterfeiting and piracy are crimes as well as torts primary responsibility for enforcing your intellectual property rights rests with you. That means bringing infringement proceedings in the civil courts. In England and Wales the costs of a High Court action can exceed £1 million. In simpler cases that can be brought in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court recoverable costs are capped at £50,000 for determining liability and £25,000 for assessing damages or other profits to be disgorged. There is a small claims track where costs are limited at a few hundred pounds for certain types of IP claims under £10,000. If you cannot afford such costs out of revenues then you should consider intellectual property insurance or other kinds of funding."
Most legal indemnity policies exclude intellectual property disputes.  For many years it was very difficult to obtain cover against the costs of IP litigation.  That has changed recently in that there are now several specialist brokers in this field.   The Intellectual Property Office has produced some excellent Guidance on Intellectual Property Insurance which was last updated on 21 Feb 2020.  The Chartered Instititue of Partent Attorneys publishes a list of brokers and their contact detail,  The Chartered Instititue of Trade Mark Attorneys has also compiled a downloadable list of IP Insurance Providers,  I have written extensively on the topic over the last 20 years and links to my articles  can be found at the foot of IPO Guidance: Intellectual Property Insurance which I posted to NIPC Inventors' Club on 25 Feb 2020/

Further information about intellectual property for presenters can be found in Enterprising Ideas - A Guide to Intellectual Property for Startups published by the World Intellectual Property Organization in 2021.  I would particularly commend the sections on "Other Strategic Ways to Exploit IP" between pages 38 and 50 which contains excellent advice on transactions with angels and other sources of finance and "Managing Risks" between 51 and 57.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article further may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during normal UK business hours or send me a message through my contact page at any time.

Friday, 10 January 2025

Sbwriel - Howells v Newport City Council

Author Truckdriver53  Own Work Licence CC BY-SA 4.0, Source Wikimedia Commons

 











Jane Lambert

Business and Property Courts in Wales (Chancery Division) His Honour Judge Keyser KC Howells v Newport City Council [2025] EWHC 22 (Ch) 9 Jan 2025

On or about 5 Aug 2013 Mr James Howells of Newport inadvertently placed a hard drive holding the private key to his Bitcoin holding in a black plastic binliner and asked his partner to carry it off to the tip when doing the school run.  She was reluctant to do so at first but later changed her mind and deposited the bag at the Newport City Council landfill site.  Not long after dumping the hard drive the value of Bitcoins surged.  Mr Howell estimates that his holding is now worth over £600 million. As he needed the key to realize his fortune he asked the local authority to let him enter the site with a team of retrieval experts to forage for the drive but the City Council said "no".

The Claim

Mr Howells issued proceedings against the Council on 17 May 2024 claiming declarations that he is the legal owner of the hard drive and all tangible and intangible property on it together with either (a) an order for delivery up of the hard drive or (b) damages for its wrongful retention. 

The particulars of claim were as follows:

"9. The claimant was able to mine 8000 Bitcoin in early 2009 and has a complete record of the mining history which shows all block numbers and transaction identification. The mined Bitcoin are currently located in their original wallet addresses [these are set out] and this can be evidenced by publicly available and independently verifiable blockchain data.

10. When running the Bitcoin Client software for the first time the software created a 'wallet.dat' file for the claimant containing a public and private key address which was saved on an internal 2.5 inch laptop hard drive ('the hard drive') at all times owned and in possession of the claimant.

12. The wallet.dat file is where the public and private key data is stored. The private key (which is located inside the wallet.dat file) is the only information which can enable access to the claimant's legally owned Bitcoin.

27. The claimant never intended to dispose of the hard drive. The hard drive was taken from his home without his permission or consent on the morning of 5th August 2013.

29. With the hard drive containing the only wallet.dat key the claimant is unable to access his Bitcoin and is unable to transfer, or undertake any transactions with, his Bitcoin. The claimant has access to the Bitcoin database and ledger where on any given day he can view the value of his digital property (the bitcoins).
30. Without the wallet.dat file contained on the hard drive the claimant is unable to access his Bitcoin. There is no other way for him to access the Bitcoin without the wallet.dat file.

39. For the first time on 25 September 2023 the defendant asserted in writing to the legal representatives appointed by the claimant that, as the hard drive had been deposited at [the Site], they were the legal owners of the hard drive.

