Please note that Internet Explorer 7.0 at least is needed to open Adobe PDF documents directly (with lower versions of Internet Explorer, the documents will have to be saved and then opened).
This part of the site is up-to-date from 2004; relevant position papers prior to then are obtainable from the Secretariat.
Unintentional infringement of UK and Community designs
Response to IPO public Consultation about equalisation of remedies for unintentional design infringement launched on 1 December 2010
Independent Review of IP and Growth - call for evidence
Response to the Review of Intellectual Property and Growth: Call for Evidence with a deadline of 4 March 2011.
Contrary to the sceptical opinions held by some, the IP systems in the UK, in the rest of Europe, and elsewhere when in compliance with international agreements, are generally sound. They are not broken and do not need major adjustment. The first need is to improve quality and efficiency within the existing systems.
Examination practice in the EPO
Recommendation to the European Patent Office that examiner training should take account of various points, and the Guidelines to Examination should be amplified to give them proper emphasis, namely:
- An iterative examination process will often be the best way of ensuring that the examiner fully appreciates the invention and the applicant’s aims, while the applicant has an adequate opportunity to respond to the examiner’s objections. It is the way to ensure that a high quality patent is granted.
- Telephone discussions are to be encouraged and training given to examiners to help them with this.
- In appropriate cases, it would be good practice for the examiner to schedule a preliminary technical conversation with the applicant, to ensure that there is a common understanding of the nature and objectives of the invention.
- Oral proceedings should be a matter of last resort. When they are necessary, they should be conducted by video, telephone or on-line conference if requested by the applicant.
- The summons to oral proceedings should clearly define the issues and new objections should, in general, not be raised in oral proceedings.
Consultation on the introduction of a Patent Box
Response to the Government’s consultation on the taxation of innovation and intellectual property with a deadline of 22 February 2011.
Proposed Council Decision for enhanced cooperation in the creation of unitary patent protection
Statement in support of the Commission’s proposal to invoke enhanced cooperation in order to move forward with the creation of a unitary patent in Europe, as a further option for obtaining patent protection, though with concerns about any extension of the Court of Justice’s role in interpreting substantive patent law
India compulsory licensing consultation
Response to the Indian Government's Discussion Paper dealing with the subject of Compulsory Licensing of Patents
Proposed Council Regulation on the translation arrangements for the EU Patent
Statement in support of the principles expressed in the proposal for a Council Regulation (EU) on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent, issued by the Commission in July 2010
EPO - Amendments to the Implementing Regulations - Rule 71EPC
Comments on proposed amendments to Rule 71 EPC - Examination procedure
EPO Procedural efficiency
EPO procedural efficiency - EPO papers CA/162/09 and CA/03/10
Privilege in the EEUPC
Privilege, including attorney-client privilege and litigation privilege, in the preliminary set of provisions for the Rules of Procedure of the European and EU Patents Court (EEUPC)
Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 20 Next