Bristows’ Ellen Lambrix talks life sciences, STEM skills and secondments

Having made partner at Bristows in May 2023, Lambrix says she opted for science A-Levels and chemistry at university as that’s what she was most interested in.  “I was really fascinated by the science, but I couldn’t see a career for myself as a researcher. I thought about alternative career paths, such as teaching and being a patent attorney, but law emerged as an attractive option after some research”, she explains.

Moving from STEM to law felt like a natural progression for Lambrix. “I realised that with my chemistry degree, I could work with innovative companies and institutions that were working at the cutting edge of science, staying close to my interests, without needing to become a researcher”, she says. But beyond that, Lambrix finds that law is generally complementary to people with a science background. “The thought processes that you have to go through as a lawyer to advise clients and negotiate contracts requires you to be analytical, and that’s one of the core skillsets that you develop in STEM disciplines”, she notes.

Lambrix went on to complete her training contract at a Magic Circle law firm, and tells me that while many people assumed she was “probably going to be an intellectual property (IP) lawyer”, given her chemistry background, this was by no means inevitable. “Obviously, I am an IP lawyer now, but I really took my time to explore the areas of law I could work in. Ultimately, it came down to my interests in science and innovation, so IP law felt like a good home for me”, she explains.

A client secondment at a large pharmaceutical company got Lambrix interested in how being a lawyer, she could get involved in the life sciences industry, and work with companies at the forefront of developing new life-saving drugs. “Bristows really leads the field in both IP and the life sciences, so I decided to move over once I was around 3 years qualified”, explains Lambrix.

Speaking about transferrable skills she was able to tap into from her science background, Lambrix flags communication as a key one. “As a scientist, you often need to be able to take complex concepts and break them down into terms that others without your expertise can easily understand. Similarly, as a lawyer, our clients may not have in-depth legal knowledge, and it is our job to explain fairly complex areas of law in an accessible way. The skill is working out how best to strike that balance when communicating”, explains Lambrix.

Lambrix goes on to tell me about her day-to-day as a transactional IP lawyer. “Most of the work I do currently is in the life sciences sector and I have  a whole range of clients — Big Pharma companies, small biotechs and research institutions, for instance”. Her work primarily consists of working on transactions (such as IP licensing, or M&A), with contract negotiations being a prominent aspect of this. “Listening and understanding what it is your client wants to achieve and drafting and negotiating contracts which underpin the deal to ensure they  reflect those aims is a large part of the work of a transactional IP lawyer”, she summarises.

In terms of the deals that come her way in the life sciences sector, Lambrix details that there is a lot of IP licensing work. “Our clients have a lot of valuable intellectual property (including patents and know-how) which protect the new drugs or platforms they are developing. They might be licensing that IP to someone else or taking a license to someone else’s IP”. Other transactions she works on include contracts for research funding or for  clients who want to collaborate with another company or organisation to develop a new product or platform.

Lambrix also explains how her client secondment experience helped her in practice. “A secondment gives you the opportunity to see the other side of the work we do and how the advice we give translate into decisions taken by clients. It gives you a better perspective to understand what clients want from their lawyers, and what they care about, so I definitely recommend it if you get the opportunity”, she advises. Lambrix points out that most Bristows trainees get to complete a client secondment during their training contract, and points out that secondments are also a great way of building important client relationships.

I was keen to ask Lambrix how she has found the transition from associate to partner over the past few months. “It’s been a fairly gradual change, and that’s because as you get more senior as a lawyer, you naturally take on more responsibility”, she says. “You start to supervise junior lawyers in your time and become the primary point of contact for clients, for instance.”

With that, she notes that as Bristows is a very partner-led firm, there has been an added layer of responsibility since she was elevated to partner four months ago. “The final decision-making in terms of what advice goes out to clients now falls to me, but because it’s a long process to get to this stage, it doesn’t feel drastic. You’re also very well-supported at Bristows, so that helps massively”, reassures Lambrix.

So, what are the key IP developments in the life sciences sector that aspiring STEM lawyers should be tracking?

