Report from the 102nd Council Meeting 11–12 May 2026 in Dubrovnik (Croatia)
Introduction
The 102nd Council Meeting of the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) convened in the historic city of Dubrovnik, Croatia, across two days, May 11 and 12, 2026. This gathering held particular significance as it marked the inaugural session for the Council members who had been elected earlier that year.
1. Meeting opening
President Peter Thomsen (CH) opened the meeting on May 11, 2026 at 8.30 am and welcomed the participants. A test vote was conducted (131 voters were present then).
2. Results of the election to Council and confirmation of the validity of the election by the President in office.
a) President Peter Thomsen (CH) referred to the results of the election as published in epi Information and also available on the epi website and noted that no objections were received. The President accordingly confirmed the validity of the election of the Council members.
b) President Thomsen then gave the floor to Markus Müller (DE, Chair of the Electoral Committee) who presented a brief overview of the election process and timeline. Mr Müller reported significant logistical challenges, in particular due to delays and failures in postal delivery in several countries, in particular Portugal and Denmark. As a result, voting codes were also provided by email. The deadline for casting votes for all voters was extended. Despite these challenges, voter turnout reached 26.7%, which is comparable to previous elections. Mr Müller emphasized that improving voter turnout remains a key objective, and that any changes to the electoral procedure should aim to facilitate voting. Mr Müller in particular suggested exploring alternative approaches for future elections, including the potential use of email-based distribution of voting codes or a hybrid system combining email and postal delivery.
3. Appointment of scrutineers and adoption of the agenda
a) Two scrutineers were appointed. The provisional agenda was then 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.
b) Christopher Mercer (GB) was elected as Chair for agenda items 17 and 18 (election of the President and of the Board of the Institute).
4. Motion to amend the Founding Regulation regarding postal voting. Schober motions concerning epi Council elections
a) In order to adopt a fully digitalized election process it is necessary to amend Article 7(8) of our Founding Regulation. The following motion was then put to the vote:
“Does Council agree to propose to the Administrative Council to amend Article 7(8) of the Founding Regulation as proposed?”
The motion was adopted with 133 votes in favour and 1 against.
b) Christopher Schober (DE) then took the floor and emphasized that participation in epi Council elections is a core element of the representative structure of epi. Indeed, Council derives its representative authority from the election of its delegates by the epi members in the respective constituencies. A sustained and sufficiently broad level of participation would strengthen the connection between the membership and Council and supports the institutional legitimacy of Council as the representative body of epi. Christopher Schober then tabled the following motions which were put to the vote:
Motion 1: “Does Council agree that the issue of participation in epi Council elections should be examined further with a view to identifying practical, proportionate and cost-conscious measures to encourage participation in future Council elections?”
The motion was adopted with 103 votes in favour and 22 against.
Motion 2: “Does Council agree that the examination should distinguish between technical and procedural factors affecting the electoral process and broader participation-related factors concerning the motivation of members to vote, and that Council should be provided, no later than C105, with findings and, where appropriate, proposals for further action?”
The motion was adopted with 100 votes in favour and 25 against.
5. Adoption of the minutes of the 101st Council meeting
The minutes were adopted by acclamation.
6. Matters arising from the decisions and actions recorded during the 101st Council meeting and previous Council and Board meetings
The matters arising from previous decisions were as listed in the accumulated file. Outstanding items are ongoing and efforts are being made to close them.
7. Confirmation of the list of nominations for the Disciplinary Committee and By-elections to other Committees
The list of nominations was confirmed for the following Committees: Disciplinary Committee, European Patent Practice Committee, Litigation Committee, Professional Conduct Committee, Professional Education Committee.
[NB: the confirmation started in the morning and concluded after the lunch break]
8. Report of the President and the Vice-Presidents
President Peter Thomsen (CH) referred to his report included in the accumulated file. He highlighted 3 important actions in the work done the last three years:
- The EQE reform: a new modular format for the EQE was decided at the end of 2023. Implementation is planned to take place in phases until 2027;
- The reform of the Disciplinary System: the reform was prepared between 2023 and 2026 by an epi Working Group, supported by an external expert opinion and a joint EPO/epi/Boards of Appeal Working Group. A final decision by the Administrative Council is expected at some point in 2027;
- The restructuring of the epi Secretariat a systematic review of the structure of the Secretariat was carried out between 2023 and 2024. A three-team structure has been implemented and finalised with the recruitment of two team leaders.
