Home » Posts tagged 'patent attorneys'
Tag Archives: patent attorneys
European Patent Litigation Certificate – Response to Consultation
The Legal Working Group of the Preparatory Committee has recently launched a consultation on their proposals for the European Patent Litigation Certificate. The consultation timeframe is relatively short and runs until Friday 25 July 2014. Comments are to submitted electronically to email@example.com. The consultation document can be found here and an explanatory memorandum can be found here.
At a recent CIPA seminar The Hon Mr Justice Birss suggested that the best way to influence the Prep Committee’s position on the content and form of the EPLC would be to present a united front with other countries in Europe. To that end IPcopy would be interested to hear from readers in other countries, e.g. Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, regarding their reaction to the content of the EPLC proposal. Additionally if any reader wants to share their response to the consultation then IPcopy will be happy to start a consultation round-up post.
The comments below form the basis of this ipcopywriter’s response to the EPLC consultation. These are personal views.
Representation at the UPC – feedback from Rules of Procedure Submissions
A CIPA/IPO meeting back in January (covered in posts here and here) looked into the issue of representation in front of the Unified Patent Court (see Rule 286 of the Rules of Procedure) and in particular whether UK patent attorneys will automatically have that right, might be “grandfathered” in or might have to sit some sort of additional qualification.
Back in October last year IPcopy collated a few of the submissions sent in response to the public consultation on the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court and last week the 16th draft of the Rules of Procedure published accompanied by a handy “comprehensive digest” that explains some of the reasons behind the changes to the Rules. We thought we’d take a quick look at both the original submissions and the comprehensive digest to see whether any of the respondents touched on this issue as well.
Out of the 12 submissions we listed back in October, three addressed the issue of representation and the comments made by the Association of IP Professionals in Swedish Industry, Bristows LLP and the IP Federation (the IP Fed paper downloads as a PDF document) are noted below. There are also a fair number of comments in the digest document (though the three listed above do not appear to be there). (more…)
CIPA Event: IPReg consultation on simplifying & modernising the patent attorney examination system
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
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes!…to the UK patent attorney qualifying exams.
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*.