“One of the trends that keeps coming up is artificial intelligence (AI), which has a lot of specific applications in life sciences”, she says. “A lot of our clients are looking at how AI can speed up the hugely time-consuming and risky drug development process. There are also very interesting IP issues that come out of this: for instance, who can own the IP if an invention has been developed by AI.”

On the law side of things, Lambrix suggests that students keep on top of changes on the regulatory front — she points out that while she has colleagues who specialise specifically in regulatory law, it is nonetheless important for a life science-focused IP lawyer to keep abreast of developments in the laws regulating medicines and medical devices. She also flags the new Unified Patent Court in Europe as a key development that aspiring IP lawyers should have on their radar, as clients have questions about this recently-established institution and its role going forward.

Approaching the end of our conversation, I asked Lambrix about the advice she has for STEM students who are keen to establish a legal career. “There are so many options for people with STEM backgrounds, and these degrees seem to be very much in demand at the moment, so you need to really do your research to narrow down law as a potential path. When I was starting out, I didn’t appreciate just how many different types of law firms there are — the range of different practice areas, sector focus, clients, degree of global reach, are all important considerations.” Her top tip is to be proactive in signing up to law fairs, webinars, open days and other such opportunities to meet people in the field and develop a feel for where you might fit in. “Be curious, and try not to get overwhelmed”, advises Lambrix.

Ellen Lambrix will be speaking at ‘STEM focus: Life as an intellectual property lawyer — with Bristows’, a virtual student event taking place on 19 October. Apply to attend.

Follow @BristowsLawFirm

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

Lawyers Ria Das and Sia Das explore the pressing problem of biopiracy of indigenous knowledge

Indigenous people are seeking to protect their indigenous knowledge and practices from commercial exploitation. With rapid advancements in science and technology, there is increased interest in appropriating indigenous knowledge for scientific and commercial purposes. There are instances where big pharmaceutical companies have patented traditional medicinal plants even though indigenous peoples have used such plants for generations. In many cases, these large companies do not recognise the right of indigenous peoples’ traditional ownership of such knowledge and deprive them of their fair share in the economic, medical or social benefits that accrue from the use of their indigenous knowledge or practices.

Biopiracy: The corporate hijacking of indigenous knowledge

Traditional knowledge includes indigenous and local community knowledge, innovations, and practices. It refers to skills and practices that have developed through a trial-and-error method, and passed on from generation to generation within a community.

Biopiracy occurs when genetic resources and indigenous knowledge is taken from biodiverse developing countries without permission. This knowledge is then used to patent related inventions without sharing the resulting commercial profits. The original knowledge holder receives no gains from the use and is likely barred from obtaining a patent.

Commercialisation of resources used by indigenous people is a booming business. Many of the products incorporating indigenous know-how are protected by patents that profess the products’ “novelty” and “innovativeness.” Giant commercial enterprises are using intellectual property rights to patent indigenous medicinal plants, seeds and genetic resources.

Without any legal protection for indigenous knowledge, biopiracy is often a shortcut to gain massive profits without having to provide a fair share of compensation to the local and indigenous communities.

The value of the market for medicinal plants found by indigenous and local communities has been estimated to be around $50 million – and this figure is just for the USA. Obtaining indigenous knowledge increases the efficiency of the screening process for plants with medicinal properties by more than 400%, which is why indigenous peoples’ knowledge is so valuable.

Hurdles to patent protection of indigenous knowledge

A patent is an exclusive right that is granted for an invention. This can either be a product or a process that generally provides a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem.

Patent law requires that the invention should meet three criteria before a patent protection is granted: (1) new or novel, (2) non-obvious, and (3) useful. All inventions which meet these criteria are legal but the problem arises when patenting of (often spurious) inventions based on biological resources and/ or indigenous knowledge are extracted without adequate authorization and benefit sharing from other countries.  These resources are the result of years of hard work and investment of indigenous and local communities which goes unacknowledged and unrewarded.

Under the existing regime, indigenous knowledge and invention is not fit to get patent protection as a result of two factors.