9. Report of the Secretary General
Secretary General Magdalena Augustyniak (PL) referred to her report included in the accumulated file. She noted that the Secretariat supports a total of 127 bodies, including Working Groups and Committees. In 2025, approximately 150 meetings were organised, of which 26 were held in person. Magdalena Augustyniak further noted that the implementation of the three-team structure [Note from the author: see report of the President] has been completed. Magdalena Augustyniak (PL) introduced two new team leaders: Leopoldo de Maria and Stefanie Leanza.
Secretary General Magdalena Augustyniak (PL) also expressed her gratitude for the work and dedication of the Secretariat and that of the Deputy Secretary General Ann De Clecrcq (BE).
10. Presentation of the 2025 Annual Report
The report was presented by Marc Névant (FR) on behalf of the Editorial Committee. The report was approved by acclamation.
11. Report of the Treasurer
The Treasurer Zsolt Szentpéteri (HU) presented the annual accounts for 2025. 2025 closed with a significant surplus of EUR 834,000, which is nearly EUR 650,000 higher than the originally expected surplus. The Treasurer explained that the surplus was mainly attributable to higher investment income, prior period income and stronger-than-expected membership and student-related revenues, while education-related income remained below budget. On the expenditure side, total costs were below budget across most areas, with the exception of higher Council-related expenditure due to the C100 anniversary celebration. Overall, the 2025 financial result reflects prudent financial management combined with favourable external factors.
For 2026 no significant deviation from budget is expected based on the data available at the end of the first quarter of 2026.
12. Report of the epi-Finances Committee
Claude Quintelier (BE), the Chair of the epi-Finances Committee, reported that the Committee was satisfied with the explanation provided by the Treasurer and the Deputy Treasurer, and stressed that the continuous increase of the number of Working Groups and Committees should be monitored, noting that this development is also associated with additional costs.
13. Report of the Auditors for the accounting year 2025
The Auditors, Mara Jankovic (RS), Hans Jörg Kley (CH) and Alexander Hedenetz (AT), reported that the bookkeeping for 2025 complied with the German accounting rules (Handelsgesetzbuch, HGB). The Auditors further noted that internal policies, including rules on gifts to epi members and stakeholders, have been clearly defined. Improvements in organisational structures, including staff allocation and software licensing, were also highlighted. The Auditors also noted that relationships with several banks are maintained, and the possible addition of a further banking partner was mentioned. Finally, the Auditors recommended that the management of the assets in Julius Bär be dissolved and invested in traditional Banks in Germany.
14. Decision on release of Treasurer from financial liability pursuant to Article 21.3 By-Laws
The following motion was presented by the Auditors:
“Does Council release the Treasurer from financial liability for the AY2025 pursuant to Article 21.3 By-Laws?”
Council released the Treasurer from liability with 128 votes in favour and 2 against.
15. Approval of the accounts and the administration of assets for 2025
The following motions were put to the vote:
Motion 1: “Does Council approve the accounts of AY2025 pursuant to Article 21.3 By-Laws?”
Council unanimously approved the accounts of AY2025 (130 votes in favour).
Motion 2: “Does Council approve the administration of assets in AY2025 pursuant to Article 21.3 By-Laws?”
Council approved the administration of assets with 122 votes in favour and 2 against.
16. Decision on release of members of the Board from liability pursuant to Article 23.2c ByLaws
The following motion was put to the vote:
“Does Council release the members of the Board from liability for the AY2025 pursuant to Article 23.2(c) By-Laws?”
Council released the members of the Board from liability for the AY2025 with 127 votes in favour and 1 against.
17. Information about the candidates for the Board
The Chair of the meeting was handed over to Chris Mercer (GB). The list of candidates was presented, seven candidates stood for seven seats (one candidate per position). Council members were given the opportunity to ask questions but no questions were asked. Council then proceeded to elect members of the Board as reported in the next item.
