tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post132205932368125314..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: An Audience with… You?!Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-11216728565092904172014-01-20T10:49:03.538+00:002014-01-20T10:49:03.538+00:00Thanks IPpuffin
I think I was thinking of the let...Thanks IPpuffin<br /><br />I think I was thinking of the letter from the registrar in T472/07 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009O0059:EN:HTML<br /><br />but I cant seem to find a copy of the letter.<br /><br />T- 14/04 was pre-Legal Services Act and before the LSB was set up as oversight regulator for all types of Lawyer and so as you suggest the arguments today should be very different.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-6526618241268895902014-01-17T13:18:26.395+00:002014-01-17T13:18:26.395+00:00from Case T- 14/04 :
9
The Court of First Instanc...from Case T- 14/04 :<br /><br />9<br />The Court of First Instance finds that it is clear from Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that only a lawyer authorised to practice before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the EEA Agreement may represent or assist parties other than the States and institutions referred to in the first and second paragraphs of that article (order in Case T-37/98 FTA and Others v Council [2000] ECR II-373, paragraph 20). That is an essential procedural requirement, which, if not observed, will lead to the action being inadmissible. <br /><br /><br /><br />10<br />That requirement is based in the fact that a lawyer is considered to be a person who collaborates in the administration of justice, and who is required to provide, in full independence and in the overriding interests of the judicial system, such legal assistance as the client needs. The counterpart of that protection lies in the rules of professional discipline which are laid down and enforced in the general interest by institutions endowed with the requisite powers for that purpose. Such a conception reflects the legal traditions common to the Member States and is also to be found in the legal order of the Community (see, by way of analogy, Case 155/79 AM & S v Commission [1982] ECR 1575, paragraph 24).<br /><br /><br /><br />11<br />Plainly, patent and trade mark agents are not necessarily lawyers. Although Mr Pluckrose is entitled to represent parties in certain actions before the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom, it remains the case that he is not a lawyer. As it is clear from Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that non-privileged parties must be represented before the Community Courts by a lawyer (see paragraph 6 above), it must be held that Mr Pluckrose is not authorised to represent the applicant before the Court of First Instance. <br /><br /><br /><br />12<br />Furthermore, when an exception to that requirement is permitted, it is expressly laid down by the Statute. Thus, under the seventh paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, university teachers who are nationals of a Member State whose law accords them a right of audience enjoy the same rights before the Court as are accorded to lawyers by that article. Mr Pluckrose has not shown in any way that such an exception applies to him. <br /><br /><br /><br />13<br />It follows from the above that this action must be declared to be manifestly inadmissible.<br /><br /><br /><br />IPREG states that those exercising a right of audience or conduct before the court are subject to the litigator's code:<br /><br />http://ipreg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Litigators_Code_website1.pdf<br /><br /><br />I think that deals with para 10 of the decisionThe IPuffinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72363331862460390942014-01-17T09:28:11.255+00:002014-01-17T09:28:11.255+00:00As I understood it one of the reasons the CFI gave...As I understood it one of the reasons the CFI gave for patent/trade mark attorneys being ineligible is that they cant represent in ALL national courts only those in the UK because they aren't listed in the establishment directive http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1998:077:0036:0043:EN:PDF<br /><br />That reasoning can't apply to the UPC because Art 48 (1) explicitly refers to A national court not ALL national courts. In addition it would be odd to infer an implicit reference to an EU directive for the definition where none is mentioned given that the UPCA has many explicit references to EU directives.<br /><br />If a national definition of lawyer is applied for 48 (1) it should be clear that post Legal Services Act 2007 the UK registered patent attorneys are "lawyers" (the LSB, IPreg and the LS Act all refer to them as such) and that any with rights to represent a court should be able to do so at the UPC. I agree though that Rules of Procedure should make this clear whilst the last draft made it less so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-26577523873813014612014-01-16T17:32:32.794+00:002014-01-16T17:32:32.794+00:00The position at the CFI and CJEU is not clear. At...The position at the CFI and CJEU is not clear. At present patent and trade mark attorneys are not classified as "lawyers". There were various reasons given, most of which are dealt with by IPREG in the guidelines which apply to those with the Higher Courts Advocacy Certificate.<br /><br />It is possible to argue that those with the Advocacy Certificate classify as lawyers. It is subject to the CJEU looking at it again and there is the curious issue that such practitioners may then classify as "legal practitioners" for the purposes of OHIM such that they could not then use the special titles given to them by OHIMThe IPuffinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-75996039270888845662014-01-16T15:11:18.091+00:002014-01-16T15:11:18.091+00:00According to Para 15.6 of the Chancery Guide, Soli...According to Para 15.6 of the Chancery Guide, Solicitors have automatic rights of audience (without the need for a Higher Courts Advocacy Certificate) in the High Court in certain interlocutory applications (such as those relating to summary judgment and case management). Those rights would presumably also apply in the IPEC.Robert Hurstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-26695835423595184722014-01-16T12:08:51.874+00:002014-01-16T12:08:51.874+00:00So where does this leave UK patent attorneys in te...So where does this leave UK patent attorneys in terms of acting before before the UPC? Will an IPLC-qualified or grandfathered pre-2013 attorney be considered a lawyer with rights to litigate in a division of the High Court in defined cases, and thus acquire rights of audience in the UPC? Or will the HCLC/HCAC be required? The Rules of Procedure are wide open on this point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-85849781325943416492014-01-16T11:29:53.938+00:002014-01-16T11:29:53.938+00:00The way to obtain a Higher Courts Advocacy Certifi...The way to obtain a Higher Courts Advocacy Certificate for a patent or trade mark agent is exactly the same as for a solicitor and IPREG has recognised the same assessment process. Some certificates have already been issued and the assessment was not an IP based one. <br />IPREG rather than the SRA also regulates a growing bunch of solicitors who practice in IP Filemothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.com