Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / fees / patents / UK-IPO / UK-IPO: more money please

UK-IPO: more money please

- , ,

The UK-IPO have just announced a consultation on proposals for introducing changes to the fees charged for getting and keeping UK patents. The proposed changes are many and various, and can be digested in detail by reading the consultation document itself. These include:
  • substantial (roughly doubling) increases to search and examination fees;
  • the introduction of excess claims fees (although not quite at the level of the EPO);
  • increased renewal fees;
  • a new fee for contested proceedings; and
  • a new fee for recording registrable transactions under section 32.
The IPO's reasoning for many of the increases includes the fact that (amazingly) no substantial increases have been implemented since the early 1990s, and there apparently should be some 're-balancing' of the way the IPO's work is funded, since the cost of search and examination is at the moment mostly paid for by renewal fees.

The IPO want to know what you think about it, and will be welcoming answers to their 11 questions in the consultation until 12 October 2009.
UK-IPO: more money please UK-IPO: more money please Reviewed by David Pearce on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 Rating: 5

5 comments:

  1. Chris HThursday, 23 July 2009 at 13:12:00 GMT+1

    Ummm .. didn't the IPO recently have a consultation about reducing a bunch of fees (see IPKat here)?

    Ok it's a different set of fees, but the new proposal appears to be contrary to the previously-stated aim of ensuring 'that businesses continue to protect their IP during the economic downturn'.

    I wonder how the proposed increase will be spun...

    ReplyDelete
  2. GerontiusThursday, 23 July 2009 at 13:42:00 GMT+1

    The jusitification is that the Gower's review said we had to. The spin is that the UK is still one of the cheapest countries in the world.

    I'm interested in the claims fees: the UKIPO partly justifies claims fees for each claim over the 15th on the grounds that the EPO do it. But where did the EPO come up with the magic number "15"?

    Trying to look this up reminded me again how hard it can be to track down Admin Council preparatory documents. Do they routinely get published somewhere I'm not looking? Help!

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousThursday, 23 July 2009 at 15:16:00 GMT+1

    Gerontius, a certain number of documents are available at the EPO staff union site:

    http://www.suepo.org/public/

    or you can google (another example of a TM being verbalized to the benefit of the TM owner) suepo

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousThursday, 23 July 2009 at 21:36:00 GMT+1

    What I don't get is...

    they say they are increasing the search and exam fees because the renewal fees are supporting search and examination...

    so.. surely renewal fees should be reduced, not increased...?

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousFriday, 24 July 2009 at 12:36:00 GMT+1

    Gowers failed to understand the "Robin Hood" principle on which the Patent Office (aka Intellectual Property Office) has operated for many years. The successful patentees who make enough money from their inventions to afford continual renewal fees subsidise the new inventors in their early days. This policy has been very beneficial to individual inventors and SMEs. His comments in his report were advisory not mandatory. Gowers is a money man not a lawyer or an inventor.

    ReplyDelete

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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.