The Future of Global Patent Litigation

“Courts competing” might sound odd, but it can lead to what clients actually crave: faster and more predictable decisions. Joining Lee and Gwilym for this episode, recorded at INTA 2026, in London, are Tammy Terry, a Texas-based patent litigator, and Daniel Chew, a UK and European patent attorney and Chair of our International Liaison Committee. They consider how different forums shape strategy, not just outcomes, and how cross-border collaboration is becoming more important for patent litigators.

The discussion moves on to the Unified Patent Court and why its pace is drawing attention well beyond Europe. The group also wrestles with forum shopping: when it’s a legitimate search for efficiency and when it starts to feel like gaming the system.

The thorny issue of substantive patent law harmonisation (SPLH) and the patent grace period debate comes up - and why trade negotiations keep these topics alive even if global harmonisation still feels out of reach. 

The episode closes with a focus on the human side of the profession: education, networking, and the messages the group would want policymakers and industry leaders to hear, including the idea that IP is not just a sector, it’s embedded in every sector.

If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, share this with a colleague, and leave us a review. 

Transcript

Why Faster Courts Matter

Speaker 2 0:00

Courts competing, it seems counterintuitive, but I think it's probably good for the for the customer in a sense because they want not to be penalty friendly or defendant friendly, but to be fast and fair and efficient. A market-driven courts.

Speaker 0:14

Lee Davis and Gwilym Roberts are The two IPs in a pod, and you are listening to a podcast on intellectual property brought to you by the Chartered Institute of Pattern Attorney.

Speaker 1 0:30

So here we are podcasting again from the I'm going to call it the Intergoldfish bolt because it does have the feeling of being in an aquarium, doesn't it?

Speaker 2 0:37

It is, although it's orange, and I don't care what it's like. It's like being stopping inverted orange. Yeah, yeah. But I don't know what I mean is it's hard. You've got some sort of tangerine glow this morning. No, that's just that's not fake done. I was I was getting ready for the big days. We've accidentally done some bants. There you go. Oh, it's not that right now. I want to call it uh into bands. I want to call it ints. Don't call it ints. Let's get the guests on, shall we? Yes. So we have Daniel and Tammy with us today. I'm gonna ask you both to introduce yourself. Honestly, that's okay. I'm gonna go ladies first. So Tammy, welcome to podcast. Who are you?

Speaker 3 1:09

Thank you so much. My name is Tammy Terry, and I came here from Texas. I am a patent litigator primarily. Also do a lot of IP litigation of other sorts, trademark, copyright, trade secrets. I also have unfair competition, antitrust. You know, cases are becoming increasingly complex and serious. And so I handle all sorts of combat. Uh, and I also have a side hustle of uh trademark prosecution, which came later in my career as uh, you know, kind of a taking over for practice from someone who is retiring. So I uh am if one of the few Americans that actually stroves kind of both of those sides. Is that is that that's unusual in the that is unusual in the States. Usually the patent litigators stick to patent litigation and the trademark prosecution folds stick to the trademark side. And so I'm really, really lucky that I've had those opportunities. And I'm a partner now at Nelson Mullins, which is a national firm in the US full service.

Speaker 5 2:02

Good. There's no harm in seeing both sides of the fence and things sometimes, because I think as a straight prosecutor, you're not always that clear what you're gonna do with that right. As a litigator, you don't quite know how that right came about in the first place. So knowing both files, it presumably gives you a good insight into the whole story.

Speaker 2:18

I mean, my clients tend to think so. No, but but really, I mean, I started off my career just in litigation. And so I was always looking at how do you either kill or defend the life of IP. And so when I started to learn more about the prosecution side, I do think it gave me more of an enriched perspective. Absolutely. And it gave me some actually some additional weapons because when you know a little bit more about the ins and outs or of the process, you can also find weaknesses, I think, that you otherwise maybe don't to look for.

Speaker 3 2:46

Scary language, kill weapons, combat, combat. I was um she's weaponizing IP here. I was with one of our members, uh Capit Fellow at a um uh presentation of uh associations. Uh anyone speak, can I speak? Can't remember that. They remember they merged into one. Yeah, and he was using words like destroy and stuff like that. This is scary. Why do you people like it?