The first element assessed under an application for a patent requires that an invention must be new and innovative. These indigenously developed products are arguably neither new nor innovative, as use of these resources has been developed based on existing indigenous knowledge of the natural world, often held among indigenous communities and local farmers.

The newness criterion is difficult to prove for indigenous peoples because indigenous knowledge is passed down from generation to generation and it is difficult to determine who is first to discover the knowledge. This indigenous knowledge is neither written nor documented anywhere. As long as there is no public written record, a foreign company can go into another foreign country and use this knowledge handed down by indigenous peoples to obtain a patent.

The second element assessed under an application for a patent requires that an invention be non-obvious. The indigenous peoples have already discovered the plants, assessed their healing and medicinal properties and cultivated them for their use. This knowledge, however, is not considered on par with western standards because the indigenous peoples are not looking to profit from the knowledge.

The elements of newness and non-obviousness under patent law operate under the premise that a particular invention should provide certain incentives to the inventor and without it, inventions will not be made. This way of thinking is generally derived from business economy, establishing that without personal monetary benefits no one will create or invent. Alternatively, inventions from indigenous knowledge allow for mutual benefits for the sake of the community without the need for any personal monetary rewards or profits. Unlike in indigenous communities, the western view doesn’t see community rewards as an end result. Rather the prevailing belief is that if a person is given an incentive to invent, the community will be ultimately benefitted from it.

Existing international legal mechanisms to combat biopiracy

At the international level, the most important multilateral agreement on intellectual property is the TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects Intellectual Property Rights) and includes protection for different varieties of plants. However, there is no recognition in the TRIPS agreement for prior informed consent from the indigenous communities for use of their knowledge and genetic resources.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was the first move towards international dialogue on the protection of biodiversity and indigenous knowledge protection (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change 2019). However, it is confined only to genetic resources. Subsequently, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) 2007 provides indigenous peoples “the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions”.

Additionally, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) was adopted by the FAO in 2004 and allows citizens of signatory countries to use the resources, provided they use them for non-commercial purposes and do not acquire IP rights over the same.

Another highly significant international agreement is the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) — this may help resolve some of these ambiguities, but it too has fallen short on protection of rights of indigenous people. These agreements deal with very limited subjects of indigenous knowledge i.e., genetic resources and biodiversity to the exclusion of others and therefore, do not cover all the intellectual property issues.   The current international patent regime is incapable of recognizing or rewarding the indigenous knowledge of local communities as many countries are not signatories to these treaties and therefore, these international bodies offer little protection.

Instances where indigenous knowledge has been patented for profits

Big corporations like Bayer-Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow/Corteva and others have been generating profits by patenting indigenous seeds and control more than half of the global seed market. Unfortunately, this is without the knowledge and consent of Indigenous communities. Other well-known instances are:

The Ayahuasca case

Lorren Miller was granted an US patent over B Caapi Mort. He named it as ‘Da Vine’ and stated that it had certain medicinal properties.

In 1999, the CIEL (Center for International Environmental Law) on behalf of the Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) and the Coalition for Amazonian Peoples and Their Environment (Amazon Alliance), filed a legal opposition against the US patent on “Ayahuasca” vine on the ground that it is sacred to indigenous Amazon groups and has been used for medicinal and ceremonial purposes for generations.

In November 1999, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) withdrew the patent granted upon reexamination. The PTO accepted the petitioners’ contentions to the extent that the plant variety was not distinct or novel as it was used for generations. However, the PTO did not take into account the arguments that plants’ religious value can prevent a patent grant.

However, in 2001, the inventor was successful in convincing the PTO. So, the original claims were reconfirmed, without giving any opportunity to CIEL, COICA and Amazon Alliance to present their opposing views. The patent rights were restored to the owner, Lorren Miller for the remaining two years of its patent period.

The Hoodia Case

The indigenous San people, who are one of the oldest and most marginalised communities on the African continent, have long been using the succulent plant “Hoodia” to stave off their hunger and thirst. In 1995, the CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research) patented the active ingredient of the plant and stated it was a remedy for anti-obesity. Later in 1997, it was patented to Phytopharm, a British biotech firm, which then sold the license to produce and sell it as an obesity treatment to Pfizer.