43. The claimant has been able to identify the precise location where the hard drive is placed within Cell 2 - Area 2 of Docks Way landfill site and has also established a recovery team who have set out in substantial detail in writing to the defendant, how the hard drive may be successfully recovered (at no cost, and at minimal risk to the defendant).

45. By asserting ownership of the hard drive, the defendant has substantially interfered with the claimant's rights and has denied the claimant access to not only the tangible property of the hard drive, but additionally has deprived the claimant of his intangible property and his access to the same."

Mr Howells claimed to be the legal owner of the drive and demanded its return or damages for wrongful interference.  The judge said that head of claim was the heart of his case.   Alternatively, he relied on proprietary restitution.  Finally, he argued that the drive was held for him on a constructive trust,

The Defence

The Council alleged that it had acquired the hard drive upon delivery of the binliner  by virtue of s.14 (6) (c) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974:

"anything delivered to the authority by another person in the course of using the facilities shall belong to the authority and may be dealt with accordingly."

As the hard drive now belonged to it, the Council contended that Mr Howells was no longer entitled to recover the drive.

The Application

 By an application notice dated 20 June 2024, the Council applied to strike out the claim contending that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and/or was an abuse of the process of the court or, alternatively, seeking summary judgment on the ground it had no realistic prospect of success and there was no compelling reason for the claim to go to trial. The application was heard by His Honour Judge Keyser KC sitting in Cardiff as a judge of the High Court on 3 Dec 2024.  He handed down judgment on 9 Jan 2025 (see  Howells v Newport City Council [2025] EWHC 22 (Ch)).

Strikeouts and Summary Judgment

The judge referred to CPR 3.4 (2) (a) and (b) and paras 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 of the Part 3A Practice Direction. Before considering CPR Part 24 he observed at para [7] of his judgment:

"Although the defendant has relied in the alternative both on r. 3.4 (2) (a) and on r. 3.4 (2) (b), the application has been advanced simply on the basis that the claim cannot succeed. It is common ground that, when considering an application advanced on that basis, the court ought to assume that the facts relied on by the claimant are true: that is, the defendant's contention is that, even if (which it does not necessarily accept) the facts alleged by the claimant are true, his claim must fail."

He then turned to CPR 24.3.  After stating that many cases have explained the correct approach to applications for summary judgment he said that Mr Justice Lewison had set out the classic summary of the principles at para [15] of his judgment in EasyAir Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd, [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch):

"........ The correct approach on applications by defendants is, in my judgment, as follows:
i) The court must consider whether the claimant has a "realistic" as opposed to a "fanciful" prospect of success: Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91 ;
ii) A "realistic" claim is one that carries some degree of conviction. This means a claim that is more than merely arguable: ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472 at [8]
iii) In reaching its conclusion the court must not conduct a "mini-trial": Swain v Hillman
iv) This does not mean that the court must take at face value and without analysis everything that a claimant says in his statements before the court. In some cases it may be clear that there is no real substance in factual assertions made, particularly if contradicted by contemporaneous documents: ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel at [10]
v) However, in reaching its conclusion the court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it on the application for summary judgment, but also the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial: Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No 5) [2001] EWCA Civ 550;
vi) Although a case may turn out at trial not to be really complicated, it does not follow that it should be decided without the fuller investigation into the facts at trial than is possible or permissible on summary judgment. Thus the court should hesitate about making a final decision without a trial, even where there is no obvious conflict of fact at the time of the application, where reasonable grounds exist for believing that a fuller investigation into the facts of the case would add to or alter the evidence available to a trial judge and so affect the outcome of the case: Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd [2007] FSR 63;
vii) On the other hand it is not uncommon for an application under Part 24 to give rise to a short point of law or construction and, if the court is satisfied that it has before it all the evidence necessary for the proper determination of the question and that the parties have had an adequate opportunity to address it in argument, it should grasp the nettle and decide it. The reason is quite simple: if the respondent's case is bad in law, he will in truth have no real prospect of succeeding on his claim or successfully defending the claim against him, as the case may be. Similarly, if the applicant's case is bad in law, the sooner that is determined, the better. If it is possible to show by evidence that although material in the form of documents or oral evidence that would put the documents in another light is not currently before the court, such material is likely to exist and can be expected to be available at trial, it would be wrong to give summary judgment because there would be a real, as opposed to a fanciful, prospect of success. However, it is not enough simply to argue that the case should be allowed to go to trial because something may turn up which would have a bearing on the question of construction: ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v TTE Training Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 725."