Speaker 5 3:09

Well, it's for litigations, it is a it's a tiny, tiny war, and it's very passionate as well, usually, isn't it? So there are natural words, there's not a bad parallel to draw, I guess. We've kind of forgotten Daniel that we need to get involved. Oh, sorry, it's something interesting.

Speaker 4 3:21

Yeah, it's not an interesting talking about killing. I was I'll I was going to say that this looked like more like an MA MMA cage.

Speaker 1 3:27

Yeah.

Speaker 4 3:29

Oh no, now I'm not just killing, yes. So, Daniel, yes, a man who needs no introduction, but you're gonna give yourself one. I'm going to introduce myself. So I'm Daniel Chu. Um, I am a UK and European partner attorney and also UPC representative. Um I'm a partner at uh Haseltine Lake Kempner. Um my background primarily is electronics, but my practice is increasingly varied. Um yes, so we we're talking about you know doing a bit of prosecution and litigation. I think increasingly we want we want as a European partner attorney, UPC representative, we want to get involved on the side as well. Yes. I know which direction this is where you'd be traveling. Um and in the context of this, I think uh oh well, I'm I'm I'm not I think I am, I'm the past president. And you are past, yes. Um, and and the current chair of the international reason committee of sleep.

Speaker 3 4:28

And that's why things like inter are important to you because they give you that international platform. Actually, yeah, yes. So what brings you both here together? Is uh

Building US UK IP Bridges

Speaker 3 4:36

is this an AIPLA thing going on?

Speaker 4:38

Well, so I am a member of AIPLA's Intellectual Property Practice in Europe committee. And that's actually what brought Daniel and I together in the first place. We met years ago on the delegation trip that we had brought over to the UK and to Europe. Uh every year we do this delegation trip. We go and we meet with organizations like SIPA. We also go and meet with officials at the EPO. Uh sometimes we meet with officials at LIPO. And it's a really, really important work because it's a big trip, isn't it? It's a big trip. We fit a lot into a week. And and we get to continue forging relationships like the relationship between AIPLA and SIPA, which is very, very important to us as we are an increasingly global world, you know, and and issues of intellectual cooperative. We you can't say tunnel focused on our own countries anymore. At least I don't think our clients can't afford that. And so we need these relationships to be able to have an exchange of ideas, to be able to, you know, speak about emerging topics and to help each other across the pond, so to speak. And so we really enjoy that relationship. And that's uh kind of what began our relationship to eventually get us here.

Speaker 5 5:44

Yes. Some some what uh took you to the European part of because they have PLA, obviously, the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association, which I guess she's got kind of uh again the global. And what what particularly made you interested in Europe as a focus?

Speaker 5:58

You know, for a long time now, I've represented a lot of European clients with US complements. And so, you know, I mean, I I actually for more than a decade, most of my clients are non-US clients. And so it just it wasn't anything that I did on purpose, uh, but it just kind of happened that way. And I and I do love it. And I mean, I suppose it's not much of a surprise. I grew up living in London when I was a child, and so I do have a connection, you know, to across the pond from a long time ago and a fondness, you know, in particular for London, actually.

Speaker 3 6:28

I'll give ask a question where about else could you go up after it?

Speaker 6:30

Oh goodness, now you're gonna charge me. Uh so while we lived here, we lived uh in the Sloan Square area and uh close to Knightsbridge, but it was because my father had a you know a job that you know we were brought here for him to be at the headquarters in the company he was working at. And I provided for our uh living accommodation. See, I told you you can judge me. Yeah, I see the face.

Speaker 5 6:54

For the for the people listening who don't know London, that's posh.

Speaker 4 6:58

That's that's posh. Posh posh, posh posh. Do you do a food? Did you do a food shopping in Paris?

Speaker 7:07

No, no, and so just because we lived in those locations, we did not live a posh lifestyle, but I did have a cosh British accent at the time, which I am so sad that I lost because you know I was Americanized upon moving back to uh the United States, you know, that kids will do that. Oh, you have to do that.

Speaker 5 7:24

I changed my accent completely, not brother. I changed my accent when I was about seven, and again when I was about nine, yeah. Yeah, yeah, that's a different podcast.

