Home » Posts tagged 'IPReg'
Tag Archives: IPReg
UPC Confirmed Locations. The UPC website was updated last week with UPC divisions that have confirmed their locations. The Court of Appeal in Luxembourg, the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division in Sweden and the four local divisions and central division in Germany are currently listed along with their addresses and some photos. (more…)
Today we have a few nuggets of unitary patent and UPC news from around the web. In the post below we have an update on the state of German ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement, a reference to the European Patent Litigation Certificate in IPReg’s UK patent attorney exam proposals and we also highlight a couple of recent articles on the Kluwer Patent Blog that discussed unitary patent renewal fee progress and the possibility of a pro-patent bias in the UPC. (more…)
IPReg Consultation on simplifying and modernising the examination system for qualifying as a patent attorney
IPReg has now confirmed that their recent consultation looking at the UK patent attorney exam system has closed. Not surprisingly there were a large number of responses and IPReg is suggesting a minimum of 3 months but more likely 6 months before their conclusions are published.
All the responses will, in time, be published unless you contact them and inform them otherwise.
See below for a selection of published responses to the consultation.
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
Most readers in the patent profession will be aware that changes are afoot in the way trainee patent attorneys will qualify as Chartered Patent Attorneys (CPAs). The changes are spearheaded by IPReg, the regulatory body for patent and trade mark attorneys, and IPReg has released a consultation document, inviting comments.
The proposed changes affect both the foundation and advanced level exams and are, in short, the abolishment of all the foundation exams, to be replaced with approved taught university courses (currently there is an option between these two routes: as a rough estimate, 20-25% of candidates typically take the foundations route), and the abolishment of Advanced papers P3 (drafting) and P4 (amendment) to be replaced with the equivalent European Qualifying Examination (EQE) papers, or the EQE as a whole (currently, candidates may either sit P3 and P4, or may gain exemption by passing the equivalent EQE papers: many candidates will sit P3 and P4 at least once, even if they ultimately use the exemption for qualification).
As someone who is currently training in this profession, and who, last October, sat three of the exams that would be jettisoned by these changes (two foundation papers and P3), I have some fairly strong feelings on IPReg’s suggestions. They are not positive. I confess that I morph into something of a grumpy old man when the subject comes up in conversation, so this post might get a bit ranty. It’s probably best enjoyed with some kind of rousing, team-building, battle-inducing tune in the background*.