Policy interests group
Tuesday 20 February 2007 Harmsworth House
1. Action points from the previous meeting
1.1 IP Insurance –The Patent Office reported that a private sector partner is keen to meet with IP professionals to discuss proposals for an insurance scheme. We are looking at the feasibility of such a scheme and suggest that groups who represent IP professionals contact the Patent Office, to discuss further. Action Point 1
1.2 Policy Officials – contact details of policy officials were issued with the minutes of the meeting. The secretary to let the group know if the details change.
2. IP Enforcement
2.1 Unjustified Threats in Intellectual Property Litigation
2.1.1 A background was given to the issue of unjustified threats and the need to get a wider consultation from the Patent Office. Members of the group raised the following issues: the difference between issues relating to patents, designs and trademarks, the size of organisations involved and the need to work with competition colleagues so that there is a joined up approach.
2.1.2 The Civil Justice Council have issued a consultation on pre-action protocols. E-notice to be sent out with further details. Action Point 2
2.1.3 Most countries have a threats provision but in different laws. A member will send information to Liz Coleman Action Point 3
2.2 Current consultations on IP enforcement
2.2.1 Representative actions: The Patent Office is in the process of drafting a report which needs to be discussed with IP judges and gain ministerial approval before the report is published.
2.2.2 The consultation on damages is due to be issued by DCA. An e-notice will be issued.
2.3 G8 work on IPR; The Patent Office will arrange a meeting on policy and counterfeiting with business interests between 22 February and 9 April.
2.4 Criminal sanctions for IPR (proposed EU Directive). There is no news yet on criminal sanctions but please forward any comments to the Patent Office.
3. European
3.1 European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) and Community Patent
3.1.1 It was reported that the Commission’s patents communication has not yet been published. A consensus has not yet been reached as there are differences between the views of member states, particularly between those supporting the EPLA and those wanting more Community involvement. None of the options for increased Community involvement were supported in a meeting of the European Patents Focus Group.
3.2 London Agreement on translations
3.2.1 Liechtenstein has ratified but we are still waiting on France. It is not known if the French viewpoint will change following the Presidential elections.
3.3 Commission Communication on OHIM fees
3.3.1 The Commission has produced a notice on OHIM fees. The UK is the only country that feels the surplus should be used to improve services rather than be split between member states.
4. International
4.1 The WTO TRIPs Agreement and the CBD
4.1.1 The Patent Office confirmed that there was nothing of substance to report from the last TRIPS council.
4.2 The WHO Intergovernmental Working Group on a global plan on action on health – taking forward recommendations from the Commission’s report on Innovation, IPRs and Public Health.
4.2.1 A copy of the draft action plan is available on the WHO website. The strategy is acceptable but there are problems in the plan and so comments are welcomed. The work is to be finalised before the WHO executive Board in January 2008.
A check will be made as to how stakeholders’ views are being obtained and taken forward. Action point 4
4.3 IP and UNCITRAL: the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
4.3.1 The draft law on international trade in financial securities did not take IP into account. A working group to address IP issues has been suggested. Commission will decide in June.
4.4 Update on patent law harmonisation
4.4.1 The B+ group met in Tokyo in November. The main issue of difference is the grace period. There is a move towards the direction of the US, rather than being in line with our views. An EU position different from the last can not be achieved.
5. Website and e-forum
5.1 The website and forum is in the process of being set up. Questions can then be posed on the forum. An e-mail will be issued when the website and forum are available. Action Point 5
6. A.O.B
6.1 Content of agenda
6.1.1 The agenda of the group is currently mainly patent based but in future we aim to include more Trade Mark and Designs issues.
6.2 Gowers
6.2.1 It was asked if there would be any feedback on Gowers via the group. A page of timescales for Gowers is on the Patent Office website and that the Gowers Implementation Team would provide a presentation at the next meeting. Action Point 6.
6.3 Address for Service
6.3.1 The Patent Office reported that there has been a challenge by the Commission against our address for service requirement for inter parties disputes which they say conflicts with Article 49 EC. Ireland have changed their law following a similar challenge. It was agreed that the topic should be discussed in more detail at the next meeting. The Patent Office also plans to hold a meeting with users on this subject. Robin Stout suggested that it would be helpful to know what is seen as advantages and disadvantages of changing from a UK to EU wide address for service.
7. Date of next meeting
7.1 Proposed that the group meet in May – date to be set. Proposed topics for next meeting include a presentation by the Gowers Implementation Team and Address for service.