Speaker 3 7:32

Yeah, yeah, we lost our accents. Because I've changed. Yeah, I've changed mine. I have two accents, the accent when I'm at work and the accent when I go back to Portsmouth.

Speaker 5 7:42

Yeah, you're kicking circle when I leave you on the podcast. Who are you? Who are you?

Speaker 3 7:46

Yeah, what have you done with our dad's voice? Um so Daniel, talk us a little bit about Fatburn and context around the work of uh ILC, particularly in relation to um state.

Speaker 4 7:57

Yeah, of course. Um, so I have been on ILC for more than 10 years, I think. Um I think the uh I I got involved with a lot of um engagement with AIPLA when I was um serving as vice president and resident. Um and it it it it it it goes back a long way. I'll I tend to use the term special relationship. I don't think she's used it last last last week. But I I'm pretty sure I used it before. So there's always a special relationship between the US and and the UK, and um there have been several occasions where we actually went to AIPLA and said, look, for example, Brexit, people often get um misunderstood that European partner attorneys cannot represent before the EPO, which is which isn't true, obviously. Yeah, and we went through that period where um UPC came in and there was this Muslim session and and and AIPRA has always been extremely helpful in disseminating with the wide master.

Speaker 3 9:01

We shouldn't necessarily point the finger any anywhere, but there were certain constituencies that are sort of suggesting that we were out of the game. Yeah. Yeah, and we're not oh my god, we're very much not very much right in the game.

Speaker 4 9:14

Yes, we are right in the game, and it's really really nice to see um increasing number of uh UK partner, UK based partner attorneys involved in very significant UPC cases, shaping the case law as well. Um yeah.

Speaker 3 9:29

So

UPC Strategy Meets US Litigation

Speaker 3 9:30

UPC is it a big thing for your consideration in in the states, Temi?

Speaker 9:34

You know, I I can't speak for other people. I can say that I cannot wait until the day that I get to work alongside uh counsel who are you know able, skilled, and ready to, you know, navigate through a UPC case because I, you know, as part of the delegation, we have had the first human meeting with various UPC judges and learning a lot about it. We were actually just on our trip back in uh March, about a month ago, and uh got to learn a lot about how the UPC is is coming along. And it's to me it's very exciting, and I do find it really exhilarating. I'm not sure how well known it is in, you know, amongst just the typical US practitioner. Yeah, uh, but uh that is where this work becomes really important in terms of educating and disseminating additional information. Uh I I find it to be pretty.

Speaker 4 10:19

Yeah, from my experience, uh I'll I'm I'm seeing increasingly uh interest from the US because of the speed of the um of the uh the efficiency of the system. Right and and a lot of UK and sorry, it completely changes the litigator strategy and the US litigants. They basically see it as an opportunity to get a decision quickly at a UPC and then leverage the negotiations in the US with in US uh litigations uh a lot longer than UPC.

Speaker 10:50

For the most part in district court. Now, I mean, so I represent clients in district court as well as in the patent office, as well as in the International Trade Commission. The International Trade Commission would be the exception. Yes. Uh because there you can get to evidentiary hearing within seven or eight months, uh, which was, you know, very harsh. But yes, you're right. District court litigation in the United States, it's got a bit longer, especially when we're talking about patent cases.

Speaker 2 11:15

Texas has got a bit of a rep for uh patent litigation.

Speaker 11:20

It sure does. The Easter District of Texas uh classically has been known as a uh a place to take patent cases. There was a reputation for a long time about it being plaintiff friendly or the patentee friendly, which the statistics don't necessarily bear that out. But one of the things that makes Easter District of Texas particularly attractive is it has local patent rules, and you are more likely to get to a faster trial date. So you're looking at getting to trial within a year and a half, two years, as opposed to some of the other courts where you can languish around for three or four years before you have a trial. And those local patent rules are very um, you know, big part of that, as well as the judges. The judges like to keep the cases there, they like to keep them moving, and they really are committed to keeping those trial dates.

Speaker 5 12:09

You see courts um competing for business, but that's genuinely seems to be the end states, but also I'm hearing that the UPC, the different divisions are within Germany.

Speaker 3 12:19

I mean, forum shopping was always an issue with the UBC, wasn't it?