18. Election of the President, two Vice-Presidents, Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General, Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer
The result of the election (by acclamation) is as follows:
President: Peter Thomsen (CH)
Vice-Presidents: Katerina Hartvichova (CZ) and Tiem Reijns (NL)
Secretary General: Magdalena Augustyniak (PL)
Treasurer: Zsolt Szentpéteri (HU)
Deputy Secretary General: Anna Valborg Gudmundsdottir (IS)
Deputy Treasurer: Andreas Winter (DE)
19. Substantive Patent Law Harmonisation (SPLH)
President Peter Thomsen (CH) summarised the topic briefly and explained that three international workstreams are currently addressing SPLH, focusing on the following elements: grace period, conflicting applications, prior user rights and mandatory publication of applications at 18 months from the priority or filing date: the industry trilateral, in which epi is not involved, the B+ group; and the EPOrg, which has initiated efforts to define a common European position on SPLH issues.
The floor was then given to John Brown (GB, Chair of Harmonisation Committee) and Filippo Santi (IT, Secretary of Harmonisation Committee) who presented four motions (as shown below). The discussion focussed on the following points:
- John Brown (GB) recalled that epi’s position is that no grace period should apply as best practice, although it may be accepted as part of an internationally harmonised balanced and equitable legislative package. He emphasised that such a package should be based on the “first-to-file” principle, and not “first-to-publish”, and explained that applications should be published 18 months from a date determined by the applicant (the alternative starting point being a) the filing date, b) the priority date, or c) a pre-filing disclosure for which a grace period is claimed).
- Filippo Santi (IT) explained that the introduction of a grace period creates a period of legal uncertainty, as third parties cannot determine whether a disclosure forms part of the public domain or may later be claimed in a patent application. He emphasised that a mandatory statement requirement is considered a key balancing measure to ensure transparency and enhance legal certainty for third parties, while also improving the efficiency of the patenting process.
- John Brown expressed the view that the treatment of conflicting applications should remain aligned with Article 54(3) EPC and that no alternative approach is envisaged. He also indicated that anti‑self‑collision provisions shall not be supported in Europe, as they would be considered unfair, and noted that all applicants should be treated equally, regardless of the subject matter or any relationship, and that each application should be assessed as an individual entity.
- Filippo Santi (IT) explained that existing national prior user right (PUR) regimes differ significantly across jurisdictions, both in terms of conditions and scope, resulting in a fragmented and complex legal landscape. This diversity complicates the development of a consistent European position, in particular for discussions at European level. This is the reason why the introduction of a grace period should be accompanied by a corresponding balancing mechanism. In this context, he proposes the introduction of a separate and distinct prior user right adapted to the grace period, as a tool to ensure fairness and to protect the interests of both applicants and third parties. Such a grace period prior user right (GPPUR) differs fundamentally from traditional PUR: while traditional PUR arises from independent activity, GPPUR arises directly from knowledge obtained through a pre-filing disclosure made by the applicant or with their consent. The proposal argues for the creation of a separate and distinct legal regime for GPPUR alongside existing national PUR systems, which would avoid the need to amend existing national provisions.
On the topic of GPPUR, Peter Martinsson (SE) raised the question regarding the proposed new regime and sought clarification if in this case the burden of proof would lie with the defendant, who would need to demonstrate that the use of the invention was derived and not resulted from independent development or prior knowledge. Peter Martinsson (SE) submitted the following motion, expressing concerns that introducing two separate prior user right regimes would increase complexity and create inconsistencies compared to existing frameworks. This motion was voted on before the motions presented on behalf of the Harmonisation Committee.
Motion Martinsson:
In the context of a Substantive Patent Law Harmonisation balanced package, does Council agree that a prior user right derived from a grace period disclosure (“GPPUR”) must not be a separate and distinct legal entity and that the epi should strive for a coherent PUR which may include features specific for a defense against a patent depending on a graced disclosure?
The motion was adopted with 73 votes in favour and 37 against.
The motions from the Harmonisation Committee (HC) were then put to the vote.
Motion 1 HC:
“In the context of a Substantive Patent Law Harmonisation balanced package, does Council confirm that publication of an application must be at the latest 18 months from the earliest of:
(1) the Pre Filing Disclosure date
(2) the priority date or
(3) the filing date?“
The motion was adopted with 99 votes in favour and 21 against.