Judge Keyser noted that the Court of Appeal had approved Mr Justice Lewison's summary in Global Asset Capital Inc v Aabar Block SARL [2017] EWCA Civ 37, [2017] 4 WLR 163.  He also said that he had regard to paras [8] to [10] of Lord Justice Potter's judgment in ED&F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel, paras [41] and [42] of Lady Justice Asplin's judgment in Elite Property Holdings Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc [2019] EWCA Civ 204, paras [3] and [4] of Mr Justice Andrew Baker's judgment in Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP [2020] EWHC 1624 (Comm), paras [11] to [18] of Mrs Justice Cockerill's judgment in Foglia v The Family Officer Ltd [2021] EWHC 650 (Comm) and paras [33] to [39] of Mr Justice Henshaw's judgment in Lex Foundation v Citibank NA [2022] EWHC 1649 (Comm).

The learned judge summarized the position as follows in para [10]:

"......... For present purposes, I can summarise the position as follows. Summary judgment will be given against a claimant on a claim or issue only if the court is satisfied that the claim or issue has no real, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of success; a claim or issue that is merely arguable but carries no degree of conviction will not have a real prospect of success. The court will not conduct a mini-trial and, where necessary, will bear in mind that full disclosure has not yet taken place and that there might be more evidence to come. Accordingly, where there are disputed questions of fact, it will not generally attempt to determine where the probabilities lie. However, the court ought to carry out a critical examination of the available material and is not bound to accept the mere say-so of anybody; where it is clear that a factual case is self-contradictory or inherently incredible or where it is contradicted by the contemporaneous documents, the court, after careful consideration of the evidence that is currently before it and having regard to the nature of such further evidence as might reasonably be expected to be available at trial, is entitled to reject that case even on a summary basis. The court will not be dissuaded from giving judgment by mere Micawberism—the unsubstantiated hope that 'something might turn up'. (I should record that the defendant in the present case does not invite the court, on this application, to question the factual basis of the claimant's claim.) Where the claim turns on a point of law that can properly be determined on the available evidence, the court is entitled to go ahead and determine it. The complexity of litigation is not itself a reason for refusing summary judgment: the circumstances may be such that determination of the case is impossible without a trial; on the other hand, it might be possible to analyse the case sufficiently at an early stage and thereby avoid the unnecessary time and expense of the continuation of litigation until trial. In all cases, r. 24.2 (b) falls to be considered in principle."

Tangible and Intangible Property

The judge distinguished between tangible and intangible property.   The hard drive was tangible property and that was all that went into landfill.   Answering a submission that the hard drive somehow also contained Mr Howell's title to his Bitcoin His Honour drew the following analogy:

"(If a copy of the novel that won the Booker Prize in 2024 were thrown into the landfill, the author's copyright would not go with it.) "

He added:  "In order to avoid going down blind alleys, one needs to focus on what property one is talking about."  He continued in the next paragraph:

"Paragraph 58 of the particulars of claim identifies the intangible property on the Hard Drive as the Bitcoin, and in his oral submissions Mr Armstrong KC ended up contending that the Bitcoin were "on" the Hard Drive. That is plainly wrong. Bitcoin are not tangible property and cannot be on the Hard Drive or in the Landfill. Bitcoin are also not intangible property (on this, see the helpful discussion in the Law Commission's Digital Assets: Final report, at paragraphs 3.52 to 3.54), and neither intangible property nor property within the third category has physical location. Mr Armstrong's late contention is, in fact, contrary to the case advanced in the witness statement of the claimant's solicitor, Mr Manley, which says in paragraph 33 that the Bitcoin 'exist independently on the Blockchain, away from the hard drive.'"

The judge noted that the Council made no claim to the Bitcoin stating "What is on the Hard Drive is at most a digital record of the private key, which is a code provided to the claimant to enable him to operate his cryptocurrency account."   Essentially it was information and not property.

Control of Pollution Act 1974

Newport City Council's primary contention was that even if all the facts asserted by Mr Howells were true and correct, his claim could not succeed, because the hard drive was now the Council's property.  The judge agreed.   He considered s.12 and s.14 (1), (3), (4) and (6) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.  In his view, it was a complete answer to the claim.