Speaker 5 12:22

Right right from the start, there was always this question about how much of it they uh that for the so there's there's the the there's the forum shopping stuff, but then there's the courts themselves saying no use us. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We've got a right rule. It's amazing. But I think I think it's good for the client. I think in the end, competition is normally a good thing. I always forum shopping always worried me a little bit because there's that seems to me a little bit more trying to play the system a little bit. Yeah, yeah. But courts competing, it seems counterintuitive, but I think it's probably good for the for the customer in the sense because they want not to be patentee friendly or defendant-friendly, but to be fast and fair and efficient and stuff. A market-driven court system, yeah.

Speaker 3 12:59

Yeah.

unknown 13:00

Yeah.

Speaker 3 13:01

That's not a question though, I don't know why. That's just killed the conversation. It's a good comment.

Speaker 13:07

Well, I mean, I can say representing clients, uh, a lot of clients who are in Europe and who are litigating in the US, that they definitely universally appreciate faster decisions. And and one of the challenges being a US litigator is explaining to a client, oh, I'm so sorry, but we're in a court right now that is taking bomber longer, and we have absolutely no control of that. So I think you're right. I agree with you as clients that I represent prefer that competition to the extent that it actually provides faster decisions. Because ultimately that's what that's what helps litigation be effective, you know. So nobody really wants to litigate. Uh, but when you have to, you know, you want to get that certainty faster.

Speaker 5 13:48

Yeah. Um, I was gonna actually just make a comment, not a question as well, actually. So I've heard interesting gossip from the European Patent Office, which is the boards of appeal are about to um beat their battleflop this year. That's they're on target for doing that. That introduces another angle on foreign shopping because of course PPO has had a bit of a at least the appeal level has a slight reputation of being slow, whereas the opposition level is really got under control. Yes. So that's going to change the game potentially again because people are gonna start looking at the EPO again as a speedy docket. I don't know, you've done it.

Speaker 4 14:18

Yeah, yeah, I think I think that's that is there is another angle that I think certainly a lot of my colleagues other people do as well, uh, considering when you we sort of give uh more adjuvant type uh litigation strategy.

Speaker 5 14:30

Yeah, definitely.

Speaker 1 14:31

Yeah.

Speaker 5 14:32

It's remarkable how it's turned into a global game, isn't it? And as you say, it's become a global environment, the IP environment. It's um I wonder where it's going to end up, but I wonder how well another one, another another hot topic. Sorry, no one. No, I'm just chucky commenting it. There's of course we've got the the transitional element of the UPC was halfway into the first period. I think people are now starting to talk also about are we good? Should we just lock into this now or should we keep the options open? What do you think? Well, should we what what's your view? Top of your head.

Speaker 4 15:00

I I I I don't know actually because I I'm I'm thinking along the same lines as you like, like we could have we could update in and and or we could continue sort of exploring whether we shouldn't have longer and trans period. I know yeah. I think we're just halfway through. We might we might it might become clearer maybe in a year in a year and a half or so. Yeah.

Speaker 15:19

Yeah, I would say that more data will help, you know, really shape that decision making. Because right now it's just you know, it it does still feel at the infancy. We're starting to see, you know, some decisions, but uh it's still more won't be revealed.

Speaker 4 15:34

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're quite right. Yeah, we I think we still oh it it's it's it's it's it's not even I think it's coming out of three years. Yeah, it is. Yes, it's coming out three years in uh a couple of weeks, I think a month. Yeah. So uh we we've gone through a period of people not knowing what the system's gonna be like, and then we've arrived at a period where it's like actually it's we can see that it's successful. Yeah, so now I think we're moving towards, yeah, let's see how it goes, how it develops.

Speaker 5 16:00

I wonder because I've sounded my answer is my thinking is I'd I'd love to lock in because I think I don't I'm not keen on forum shopping. I think it's used sometimes not to the best interest of the client sometimes. Um conversely, I've just realized that if we lock in, the UPC doesn't have to compete anymore. So actually, because it's trying to establish itself, maybe we keep that little bit of pressure on the saying, yeah, you know, maybe another few years transitional here. So I've I've just taught myself up in my own position.

Speaker 16:28

I mean, that is an interesting perspective because if you don't have competition, are you likely to come at wrestling a lot?

