thank you for reading our blog and for the links.

Theses two documents, which I already had on the table for an article covering the various lobbying efforts regarding the representation issue, present convincing arguements – legal, economical, and pragmatical – for allowing suitably qualified European Patent Attorneys to individually represent cases before the new Unified Patent Court.

It is our firm belief that both applicants and the quality of decisions of the future Unified Patent Court would profit from a representation scheme in which plaintiffs and defendants could freely chose a representative of their choice independ on whether he/she is a qualified patent attorneys or attorneys-at-law.

I thought it might be of interest to readers to link to the following publications from EPI and IP Federation on this subject.

http://www.patentepi.com/downloads/Reports/10_33_23062010_representation-before-the-EEUPC.pdf

http://www.ipfederation.com/document_download.php?id=579

I do not have seen any indication formally saying that above CEIPI program is that what is meant with ‘ European Patent Litigation Certificate’ in Article 28 (2) of the Draft as quoted above.

Of course, such CEIPI might well be a solution to give a vague concept of a European Patent Litigation Certificate something like a precise meaning.

But unless I do see official EU papers formally specifying that I’m a bit reluctant. It is a very political question. If Article 28 (2) survives further discussion and makes its way into the final Regulation, stakeholders desiring to limit the admission of patent attorneys might argue that a European Patent Litigation Certificate in the context of the Regulation should mean e.g. a LLM plus 10 years of litigation experience plus proven and active involvement with 25+ litigation cases, effectively reducing the number of patent attorneys eligible for admission almost to zero …

Best regards,

Axel H. Horns

http://www.ceipi.edu/index.php?id=5451&L=2#c15827

do you believe such program may fulfill the requirements of document 16023/11?

Thank you and best regards.