Leave a comment

Report from the 99th Council Meeting held on 10 May 2025 in Vilnius (Lithuania)

M. Névant (FR)

1/ Meeting opening

President Peter THOMSEN (CH) opened the meeting at 9 am and welcomed the participants. A test vote was conducted (125 voters were present then) and scrutineers were appointed.

2/ Adoption of the agenda

The provisional agenda was adopted with amendments. As agreed in the previous Council meeting even though the order of some items may be shifted, their numbering will remain unchanged for practical purposes.

3/ Adoption of the minutes of the 98th Council meeting

The minutes with proposed amendments were adopted by acclamation.

4/ Matters arising from the decisions and actions recorded during said meetings and previous Council and Board meetings

The matters arising from previous decisions were as listed in the accumulated file.

5/ Confirmation of the list of nominations for elections to Committees

The list of nominations was confirmed for the following Committees: Biotechnology Committee, epi-Finances Committee, European Patent Practice Committee, European Patent Practice Committee Techn. Group Mechanics, Professional Education Committee, Professional Conduct Committee, Electoral Committee.

6/ Report of the Litigation Committee

Mr FINNILÄ (FI), the Chair of the Litigation Committee (Litcom), gave a presentation on recent decisions from the UPC dealing with representation and the transition regime competence.

In case 563/2024 (Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy vs Microsoft Corporation), the UPC Court of Appeal held that No corporate representative of a legal person or any other natural person who has extensive administrative and financial powers within the legal person, whether as a result of holding a high-level management or administrative position or holding a significant amount of shares in the legal person, may serve as a representative of that legal person, regardless of whether said corporate representative of the legal person or natural person is qualified to act as a UPC representative in accordance with Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA.

In case 489/2023 (AIM Sport Vision AG vs Supponor Oy/Limited/SASU/Italia SRL/España SL), the UPC analysed the object and purpose of Art. 83 UPCA – which article sets out the transitional regime that applies after the entry into force of the UPC, as from 1 June 2023. The Court held that the sentence “Unless an action has already been brought before a national court” in Art. 83(4) UPCA must be understood to refer to an action brought before a national court during the transitional regime (i.e. not an action brought before a national Court before June 1, 2023).

Mr FINNILÄ (FI) also reported on improvements made to the CMS thanks to a collaboration between the UPC, the EPO and users of the system (the efforts of which are coordinated by epi). It will normally be possible to login to the CMS using a 2FA system in addition to a smartcard. The ‘new’ CMS is planned to be launched around July 2025.

7/ Motion Mr SCHOBER: to oppose the publication of a representative list containing legal practitioners according to Article 134(8) EPC

Mr SCHOBER (DE) presented a motion to oppose the plan by the EPO to integrate, at the end of the year, legal practitioners authorized under Article 134(8) EPC into the new searchable database for the list of professional representatives (available on the EPO website).

  • the loss of the signalling value of the EQE is evident once both categories of professionals are searchable in the same database. This will result in the loss of the EQE’s visible quality feature. The future of the EQE is however a really important issue. If there is no longer any incentive to take the EQE, this could reduce motivation to sit the demanding exam and, in the long term, affect the supply of technically skilled patent specialists.
  • A joint register obscures the different rules governing discipline, liability and confidentiality that continue to apply to the two groups.

A vote then ensued on the motion which read as follows:
The Council hereby calls upon the European Patent Office and the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation to take particularly note of the following points:

  1. The inclusion of legal practitioners in the new representative list should be suspended;
  2. A comprehensive risk-and-impact analysis should be conducted, in conjunction with epi and the national chambers of legal practitioners, prior to any future implementation;
  3. A clear labelling system should be implemented in the public register that distinguishes “European Patent Attorney” under Article 134(2) EPC from “Legal Practitioner” under Art. 134(8) EPC.

The motion was adopted with 97% in favour and 3% against.