Speaker 5 16:34

Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3 16:39

Can

Grace Period And Harmonization Reality

Speaker 3 16:40

I take it in a slightly different direction? I don't know how this question's gonna work, but I'd like I'd like to try it with you both, if that's okay. I'm I'm worried. So I snapped in the case. No, no, no, no. This will make sense. This will make sense um because I mean we've spoken quite a lot about litigation. Yeah, yes, and I'd I'd like to like notice in a different direction because I know that this will be a shared conversation between AIPLA, CEPA, um other European colleagues. So, Daniel, tell me I'd like to go in the direction of it's it's always difficult for it to say substantive patent law harmonisation.

Speaker 1 17:12

No, I did not expect that.

Speaker 4 17:16

Nobody expects you change the topic of NFO's born in Orleans.

Speaker 3 17:24

So we don't we don't we don't need to do this in any great detail, but I but I know I know it's on the radar, I know it's been on radar for a long, long time, but it feels like with the EPO now putting out proposals and the like that we're we're kind of incrementally nudging it forwards. Uh obviously the grace period figures quite century and that. Have we had conversations between C Pro and R and AI BLA on this sort of stuff? For about 30 years. Where are we now?

Speaker 4 17:52

Just give us the potential history. I can't even know where to start, really. Like I I think the the last the the the the last more significant discussion I remember was I think EPO Help a symposium. Was it about two and a half years ago? And my this is sorry, I'm sorry, this is a completely different recollection. I think we were AIPLA and and and us, we are pretty much on the same page. Um there were a couple of other organizations, um, in particular in particular on the uh on the grace period, because we think um the um so it's it's 12 months. It's 12 months, it has to be 12 months. Um because a lot of jurisdictions has to establish 12 months' grace period. Yeah, so our our position is there's no point trying to go for six months. Yeah. And and and it's just if you do things along those lines, things are not going to work. I think Japan, Japan is Japan 12 months. Again, this is completely uh testing my memory memory now.

Speaker 3 18:59

Yeah. I mean it's important for us because of course we we went through the issue, didn't we, of the UK wanting to join the covet of a progressive and very much trans-specific.

Speaker 4 19:09

That's right. Yes.

Speaker 3 19:13

Um so so we now have to advocate in favour of a greater period in SPLH conversations, uh, but we don't have um under the EPC. And it's yeah, and uh EPO feels like it's starting to have more open conversations about that, so it feels that's a directional platform.

Speaker 4 19:31

It is possible that and I think this is why uh SPLH is is is so important, because even though we were very successful with uh CPPPP negotiations, um in future any trade agreements or any trade negotiations, this is an issue that's really come out. Time and time again. Yes, so for for us, we we would like to you know um have some certainty.

Speaker 3 19:54

Yeah. So but we can never talk openly and publicly about this, but I mean CPR involves itself. Leave this as a political. I'm gonna try and not say anything. Okay, right. So CIPR involves itself quite closely with government under a non-disclosure ring, which means we can't talk openly about um the conversations that we're having. But we are aware that inside every bilateral trade discussion, negotiation, um, ideas front and center and things of the great sphere will always be held. So we've always been to be uh alive to this. Well, AIPLA is thinking, well, I'm gonna grace bear, just we're gonna force the American line.

Speaker 20:29

Well, I mean, you know, I am not in an official capacity. And so and and the discussion, I you know, like Daniel said, I mean, we we are uh you know always involved in the discussion, right? And and we have the brightest uh, you know, advocates, you know, from our organization and really considering these kinds of harmonization questions. We also, I don't I don't know if you know this, but as part of AIPLA, we uh we have our UBES branch of the AIPGI as part of AIPLA. And that organization is always looking at the hemergy IP questions. You know, every year we have the annual congress where we're looking at working questions, focusing on these kinds of you know, harmonization questions, and uh you get into really interesting dialogue, you know, not just between the UK and and the US, but with the whole world. Yes, yes, yeah.

Speaker 5 21:21

Is the momentum towards harmonization at the moment generally? Because the concern I've got is that there's actually we're moving more towards fragmentation at the moment. Do you think SPLH might be an outlier and we might have some conclusion? Because I'll say my concern is that at the moment the world isn't harmonizing on much. Yeah.

