Report of the Disciplinary Committee

Tasks of the Disciplinary Committee

First half of First Instance in Disciplinary Proceedings
Clarification and collection of facts
Mediation where possible
Providing disciplinary judgements on a first level
Forwarding cases for severe punishments to the more powerful Disciplinary Board (DB)
Assisting epi’s standing in the public and serving the Members in order to maintain the high reputation of our profession

Overview

The Disciplinary Committee (DC) operates within the structure of the epi, alongside the Administrative Council, the Boards of Appeal, the Disciplinary Board (DB), and the epi Council (39 Members, budget (currently less than 1% of the epi Membership fees), important cases).

Current Activities of the DC Last DC Meeting

The DCmeeting took place in Milano on 3 and 4 June 2025.
3 June: 09:00–18:00 meeting/training, Chamber meetings, and common dinner in the evening.
4 June: 09:00–12:30 meeting.
The training covered two areas:
- Natural principles of law
- How to find the truth (tips and psychological considerations from daily police work)

Administrative and Legal Support by the epi Secretariat

Despite some organizational changes within the epi Secretariat, the administrative and legal support for the DC by Registrar and Legal Advisor functions is ensured by corresponding new appointments.

New Additional Rules of Procedure of the Disciplinary Committee

After the Budapest Council, the Disciplinary Committee reconsidered all proposals from the PCC and epi President Peter Thomsen, as well as the discussion at the Budapest Council, and reworked the proposed text accordingly. The final version was approved unanimously by the DC . This final version was sent to the Disciplinary Board of Appeal (DBoA) for their final check and also to the epi Council, where it is currently available in a Forum blog through the epi homepage. The epi Council in Budapest had asked the Disciplinary Committee to submit any version approved by the DC to epi Council to allow the epi Council to give a detailed opinion before it is presented to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation for approval. The discussion in this Forum was finished by the May 2025 Council. The DC will consider all proposals.

In accordance with the Regulation on Discipline, the DBoA is the only body who can propose amendments of the ARoPoDC as elaborated by the DC to the deciding body, being the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation for final decision and approval. The process of changing the ARoPoDC is now temporarily stopped by the DBoA on the bases that an entire overhaul of the disciplinary framework – as currently under discussion - is likely to require further amendments to the Additional Rules of Procedure of the Disciplinary Committee. To avoid that two different sets of amendments to the Additional Rules of Procedure of the Disciplinary Committee need to be submitted to the Administrative Council and, considering possible overlap in the transitional provisions, to avoid that there is unclarity on which version of the provisions are applicable in a certain case, the Chair of the Disciplinary Board of Appeal has decided to await the outcome of the revision of the entire framework for disciplinary proceedings relating to professional representatives before submitting to the Administrative Council the proposed amendments to the Additional Rules of Procedure of the Disciplinary Committee.

An external expert in professional disciplinary matters has been contracted jointly by the EPO and epi to review the current Disciplinary System and a possible amendment of the Disciplinary System has been included into the working program of the Administrative Council for 2025.

Before the process was paused:

The last version of the ARoPoDC was with the DBoA, which examined the proposal regarding compatibilty with other, especially higher-ranking laws, performed a legal language checks and kindly offered assistance for the necessary other language versions.

The epi Council received the final version and could present comments from 20.12.2024 until 25.3.2025. If further amendments were necessary, the DC would meet and decide 5 days after the epi Council in Vilnius. After the last Board Meeting, some postings were filed with the Forum. At Board Meeting B133, questions of anonymous complaints were discussed.

Comment of the DC-Chair on the Discussion about Possible Amendments of the Disciplinary System

A significant and welcome step towards improving the Disciplinary system has already been taken at the EPO internal level by separating the DB from the legal department to improve the DB´s independence. it can also be hoped that pendency times of disciplinary cases at DB will be shortened by this change

The allocation of time for cases should now not conflict with other workload of a legal department.

One can expect from this development a much faster procedure at DB level, eventually as fast as the DC delivers its decisions (within 5–15 months).

Conclusion from the Perspective of the DC

While a reform of the disciplinary system may appear helpful to improve independence and efficiency the democratic structure of the Disciplinary Committee should be maintained as an important element of self-regulation and representation.