8/ Establishment of a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee

Ms SAHLIN (FI) and Mr NEVANT (FR) presented, on behalf of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group, a proposal to establish a permanent Committee to handle Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) matters within the Institute. The presentation included a brief recap of the history and actions of the WG since its creation in September 2021. Ms SAHLIN and Mr NEVANT explained that upon establishing a DEI Committee, epi Council would inter alia provide formal recognition and authority of the WG, a structured approach and accountability, for example for contacts with the EPO, a strategic integration into epi organization, with a democratic electoral process of members of the Committee, and a sustained focus and commitment. The proposed Terms of Reference of the Committee were also presented.

The following motions were submitted to a vote.

Motion 1: Does Council agree to set up a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Committee?
The motion was adopted with 73% in favour and 27% against.

Motion 2: Does Council approve the Terms of Reference of the DEI Committee?
The motion was adopted with 81% in favour and 19% against.

Motion 3: Does Council agree that the DEI Committee will start its work once the members have been elected at autumn Council Meeting 2025 with a term that will end at the autumn Council meeting 2026, and that the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group will continue their work until the election of the DEI Committee’s members?
The motion was adopted with 86% in favour and 14% against.

9/ Amendments of the Code of Conduct (CoC)

Ms STORK (DE), the Chair of the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC), presented a proposal for amendments of the Code of Conduct concerning (i) file keeping (Art. 4(h)), (ii) file transfer (Art. 5(d)), and (iii) removal of language inconsistencies (e.g. Art. 3(c), 4(a), 5(a), 5(c) and CoC subtitle).

Council voted on the proposed changes which were adopted with 90% in favour and 10% against. The revised CoC will soon be available on the epi website (once published in the EPO Official Journal).

10/ Report of the Disciplinary Committee

Mr FRÖHLING (DE), the Deputy Chair of the Disciplinary Committee (DC), gave an update on the current activities of the Committee, including their forthcoming annual meeting, a newly appointed Deputy Registrar, statistics on appeals against DC decisions, and the status of the revision of the Additional Rules of Procedure (of the Committee) on which Council members were given the opportunity to comment.

11/ Revision of the disciplinary system

Mr CHECCACCI (IT) gave a brief update, on behalf of the Disciplinary System Working Group (DS WG), on progress made since the WG was established. epi and the EPO have agreed to have an independent body carry out a study of the disciplinary system. It appears that interviews have been planned – Mr CHECCACCI had personally yet to be contacted.

12/ Presentation of the Annual Report 2024.

The Report had been made available to Council members in advance of the meeting and was approved by acclamation.

13/ Update from the 2nd basket IPREE/REE Working Group

Ms GUÐMUNDSDÓTTIR (IS) and Mr LIOUMBIS (GR) reported, on behalf of the 2nd Basket WG, on the status of the review of the IPREE which, Council members were informed, is almost complete. Still outstanding is the review of Rules 14 and 17 IPREE. A presentation was given on Rule 14 which deals with the cases where candidates can enrol for the EQE even though the requirements of Rule 11 IPREE are not met. Ms GUÐMUNDSDÓTTIR and Mr LIOUMBIS proposed different options to introduce intermediate provisions in Rule 14. The following motions were accordingly submitted to a vote.

Motion 1a

  • Does Council agree that the following principles apply when a candidate possesses a university * qualification* but the amount of scientific or technical content does not satisfy 144 ECTS credits in Rule 11 IPREE:

    • a) the requirements would be met if a candidate has:

      • 115–143 scientific/technical ECTS credits + 2 years of additional experience in the professional activities defined in Article 11(2)(b)(i) or (ii) REE
      • 90–114 scientific/technical ECTS credits + 4 years of additional experience in the professional activities defined in Article 11(2)(b)(i) or (ii) REE

The motion was rejected with 49% in favour and 51% against.

