C I PA

The Chartered 

Institute

 of Patent Agents

Founded 1882 

- 

Royal Charter 

1891

The Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, 95 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1 DT

Telephone: 020 7405 9450 Facsimile: 020 7430 0471 E-mail: mail@cipa.org.uk Website: www.cipa.org.uk

Secretary & Registrar: Michael Ralph Institute Manager: Nicholas Pope

THE LONDON AGREEMENT

UK Patent Office Consultation

General Comments

CIPA strongly supports the London Agreement and would like to see it ratified and implemented as quickly as
possible so that users of the patent system can benefit from the significant cost savings that it will bring.
However, CIPA is not in favour of the UK abolishing the requirement for translations unilaterally or giving effect
to the Agreement in UK law in advance of the Agreement entering into force.

CIPA urges the UK to deposit its instrument of ratification with the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany, according to Art. 3(2) of the Agreement as soon as practicable. This would not bring the Agreement
into effect; that requires 8 states, including UK, France and Germany, to submit their instruments of ratification
or accession. However it would mean that the Agreement would enter into force as provided in Article 6 on the
first day of the fourth month after the deposit of the instrument of ratification or accession by the eighth of the
8 required states.

There are concerns that the Agreement may never take effect if countries such as France have problems with
ratification. In this case, users of the patent system would continue to bear the burden of high translation costs,
which can be prohibitive for SMEs in particular. There have been suggestions that in this case a similar
arrangement within a smaller group of countries might be beneficial. However, we believe that the UK should
ratify the Agreement now and see if this encourages other States. Indeed, we urge that all efforts are made to
persuade France in particular to ratify. If there is no progress after a reasonable period, say one year, CIPA would
support the UK engaging in discussions among a smaller or different group of countries.

Turning to implementation, we agree that this could be done by rule, as in Annex C of the consultation document
(Rule 2 of the draft ‘Patents (Translations) Rules 2004’). This provides that Section 77(6) shall cease to have
effect on the ‘appointed day’. However, it appears that the appointed day has been incorrectly defined in draft
Rule 1(2). Article 6 of the Agreement stipulates when it will enter into force. The appointed day in draft Rule
1(2) must be consistent with Article 6, so the new rules must be effective on the first day of the fourth month
after ratification or accession by the last of the 8 required states. As noted in the consultation paper, this is the
day when the revised German law will enter into force. The German government, EPO and the national patent
offices should make a prompt announcement once the deposit of the eighth required instrument or accession is
made so that patent applicants can plan for the Agreement coming into force.

The consultation paper deals with matters beyond the requirements of the London Agreement. We are
particularly concerned about draft Rule 3 which proposes that UK section 78(7), which implements EPC Art.
67, shall cease to have effect on the appointed day. Section 78(7) and EPC Art. 67 deal with translation into
English of the claims of an EP application published in French or German in order to secure provisional
protection. They are not concerned with translation of the specification after grant, which is the subject-matter
of the Agreement. If draft Rule 3 were implemented, provisional protection after publication would take effect
in the UK for EP applications published in French or German but there would be no reciprocity; UK companies
would still need to file French or German translations of the claims of their English language

applications in order to benefit from provisional protection in France or Germany. In any event, translations of
the claims of an allowed EP application into the other two official languages will still be required in order to
secure grant of a patent once the Agreement takes effect, so it seems entirely reasonable to us that translation
of the claims of a published application should still be required to secure provisional protection. In our view,
draft Rule 3 should not be made. However, if other countries were to agree to make similar changes so that UK
applicants could benefit from provisional protection elsewhere in Europe under EP applications published in
English without the need to translate the claims, the matter could be revisited.

Article 2 paragraph (a) of the Agreement provides for states to require a patent proprietor to supply a translation
of the specification to an alleged infringer. We agree that it is unnecessary to legislate on this at present. Our
position is that a translation of the patent in suit should be supplied by the proprietor in Court proceedings, and
that this will be provided for by Rules of the Court, as permitted under Article 2(b) of the Agreement.

The Consultation questions

1.

Please give your views on the proposed implementation with a delay in the in force date of
the London Agreement.

The UK should deposit its instrument of ratification as soon as possible. The implementing
Rules should be drafted to enter into force on the day that the Agreement enters into force:
the first day of the fourth month after the last of the eight required states has deposited its
instrument of notification or accession.

2.

Please give your views on the proposed Rule under Section 77(a) to appoint a day for
Section 77(6) to cease to have effect and to apply to all patents granted after the date
concerned as in the Agreement.

The ‘appointed day’ defined in proposed Rule 1(2) should be the day when the agreement
enters into force, not three months later than that. In other words, the appointed day should
be the first day of the fourth month after the last of the eight required states has deposited
its instrument of ratification or accession. The Rules should apply to all patents granted on
or after that date, so section 77(6) should cease to have effect on the day before that.

3.

Please give your views on what should be expected of parties in case of a dispute and how
this should be reflected in with notice hearings before the Office and under the Court
Procedure Rules. At what stage in a dispute should a translation be required?

We do not see a need for rules requiring a patent proprietor to supply a translation directly
to an alleged infringer. Good practice would lead a sensible proprietor to provide a
translation of at least the relevant parts of the specification with any notice alleging
infringement or suggesting negotiations. We expect that the other party will often choose
to have its own translation made.

The Patent Rules and Rules of Court should ensure that any patent specification submitted
to the Patent Office or to the Court by the proprietor in proceedings concerning that patent
should be accompanied by a translation. A reasonable period should be allowed for the
Office or Court and the other party to review the translation.

4.

Please give your views on what effect the non availability of a translation should have and
whether this is something that Judges would already take account of. If so, would parties
voluntarily send a translation to an alleged infringer so that there is no need for specific
provision to implement article 2(a).

See our comments under 3 above. The proprietor should supply a translation into English
of the patent in suit to the Court or Patent Office.

Regarding correspondence between the parties in advance of proceedings, we believe that

3

the proprietor will want to provide an alleged infringer with a translation of at least relevant
parts of the patent. We are also sure that the other party will obtain its own translation in
cases where precise meanings of words are important.

5.

Please give your views on the provisional protection in Section 78(7) between publication
and grant (Article 67 of the EPC) and the effect of this remaining as present, on filing of
translation of claims where they are not in English, or whether provisional protection
should be provided without English claims.

The Agreement does not deal with Article 67 EPC, so no change is required.  CIPA opposes
unilateral action by the UK regarding the abolition of translations. This would only benefit
applicants filing in French or German and would be disadvantageous to UK applicants.
However, if other states are prepared to abolish their equivalent provisions, the matter could
be revisited.

6.

Please give your views on whether the Patent Office could, as a consequence of translations
no longer being required, usefully provide any non-statutory service.

We do not see any benefit from the Patent Office providing non-statutory services, such as
acting as a depository for filing voluntary translations. Voluntary translations should not
serve any role in assisting patent proprietors to assert their rights, as this could defeat the
entire purpose of the Agreement.

7.

Please show how you rate the proposals relating to removing the requirement for
translations of patents granted by the European Patent Office.

The issue of ratification should have been separated from the issue of legislation to meet
the UK’s obligations under the Agreement. The document was confusing because the need
to link the effective date of new legislation with the date of entry into force of the
Agreement was not recognised. The issue of section 78(7) was not dealt with clearly and
no consideration was given to reciprocity.