Construction of s.14 (6) (c)

Mr Howells argued that "belong" in s.14 (6) (c) was not a term of legalese but a factual one.  The argument was not clear to the judge and it does not appear to have been developed.   It seems to amount to a contention that it did not amount to a transfer of ownership.

The second argument was that s.14 (6) (c) did not extinguish Mr Howells's title to the hard drive.  The judge disposed of it peremptorily at [32]:
"First, there is no reservation, or recognition of the existence, of other rights in the things delivered. Second, the words 'shall belong to the authority' are unqualified and unrestricted: it is not said, for example, that the authority shall have a possessory or other proprietary right in the things delivered. Third, and correspondingly, the words 'and may be dealt with accordingly' are important. If other persons are supposed to retain proprietary rights or interest in the things delivered, what (one may ask) could it mean to tell the authority that it may deal with the things 'accordingly'? According to what? According to proprietary rights that are limited or qualified by co-existing or competing or superior rights? The words "and may be dealt with accordingly" confer a practical right: to put it rather colloquially, they tell the authority, in effect, 'They are yours and you may do with them as you wish.' Fourth, this is consistent with the context of the provision, namely the processing and disposal of waste by the disposal authority. It would be impractical for a disposal authority to be concerned with the possible existence of competing proprietary interests in the deposited waste. In theory it would be possible for such interests to exist but for the disposal authority to be empowered to deal with the waste in disregard of those interests. But one has only to identify that possibility to see that, as a construction of section 14 (6) (c), it is not only unnecessary but absurd: any qualification of the words 'shall belong to the authority' would be contrary to the point of the provision; therefore it makes no sense to introduce such a qualification into the interpretation of the words."

The third argument was that the words "in the course of using the facilities" in s.4 (6) (c) did not apply to the claimant's partner as she was alleged to have disposed of the drive without Mr Howells's consent. The judge did not regard the point as arguable. Whether or not she had his authority to take the bags to the dump and dispose of them there, she was using its facilities. The statutory provision did not distinguish between users of the facilities on the basis of their authority. There was no proper basis for implying any limitation into the words of the provision, and there was every reason not to do so. The local authority's freedom to deal with items delivered to it as refuse could not sensibly be contingent on matters of which it had no knowledge or control. 

Dealing with the alternative causes of action, the judge said s.14 (6) (c) was a complete answer to the claim to legal ownership,   In pre-action correspondence, Mr Howells had relied on Armstrong DLW GmbH v Winnington Networks Ltd [2012] EWHC 10 (Ch), [2012] 3 WLR 835 where a claim for proprietary restitution had succeeded because there had been knowing receipt of unlawfully obtained electronic vouchers.  There had been no knowing receipt in this case and no allegation of wrongful enrichment.  The equitable proprietary claim failed because no constructive trust came into being.  Had such a trust existed the claim would have been statute-barred,

Reasons for Resisting the Application

At para [54] of his judgment Judge Keyser reproduced the Council's reasons for resisting Mr Howells's application:

"The implications were the Council to allow the claimant access to excavate the site cannot be understated:
(i) breach of the terms of its licence with NRW;
(ii) escape of harmful substances into the environment;
(iii) damage caused by ground movement during or after excavation work;
(iv) risk to the health and safety of site staff whilst work is ongoing;
(v) risk to health and safety of residents within the area of Docks Way whilst work is ongoing and subsequently;
(vi) exposure to the Council's residents to potentially serious risks which raises public health issues and environmental concerns;
(vii) the inability of the Council to discharge its statutory waste disposal functions whilst the site is excavated."

Judgment 

At para [55] of his judgment His Honour said that he did not consider that the particulars of claim showed any reasonable grounds for bringing the case. He did not consider that the claim would have any realistic prospect of succeeding if it went to trial and that there was no other compelling reason why it should be disposed of at trial. It followed that it was open to him to strike out the claim under CPR Part 3 or to give summary judgment for the defendant under CPR Part 24. The latter course seemed preferable to the judge. He gave judgment to the defendant Council and dismissed the claim.

Comment

This judgment contains a useful review of the authorities on CPR 3.4 and Part 24.  Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact page at other times.  For those who are wondering, "sbwriel" means "rubbish" in Cymraeg.