Motion 1b

  • Does Council agree that the following principles apply when a candidate possesses a university * qualification* but the amount of scientific or technical content does not satisfy 144 ECTS in Rule 11 IPREE:

    • a) the requirements would be met if a candidate has:

      • 115–143 scientific/technical ECTS credits + 2 years of: additional experience in the professional activities defined in Article 11(2)(b)(i) or (ii) REE; or other verifiable scientific/technical activities
      • 90–114 scientific/technical ECTS credits + 4 years of: additional experience in the professional activities defined in Article 11(2)(b)(i) or (ii) REE; or other verifiable scientific/technical activities

The motion was rejected with 39% in favour and 61% against.

Motion 2

  • Does Council agree that the following principle applies for candidates with non-traditional scientific/technical career paths:

    • Candidates with non-traditional scientific/technical career paths may be exceptionally considered to fulfill the requirements on the basis of evidence provided by the candidate proving an equivalent level of scientific/technical knowledge as in Rules 11-13

The motion was rejected with 38% in favour and 62% against.

14/ Update on the Candidate Support Program (CSP)

Ms GWILT (GB), the Chair of the Professional education Committee (PEC) gave a presentation on the new CSP which starts in 2025 to support candidates sitting the new EQE and which is intended to provide inter alia the following benefits:

  • 140 hours of coaching over 3 years to provide support for sitting F, M1, M2, M3 and M4.
  • Cost of external courses covered.
  • Examination fees will be covered.
  • Purchase of materials at least in part covered.

14 EPC members states (CY, CZ, EE, GR, HU, IS, ME, MK, NO, PT, RS, SI, SK, TR) are eligible to propose up to 4 candidates, the other members states are eligible to propose up to 2 candidates. Eligibility is based on two criteria: representation (% of national profession that is EQE qualified) and gender balance (% of women in national profession).

The timeline is quite tight:

  1. From 08 July 2025 - candidate must enrol in paper F or M1 and M2;
  2. Deadline 15 August 2025 - enrolled candidates apply to their national patent office;
  3. Deadline 8 September 2025 - the national patent offices select the candidates for CSP;
  4. September 2025 - EPO contacts selected candidates to arrange formalities;
  5. October 2025 - Kick-off meeting.

15/ Update on the implementation of the EQE reform

Vice-President Tiem REIJNS (NL) informed Council members that as of 2025, 3000 candidates “digitally” passed the EQE. This year was the first time module F was sat, the pass rate is about 80% (the module has two parts, and candidates had to have at least 70% of correct answers for each part).

16/ Update on divisional applications

Mr van WOUDENBERG (NL) presented, on behalf of an ad hoc created Working Group, the position paper prepared on this topic. epi’s position is that the divisional application system, as is, works well and is based on rules established by the Paris Convention. There are many instances where the use of the divisional application system is essential for the development of the economy in Europe. Divisional applications are also useful in the field of licensing, which can contribute significantly to economic activity. This is particularly important for SMEs who may be able to finance the development of one invention using licence fees for another invention. In any case, the legitimate use of the divisional application system represents the norm while a mis-use of said system is rare if not exceptional. In this respect, the one Commission decision known to date is under appeal, the outcome of which remains to be seen.

Mr van WOUDENBERG concluded his presentation by saying that in order to preserve the overall satisfactory functioning of the divisional application system and its clear benefits – particularly for European SMEs – disruptive changes should be avoided. Improvement to the current system could though be contemplated while maintaining the balance of the system as a whole.

The following motion was then submitted to a vote: “Does Council agree with the position paper on divisional applications?” The motion was adopted with 81% in favour and 19% against.

