I beg to move amendment No. 11, in clause 4, page 3, line 7, at end insert—

'(2) In section 73 of that Act after subsection (3) there is inserted—

(4) The comptroller shall not take action under subsections (1) or (2) later than six months after the grant of a full patent unless the action falls within section 2 subsection (4).

(3) In section 74 of that Act in subsection (1) after ''in issue'' insert ''within six months of the grant of a full patent''.'.

This is another issue of great importance. Hon. Members will note that the key part of the amendment is the insertion of ''six months''. Under current law, if a small business's patent is infringed, it can approach the alleged infringer and request it to pay licence fees for exploiting an invention. However, the alleged infringer may be a larger company. Many of the issues that I raised on the Floor of the House concerned the great difficulty faced on a range of issues, but particularly patents, by small businesses, which are often a David taking on a Goliath.

If the alleged infringer is a large company, it is likely to issue a counter legal claim questioning the validity of the small firm's patent. It is estimated that about 80 per cent. of time spent on patent cases in court is spent questioning the validity of a patent, rather than on its infringement. That is because a larger company is

often backed by a team of expert intellectual property lawyers. In debate in the House, I put forward the example in which a judge put up his hands in horror at the costs involved in a fairly simple case that ran for four days; it was £80,000, I think, or perhaps a lot more—a large figure, anyway.

Large companies are often backed by a team of experts and are able to pursue matters with intellectual property lawyers who have great expertise. Such companies have the time and money to spend hour upon hour in court presenting even the most spurious arguments to undermine the validity of the patent that they are alleged to have infringed. That is of grave concern. If a small firm loses such a case, and its patent is ruled to be invalid, it may be liable to pay the other side's court costs, which is another issue of grave concern. It is therefore unsurprising that many small firms drop their infringement cases before they even get to court. In paying for a patent in the first place, a small business should have the right to assume that the Patent Office has done its work thoroughly and has ensured that there are no other such inventions in existence before establishing a patent as valid.

The amendment would introduce a six-month time limit after a patent is adopted during which any party could challenge its validity. After that, the validity of the patent could no longer be questioned in court. There would be two benefits. First, the amendment would give small firms more certainty. It would reassure them that, in using the patent process, they were acquiring for their invention a protection that really meant something and that the validity of their patent would not be challenged years down the line.

Secondly, the amendment would encourage people to keep an eye on the patent process and on which patents had been granted in their field. According to the Patent Office, 30 per cent. of money spent on research and development is wasted on developing ideas that have already been patented. Introducing a six-month limit would encourage companies to keep a closer eye on developments in their field, and thus to save money on unnecessary R and D. I would be pleased if the Minister accepted this key amendment.