Alison Brimelow on the EPO's future

The IPKat has spotted an interesting article here where Ms Brimelow , the current president of the European Patent Office, has been speaking her mind about where the EPO might be heading in the near, middle and distant future.

(right, Alison in a slightly less severe picture than the one from the EPO here)

This Kat was particularly interested in the apparent possibility of a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal in the near future on the subject of those much-discussed Article 52 exclusions, something that the previous president emphatically said 'non' to (as the IPKat noted here).

Oh, and there's something about Chinese patents.

UPDATE (7 Feb): Apologies to readers who cannot access the article linked to above, which appears now to have been locked-down to subscribers only. It was freely available when the post was originally written.
Alison Brimelow on the EPO's future Alison Brimelow on the EPO's future Reviewed by David Pearce on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 Rating: 5


  1. The EPO has also requested that some of the article needs to be clarified as some passages were "misleading".

  2. Seem to remember that there was a passage in the interview giving an example of a German company succesfully being sued by a Chinese company for 30 million euros for infringement of a Chinese utility model - is this true? I've been unable to find a reference anywhere else, and damages awarded by Chinese courts has been a matter of some discussion over at the China Law Blog.


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.