US scepticism Aside from the combined EPO member states, the most popular fi ler of European patents last year by jurisdiction was the US, from where 71,745 applications were made. John Pegram, senior principal at law firm Fish & Richardson in New York, says he is also sceptical about the current proposals. He says the most significant thing he has learned from US users of the EPO is that renewal conduct is primarily driven by budgets. “T e possibility of not renewing in some
countries is an important tool in renewal budget management that will not be available with a unitary patent,” he says. “I have urged the EPO to set the renewal fees
at a lower level, preferably ‘Top 3’, and review the situation aſt er fi ve years. T ere could not be a signifi cant loss in renewal fee income during that time [for the EPO] and the fees could be adjusted—if necessary.” T at
view was echoed by the American
Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), which sent a letter to Battistelli and Jérôme Debrulle, chair of the AC’s select committee, in response to the proposals.
Table 1: Proposed models for unitary patent renewal fees
Year Top 4 (€)
2 350 3 465 4 580 5 810 6 855 7 900 8 970 9 1,020 10 1,175 11 1,460 12 1,775 13 2,105 14 2,455 15 2,830 16 3,240 17 3,640 18 4,055 19 4,455 20 4,855 Total 37,995
Source: Meissner Bolte
Top 5 (€)
350 465 580 810 880 950
1,110 1,260 1,475 1,790 2,140 2,510 2,895 3,300 3,740 4,175 4,630 5,065 5,500
43,625
Top 5 (reduced) (€)
262.50 348.75 435.00 607.50 660.00 712.50 832.50 945.00
1,106.25 1,790 2,140 2,510 2,895 3,300 3,740 4,175 4,630 5,065 5,500
35,745 In its letter, the AIPLA said it also preferred a
Top 3 proposal and that it “continued to object” to the Top 4 and Top 5 models “even with a reduction for SMEs”, as the proposals are “too costly to be attractive for a signifi cant number” of users. T e letter, sent on March 19, said:
“Unfortunately, we have not seen any analysis that would support the assertion that the level of unitary patent renewal fees suggested in the proposal would be attractive to SMEs, even with the proposed reduction. “As with other users, validation of a European
patent in individual states participating in the London Agreement, with the opportunity to selectively abandon in some states to control costs, is likely to be more attractive to patentees in those categories than either alternative in the proposals.” But Debrulle tells WIPR that while Top 4 and
Top 5 are the two current proposals, alternative models are “of course possible”. “Member states will need to conduct their
consultations on the proposals, and it does need to be attractive for users.” Debrulle says a fi nal decision is expected by the end of June.
www.worldipreview.com
17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100