Saturday, 28 December 2024

World Intellectual Property Day 2025 - IP and Music: Feel the Beat of IP

Catrin Finch
Author Maelor Licence Public Domain Source Wikimedia Commons























Jane Lambert

World Intellectual Property Day is an international festival of creativity and innovation on or around 26 April each year. It commemorates the entry into force of the Convention that established the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO"), Every year the festival, focuses on a different theme. The theme for 2025 is "IP and Music: Feel the Beat of IP". According to the WIPO, this year’s World IP Day invites us to explore how IP rights and innovation policies empower creators, innovators, and entrepreneurs to bring fresh ideas to the music industry, safeguarding the work of songwriters, composers, performers, and all those who shape the music that moves us.

In preparation for the day, the WIPO has assembled IP resources and tools for inventors, creators and entrepreneurs relating to music. The featured link at the top of the portal is CLIP which stands for "Creators Learn Intellectual Property".  Other resources include guides on The Global Digital Music Industry, Artists in the Digital Music Marketplace and IP Awareness for Creative Industries and publications on How to Make a Living from MusicAre the best tunes played on the oldest fiddles? Distribution and digitization of recorded classical music and Musical Works and Audio-Visual Works - Collective Management Toolkit. There are also links to "IP success stories in the music sphere" and "Music and IP: Essential Tools for Creators, Inventors and Entrepreneurs."  

Music is an art form in which Wales excels in every genre and at every level.  The Menai Science Park ("M-SParc") has participated in every World IP Day celebration since 2019.  Every year it has held lunchtime seminars on the theme as well as other initiatives to benefit businesses and individuals in Northwest Wales.  M-SParc already participates in Gogledd Creadigol which is a network for the creative industries including music in North Wales.  

The science park was established by Bangor University which also set up the Pontio Arts and Innovation Centre an important music venue for Northwest Wales. On 10 Jan 2025 for example it will host the Welsh National Opera's New Year's Celebration in its Bryn Terfel Theatre.  On 18 Jan 2025, it will stage Gig Teulu with Meinir Gwilym, Elin Fflur and Buddug in the same auditorium.  Ballet Cymru has performed Tir to the music of Cerys Matthews in the Pontio.  Catrin Finch, whose photo appears above, also wrote the score for the company's Celtic Concerto.

In previous years, M-SParc has invited me to propose a programme for the lunchtime seminar and also to chair it.  Should the science park do so again, I shall invite composers, songwriters and performers from Wales and leading practitioners on copyright,  rights in performances and artificial intelligence from around the world to participate.  I would also try to involve the Pontio and Gogledd Creadigol in the celebrations.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form at all other times.

Tuesday, 10 December 2024

Coleg Menai Hosts Gogledd Creadigol at its New Campus

Standard YouTube Licence


Gogledd Creadigol or Creative North Wales describes itself on its Facebook page as "a network for the creative digital industries in North Wales".  Its aim is to encourage networking and collaboration between the digital creative companies and further and higher education institutions in order to secure a prosperous future for the industry in North Wales.

I first learned about the network on 21 April 2011 when I took part in a dialogue with Carwyn Edwards on Copyright and ICT organized by North Wales Tech and North Wales Creative.  Copies of my slides for that event can be downloaded from Slideshare.  I wrote about it in Gogledd Creadigol on 11 May 2021. I subsequently attended a joint meeting of North Wales Creative and Creative Wales at the Galeri arts centre in Caernarfon on 9 Nov 2022 (see North Wales Creative meets Creative Wales 11 Nov 2022).  I also attended Gogledd Creadigol's Creative Digital  Awards Ceremony at Theatr Clwyd in Mold on 2 Feb 2023.

Gogledd Creadigol's most recent meeting took place on the new Bangor campus of Coleg Menai on the Parc Menai business park.  It began with a tour of the campus.  Some idea of its impressive educational and skills training facilities can be gained from the above video and the photos on Gogledd Creadigol's Facebook page.  The new Bangor campus forms part of Grŵp Llandrillo Menai which is an amalgamation of Coleg Llandrillo, Coleg Menai and Coleg Meirion-Dwyfor.  The merged establishment is enormous employing 2,000 staff and teaching 21,000 students in Anglesey, Conwy, Denbighshire and Gwynedd.

After an introduction from the Chair and an update from Tom Burke there were presentations from the Federation of Small Businesses, North Wales Regional Skills Partnership, Supertemps and Cymru Creadigol.  The FSB promoted The Power of Creativity, a study of the creative industries in Wales which it had published on 24 Oct 2024.  The speaker from the Skills Partnership spoke about training in the creative sector.  One slide which stuck in my mind showed that a higher proportion of qualified persons in the creative sector in Anglesey and Gwynedd than those in Northeast Wales.  The speaker attributed that to a longer commute to the English border.  I put it to her that it was also consistent with the creation of new jobs and business opportunities at M-SParc.   She did not disagree. 