Motion 2 HC:
“In the context of a Substantive Patent Law Harmonisation balanced package, does Council confirm its position that a claim to a Grace Period must be indicated on filing the application, with a Declaration to be filed in time to be published with the application?”
The motion was adopted with 106 votes in favour and 16 against.
Motion 3 HC:
“In the context of a Substantive Patent Law Harmonisation balanced package, does Council agree that conflicting Applications (Article 54(3) EPC type) should be relevant for novelty only?”
The motion was adopted with 125 votes in favour and 1 against.
Motion 4 HC:
“In the context of a Substantive Patent Law Harmonisation balanced package, does Council confirm that the principle of no anti-self collision is essential to any balanced package?”
20. By-Laws amendments
Pascal Moutard (FR, Chair of the By-Laws Committee) explained that the proposed By-Laws amendments are based on Decision 33 in Council meeting C101.The aim is to adapt the By-Laws in line with the future amendments of the framework of the disciplinary reform, in particular Article 18 By‑Laws. The amendments include adjustments to the powers of Committee Chairs and related provisions, while separate rules foresee to apply to the future Disciplinary Board of the epi (DB-epi). Further updates concern amendments to the By‑Laws relating to the structure of Working Groups and the DB-epi. Christopher Mercer (GB) mentioned that according to the transitional provisions the amendments will enter into force at the same time as the revised Regulation on Discipline (RDR).
A discussion then ensued as to whether the Chair of the future DB-epi, but also invited guests, should have the right to table motions during Council meetings. Different views were expressed. Pascal Moutard (FR) noted that at present Article 13.5 allows the President to invite third parties to meetings, and Article 13.6 By‑Laws allows the filing of motions by such third parties subject to be authorised by the President.
The following motion was then put to the vote:
“Does Council agree to replace the second transitional provision to the proposed amended By-Laws as follows:
For application of Article 18.3 to the election of the Chair of the Disciplinary Board during the 2026 – 2029 Council term, service as Chair of the Disciplinary Committee shall be counted as service as Chair of the Disciplinary Board and the term of the Disciplinary Committee elected at the 2026 Spring Council meeting shall not be taken into account?“
The motion was adopted with 94 votes in favour and 20 against.
Paul Rosenich (LI, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee) then tabled a motion proposing that the newly elected Disciplinary Committee be invited to provide comments on the proposed amendments to the By-Laws:
“Does Council request to get comments from the DC about the new proposed Bylaws related to the new DB epi which is planned to be the successor of the DC?“
The motion was rejected with 38 votes in favour and 83 against.
A further motion was next introduced by Francis Leyder (BE), proposing that the future Chair of the DB-epi should not exercise the right to file motion in relation to Council meetings, to preserve a clear separation of powers:
“Does Council support retaining the present wording of Art 38.1, which does not give the right to the future Chair of DB to propose motions?”
The motion was adopted with 79 votes in favour and 42 against.
Finally, a motion on the whole package of the By-Laws amendments was tabled by President Peter Thomsen (CH) and amended following an intervention by John Gray (GB):
“Does Council approve the proposed amendments to the By-Laws, as amended by Council decisions 27 and 29 at C102, which shall come into force on the date on which the new RDR comes into force?
The motion was adopted with 115 votes in favour and 13 against.
21. Proposed guidance note for Election of Committee Officers
Pascal Moutard (FR) presented a proposal included in the accumulated file regarding the guidance for the election of Committee Officers, where the election would be conducted by an epi legal advisor acting in a neutral capacity. Two options were actually presented, and Council was asked to choose one of these options:
“Does Council prefer option A or option B as a voting method for Committee officer elections?
Option A: The candidate obtaining the highest number of votes shall be declared elected. In the event of a tie between the leading candidates, a run-off vote shall be held between those tied candidates only. If the tie persists, the election shall be decided by lot, drawn by the epi Legal Advisor in the presence of all attending members.
Option B: The candidate obtaining the highest number of votes and more than 50% of the cast votes shall be declared elected. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the cast votes, the candidate having the lowest number of votes is eliminated from the list of candidates and a further vote shall be held. The process shall be repeated until a candidate receives more than 50% of the cast votes. If the list of candidates is reduced to two candidates and the vote is tied, the election shall be decided by lot, drawn by the epi Legal Advisor in the presence of all attending members.