Speaker 21:38

I mean, the discussion exists of harmonization, what where it ends up may not actually be in harmonization, but I think I think that's where we are. Is that you know they we're we're always interested in discussing is it possible? Yeah.

Speaker 3 21:51

The danger is if you don't involve yourselves in those conversations, the politicians run away with it.

Speaker 5 21:55

I was gonna say, yeah, I think when when the moods turn factor harmonization, it would be good if the IP music has. Nice tear on, so yes, yes. Harmonise this I really know SP.

Speaker 3 22:09

So, litigation, SBLH.

Education Across A Scary US System

Speaker 3 22:11

What else is on the kind of the shared radar of um us and IOBA? What other things do you talk about really?

Speaker 4 22:16

We don't care that I think for me it's a lot on the business development relationship level. Yeah, yeah. Um, I and and and and and sometimes I see being involved in the IOC is sort of doing business development for the C part of the entire membership. For the for us, yes, yeah, building that special relationship. Um yeah, so so business development is a is a big thing for me as as a continually promote in the UK confession as a global powerhouse.

Speaker 3 22:44

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes, building that relationship, yes.

Speaker 5 22:47

There's another idea, isn't it, which is making sure that our rights owners are well represented in the US and get are able to have some level of influence. And presumably you've accepted, you know, you'll feed we'll we can feed back through AI DLA into US decision making. I don't know, we're a distant but relevant, I guess, constituent in our sense too.

Speaker 23:08

Oh, absolutely, absolutely. And I and I I share, you know, Daniel's um interest in helping to promote uh, you know, better education and understanding about, you know, there's, for example, there is this perception that US litigation is absolutely terrifying and you know, cost prohibitive and all of that. And and part of what I see as my personal mission is to help people who are not from the US better understand that there are ways to navigate the US system that that allow you really to achieve objectives. And it's not all what you hear in the headlines with the Alpha Samsung litigation and you know, five gazillion, you know, dollar judgments, and there are so many things that happen long before you get there. So I think education is a big piece of it and keeping each other prize at the updates of what's going on and the developments of the law and the current climate. You know, I mean, when we met in March, they had a great exchange, you know, about what's really happening nowadays, you know, uh in the respective countries with IP in the field. Uh and I think it's really, really important that we continue those discussions going so that we can partner and and help each other best represent our fights.

Speaker 3 24:14

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So,

One Killer Message To Leaders

Speaker 3 24:21

Grinam, I've got a little idea for a little game to play. That's okay. It's just come to me now. This shouldn't be scary at all, shouldn't it? So um a little round robin thing. I'll start with you, and then I'll go to Daniel, then I'll go to Tammy, and maybe you'll then ask the same question with me. We've played the variant. No, this is this isn't I'm not doing a tangential question, we'll do a very, very real question. Okay. So we're it we're at Inter, okay, and Inter is always about networking. And we know we've got an event coming up this week, which is a ministerial reception. Yeah. So we've got uh at least three ministers there, but most importantly the minister who's a brief includes intellectual obviously. Uh it's a powerful audience, 150 or so senior VIDs from across the um the IP space. You're the minister, okay? You're the minister. What's your one killer statement that you want to make to 150 dear witness? Oh, uh UK Global IP hub.

Speaker 5 25:15

Yeah. Oh no, but I think it is something that we can be proud of. We really are centrally involved in so many discussions globally. We have a fantastic. I'm proud of being part of the UK profession. It's brilliant, and it's such a broad profession as well. And I think one of the big things about that meets it, I know about it, because of course we've got judges there, so we we can kind of sell the whole UK strength and deck. The whole ecosystem, but yeah. Global IT Hub is the yeah, the sign right. That's the sign line.

Speaker 3 25:42

Daniel, you've got a chance to make a killer statement now. What what what's yours?

Speaker 5 25:47

Um the photos were all doctored, it wasn't me. Yes. Who has a nice Instagram post?

Speaker 4 25:57

Um I think um education, yeah. Um I I again from my experience, uh going back to CPTPP, there was a lot of educating, uh, especially with policymakers and and and even so high offers. So so yeah, that's that's that's for me.

