ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL
Reports on meetings of the Administrative Council
Report on the 46th meeting of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation (8 to 11 December 1992)
The Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation held its 46th (ordinary) meeting in Munich from 8 to 11 December 1992 under the chairmanship of Mr Jean-Claude COMBALDIEU (FR), with Mr José MOTA MAIA (PT) officiating as Deputy Chairman for the first time following his election last June. It was also the first ordinary meeting of the Administrative Council to be attended by Ireland.
Mr Paul BRAENDLI, President of the European Patent Office, presented his report on the Office's activities in the second half of 1992.
The President commenced his report with a reference to the fifteenth anniversary of the opening of the European Patent Office, which had been marked by the first EPOSIUM on "Genetic engineering - The New Challenge". The tone of the event had been balanced and non-argumentative and the internationally respected experts on the panel had spoken with great authority on the scientific, technical, ethical and legal aspects of genetic engineering. In its fifteenth year the Office had published the 500 000th European patent application and granted the 200 000th European patent.
The President then reported on the filing figures, noting that the number of applications in 1992 was 3.7% more than the forecast figure. Of these, 46 000 were European and 24 500 Euro-PCT filings. The number of Euro-PCT applications entering the regional phase would come to about 13 000 (7.1% fewer than forecast). Output targets had generally been met. The European search backlog had been reduced to 8 000 and was set to be eliminated by the end of 1993. The backlog of first communications in the examination procedure, which had grown to 46 000, should have been eliminated by 1997. The substantial increase in the backlog of appeals would require the appointment of temporary members to the Boards, as well as other suitable action.
On the subject of grant and appeal procedures, the President indicated that efforts to improve harmonisation and quality control had been continued throughout the period covered by the report. As a further measure to promote quality control, staff exchanges had taken place between the Office on the one hand and patent departments in industry and professional representatives on the other, in the hope that the two sides would become better acquainted with each other's work. At its "Summer Academy 1992" at The Hague, DG 1 had given eleven trainees from the patent attorneys' profession and patent departments in industry three weeks of training in search techniques. Sixteen other trainees spent a month in either DG 1, DG 2 or DG 3 familiarising themselves with their trainers' day-to-day work to obtain a grounding in their methods. In turn, examiners at the EPO had received further training in the form of placements with professional representatives or in patent departments in industry. Nine examiners had been sent on one-month placements.
The President also informed the Council that he had commissioned Mr GOLDRIAN to carry out a study of user acceptance and recognition of European patents granted by the EPO's electricity directorates.
The President mentioned the 6th Symposium of European Patent Judges, which had taken place at The Hague from 8 to 11 September at the invitation of the Netherlands government. The symposium had been attended by judges from 14 of the EPO Contracting States and, for the first time, by judges from the new Contracting States of Portugal and Ireland, together with members of the EPO Boards of Appeal, a representative of the European Court of Justice and the Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The symposium had given rise to lively discussions which would help promote the harmonisation of patent case law in Europe. For the first time, the symposium had been split up into three study groups dealing with a specific case.
Turning to patent information policy, the President noted the continued co-operation with national Offices and with the libraries of the Contracting States. The PATLIB 92 meeting had been attended by representatives of 130 libraries which, together with the national Offices, were responsible for disseminating patent information. The 1992 EPIDOS Users' Meeting had taken place from 30 September to 2 October. With approximately 300 participants, it had been an even bigger success than last year's meeting. In addition to staging a presentation of information products -entirely new ones and others which were already available - the Office had organised a discussion on the subject of "Patent Information in Central and Eastern Europe".
Moving on to legal matters and international affairs, the President first of all commented on his dissatisfaction with the results of the Qualifying Examination for professional representatives, in which there was a pass rate of only one in three. The results were currently being analysed by the Office and measures would be implemented to ensure a higher pass rate for nationals of all Contracting States. Regarding technical co-operation, he mentioned the success of the most recent Trilateral Conference, held in Washington, and emphasised the importance of the EASY project on electronic filing. Further progress had been made in technical co-operation with the countries of central and eastern Europe, specifically Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia. In October the Office had signed an agreement with these five countries on an optical-disc project known as ESPACE-PRECES (Patents from the Region of Eastern and Central European States). Co-ordinating its efforts with those of Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway, the Office had also established contacts with the Baltic States. The officials responsible for industrial property in Slovenia, Croatia and Byelorussia had made initial contacts with the EPO.
The Council approved the 1991 accounts and, having discussed the auditors' report and heard the opinion of the Budget and Finance Committee, discharged the President for the 1991 accounting period. The Council then adopted the 1993 budget, which balanced at DEM 1 065 million, and approved the financial plan for 1994-1997. It also approved the table of posts envisaging a staff complement of 3 908.
The Council expressed its approval of two regional programmes designed to strengthen industrial property systems, as proposed by the EC Commission. One of these is intended for specified countries in central and eastern Europe under the PHARE scheme, while the other has been devised for the ASEAN countries. It was also in favour of plans to provide assistance in two specific areas to the Chinese Patent Office. The Council authorised the President to enter into negotiations with Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the Republic of Slovenia with a view to concluding co-operation agreements. It further authorised him to conclude an agreement between the European Patent Organisation and the Centre d'Etudes Internationales de la Propriété Industrielle (CEIPI) on a training programme to be known as "EURO-CEIPI".
The Council was informed of the results of the 10th annual Trilateral Conference held in Washington by the EPO, the JPO and the USPTO on 22 October 1992.
The Council approved the automation plan for the period 1993 to 1997 and issued the necessary authorisations for its implementation, particularly in relation to the 1993 budget. It also approved a number of contracts (production of microfilm aperture cards for European patent applications and patent specifications, CD-ROM production, production and supply of microfiches).
The Council renewed the Research Fund of the European Patent Organisation and allocated a further DEM 1 million for a second period of five years. The Research Fund was set up to promote studies and research on the protection of inventions, especially by means of patents in Europe.
The Council approved the establishment of a system of fixed-term contracts to supplement the existing categories of conditions of employment at the European Patent Office. Such contracts may be concluded for a maximum term of five years, extendable in exceptional cases by no more than two years.
On a proposal from the President, the Council decided to appoint several members of Boards of Appeal and reappoint others, and to appoint one member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.