As a result of the vote, option B was chosen with 81 votes in favour whereas option A obtained only 44 votes.
Council then voted on the following motion:
“Does Council approve the proposed Guidance Note “Election of Committee Officers at the First Meeting of Each Term” and agrees to its inclusion in the Collection of Decisions?”
The motion was adopted with 109 votes in favour and 8 against.
22. Update on the pending referrals to the Enlarged Board of Appeal
Chris Mercer (GB) provided an update on decision G1/24, noting that the Boards of Appeal have started applying the decision without however clearly indicating how the approach recommended by the EboA should be followed. Chris Mercer also mentioned that oral proceedings in case G1/25 had just taken place, a decision being expected before the end of the year, and that another referral was expected dealing with the question on whether G1/24 also applies to Articles 76 and 123(2) EPC.
23. Number of members in the future DB-epi
Giorgio Checcacci (IT, Chair of Disciplinary System Working Group) presented the topic, noting that certain aspects of the disciplinary system reform, particularly the number of members of the new DB-epi, still required further consideration. He explained the proposed criteria, including expected workload, duration of service and the need to ensure a balanced level of commitment. Based on detailed calculation (three different schemes were presented) Giorgio Checcacci proposed that the new DB-epi: comprise 12 epi members and 6 legally qualified members.
At the end of the presentation Paul Rosenich (LI, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee) presented the following motion:
Does Council agree to a provision that the Disciplinary Board of epi shall consist of one member per EPC contracting State?
At this point President Peter Thomsen (CH) intervened, recalling that Council had already rejected a similar motion at C101 (Decision 31). A discussion ensued and the following motion was put to the vote:
“Does Council agree to reconsider Decision 31 of C101 (“Council rejects the motion “to a provision that the new Disciplinary Committee shall consist of exactly one member per EPC contracting State”.)?”
The motion was rejected with 44 votes in favour and 84 against.
The discussion then went on, addressing a number of issues such as the legal qualifications of members and the applicable selection criteria, with an indication that further refinement may be required in the future. Council was eventually asked to vote on the following motion:
“Does Council determine that the number of members to be elected for the Disciplinary Board of the Institute in the first election after the new Regulation on Discipline for professional representatives has been adopted by the Admin Council is:
- 12 for professional representative members, and
- 6 for legally qualified members,
in accordance with the Additional Rules for Elections and Appointment to the Disciplinary Board of the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office, Rule 3, as adopted at C101.“
The motion was adopted with 87 votes in favour and 40 against.
The meeting was then adjourned for the day and resumed the next day (May 12, 2026) at 8.30 am, with a test vote being conducted.
24. Additional Rules of Procedure (AddRoP) for DB-epi
Bart van Wezenbeek (NL, member of the joint Working Group epi/EPO/BoA) gave a presentation on proposed amendments to the provisions in connection with the disciplinary reform due to the recent changes in the timeline of the implementation of the reform. Proposed amendments to Article 41(3) and Article 41(10) RDR (“Regulation on Discipline”) are intended to ensure appropriate transitional provisions, particularly to enable the timely preparation and adoption of the AddRoP prior to the entry into force of the new disciplinary system.
Concerning Article 41(10) RDR, Bart van Wezenbeek clarifies that the proposed wording provides that, before the date of entry into force of the Regulation, the Council of the Institute may adopt the Additional Rules of Procedure for the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Article 33(2) RDR without consulting the Disciplinary Board. It is emphasized that the draft AddRoP is presented to Council at C102 for information and discussion only.
President Peter Thomsen (CH) explained that a mandatory opinion of the Disciplinary Board of Appeal will be required before the AddRoP becomes legally binding. Once in force, the applicable regulatory framework may be amended by Council in accordance with the new RDR. It was further clarified that, in the future, Council will exercise its decision‑making powers within the framework of the new Regulation.
Wolfgang Poth (AT) raised the point that the new DB‑epi will act as the successor to the Disciplinary Committee (DC). He questioned whether consultation of the DC should be maintained, noting that the DC continues to exist during the transitional phase, whereas the DB‑epi is not yet formally established and therefore cannot be consulted at this stage. Wolfgang Poth further wondered whether the motion presented by the Working Group (and reproduced below) was sufficiently clear on which specific amendments to the text are being proposed.