According to the FSB the turnover of the creative industries in Wales was £3.8 billion in 2022 contributing 5.3% to the nation's GDP.  Some 40% of the businesses in the sector are one-person concerns and 80% of those industries employ between 1 and 9 people.  The legal protection of brands, designs and works of art or literature is crucial to the success of those businesses.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact page at other times.    

Saturday, 23 November 2024

Wales Enterprise Day - The Works

Standard YouTube Licence


Last Monday I chaired the fourth Wales Enterprise Day seminar at the Menai Science Park ("M-SParc"). It was filmed by Iwan Pitts and readers can watch the whole proceedings on YouTube.  Wales Enterprise Day was the brainchild of Emily Roberts.  She intended it to be a counterweight to World IP Day which M-SParc has celebrated every year since 2019,  As World IP Daty takes place in Spring M-SParc focuses on start-ups on that day though it does not ignore scale-ups,  In Autumn Wales Enterprise Day focuses on scale-ups but does not forget start-ups.

Our theme this year was Developing an IP Strategy and it was set out comprehensively but also comprehensibly by Antony Craggs of Shoosmiths.  Antony spoke about IP Strategy and Enforcement just before lunch on the last day of the Cambridge IP Law Summer School at Downing College. Winning and holding an audience's attention in that slot is an uphill task but Antony had us sitting bolt-upright as he delivered his talk.  I have heard nearly as many presentations on IP  strategy and enforcement as I have had hot dinners but Antony's talk was exceptional.  I booked him for Wales Enterprise Day before he even left the lecture hall.

Antony chose the same theme for his talk to M-SParc but he delivered it in a very different way,  That was partly because it was given over the Internet and partly because he had a different audience. Most of the attendees at the Cambridge IP Law Summer School are lawyers.  Some are trainee solicitors but most are assistant solicitors with a good knowledge and some practical experience of IP.  Antony's audience on Monday consisted mainly of business owners.  His talk was interactive and he used slido to encourage participation.  He illustrated his talk by considering the business issues and decisions that would be taken by the founders of a new solar power company called "Folt".  The reason for the spelling will be appreciated when it is remembered that "F" is pronounced "V" in Welsh.  If anything Antony's presentation to M-SParc was even more impressive than the one that he gave at Cambridge.  Readers can watch it all on the above video,

The next speaker was Geraint McGrath, Senior Investment Manager of the Foresight Group which is one of the fund managers of the Investment Fund for Wales,  I met Geraint at the St David's Day dinner at the Guildhall in London.  One of the topics we discussed was flotation on the London Stock Exchange,  Having read Capital Issues: Reforming the UK’s Capital Markets to Boost Science and Tech by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and Onward which advocated root and branch reform of capital markets I suggested told us the revival of local capital markets in Britain.  I pointed out that several had subsisted until 1972 when they merged with the London Stock Exchange.  I have just found an interesting article about those regional exchanges by Gareth Campbell and others entitled The Rise and Decline of the UK's Provincial Stock Market 1869 to 1929,

Though not exactly a start-up, MDF Recovery Ltd opened a new office at M-SParc in May of this year (see MDF Recovery expands presence with new office at M-Sparc, Anglesey 7 May 2024),  The office is led by Rob Elias who is Head of Business Development at the company.  I first met Rob when he chaired a workshop on sustainable packaging that I addressed in January 2019 (see IP for the Welsh Food and Packaging Industries 30 Jan 2019 NIPC News).  He was also a guest speaker at M-SParc's World IP Day celebrations in 2020.  Rob introduced us to his company's technology which extracts wood fibre from waste medium-density fibreboard so that it can be reconstituted into fresh blocks.

Tom Burke has founded several successful businesses and is also Digital Innovation Manager at M-SParc. His latest enterprise is Streams+ which promotes eSports.  Tom told us about his pivot from video conferencing to eSports.  He mentioned the first Welsh-speaking eSports event at the National Eisteddfod which he helped to organize and promote (see Emily Roberts Historic First: Welsh Language Esports Competition Debuts at National Eisteddfod 7 Aug 2024  M-Sparc's website).  He also said that the International Olympic Committee has organized an annual eSports Series and that the event was gaining popularity rapidly.