Speaker 3 26:17

So that's um unfair question, really, Tammy, because you're the kind of the outsider in the space. You're you're you're American in the room. You're the con you're the congresswoman. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, so you're not a minister, okay. Congress, congresswoman, you stood up there, what's your point doing it cost 150 litres?

Speaker 26:34

Continue to show up in Suda. I mean, really, you know, let's not let's not give up just because things get difficult and discussions get difficult. Let's continue to engage and continue to you know to really just work forward, you know. I mean, that's uh that would be my message.

Speaker 3 26:50

Go back on an inner. So I can I've been developing a mantra at the moment because I do a lot of work with all membership associations. Yeah, I get a little bit frustrated when we talk about IP as being a sector because it it sort of compartmentalizes us. So that so the mantra that I've been saying to other membership associations so that health uh medicine accountancy, whoever they are, is IP is a sector, and IP is all sectors. Yeah, it it it invests, it resides in everything that you do. So don't look at us as being outside of you. We are very much part of you and your professional identity.

Speaker 5 27:27

That's all I like. That's gonna comments on that. A, I had that repeated back in the yesterday, so you're you're getting traction. Oh, okay, interesting. And they remembered it, which I like to. And B, that does tie in so much with the story hearing around the world that IP has become more and more visible and central and recognized as a huge part of the value of any business thing. So at the moment, that you're pushing an open door with that, but it's it's me photography.

Speaker 3 27:50

Uh and I know they would have replayed that back to you yesterday, and uh the whole club's have saying it to that person that that would become crack very much.

Favorite Acronyms And Closing

Speaker 3 27:57

Never that's LP. Um so I have got a tangential question. Um at the risk of I'm just looking across the door just to make sure she's happy for me to carry on going, but yeah, so um so I don't often do a tangential question when we do these live ones because they don't often you need kind of remoteness for what I've done. But I think this one works, okay? So bear with me, yeah. What's your favourite acronym or initialism in IP or anywhere else? Oh, uh SCUBA.

Speaker 5 28:25

Yeah, I thought you were gonna go there. I thought you were self-content underwater breathing operators. And that's an acronym because of course you can say it rather than that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think it's absolutely genius because it's such a beautiful world rolls if it's people think it's a real word, but it's just um and then laser. There are some. Yeah, yeah. I love a really clever one that turns into a word for a word. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Gosh, what is a trip to one?

Speaker 3 28:48

Yeah.

Speaker 5 28:49

Daniels.

Speaker 3 28:50

Daniel's always stunned as if just like C D B B T.

Speaker 5 29:03

Like this, because now they have to think, and they always have to think that he's got an onto already.

Speaker 3 29:08

Excellent, let's do this. The game is on, my friend. Could you take your time on yours?

Speaker 1 29:14

Because I can need to think.

Speaker 29:18

Well, you know, I am not great at coming up with uh IP-related type acronyms, but this this one just comes to mind from a complete stranger that I met on a bus once, and they were talking about fear, okay, as an acronym. Okay. Future events appearing real.

Speaker 5 29:36

Oh, wow. That's very there. I think that's where the word fear comes from. Like Skimper. People decided to call it fear. Fear never actually exists.

Speaker 1 29:47

No, never was just an acronym.

Speaker 3 29:49

Maybe all words were acronyms. So I'm yeah, I'm I'm now in a very difficult place. Uh, because I'm I was going to see Go.

Speaker 1 29:58

Welcome to my world.

Speaker 3 30:01

Can you not bang the table when we've got lots of things? Sorry, yeah. And yeah. Um so I'm going to go back to my previous existence in further education. I'm going to say QTLS. Yeah. Qualified teacher learning the skill states is because it was something. It's my other big achievement alongside protecting the UK profession around CPTPP when it came in. Uh, the last time I did any big major companion work was to get further education teachers in colleges qualified or recognised to be in there's only up the school teachers. QtLS. QTLS. QTLS.

Speaker 30:30

There we go.

Speaker 3 30:31

Oh, thank you both so much for coming on. It's been lovely having you. Hopefully that wasn't too painful, and uh and when you listen to that, you're going to enjoy it.

Speaker 30:39

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you.

Speaker 3 30:41

Thank you.