Report of the Professional Conduct Committee
Summary of Activities
One of the key activities of the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) in recent months was the finalisation of amendments to the epi Code of Conduct with a focus on provisions for file keeping and file transfer. In addition, PCC hosted three webinars on professional conduct. Further activities included providing opinions in response to members’ enquiries regarding the permissibility of certain actions under the Code of Conduct, as well as supporting other epi bodies on matters related to professional conduct.
1. Amendments of the Code of Conduct (CoC)
After several years of dedicated work on a new provision for file keeping and an amendment to the existing provision on file transfer in the epi Code of Conduct, PCC is pleased to report that the proposed changes were adopted by epi Council in May 2025. The amended version of the Code of Conduct will soon be published in the Official Journal of the EPO.
New Provision on File Keeping – Art. 4(h) CoC: The new provision on file keeping specifies that a file must be retained for at least five years after the member’s responsibility for the respective case has ended. A member is discharged from this obligation upon having transferred the file to another Member or upon agreement with the Client or upon operation of law or by court order.
Amended Provision on File Transfer – Art. 5(d) CoC: The amended provision on file transfer clarifies, inter alia, that when a case is transferred to a new representative, information and documents that are freely and publicly accessible in an official or judicial electronic register do not need to be provided.
In addition, inconsistencies in language have been addressed, for example in Articles 3(c), 4(a), 5(a), 5(c), as well as in the English version of the full title of the Code of Conduct to align with the German and French titles – now specified as “Code of Professional Conduct of the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office”.
Despite these significant amendments, the work on the CoC continues. Planned updates include a clarification of Art. 5( a), aiming to make it clear that while a private discussion between epi members prior to filing a complaint is encouraged, it is not a formal prerequisite. In cooperation with the Professional Education Committee, additional provisions are being considered for supervisors, EQE candidates, and ongoing education, should mandatory reporting be introduced. Further, in collaboration with the newly founded Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DIE) Committee, amendments to ensure the use of gender-neutral language throughout the Code are envisaged.
2. Opinions on Enquiries from epi Members
In recent months, PCC has received several enquiries from epi members seeking an opinion on the permissibility of certain actions under the Code of Conduct as provided for under Art. 7(c). The recent enquiries were related to payment of commissions, client communication when using generative AI and potential conflicts of interest when providing services related to validating EP patents.
PCC also occasionally receives enquiries from epi members relating to possible company structures of IP firms when founding an IP firm in a specific member state. Generally, the Regulation on Discipline and the epi Code of Conduct must be observed. For details concerning company structures, however, epi members are advised to consult legal experts in the respective member state.
3. Webinars by PCC
In April and May 2025, PCC hosted the following three webinars on different aspects of professional conduct:
- Terms of Engagement Presenter: Tim Powell | Moderator: Julia Gwilt
- Basics of Conduct Provisions for European Patent Attorneys Presenter: Martina Stork | Moderator: Jonna Sahlin
- Professional Ethics in the Work of European Patent Attorneys Presenter: Tim Powell | Moderator: Hans Bottema
4. Different topics – supporting epi bodies
Committee elections – preferred-candidate rule
The Committees Election Committee (CEC) asked the PCC for its view on Rule 6 (“preferred-candidate rule”) in the Committee election rules. PCC believes the rule - allowing Council members to express preferences published with nominations - can be useful, but its fairness must be ensured and monitored. In particular, candidates should be informed of the rule, and encouraged to seek national delegation support before submitting their nomination. Council members, on the other hand, should act fairly when giving preferences, take time to consider all candidates, and be prepared to explain their choices.
Representation before the UPC by in-house European Patent Attorneys
A position paper on the representation before the UPC by in-house European Patent Attorneys was prepared by epi and submitted to the UPC. The position paper was produced with contributions from the Litigation Committee and PCC. Meanwhile, an order issued on 11 February 2025, confirming that in-house EPAs can represent clients before the UPC in principle, except for those with extensive administrative and financial powers within the legal entity.
List of legal practitioners
During recent epi/EPO management meetings, also attended by the PCC Chair, the EPO’s considerations regarding the publication of a list of legal practitioners entitled to represent under Art. 134(8) EPC, as well as associations, were discussed.
From epi’s perspective, there is a risk that the distinction from the list of professional representatives under Art. 134(1) EPC may not be clear to the public. Unlike professional representatives—who meet qualification standards including technical training, the EQE, and experience in EPO proceedings—legal practitioners are not subject to comparable requirements.
For the list of legal practitioners, the lack of removal mechanisms, including for non-payment of fees, and the absence of disciplinary oversight raise further concerns. Many entries may be outdated, reflecting only past involvement in individual cases, which limits the list’s practical value.
As a side note, the existence of differing qualification standards and the limited reliability of up-to-date entries contrasts notably with the situation at the EUIPO and the UPC, where no specialized profession for representation exists.
Overall, in epi’s view, maintaining a list of legal practitioners should remain the sole responsibility of the member states. If the EPO proceeds with publication, the lists should be entirely separate and the difference between the professions clearly highlighted.
