New corporate structure for CPA

On Wednesday IP support services provider Computer Patent Annuities Limited (CPA) announced that, after 37 years in business, it had opted for a new corporate structure. First formed in 1969, CPA traded as a partnership under the ownership of over 300 patent and trade mark attorneys based in the UK, New Zealand and Australia. But since the beginning of this month CPA has become an incorporated company. The IPKat will watch carefully to see what difference this makes ...

Deferral of Call

The Bar Standards Board (England and Wales) has initiated a consultation over Deferral of Call. This is a euphemism for the rule that no-one could acquire the title "barrister" - even after passing the relevant examinations - until he or she had done a pupillage (a form of apprenticeship). A lot of prospective barristers will be affected by this, since the number of successful candidates greatly exceeds the pupillages available (around 70% are disappointed).

The policy of Deferral of Call dates back to the 1960s, but has not yet been implemented. However, it now now under review and is unlikely to be implemented before 2009. Former Patents Court judge and IP specialist Lord Justice Jacob has urged anyone interested to participate in the consultation, whatever their views, so that the final decision on Deferral of Call is more likely to be an informed one.

Responses should be posted to the Bar Standards Board, 289-293 High Holborn, London WC1V 7HZ, or by email, to Jennifer Sauboorah. Don't forget the deadline: 14 November 2006.
CPA CHANGES; CALLS FOR DEFERRAL CPA CHANGES; CALLS FOR DEFERRAL Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, August 04, 2006 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Doesn't the policy sound like a classic 'closed shop' system? It sounds archaic and unsuitable for a modern competitive society, and has the ring of the classic double bind situation of being unable to get a job because of lack of experience, and unable to get experience through being unable to get a job. It's time that the normal laws of the market were properly put into play, and scrapping of any rules other than being able to pass the exams.

    I think this should also apply to the rules about patent and trade mark attorneys, but that's a different matter.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.