Lobbying by Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office

Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office

epi

The Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) is the professional body representing all European Patent Attorneys.

Links

Transparency Register Profile

ID: 443178529894-07

Lobbying Activity

Response to Intellectual Property Action Plan

14 Aug 2020

epi is the Institute of 12,600 European Patent Attorneys from the 38 Contracting States of the European Patent Convention. epi welcomes the initiative to open the Roadmap for consultation and is willing to cooperate in the future on more detailed proposals. UNITARY PATENT PACKAGE (UPP) It is desirable that the Commission's IP Action Plan sets priorities and, in this regard, epi considers that resolving the uncertainties associated with the UPP should be a priority. Such a system would clearly increase the attractiveness and competitiveness of Europe for innovations. epi would welcome the opportunity to work with the Commission and all involved institutions to make the new UP/UPC system become a useful and legally sound instrument for European economies, ensuring that its benefits are enjoyed by both big corporations and SMEs. It is in the current situation of utmost importance for all stakeholders of the patent system in Europe to trust in the new system. A constructive solution allowing the UP/UPC system to come into force.should address and minimise future legal uncertainties such as potential losses of rights. An open issue with regard to the UP/UPC system is the different interpretation of Art 63(1) EPC among the EPC Contracting States according to which in some countries the patent expires on the anniversary date and in others it expires on the day before or after the anniversary date. It is submitted that a harmonised solution must be found in this regard. This is also relevant with regard to e.g. the term of protection of SPCs. Another issue which needs to be clarified is the effect of prior national rights discovered after registration of unitary effect, which may result in the loss of the entire European patent with unitary effect. It seems unjust to deprive the proprietor of a unitary patent of his rights just because a prior national right discovered late implies that one of the conditions for obtaining unitary effect (same set of claims for all States) would no longer be fulfilled. epi therefore invites the Commission to clarify the effect of prior national rights in this context and to find a legal basis which would solve this problematic situation before the UPC comes into force. MAKE THE SPC SYSTEM LESS FRAGMENTED epi supports the introduction of a unitary and practicable SPC system provided that there is a unitary patent and both have the same geographical scope. We would support a convergence program in the field of SPCs where the EPO is mandated to grant such unitary SPCs relying on divisions composed of examiners seconded by national offices and applying unified rules of examination, independent from those existing at a national level. epi encourages the Commission to continue looking into the need to introduce SPC protection in sectors other than pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals. PROMOTE BETTER LICENSING AND SHARING OF IP-PROTECTED ASSETS epi subscribes to the importance of efficient licensing of intellectual property rights for achieving broad and rapid diffusion of innovation and fully supports the objective of promoting better licensing and sharing of IP-protected assets. COSTS OF THE PATENT SYSTEM epi notes that the high costs associated with patent protection particularly impact SMEs and would agree with a solution aimed at making it easier to obtain patent protection in Europe, particularly for SMEs. THE EU IPR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE epi considers that the IPR Enforcement Directive fulfils its goals. Nevertheless, we consider that access and preservation of evidence in the digital environment could be improved. The increasing number of patent infringements occurring in the digital environment require quick and efficient means for preserving digital evidence that may easily be deleted. In that regard the IPR Enforcement Directive seems to be designed more with a view to the seizure of physical proof rather than to the preservation of digital evidence.

Read full response