17/ Report on G2/24

Mr MERCER (GB) as Chair of EPPC summarized the amicus curiae brief submitted on this case. The referred question is whether after withdrawal of all appeals, the proceedings may be continued with a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings, and in particular whether the third party may acquire an appellant status corresponding to the status of a person entitled to appeal within the meaning of Article 107, first sentence, EPC.

epi’s view is that the question should be answered as follows:
After withdrawal of all appeals by other opposing parties, the proceedings may be continued by a third party who admissibly intervened during the appeal proceedings, provided that the third party paid the appeal fee and filed a notice and statement of appeal. If the third party did not pay the appeal fee, the third party cannot continue the appeal proceedings if all opposing appeals are withdrawn. In particular, if the third party files an admissible appeal and, in particular, pays the appeal fee, the third party shall acquire opponent-appellant status under Article 107, first sentence, EPC.

18/ Motion Mr van WOUDENBERG et al: Format of the Guidelines

Mr van WOUDENBERG (NL) reports to Council that while the EPC Guidelines (2025) and PCT-EPO Guidelines (2025) have, as before, been published as pdf and HTML, both in clean and show-modifications versions, the EPO has indicated (in the preparatory documents for the SACEPO WP/G meeting of 8 May 2025) that they intend to discontinue the publication of all Guidelines in pdf as of 2026 and that they will only be published in HTML. Considering that there is a clear and strong need for a continued availability of pdf versions of all three Guidelines, in additional to the HTML format, the following motion was submitted to a vote:

  • “Does Council (i) agree that:
  1. The Unitary Patent Guidelines (2025) shall also be published in pdf;
  2. The EPC Guidelines, the PCT-EPO Guidelines and the Unitary Patent Guidelines shall continue to be published as pdf in 2026 and thereafter, in addition to the HTML format;
  3. Both pdf and HTML versions shall also be published in a form that easily allows to identify modifications relative to the previous edition (as is currently done in the pdf and HTML versions of the EPC Guidelines and the PCT-EPO Guidelines), as well as, if introduced, intermediate updates (as is currently under discussion at the EPO and in SACEPO WP/G);
    and (ii) request the EPO to publish the Unitary Patent Guidelines (2025) also in pdf format, and to continue publishing all three Guidelines (the EPC Guidelines, the PCT-EPO Guidelines and the UP Guidelines), in clean and show-modification versions, also in pdf format in 2026 and beyond?““

The motion was unanimously adopted (100% in favour).

19/ Report of the Treasurer – Presentation of the annual accounts 2024

The Treasurer, Mr SZENTPETERI (HU), presented the 2024 financial performance of the Institute. The financial year 2024 closed with a significant surplus of EUR 996,000, which is nearly EUR 600,000 higher than the originally planned surplus of EUR 407,000. While revenues were 4.7% lower than anticipated – mainly due to reduced income from educational activities and fewer events related to the EPO EQE - the overall financial outcome was nonetheless positive, largely due to substantial savings on the expense side, in particular savings in Secretariat costs. Another factor that positively influenced the financial outcome was the favourable stock market environment which enabled the Institute to record substantial writebacks on its investment portfolio.

Mr SZENTPETERI also presented the current financial situation and outlook for 2025. The main points to note are as follows:

  • the majority of the annual subscription income has been received, with a recurring pattern of late payments observed;
  • no significant deviations from the approved budget for 2025 are anticipated for the first half of the year;
  • the expenditure remains broadly in line with the expectations (although unexpected developments can arise at any time);
  • a particular point of attention is the planned implementation of the new Secretariat structure especially with regard to personnel matters and the IT field;
  • the 2025 budget was constructed with such contingencies ensuring the financial stability.

20/ Report of the Auditors for the accounting year 2024

The Auditors, Ms JANKOVIC (RS), Mr KLEY (CH) and Mr HEDENETZ (AT), reported that they had problems to get access to documents of the Accounting Department, but that the matter was resolved after a discussion with the Board. Apart from a number of rebookings necessitated by incoming invoices with a wrong percentage of a tax (Umsatzsteuer), no other significant findings could be detected. The Auditors also recommended that the investments be more diversified and that an additional bank should be selected for payment transactions.

