The Explanatory memorandum, which is nine pages long, opens with the following explanation:Draft proposal for rules on the European Patent Litigation Certificate and other appropriate qualifications
According to Article 48(2) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC Agreement), European Patent Attorneys (EPAs) who are entitled to act as a professional representative before the European Patent Office (EPO) pursuant to Article 134 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) may represent parties before the Unified Patent Court (UPC), provided they have appropriate qualifications such as a European Patent Litigation Certificate (EPLC). The wording of this article suggests that EPAs can prove having appropriate qualifications by different means, the EPLC being one of them.The draft Rules, all 22 of them, cover just eight pages.
Article 48(3) of the UPC Agreement states that the Administrative Committee shall establish the requirements for such qualifications. Therefore, a draft decision determining the rules on the EPLC and other appropriate qualifications (Draft EPLC decision) must be prepared, in order to be formally adopted by the Administrative Committee after the entry into force of the UPC Agreement. different means, the EPLC being one of them.
This decision shall establish the rules for the grant of the EPLC and the rules governing the other appropriate qualifications EPAs can alternatively have in order to be entitled to represent parties before the UPC.
Informed comments by current patent practitioners and prospective holders of European Patent Litigation Certificates are invited.
3 comments:
Having obtained both diplomas mentioned in draft Rule 12(a)(i), I do not understand why the 'Diploma of international studies in industrial property (specialized in patents)' is part of this list.
This diploma is a basic course in patent law that can be taken by anyone who has solely a technical diploma or degree and no experience working under the supervision of an attorney. Passing this course does not even entitle a person to represent a party in France before the French patent office INPI in prosecution proceedings (to do this one needs to pass a further exam, the French patent attorney exam (CPI)). Passing this diploma course provides no professional representation rights whatsoever in France, neither before the INPI nor the French Courts.
So a person having obtained this diploma who is not even entitled to represent a party before the French patent office INPI in prosecution proceedings will nevertheless be entitled to represent a party in litigation proceedings before the UPC.
I wonder about some of the more senior members of the UK profession. If they did not go through QMW, but rather passed the old exams then they may never have taken the courses mentioned.
They have been grandfathered into IPEC, so can appear there, but may not have rights in the UPC.. or am I wrong?
The "senior members" would be exempt under vi) Intellectual Property Regulation Board, “Intellectual Property Litigation Certificate”.
Post a Comment