Last week IPcopy wrote about a draft paper from the legal working group of the preparatory committee that discusses the European Patent Litigation Certificate and the other “appropriate qualifications” that are mentioned under Article 48(2) of the Unified Patent Court Agreement and are required for EPAs to have rights of representation at the UPC.
At the time of writing last week’s article the draft paper was not online but this changed over the weekend when the Twitter user @EPpatent posted a link to a Google docs copy of the paper. The draft paper can be found in our article European Patent Litigation Certificate (& other appropriate qualifications) which has been updated.
While you are checking out the draft paper, take a look at some of the comments on the earlier post, especially the one from IP Frog!
Mark Richardson 10 March 2014
The 16th draft of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court has been published and can be found here (16th draft of Rules of Procedure). Helpfully the latest draft has been prepared as a marked-up document which means the amendments are easy to spot.
There’s a fair amount of red lined comments in this draft which IPcopy will take some time to digest. However, a few points of interest are noted below.
Back in January this year CIPA and the IPO held a joint open meeting to discuss the issue of representation before the Unified Patent Court. This is a very important topic for patent attorneys and the CIPA/IPO meeting explored whether UK patent attorneys (who are EPAs) would have rights of representation at the UPC or whether additional qualifications would be necessary. IPcopy’s reports on this meeting are at the following links – Part I and Part II.
Last week an article went up on the Law Society Gazette asking “Who can act in European patents?” and reference was made in this article to a draft paper that has recently been produced by the legal working group of the preparatory committee. IPcopy had not seen this paper (or even heard of its existence) but the author of the Law Society article was kind enough to provide us with a copy. [Update: a copy of the draft paper has now appeared online and can be accessed here. 10/3/14]
In our view, if you are a European Patent Attorney, then this report does not make for happy reading. If the views expressed in the CIPA/IPO meeting are anything to go by then this seems especially the case if you are an EPA and UK patent attorney. IPcopy summarises the main points of the draft paper below. (more…)
Along with all the other preparations that are required to implement the unitary patent package in the various participating member states, rumblings are often heard regarding the potential location of the local and regional divisions of the Unified Patent Court. This week IPcopy has heard/seen material relating to a potential local division in Ireland and also the possible setting up of a regional “Nordic-Baltic” division in Sweden, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania (Thanks to reader Hans van de Heuvel for the heads up regarding the Nordic-Baltic news). (more…)
Following the recent adoption of the Agreement of the Unified Patent Court by the French National Assembly comes news that the French President, François Hollande, has now promulgated the law by signing off on the text in Paris on 24th February 2014.
The Intellectual Property Bill is still awaiting a date for the Report stage in the House of Commons. One of the parts of the Bill that got a lot a discussion time was, of course, Clause 13 which introduces criminal sanctions for the copying of registered designs.
One point of discussion in relation to Clause 13 was its possible expansion to include unregistered design rights. This is something that ACID (Anti-copying in Design) in particular is keen to see happen. IPcopy would prefer that Clause 13 wasn’t in the Intellectual Property Bill at all but the registered design sanctions of the clause appear to be here to stay. However, extending the clause to cover unregistered designs would, in this ipcopywriter’s opinion, be a disaster.
Recently, the IP Federation has issued a policy paper on this issue and they have the following to say on the matter: (more…)
Members of IPcopy are always on the look out for snippets of unitary patent and unified patent court news and it was during such a search this week that we came across a conference report of a Unitary Patent Package Conference that was held in Amsterdam on 6 February 2014.
The full report of the conference can be found here. Having skimmed through the conference summary we noted a few points of interest which are detailed below. In particular we were interested to see what are apparently the first potential figures for the fee for opting a European patent out from the exclusive competence of the Unified Patent Court (the “opt-out fee”). These comments came from someone who is presumably familiar with the matter, Kevin Mooney of the Drafting Committee for the Rules of Procedure of the UPC. (more…)
Last week Emily took a look at the EPO’s draft rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection. As noted in last week’s post the document appeared to be a work in progress (it was dated August 2013) and in the comments section to that post Antonio Pizzoli (Googling Wizard, First Class) pointed us at an updated version of the EPO’s draft rules which can be accessed here.
The August draft ran to 22 rules. The updated version only discusses draft rules 1 to 11. Furthermore, we note that the updated version introduces a new rule 4 meaning that there are some numbering changes.
We’ve had a quick look at the updated document and note that there has been some progress on some of the issues raised in Emily’s review. The following areas in particular interested us: (more…)
On 12th February 2014, CIPA will broadcast a presentation from IPReg on the proposed changes to the UK patent attorney examination system. The broadcast is due to begin at 2.30pm and conclude at 4pm. Questions, comments and views can be submitted both during and after the event via the link below (see Link (1)). According to the January CIPA Journal questions may also be submitted using the hashtag #PatExams to @TheCIPA. (For IPcopyemily’s thoughts on the matter see here.)
As noted on the CIPA website:
Nicholas Fox, IPReg Board member and one of the architects of the proposed reforms, will present the rationale for change and the evidence supporting the need for a different approach. Nicholas will be on the expert panel and will make the case for requiring all trainee patent attorneys to pass an accredited Foundation course, withdrawing the examination-only route to entry into the profession, and withdrawing P3 (Drafting) and P4 (Amendment) examinations in favour of qualification via the EQE route.
In response, CIPA will describe the consequences for private practice and for industry should the proposals be adopted. Keith Hodkinson will provide a perspective from private practice and the likely consequences for recruitment into the profession through large and small entities. Bobby Mukherjee will respond on behalf of industry, describing the likely impact of the proposals on business and the UK’s competitiveness in the global IP market.
- The CIPA webcast information page can be found here.
- The webcast itself can be accessed here.
- The IPReg consultation on simplifying and modernising the examination system for qualifying as a patent attorney runs until 17 March 2014 and can be found here.
Mark Richardson 7 February 2014