A careful balance between modernization and preservation of proven structures is required to create a system that is both efficient and accepted by all stakeholders

The initiative in disciplinary matters should be hosted in an independent epi body like the DC, because only such correlates with a high standing, trustworthy international profession. The epi can regulate itself (that means the only one international/European profession) in disciplinary matters with an independent democratically elected body consisting of epi Members.

Statistical Information about Appeals against DC Decisions

Out of the last 10 appealed cases:

1 Appeal is still pending
1 Appeal set aside the DC-Decision
1 Appeal set aside the DB-Decision
1 Appeal was partially rejected as inadmissible and partially set aside the DC-Decision
6 Appeals were rejected as inadmissible or unallowable

Disciplinary Committee Status End of 2024

Statistical Information about Participation of the DC at epi Meetings

Participation of the DC at Council Meetings (last 10 years)

Note: 2021/2022 were online meetings with reduced possibilities for reports due to medical reasons (absence of Paul R. and Werner F.).

Interesting New Case from Daily DC Work

A complaint was filed, seemingly conflicting with the epi Code of Conduct (CoC): One epi Member filed a complaint against another epi Member, without having contacted the other epi Member beforehand.

In such cases, as usual, the DC Chair requested the Registrar to ask the complainant whether he/she followed Article 5a CoC:

5. Relations with other Members
(a) A Member must observe good fellowship towards other Members, including courtesy and the fact that a Member may not speak of another Member in discourteous or offensive terms. Any grievance in respect of another Member should first be discussed in private with the other Member, either directly or through a third Member. If the grievance is not resolved, and only if necessary, the Member may file a complaint through the official channels prescribed by the Institute, in the Regulation on Discipline and in the Additional Rules of Procedure.

Only after clarification will the case be treated further unless there are good reasons to continue without such clarification.

The teaching background of this practice is: epi Members should not file complaints against other epi-Members unless they have contacted them in line with Article 5a CoC. Exemptions are a matter for the respective Chamber.

Remark: under certain circumstances the DC and its Chambers respectively may deviate from this provision as the case may be e.g. when clients interests are endangered and/or when communication between Complainer and Respondent seem impossible.

Interesting Topics from Case-Related Discussions with the DC-Chair

Party Betrayal (German Practice – National Law)

The instrument of party betrayal can also be used against patent attorneys.
The offense of party betrayal under Section 356 of the German Criminal Code covers not only lawyers but also other legal advisors, explicitly including patent attorneys.
Patent attorneys fall under the category of offenders under Section 356 of the German Criminal Code, as they work as specialized legal advisors in the field of intellectual property rights. They are subject to the same professional and criminal law obligations as lawyers when it comes to representing conflicting interests.
The Chair of the DC sees no reason not to apply such thinking also at DC-level against epi Members who become Respondents.

Example of Possible Party Betrayal by a Patent Attorney

In 2017, a Munich patent attorney allegedly fleeced a public research institute of a three-digit million amount by diverting proceeds from licensing agreements indirectly to his own account. The suspicion was, among other things, that he had acted as a representative of the research institute and as a representative of his own company in dealings with a patent exploitation company.
In general, a patent attorney may not represent conflicting interests in at least partially identical life situations. This corresponds to the basic idea of party betrayal which is intended to protect trust in the integrity of the administration of justice and the independence of the legal professions.
It should be noted that, by chance, discussions about the independence of UPC representatives are currently ongoing at UPC level. Some decisions have already been given. It seems that after the UPC CoA handed down the Microsoft vs. Suinno decision it is clarified what the situation is.
Remark: The DC consists of Members from all EPC-Member States and hence input from national legislation enriches the views and understanding of the DC-Members.

Contact

In case of questions or proposals, the Officers of the DC and its Members may be contacted.

Every Member State is represented at the DC. The names of the DC-Members are mentioned at the end of the epi Information.

The DC is a unique independent international/European first instance disciplinary body for the only international/European profession of the European Patent Attorneys

Questions may also be addressed to the DC-Chairpersons

Paul Rosenich (rosenich@pprag.com)
Werner Fröhling (werner.froehling@swisskrono.com)