The San people came to know about the exploitation of their traditional knowledge and in 2001, they initiated legal proceedings on the ground of biopiracy against CSIR and pharmaceutical industries.  It was contented that CSIR had stolen their traditional knowledge and failed to comply with the CBD (Convention on Biodiversity) provisions which required them to take prior informed consent from all stakeholders, including discoverers and users.

In March 2022, an agreement for benefit sharing was reached between the parties and it was decided that the San community would receive a share of future royalties.

The way forward: Protecting indigenous communities’ traditional knowledge

At the national level

• A database for indigenous people’s traditional knowledge can be created. An authenticated database including the list of traditional formulas, herbal preparations, seed variety etc., would be available to all the patent authorities and systems. This will ensure that there are no false claims of novelty and distinctiveness. India provides an example of where traditional knowledge of local communities is compiled and registered in such a database and this is updated in accordance with local needs, knowledge and laws.
• Local units can be set up at each district/region to support communities to develop protocols that will guide local communities and outsiders (corporations, researchers) in discussions about informed consent, benefits sharing, conservation benefits and access to indigenous knowledge and biological resources.
• In addition to international recognition of the right of indigenous peoples, a framework needs to be developed by states that recognises the relationship between indigenous knowledge and customary law and provides a safe space for the operation of indigenous legal systems. This will protect the traditional knowledge from misappropriation and misuse and will further provide additional benefits to indigenous communities that flow from the recognition of ownership.

At the international level

• Patent applications can be made more conditional by adding requirements as to origin disclosure of traditional knowledge/resources and evidence of informed consent and fair benefit sharing. A proper identification system should be developed for each case before the patent office.
• Regulatory gaps need to be closed in the international laws and conventions. The Nagoya protocol has several lacunae. For instance, it does not have a forum for adjudicating indigenous peoples’ biopiracy claims and also has a weak penalty regime. As a result, the disincentive against biopiracy is not sufficiently potent.

Concluding thoughts

Development of national level mechanisms and legal provisions is the need of the hour to prevent the corporate hijacking of indigenous knowledge. At the core of this concern is the need to share biodiversity benefits equitably and fairly, and to safeguard rights to food and biodiversity, promote environmental justice and health equity for all. Through our suggestions, we aim to address biopiracy and provide economic aid to indigenous communities, allow companies to responsibly develop and use traditional knowledge and resources from these communities, and promote local and global well-being. Unfortunately, till now, no inclusive and coherent efforts have been made internationally to address this concern.

Ria Das and Sia Das are lawyers in the Delhi High Court in India. They act in a variety of matters including socioeconomic issues, environmental law and criminal law, and also carry out international law and policy research.

Ahead of this week’s virtual event, Ashurst’s UK Head of IP and Digital Economy partner, Sunny Kumar, discusses his varied career and how his passion now lies with IP law

Ashurst’s Sunny Kumar joined the firm as a consultant in January of this year, with plans to leave after six months. But his plans quickly changed. “I instantly felt drawn to the Digital Economy team and what they offered me as an intellectual property lawyer”, says Kumar who now heads up the office’s busy IP team.

Discussing what the Digital Economy team’s work entails, Kumar tells me that it “focuses on businesses which have tech at their core”. The team itself is composed of five divisions — digital infrastructure, commercial contracts, IP, data protection and fintech, with each of these headed up by a partner. He reveals that one of the team’s biggest clients is Meta, and that he’s recently been appointed as IP counsel on the Meta panel.

One of the things Kumar enjoys about the Digital Economy team is the opportunity for crossover with IP — “a tech-driven client might want our expertise on their complex IP licensing matters but simultaneously have questions concerning service contracts and laying undersea cables for wireless connections”, he details. While a lot of other firms would approach this by putting members from individual IP, corporate and TMT teams together, Kumar points out that having a Digital Economy team allows for a more integrated approach. “We can service all of these needs as one team comprised of like-minded peers who understand both the tech, legal and regulatory elements”, he details.

