Goldilocks 2: Return to the bear pit - is the European Patent Office gearing up for the Unitary patent?
The story of Goldilocks is familiar to all. A little blonde girl breaks into a house (probably causing criminal damage) belonging to a bear family, trespasses, steals food, then runs away when the owners return. As the first ever recipient of an ASBO, she certainly is a wonderful role model for young children.
 |
| There is no contest between Kat and Bear |
Current provisions
Rule 6(3) of the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention (EPC) will be amended from its current guise:
Where a person referred to in Article 14, paragraph 4, files a European patent application, a request for examination, an opposition, an appeal, a petition for review or a request for limitation or revocation in a language admitted in that provision, the filing fee, examination fee, opposition fee, appeal fee, fee for the petition for review or the limitation or revocation fee shall be reduced in accordance with the Rules relating to Fees.
Article 14, paragraph 4 EPC applies to natural or legal persons (or any sized bears) having residence in a contracting state, or nationals of a contracting state, filing the stated documents in an official language of that contracting state that is not English, French or German.
Article 14(1) of the Rules relating to fees (here) allows a 20% reduction in fees for persons in the category described in Rule 6(3) and A14(4).
Proposed change
Rule 6(3) of the Implementing Regulation to the EPC will be amended to remove the reduction in fees for filing an opposition, an appeal, a petition for review or a request for limitation or revocation in a non-official language, leaving a reduction available only in the filing and examination fees. This, thinks the IPKat, is rather mean.
Rule 6 will be supplemented with the further provisions of:
(4) The reduction referred to in paragraph 3 shall be available for:
(a) small and medium-sized enterprises;
(b) natural persons; or
(c) non-profit organisations, universities or public research organisations.
(5) For the purposes of paragraph 4(a), Commission recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises as published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 124, p. 36 of 20 May 2003 shall apply.
(6) An applicant wishing to benefit from the fee reduction referred to in paragraph 3 shall declare himself to be an entity or a natural person within the meaning of paragraph 4. In case of reasonable doubt as to the veracity of such declaration, the Office may require evidence.
(7) In case of multiple applicants, each applicant shall be an entity or a natural person within the meaning of paragraph 4.
Unlucky daddy bear!
Small and medium sized enterprises will still be able to take advantage of the reduction of fees (increased to 30%) by filing in a non-official language. So, even meaner, although the fee reduction is somewhat larger, the category of eligible recipients of the fee reduction has been severely reduced.
This Kat is getting a severe case of déjà vu: he has seen something resembling new Rule 6(4) before.
Unitary Patent
A quick look to Article 5 of Council Regulation 1260/2012 relating to Unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements provides the answer:
Reimbursement of all translation costs up to a ceiling are available for applicants filing patent applications at the EPO in one of the official languages of the Union that is not an official language of the EPO.
Article 5(2) states that the compensation will only be available for "SMEs, natural persons, non-profit organisations, Universities and the public research organisations having their residence or principal place of business within a Member State" - precisely the same categories as in new Rule 6.
The original intention of drafters of the EPC that the EPO should avoid enquiries into the nature of the applicant (see for example Article 60(3) EPC) seems to be slipping away, and the EPO must now dip their fingers into the murky world of assessing whether a company is a SME or daddy bear in disguise.
Many thanks to Roufousse T. Fairfly who bisected comments from other users such as: “It bothers me that whiners such as yourself…” and “Do you really not see how wrong this is, or do you just not care?” by providing an interesting and insightful comment on the present issue. Many thanks also to Paul Beynon for co-authorship and ever more colourful metaphors.
The original intention of drafters of the EPC that the EPO should avoid enquiries into the nature of the applicant (see for example Article 60(3) EPC) seems to be slipping away, and the EPO must now dip their fingers into the murky world of assessing whether a company is a SME or daddy bear in disguise.
Many thanks to Roufousse T. Fairfly who bisected comments from other users such as: “It bothers me that whiners such as yourself…” and “Do you really not see how wrong this is, or do you just not care?” by providing an interesting and insightful comment on the present issue. Many thanks also to Paul Beynon for co-authorship and ever more colourful metaphors.