Overall, the Auditors concluded that the bookkeeping complied with the rules (Handelsgesetzbuch, HGB).

21/ Report of the epi-Finances Committee

Mr QUINTELIER (BE), the Chair of the epi-Finances Committee, reported that the Committee met with the Treasurer, the Deputy Treasurer, the Auditors and their substitutes, the Head of Finance and representatives of the Professional Education Committee, to review the 2024 financial situation of the Institute.

The Committee was satisfied that the financial situation was in line with plans presented in previous meetings and supported the adoption of the Treasurer’s report. Based on the information presented the Committee was happy to approve discharging of the Treasurer’s responsibility for the 2024 financial year.

22/ Decision on Release of the Treasurer pursuant to Article 21.3 By-Laws

Council unanimously released the Treasurer.

23/ Approval of the accounts and the administration of assets for 2024

Council unanimously approved the accounts of AY2024. Council also approved the administration of assets for AY2024 with 99% in favour and 1% against.

24/ Decision on release of members of the Board, and in particular the Treasurer, from liability

Council released members of the Board, in particular the Treasurer, from liability with 98% in favour and 2% against.

25/ Motion of NL delegation members: proposal to limit the term of the Chair of epi Committees to a maximum of three terms - Moutard motion - Martinsson motion

The object of the motion tabled by some members of the NL delegation is a proposal to amend Article 18B.2 of the By-Laws whereby the function of Chair of a Committee would be limited to three consecutive terms..

In the first place Council rejected (43% in favour, 57% against) a procedural motion to postpone any decision on the number of term of the Chairs of Committees until C100. Council then adopted (83% in favour, 17% against) a procedural motion to vote on the NL delegation motion first and then on the entry into force of provisions.

The rationale behind the proposal of the NL Delegation members motion triggered a lot of (sometimes heated) exchanges between supporters and opponents of the proposal. The following question was then submitted to a vote:

Does Council agree to amend Article 18B.2 of the By-Laws as proposed?
64% were in favour and 36% were against. Since the required 2/3 majority was not obtained, the motion was rejected.

Mr MOUTARD (FR, acting as Council member and not as Chair of the By-Laws Committee) then proposed three alternatives to the NL delegation motion, and eventually withdrew his motions. The withdrawal was accepted by Council (61% in favour, 39% against).

Mr MARTINSSON (SE) in turn proposed a new motion, the text of which mimicked that of the rejected NL motion. This new motion was rejected (62% were in favour and 38% were against but the required 2/3 majority was not obtained).

26/ Amendments of Collection of Decision (CoD) Rule 3.3.4

Mr MARX (DE), the Chair of the Committees Election Committee (CEC), presented proposed amendments to the Rules for Committees elections, concerning in particular:

  • Quorum and Substitution Rules;
  • Clarification of the Preferred Candidate Mechanism (for Committees with a large pool of candidates);
  • Clarification of the Factual Link Requirement (for Committees facing a shortage of candidates).

Mr MARX also presented a projected amended timeline for running the elections in 2026.

Council adopted the proposed amendments with 87% in favour and 13% against.

27/ Election of Committees members

Council elected members in the following Committees having vacancies: Biotechnology Committee, epi-Finances Committee, European Patent Practice Committee, European Patent Practice Committee Techn. Group Mechanics, Professional Education Committee, Professional Conduct Committee. Council also elected the members of the Electoral Committee. The updated list of Committee members is available on the epi website.

28/ Questions on written report of President and Vice-Presidents. Questions on written report of Secretary General

No questions were asked.

29/ AOB

No additional topics were raised.

30/ Review of decisions and actions to be taken of the present meeting. Closing of meeting

Secretary General Magdalena AUGUSTYNIAK (PL) read the list of decisions and actions taken during the meeting. President Peter THOMSEN then officially closed the meeting at 7:10 pm.

99th Council Meeting held on 10 May 2025 in Vilnius

Comments

Imprint Privacy Policy