Around the IP Blogs

It has been the coldest days of the year where this Kat is based - perfect weather for looking into what other IP Blogs have been into recently:- 




The Kluwer Copyright Blog addressed the issue of moral rights in relation to artificial intelligence and copyright protection.


Katfriends who are also fashionistas should be well aware that it’s Fashion Week 2022!  On this note, the Copyright Alliance wrote a post to give readers an overview on how fashion is protected under US copyright law.


Trade Marks


2021 was a record year of the EUIPO, having received almost 200,000 applications.  It is noted that the number of EU trade mark applications filed in 2021 increased by nearly 12% according to data published by the EUIPO (here) and as reported by Marques’ CLASS 46 (here).


Speaking of Fashion Week, the most talked-about recent rebranding is Hugo Boss’ one, on which the Trademark Lawyer provided some background.




Reporting on the recent announcement by Blackberry to sell its non-core patent portfolio to Catapult IP Innovations Inc., the Patent Lawyer Magazine discussed whether IP asset deals are in fact a blessing or a curse. 

Around the IP Blogs Around the IP Blogs Reviewed by James Kwong on Sunday, February 20, 2022 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Is the EQE a discriminatory measure?

    Dear community,

    here is something that I might not have fully understood.

    Reading Article 134 EPC, it seems that any lawyer without any specialization (in particular in the field of intellectual property) who is admitted to the bar of a member state of the EPC may act as full representative before the EPO, even though only familiar with that state law and not the EPC. In general, attorneys at law do not need any specialisation to be admitted to the bar. As far as I understand, it means that the lawyer is allowed by law to submit technical applications and written statements to the EPO without any technical education, technical experience and any proof of experience in drafting application texts (paper A), responses (paper B), or oppositions (paper C). Please correct me if I got it wrong.

    If this is really the case, then should it not be sufficient for candidates to simply sit the law paper D? Especially because candidates were already required to provide evidence to the EPO that they have a minimum of three year experience in drafting application texts, responses, and oppositions as well as they had to prove their technical expertise in their specific field by having at least a bachelor degree. It also seems as there is no actual legal basis in the EPC for the papers that are selected in the EQE.

    And if so, is it not a discriminatory measure that different requirements are set for two type of representatives? A lawyer without proof of at least a technical bachelor of science is certainly not in the client's interest except the client does the technical work himself which would – let’s be honest - actually let the lawyer appear to be superfluid (no offense).

    Why is it that an attorney at law without passing the EQE is per se more appropriate to represent a tech company than an engineer or a scientist?

    According to European Union law, discrimination such as in the context of workplace and work contestants is forbidden. Hence, it would have to be also forbidden in the member states of the European Union that are also part of the EPC (at least if they duly nationalized European law). And if this is a legal principle in the majority of the member states of the EPC, how can the EPO ask patent attorney candidates to sit papers A, B, C, and D and by thus creating two type of representatives, while lawyers do not have to pass any of these papers?
    Or let’s focus: is there really any legal basis in the EPC that allows the EPO to ask candidates to sit papers A, B, C, and D but not attorneys at law?

    Also, many of the patent attorneys who participate in the EQE are already admitted to the bar of their member state after proving their previous studies of law and patent law expertise. They thus seem to be at the same level of qualification as attorney at laws are.

    And if we all come to the same conclusion, why is the exam uphold in this form? Because of economic interests? Because of a desire to select who represents and optionally keep the number of representatives low? Because of artificially creating a monopoly that is also maintained and controlled by the EPO and EPI? But then again, why allow any number of attorneys at law to be representatives before the EPO?

    Maybe we should ask an attorney at law for his opinion on that (but better choose an attorney of the right field of law).

    Anyways, I would be also very glad if someone could tell me if attorneys at law also pay the "applicable annual subscription to the Institute" or any other fee for representation in that respect. Or again, does Rule 154(I) EPC only apply to patent attorneys?

    Please also see the interview with Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman on the monopoly of lawyers (around time stamp 49 min to 52 min):


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.