Looking for a position. It's tough out there in the jobs market. While the position of the market economies have definitely improved considerably since the dark, dark days of sub-prime mortgages, failing banks and doom-and-gloom prophecies, the supply of talented folk seeking gainful employment still seems to exceed the number of folk who are out there looking for someone. That's why the IPKat is happy to make his weblog available from time to time as a means of trying to match people up with those who may best appreciate their skill and labour. Anyway, right now an imaginative correspondent of the IPKat, currently seeking a position within the wonderful world of IP, has written this short summary of her attitude to the topic:
"There exists a certain similarity between multi-sport competitions and working in the field of patent assets. Science, patenting, defence and enforcement, as well as various strategic considerations, all contribute towards defining the value of patent IP. I'm looking to find an application for my multi-sport skills in the field of patents. Who knows, new developments and IP records might be just around the corner in the triathlon of science, patents and law".email@example.com with the subject line "Triathlon" and he will forward your expression of interest to her.
New blog on the block. From Italian IP enthusiast Marco Pisana comes The IPizza Blog which, as readers might guess, seeks to run a pizza theme through its content in much the same way as this blog does with cats. The text is in Italian -- as is new blog's the clean, bright style. Marco's first post is on the Pink Lady decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union [noted by the IPKat here]. This Kat will be watching this blog with interest; Merpel is sure that it's a recipe for success and hope it will give her lots of food for thought ...
|That 20%: is it here ...?|
Bye-laws -- or bye-bye trainees? Gilman Grundy (Senior IP Specialist, Kenwood) wrote to the Kats the other day to ask them: "have you had a chance to peruse the CIPA [that's the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys in the UK] Bye-Laws Working Group Report that was emailed to CIPA members early last month for comment?" Well, no, we hadn't. But Gilman had a reason for asking. As he explained to us:
"The report includes proposals to amend the definition of Associate membership of CIPA so that it is limited to part-qualified trainee patent attorneys – all well and good (and boring), you no doubt think – but the definition of who can become an associate member (and is therefore a “part qualified trainee”) is somewhat odd:Comments, anyone?
“Persons of good repute not eligible for Fellowship or European Patent Attorney Membership who have studied for qualification as Patent Attorneys under the supervision of a Fellow or a European Patent Attorney Member of the Institute for a period of at least one year and who have passed such examinations relating to qualification as a Patent Attorney as are determined by Council as being appropriate for Associate Membership shall be eligible for election as Associates of the Institute” (my underlining).That is, no-one who has not undergone training supervised by a UK or EP-qualified patent attorney will be recognised as part-qualified by CIPA. The report goes on to say that this is to ensure that the people in this membership class are
“undertaking the period of supervised practice . . . required in order to become a Registered or European Patent Attorney.”
The thing is, supervision is not, and (as far as I know) never has been, an absolute requirement for becoming a UK or European Patent Attorney. Both IPReg and the EPO allow for unsupervised qualification (see 4.2c here for IPReg, and here for the EPO). Admittedly the number of people qualifying by this route every year is likely quite small, but we do exist. Logically, someone who has passed some (or all) or the qualification exams, or at least the finals exams, and who fits the criteria for unsupervised qualification, should surely be regarded as a part-qualified patent attorney, but not according to the CIPA Bye-Laws Working Group! Does this signal an intention on the part of CIPA finally to close every other route to qualification as a patent attorney, other than the supervised route? What, then, of CIPA’s much vaunted attempts to increase the diversity of the UK patent profession? Surely the surest way of promoting the diversity of the profession is at least to maintain more than one path to qualification?"
demands enough jumping
through hoops already?