Little jewels from The EPO for 2014

More flexibility in dividing your applications

The EPO has been rather busy with its late 2013 Administrative Decisions .Its probably the case that most patents agents will be looking for a spot of CPD to make sure they understand the implications of the changes promised for 2014. The change in divisional practice in October which arrives on 1 April 2014 was greeted with much delight but the additional decisions all need to be read and digested. The whole package is driven by divisional issues. The changes in practice on searches are long overdue and it seems an age since CIPA was trawling for data on these iniquities. They don't arrive till 1 November 2014 so some applicants may be grateful for those prolonged delays in the arrival of their supplementary European searches, even if the renewal fees during that wait are inexorably rising as can be seen on the decision relating to fees. Cleveland have a helpful exposition of the new regime on unsearched subject matter here.
All this and the confusion over how to amend European patent applications now that our hands are tied and everything must be electronic as debated on the IPkat here means that 2014 is going to be an exciting year for the European Patent Attorney.
It is to be hoped that with all these procedural shenanigans that someone will remember that the role of the EPO is to issue valid patents efficiently (this includes timeliness) in the hope that those innovations will be exploited positively to the benefit of the European economy and not just of patent agents and litigators.

Lawyer self-projection: when fluff and puff are not enough

Via Nick Holmes' Legal Web Watch December 2013 (this being an email supplement to Internet Newsletter for Lawyers) comes this wonderful diagram on lawyer profiles by Matt Homann (@matthomann).

It has been favourited and retweeted with some fervour, so I apologise for boring readers by showing them what they already know.

What occurred to me is that the sort of information in the left-hand side of the equation, puffed-up and/or irrelevant as it may seem, is the sort of information that is craved, or at least expected, by large corporate or public-sector clients. There, the source of the lawyer's instruction is likely to have a job, a salary and a considerable degree of peace of mind whether Boastful Bertie returns phone calls, does the job well or at least gives the impression of listening attentively or not.  The sort of client who genuinely cares whether the lawyer returns his calls and can do his job is more likely to an individual or small businessman whose number of dinners in the coming year is likely to depend on the outcome of the instruction.  For him, the immediacy of the sole practitioner may be more comforting, till he addresses issues that aren't on either side of Matt Homann's equation, such as "what happens if/when you go on holiday?" ...

Partying alone

For many of our readers, this week is the week before Christmas Day and various public holidays, office closures and general lapses into domestic bliss and/or idleness.  Traditionally it's therefore the week for office parties.

Now, it is a fact that is not widely appreciated among the more populous realms of intellectual property law and practice that people who work by themselves, very often in their own homes, in a little room at the top of the house or in what used to be the spare bedroom or boxroom, don't have the same opportunities for pre-Christmas office partying.  Some fortunate solo practitioners will find themselves invited to office parties held by clients or, where they practise in leased premises, they may enjoy a little partying with other souls with whom they have nothing in common other than the fact that they are tenants of the same landlord.  For the rest, the Christmas party is a solitary vice, or virtue if you prefer.

Don't despair.  When all else fails and there's not much fun to be had, when you've blown up and then burst your party balloon and sprained a wrist pulling that Christmas cracker against yourself, when you've counted the bubbles in your glass of bubbly -- why not take up writing for SOLO IP? We'd love to hear from you about your travails and triumphs in IP practice, your dreams, your aspirations, your neat tricks for handling those awkward clients and small office management issues.  Remember, we're never more than a blogpost away!

How to have a party by yourself on WikiHow, here
Nothing wrong with being your own party, here

CPD: something to muse on

CPD: can be a heavy burden but it always
relevant to practitioners' needs?

Earlier today, when casting around for interesting subjects that never get written about in IP journals, I found myself musing about the requirements imposed on IP practitioners in some jurisdictions with regard to continuing professional development -- the magical letters "CPD".  What I found myself wondering was whether the regime for CPD was in need of a substantial degree of rationalisation.  In the UK, which is itself divided as between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, four species of practitioners ply their expertise: solicitors, barristers, patent attorneys and trade mark attorneys.  Each profession has its own criteria, its own rules, its own notions as to what counts as training at all.  And the professions in the UK are in competition with those elsewhere in Europe, many of which -- this blogger suspects -- have rudimentary CPD rules or none at all.

Beyond that, there are questions of convenience.  Large firms generally self-certify their staff's CPD points, which means that they can gain the requisite number of hours with the inconvenience of leaving their place of work or the risk of meeting interesting people who work for other firms.

Then there is the question of relevance of the continued professional development.  This blogger well recalls attending a one-day conference on IP and Sport some years ago, at which one of the registrants was an in-house solicitor with a public utility.  No, he said, this event had nothing to do with any work he had ever done or was likely to do, but he needed those CPD hours. How far should actual and expected work be allowed to dictate CPD requirements, if at all?

All of this leads this blogger to wonder: do the inconsistencies in CPD requirements as between jurisdictions and as between the IP professions impose greater burdens on the sole/small practitioner than on large firms and those who work for them, and do they have an undesirable effect on competition both within the professions and between them.

Any thoughts?

Pipe Down

I was speaking to a trainee patent agent and asked what he thought of the new IPREG examination proposalsthat we have mentioned here and here. He gave me the view of his principal. This shows commendable loyalty and what might reasonably expected of a devoted apprentice who lives in the blissful hope that all wisdom resides in his master.

However it has to be acknowledged that while his master is probably a master of claim drafting and patent prosecution, he may be a mere amateur when it comes to examination and qualification procedures that provide an adequate safeguard for the public. It is true that the students are also amateurs in this eclectic sphere, but if left unpressurised they can provide IPREG with insight into the practical issues they expect may be imposed on them by the new rules.

Regrettably the fact that students are taking the QMW course without training contracts in hope is offering encouragement to  IPREG in their plans. That does of course mean that the profession is restricted to an input filtered by an academic institution or the larger firms capable of sponsoring students.

Is there any evidence of the skills and aptitudes that are needed by business in their patent providers?