Policy interests group

14 May 2007 Harmsworth House

Action points:

1 – UK IPO to confirm whether stakeholder studies are being conducted in relation to Address for Service.

2 – UK IPO to issue information on the House of Lords report on the need for a specialist EU competition court.

3 - A representative from the IP Bar Association to be invited to join the group.

4 - An update to be provided on the United Nations Commission on Trade law.

Discussion

1. Action points from the previous meeting

1.1 IP Insurance – It was confirmed that there were no further updates in relation to IP insurance.

1.2 E-notice re. civil justice consultation – It was confirmed that an e-notice has now been issued in relation to this.

1.3 Information on threats provision - A separate meeting has already been held in relation to unjustified threats.

1.4 WTO Action plan - Stakeholders views are being taken into account through informal meetings, but no formal consultation is taking place.

1.4 E-forum/website – An e-mail has been issued in relation to these.

1.6 Gowers update – A presentation by the Gowers Implementation Team is the next item on the agenda.

2. Presentation by the Gowers Implementation Team

2.1 A presentation was given on the progress of the Gowers Implementation team

3 IP Enforcement

3.1 DCA Consultation

An e-notice has been issued in relation to the latest consultation on “Case track limits and the claims process for personal injury claims”.

Although it is a DCA consultation, we would be interested in hearing any feedback. It was confirmed that a DCA review of damages was a Gowers recommendation.

A member commented that in 2005/2006 the civil procedure rules changed. Cases in areas such as designs were ending up in county courts where there was a lack of knowledge.

If any members do not receive our e-notices, they can subscribe via our website.

4 European

4.1 European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) and Community Patent

4.1.1 EPLA

It was reported that under the German Presidency two of the three expert working groups have taken place. They are proceeding based on the questionnaire issued by the Presidency, and the general consensus is behind the Commission’s option C. In the next meeting on 1st June, they hope to finish the questionnaire and address some of the legal issues. France is still pivotal and there is a minority of other countries behind Option B (the “Community judge” proposal) and against EPLA. France can not currently give an official position as there is no government. The Portuguese have agreed to take forward under their presidency.

A member asked if the Commission had received many comments. There have been a few responses to the informal consultation and generally there is support for the EPLA in some form. Option C is the broadest option, which most states are able to support. They will work out the principles they can agree on and hopefully some of the constitutional/legal problems will be resolved later. The Commission wishes to hear Member States’ opinions on a patent court, but there is a need to take things slowly as some states do not yet know their position. There may be an informal progress report at the end of June.

4.1.2 Community Patent

The Community patent was discussed at the working groups, but all agreed to focus on the Court arrangements and languages will be revisited later. Many of the issues have changed since the 2003 agreement as there are now more languages.

4.2 London Agreement

Latvia and Belgium are looking into ratifying. It was commented that a strengthened London Agreement group would be useful in wider discussions.

4.3 Commission Communication on OHIM fees

The communication was issued before Christmas and thanked people for any comments they made. The UK considers that surplus funds should be used to reduce fees. Initially, there was not much support for fee reduction among Member States, but others are now able to support this. The Community Trade Mark Regulation was introduced 10 years ago, and should be looked at to see if it is working effectively. There is support for a wider review of fees at the meeting of the Competitiveness Council at the end of the month. More information can be provided on this after the meeting.

4.4 Address for Service

We are discussing our requirement for a UK address for service with the Commission. Ireland have recently changed their legislation and others may soon follow.

It was confirmed that a study on European address for service requirements would be issued soon . The UK IPO will confirm if other stakeholder studies are taking place. [Action point 1].

5. International

5.1 Update on patent law harmonisation

Group B+ have met to negotiate a position on patent harmonisation including grace periods. A paper was presented that suggested a new bottom line, The Germans produced a bottom line paper to which a number of states signed up. The UK, Belgium and the Netherlands could not sign up as they did not agree with the bottom line and it is not right to produce a bottom line paper to go to a public meeting. There is not a consensus on the paper and discussions are continuing as the presidency is trying to get a wider EU consensus.

A member asked if this is as a result of bi-lateral discussions between the Germans/ French and us. There have been discussions but this is not as a result of them. It was asked if things were stalling and confirmation was given that discussions were ongoing.

There is concern on the behaviour of the presidency and it is not clear what their position is. It was confirmed that the existing EU position may not have been published.

6 AOB

6.1 European Court Issues

The UK IPO asked for views on the House of Lords report on the need for a specialist EU competition court, which concludes that there may be a need for a specialist Trademark Court. The DTI have asked us to provide a view by June.

It was commented that only 3 CFI chambers deal with Trademarks so they are becoming specialised.

The UK IPO agreed it would send something round and asked for views. Action point 2. The DTI would give views re comp court but are not formally consulting. The deadline for response to a House of Lords report is short so the opportunity for consultation is not there.

6.2 Membership of the IP Bar Association

The UK IPO explained that we have been contacted by the IP Bar Association asking if they can have a representative on the group. Members confirmed that this did not cut across anyone else’s responsibilities. Action point 3.

6.3 United Nations Commission on Trade Law

A member asked what was discussed at the United Nations Commission on Trade law. The issue may need to be raised again. Planning meeting should take input from the working group. The UKIPO will check how far this has got and will report back.. Action point 4

6.4 EPC 2000

The UK IPO confirmed that that they have until December this year. A member confirmed that if France does not ratify it is out of the EPO.

6.5 A member raised the issue that the EPO wants industry to put up money for translation of Chinese patents, but he considered that the EPO should pay. A search cannot be worldwide if China is not included.

The UK IPO confirmed that other databases such as Derwent are used to cover difficult-to-search fields. If there are a lot of Chinese documents, then it will cost money for them to be translated and searched. The EPO budget needs to be balanced with accounting rules. The EPO budget is delicate and they can not spend what they have not got. The EPO do share the results of searches which is a more targeted use of resources, but access to documents is an issue.

7 Date of next meeting

It was proposed that the next meeting should take place in September – date to be set.