The last speaker was Emma Richards, Regional Policy Advisor at the IPO.  Last year I quizzed her about the use of Welsh at the Intellectual Property Office.  As there has definitely been some progress since then I introduced her as "the lady who can get things done" (see IPO's Welsh Language Website 13 Nov 2024 NIPC Wales). Emma modestly disclaimed credit for the language progress but she introduced us to the IPO's YouTube channel and showed us the IP Basics and attachés videos.  Most importantly, she promised support to enable M-SParc to provide its tenants and local business community with the services available in the Business and IP Centres network in England,  As a first step she has arranged for Gwenllian Owen, M-SParc's Commercialization and Innovation Officer, to attend the IPO's IP Masterclass and Gwenllian will be followed on that course shortly by Lois Bevan Shaw, Business Support & Project Development Manager at M-SParc.

This is a convenient point for me to express my gratitude to Gwenllian for all the work that she did to make the Wales Enterprise Day seminar happen.  I suggested speakers, promoted the event in this publication and on social media and chaired the seminar on the day but Gwenllian did everything else which must have required a lot of work.  I see from Gwenllian's LinkedIn page that she has recently marked her second anniversary with M-SParc.  Her achievements at the science park have been considerable and I think she can fairly chalk up Monday's seminar as yet another resounding success. 

Finally, I remind readers that Monday's seminar was not an isolated event.   It was just one of several free services that Sean Thomas, Andrea Knox, Steve Livingston and I offer together with other IP professionals (see An IP Clinic for M-SParc 25 Jan 2024 NIPC Wales).   These will complement the Business and IP Centre services that Emma Richards referred to in her talk,  Immediately after the seminar I was consulted by two young local inventors who are contemplating an interesting business venture,   Anyone wishing to access those services can do so at any time by completing the attached form. 

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Thursday, 21 November 2024

Investment Fund for Wales

Standard YouTube Licence


The Investment Fund for Wales (Gronfa Buddsoddi i Gymru) is a £130 million commitment of new funding for businesses in Wales.  It is one of several investment funds for the nations of the United Kingdom and the regions of England to boost long-term growth.  The others are the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund II about which I have written extensively (see The Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund Roadshow 17 Oct 2024 NIPC Yorkshire and the articles referred to in that post), the Midlands Engine Investment Fund II, the South West Investment Fund, the Investment Fund for Scotland and the Investment Fund for Northern Ireland).

As with the other funds, the British Business Bank has made the funding available and arranged with local fund managers to distribute it in the form of smaller loans, debt finance and equity investment.  BCRS lends between £25,000 and £100,000. FW Capital offers debt finance between £100,000 and £2 million.  The Foresight Group invests between £2 and £5 million in companies' share capital.  Both the British Business Bank and the fund managers work with other lenders and investors in Wales.  Such lenders include clearing and challenger banks, business angels and venture capitalists that do business in Wales.  They in turn collaborate with local accountants, business advisors, law firms, patent and trade mark attorneys and others who advise and assist startups, scale-ups and other small businesses,

Some of the activities of the fund are mentioned in its press release of 19 Nov 2024 (The Investment Fund for Wales hits £10m investment milestone as it celebrates one year anniversary).  Examples of equity investment include £650,000 into the adventure tour operator EverTrek (see EverTrek  19 July 2024 on the British Business Bank website) and £850,000 into Drone Evolution by the Foresign Group (see the British Business Bank's press release of 7 Nov 2024  £850k equity investment in drone company supplying aid through Investment Fund for Wales).  The press release of 19 Nov also mentions £500,000 from FW Capital for Palmers Scaffolding and BCRS's £100,000 facility for Snowdon Timber Products Ltd from BCRS.

Business owners who are unsure how to approach the British Business Bank, a fund manager or any other lender or investor could do worse than book a free appointment in person or by video link with me or some other professional through our Initial Advice and Signposting service (see An IP Clinic for M-SParc 
25 Jan 2024  NIPC Wales).  If funding is offered there are bound to be legal issues some of which I can resolve.  Other services such as drafting shareholders' agreements and patent prosecution can be done more efficiently by commercial solicitors such as Andrea Knox or patent attorneys like Sean Thomas.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on 020 7404 5252 during UK business hours or send me a message through my contact form.