It’s not just the Digital Economy team that prompted Kumar’s decision to stay on, but the culture at Ashurst as well. “As a firm we are very entrepreneurial. We have the opportunity to go and make something of ourselves with the support of the firm,” he notes. Kumar came to Ashurst because the firm wanted to expand its IP offering in London and globally, which presented an exciting opportunity for him. “The partnership is exceptionally collaborative with a great mix of younger energy coupled with deep sector expertise, meaning great ideas and solutions come out of it”, he explains.

As the firm’s UK Head of IP, Kumar doesn’t just work with clients just in the Digital Economy team, but has a broader involvement, also covering work with clients in the life sciences sector, something of special interest to him given his background as a scientist. He often advises clients on their complex copyright and brand-related matters too, something he really enjoys, having first experienced such work during his time as an in-house lawyer at the BBC. IP disputes in this area are at the cutting edge given the use of generative AI tools and the metaverse, which throw up all sorts of copyright and brands-related issues. Disputes in this area is something he is advising more regularly on, Kumar tells me.

Seeking a new challenge and feeling it was time to move on, Kumar shifted from the world of science to law. Confessing this wasn’t entirely out of the blue, Kumar says, “I come from a family of lawyers, my grandfather was a lawyer and my brother is too”. Given his strong science background, the attraction to IP law was only natural. However, for those seeking to establish themselves in an IP practice, “science degrees aren’t necessarily important — there’s more to IP than just life sciences”, Kumar clarifies. His main draw to IP right from his training contract, through to his time at the BBC and then in City law came from the practice area’s broad scope. “I felt straightaway that working as an IP lawyer meant working in a practice area which contributed to the future, and this excited me”, he recalls.

I also asked Kumar on the differences between an in-house and a City law practice, given his experience in both. “I think a lot of people see in-house as an easier option. I completely disagree with that”, he says candidly. “When you’re working in-house, you only have one client to service, the business, rather than having several external clients, as you would in a law firm. But you have to keep in mind that people in the business will go home around 6pm. So every instruction, document and input required or needing to be actioned needs to be done between 9am and 5:30pm, and so it can get incredibly pressurised during that time frame. This is something private practice lawyers are often (but not always) immune from”.

Kumar contrasts this with life at a law firm, where you have the ability to spread the pressure over longer hours. There’s also a distinction in the type of work on offer, with Kumar noting that working in-house entails a “stronger connect to the heart of the business, having inputs on commercial decisions and strategy”.

Hence, while working in-house often requires providing quick advice to the business, Kumar says he prefers the belt and braces approach followed in a City law firm. “I enjoy having the time to explore a matter in-depth and provide clients with more considered advice on often complex matters which inhouse teams may not always have the bandwidth for”, he notes. “I also missed the variety of work, being able to apply my knowledge across different sectors”.

Drawing on the theme of Legal Cheek’s virtual event in partnership with Ashurst this week, I asked Kumar about the opportunities and challenges for businesses, given the increasing confluence between the physical and the digital economy.

“The main opportunity is that businesses are able to reach a larger number of consumers and customers, and do so in a quicker way. But alongside that, come the challenges of keeping up with and foreseeing the regulations governing business operations. Additionally, from an IP perspective, there’s also the question of how businesses can protect their copyright protected works and brands in an era of Web 3.0 (and probably 4.0!)”, details Kumar “While these are exciting times, the key aspect is to keep up with all the technological and regulatory (sometimes lack of) changes occurring.”

So, what advice does Kumar have for those seeking training contracts? His top tips are selectivity and proactivity. “Be considered in your search and apply to the right firms for the practice area that you are interested in,” he suggests. “Engage with those firms, attend insight days and speak to trainees and associates. Never feel like you can’t email HR and request to speak to a trainee or an Associate to help answer your questions so as to inform your decision making. Lawyers may be busy and take time to respond, but most of the time, we will get back to you”, he assures.

Sunny Kumar will be speaking at ‘Digital Economy – with Ashurst’ a virtual student event taking place this Thursday (14 September). Apply now.

Follow @ashurst

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.