How Dyson cleaned up.

SUE ALLEN MEETS THE dyson TEAM that swept hoover aside in their court battle.

There can be few places where the head of the in-house legal team offers up free copies of the boss's autobiography before starting a meeting.

There are probably even fewer autobiographies which, in the introduction, say that the book will be more about a vacuum cleaner than its author.

But then, not many places are Dyson and only one autobiography is that of the company's founder, James Dyson.

To say that the focus of the Dyson empire is a vacuum cleaner is an understatement and wrong.

Its focus is, at present, the dual-cyclone vacuum cleaner which, with its bold colours and new technology, burst on to the market in 1993.

As visitors walk into the bespoke headquarters -which is both the nerve centre and factory of one of the UK's most successful privately run companies - they begin to realise just how important the company's 'product' is.

The entrance is dominated by a wall of Dyson's hallmark upright vacuum cleaners; under foot is a glass floor covering a recessed pit filled with the newer range of cylinder cleaners.

And in the ultra-modern, open-plan offices, more Dysons lurk like well-trained dogs by people's desks, on the tops of filing cabinets, in corners - they are everywhere.

Even with a good idea, Mr Dyson must have been surprised at the empire his invention has spawned.

The Wiltshire-based company now employs 1,800 people - 25% of whom are design engineers working on new products.

Every month, Dyson sells more than 100,000 cleaners in the UK alone, 85,000 of which are the upright model.

This represents 66% of the UK market by value.

Dyson's dual cyclone is also sold around the world through foreign subsidiaries in Australia, France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark and Japan and through a distributor in New Zealand.

The company is not stopping with vacuum cleaners.

Other appliances are constantly being dissected by the research and development teams in a bid radically to improve the things we use every day.

Although the dual cyclone concept may have been the big one, Mr Dyson has had others.

Who could forget the 'ballbarrow' of the early 1980s? Or the waterolla - a garden roller that could be filled with water for weight and emptied for easier storage?

Whatever other ideas Mr Dyson may have had, the dual cyclone was the one which took off and it is the one fiercely defended by the company's legal team.

The intense, and understandable, wish to protect the company's innovative technology recently spilled over into one of the most high-profile patent cases the UK courts have seen.

Dyson took on arch rivals Hoover, which had launched its own version of a cyclone cleaner.

Dyson said this was an infringement of one of its patents, a claim backed last month by the High Court.

Dyson's position was clear: it had a valid patent for the dual cyclone technology, which was infringed by Hoover's triple vortex cleaner.

Hoover was equally convinced of its position, claiming it had a triple cyclone mechanism which was also unique and, anyway, there was always the patent itself to have a go at.

A key plank of Hoover's defence was that Dyson's patent was flawed because cyclonic technology was already developed in other fields.

Martin Bowen, head of Dyson's two-lawyer legal team, is frank about how keenly the company watches its rivals.

'Because it is a very competitive business, we monitor the market very carefully.

In the Hoover case, one of the sales directors heard rumours about them launching a bagless product and we got hold of some pre-launch trade material.

They claimed to have a three-stage separation system, so after it was launched we got hold of one and took it apart.'

A letter before action went to Hoover in early 1999 which, Mr Bowen says, received 'short shrift', so they issued proceedings.

'James Dyson spent years developing the technology which is at the heart of our patent.

If someone attacks we have got to defend and to do that we launched proceedings.'

Even after the court ruling, Dyson was soon back in court to seek an injunction to prevent Hoover from continuing manufacture and sale of its cleaner.

Even now, the possibility of an appeal against the original patent decision looms and time on that does not run out until this month.

However, Hoover was not singled out for special treatment.

Patent agents Gill Smith and John Cage make up Dyson's intellectual property (IP) team and Ms Smith says they go through every competitor product launched 'with a fine tooth comb'.

If a problem is identified, the legal team is told and a plan of attack formed - 'if appropriate', she adds.

Ms Smith describes her job as 'a lot of crystal ball gazing'.

As well as ensuring that a potentially innovative idea has not already been patented, the IP team works out where and when to register patents.'A lot of people talk about a worldwide patent but there is no such thing.

To protect your ideas in every country would cost millions over the life of a patent and it is not practical.

It is our job to decide on key markets and main countries of competition where we need protection,' she says.

Alongside patent litigation, Mr Bowen says he is the 'first port of call' for both the UK group and its subsidiaries when they need legal advice.

'Although the subsidiaries have their own preferred legal advisers in their jurisdictions, they come to me first because I often know the answer particularly with advertising and competition issues because we have seen many of them before.

The in-house team also ensures that all the advertising material complies with local laws.

'We use a lot of comparative advertising so it is important to get it right.

Depending on which market in Europe we are advertising in, there are different local interpretations of relevant EU legislation.'

The group's other in-house lawyer, Sebastian Cooper, deals mainly with non-contentious work, including supply contracts, consultancy and joint development agreements when outside design or production capability is used.

He also handles the ever tricky question of confidentiality.

Outside the company, suppliers are required to sign confidentiality agreements to protect the company's existing and developing technology.

Even inside the company, employees are given frequent talks on the importance of confidentiality.

Within the company, the value of its ideas are protected by operating on a need-to-know basis.

All members of staff are issued with colour-coded passes which restrict their access to certain areas of the building, products are referred to by codes rather than name or type, and discussion about inventions is forbidden outside the development teams.

Although the lawyers have access to all areas, and are intimately involved with the development of new products, they too aim to keep work in house, but their reasons are more to do with speed and cost than secrecy.

Mr Bowen says that when he does deal with outside law firms, they need to 'come here, meet us and understand what's going on.

I don't like lawyers who are stand-offish about our business.'

Having started his career in private practice at Bristol-based Osborne Clarke and Palser Grossman in Cardiff, Mr Bowen says that now he is 'on the other side of the fence', he can see how important it is for firms to 'buy into' the businesses they are serving.

'As my outside resource, firms must jump as high as I have to to meet the needs of the business.

It can be difficult for many lawyers to do that beyond the first few weeks of the relationship.'

In the recent past, Dyson has used London-based Olswang and Wragge & Co in Birmingham to deal with IP litigation.

Mr Bowen describes himself as 'pleasantly surprised' by both firms, which he says are 'streets ahead of those we've used in the past'.

He says they 'dovetailed quickly' with Dyson's way of working and listened carefully to the company's requirements.

Although obviously happy relationships, Mr Bowen says he is probably moving towards using a single adviser for all outside legal needs.

With a legal spend of in excess of 1.5 million a year, it could be a lucrative contract for one lucky firm but beware: when Dyson says it expects you to roll up your sleeves and understand the products, the company means it.

As part of Dyson's induction day, all staff, from cleaners to directors, have to rise to the challenge of taking apart and reassembling one of its hallmark vacuum cleaners and there is no reason to think that any less will be asked of its external lawyers.

The good news is that they may then get a chance to buy one for a fraction of the cost - an excellent incentive to make a good job of it.