Policy interests group

Report of first meeting

Thursday 16 November 2006

1 Introductions

1.1 The Patent Office welcomed all to the inaugural Policy Interests Group meeting. The group was established in order to discuss a wide range of policy issues following identification of the need for such a forum at meetings of the “four presidents”.

1.2 There was mention of the absence of policy officials from the new Patent Office web site. This is for security and spam reasons. The Patent Office will circulate a list of officials and portfolios to the group.

2 Terms of reference

2.1 It was noted that copyright was absent from the terms of reference. The Patent Office clarified that this group will focus mainly on patents, trade marks and designs as with the meetings four presidents. It was confirmed that the British Copyright Council covers copyright with small groups being convened to discuss particular issues. It was agreed that future meetings would incorporate updates on copyright and other related issues as and when needed.

2.2The group agreed that the frequency of the meetings should be every three months rather than the two stated in draft terms of reference.

2.3  It was agreed that Liz Coleman would continue to chair the meeting

International

3 The relationship between the WTO TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity

3.1 The Patent Office reported what was discussed at the last TRIPS Council - there doesn't seem to be any real movement but Brazil have asked specific questions about the EU proposal.

4 The WHO Intergovernmental Working Group on a global plan on action on health

4.1 It was confirmed that the Patent Office is taking forward with other Government Departments the UK government’s response on the WHO report on IP & health. In particular we are involved in the WHO working group on these issues.

European

5 EPLA & Community Patent

5.1 The Patent Office reported that different opinions have been subject of lobbying within the Commission and some Member States views may slow the process. A proposal for mandate for the EPLA is expected. The UK are trying to get references into Council conclusions and France are trying to get a community system.

5.2Compulsory Litigation Insurance. The Commission are consulting on the results of their study on insurance. The Patent Office reported that Ron Marchant is chairing an IPR experts group who are looking at support measures for SMEs

5.3 A member reported that the DG enterprise had published useful thoughts on this and he would share with the Patent Office.

6 London Agreement on Translations

6.1 It was agreed that a joint meeting of focus groups would be set up, perhaps titled ‘Patents in Europe’. The Patent Office agreed that IPID would take this forward.

7 WARF (embryonic stem cells) case before the EPO

7.1 The Patent Office reported that the UK had submitted a brief to the enlarged Board of Appeal, as have other countries. The UK’s main concern is that the EPO should not refuse to grant patents on moral grounds when there is no clear consensus among member states, because this could deny patent protection in those member states where such technology is morally acceptable and allowable.

8 Community Trade Mark System

8.1 The Patent Office provided an update on the latest position of the CMTM system, where there is a need to reduce the surplus. The Commission resisted requests for a strategy debate in the Administrative Board but will be coming forward with a paper. The UK is sounding out a wider debate concerning the respective roles of national systems.

IP Enforcement

The Patent Office reported on the latest developments on enforcement issues.

9 Criminal Sanctions

9.1 There have been no recent working groups to take forward the criminal sanctions proposal. This is a Home Office lead given their general responsibility for criminal matters. There are two main issues. Firstly, what power the Commission has to harmonise criminal law following the European Court of Justice’s findings in C-176/03, which concluded that the Commission could make proposals if they were essential to the Internal Market. Secondly, the scope -what rights should be covered. As proposed, all right are covered. But there is growing acceptance that it is not appropriate to criminalise patent infringements. However, several countries already have this provision in their national law, although most countries rarely apply it..

10 Representative Actions

10.1 The consultation is on-going (deadline for responses is 18 Dec 06). No responses have been received as yet.

11 IP Insurance

11.1 The UK has been in discussions with insurers, who have suggested a few packages. Thoughts were diverse on this subject and it was agreed that the Patent Office would initiate a discussion.

12 Russian Issues

12.1 The G8 IPR expert group met for the third time in Moscow on 14 Nov. It discussed the projects set out in the IPR statement made at the St. Petersburg Summit . There was a constructive discussion of these projects, and the Germans confirmed that they would take the work forward during their G8 Presidency next year.

12.2 Russia is in the process of changing their IP legislation by revising all their intellectual property laws as part IV of their Civil Code. There is general concern that this radical change will make IP enforcement considerably more difficult in Russia (there are ongoing problems with the music website Allof MP3) and it is unlikely to comply with TRIPS. This new law will almost certainly be passed by the end of this year, but it is not expected to come into force until Jan 2008. Consequently following various discussions and suggestions from Russian contacts, we are looking at a possible project to analyse the new law against international norms. Such a project could help identify what further changes are needed before Jan 2008 to clarify Russia’s enforcement regime and to achieve TRIPS compliance.

13 AOB

13.1  For future meetings it was agreed that proposed agendas would be circulated in time for comment and amendment.

13.2  The Patent Office mentioned that UK unregistered design right is one area being considered under the Gowers review, although the review completion is not expected before the end of November. Once the review has been published then the Office will make changes as necessary through our normal consultation mechanisms.

13.3  It was agreed that 90 minutes should be adequate for the duration of further meetings. Timed agendas would help administer this.

14 Date of next meeting

14.1 It was suggested that Tuesday 20 February 2007 at 14:00 would be an appropriate time to hold the next meeting as there is a meeting of the four presidents that morning. This is to be confirmed. The Patent Office will continue to hold the meetings at their London offices (Harmsworth House).