“Does Council agree with amending the transitional provisions of the RDR (Article 41(3) and Article 41(10))?”
Several Council members took the floor to exchange on the topic. President Peter Thomsen (CH) emphasised that no delay to decision‑making was intended and that the objective remained to ensure that the AddRoR are effective, without adopting an overly formalistic approach. Wolfgang Poth (AT) then tabled a motion:
“Does Council agree that in Art 41(10) of the proposed RDR a consultation of the Disciplinary Committee shall be added?”
After a short break, Michael Liebetanz (CH) tabled the following motion to ensure that the Disciplinary Committee is invited to provide comments in due time, noting that this constitutes an organisational measure rather than a matter to be included in the regulatory text. It was suggested that this objective could be achieved through an appropriate action rather than through a formal amendment of the Regulation.
“Does Council decide that epi Members of the joint EPO/epi/BoA Working Group on the Disciplinary System shall invite the DC to provide comments on the draft AddRoP until August 30th in time before the autumn Council Meeting 2026, so that a revised version of these rules can be presented at the autumn Council Meeting 2026?“
The motion was adopted with 114 votes in favour and 7 against.
Wolfgang Poth (AT) maintained his motion which was put to the vote and was rejected with 45 votes in favour and 69 against.
Discussion of this agenda item concluded with a vote requiring a 2/3 majority:
“Does Council agree with amending the transitional provisions of the proposed RDR (Article 41(3) and Article 41(10)):
Art 41(10)
Before the date of entry into force of this Regulation, the Council of the Institute may adopt the additional rules of procedure for the Disciplinary Board under Article 33(2) without consulting the Disciplinary Board.
Article 41(3)
(3) Complaints pending on the date of entry into force of this Regulation before the Disciplinary Committee established under the Regulation on discipline for professional representatives before the EPO as adopted on 21 October 1977 and last amended by decision of the Administrative Council of 28 June 2018 (the Regulation of 1977) shall be transferred to the Disciplinary Board on this date, and the Disciplinary Committee shall cease to exist on this date. The Disciplinary Board shall deal with those complaints in accordance with the procedure and exercising the powers and responsibilities laid down for the Disciplinary Board of the EPO in the Regulation of 1977.“
The motion was adopted with 111 votes in favour and 10 against.
25. Additional Rules for elections and appointment to the DB-epi
Giorgio Checcacci (IT) presented the proposed amendments to the Additional Rules for Elections and Appointment to the DB‑epi, as adopted at C101. He explained that under Rule 11, the election initially foreseen for 2026 will not be possible as planned and would be delayed by approximately three months, the first election of the DB-epi taking place at the first meeting of the epi Council scheduled at least three months after the new RDR is adopted by the Administrative Council of the EPOrg. Giorgio Checcacci further noted that due to the delay the term of office will no longer be the initially foreseen three‑year period but will instead run until the autumn of 2029. The following motion was then put to the vote.
“Does Council approve the proposed amendments of the Additional Rules for Elections and Appointment to the Disciplinary Board of the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office?”
The motion was adopted with 121 votes in favour and 7 against.
26. Proposed amendment of the Founding Regulation regarding privileged and immunities
President Peter Thomsen (CH) mentioned that, in light of the delay in the overall timeline of the disciplinary reform, the opportunity should be used to further improve the proposed package regarding the amendment of the Founding Regulation regarding privileges and immunities. He explained that the Administrative Council will ultimately need to decide on the matter and suggested proposing that privileges and immunities be addressed in the context of the foreseen amendment of the Founding Regulation. He further indicated that a mandate from Council would be required in order to engage in discussions with the EPO on this issue.
After support for the proposal was expressed by Francis Leyder (BE) and Andreas Winter (DE), the following motions were put to the vote.
Motion 1
“Is Council in favour of asking the Administrative Council to add a provision in the Founding Regulation as proposed?”
The motion was adopted with 120 votes in favour and 8 against.
Motion 2
“In case a clarification according to proposal 1 (see decision 39) will not be feasible, is Council in favour to strive for alternatives, e.g. at the Administrative Council, confirming that epi enjoys the necessary privileges and immunities?“
The motion was adopted with 124 votes in favour and 3 against.
27. Report of the Disciplinary Committee
Paul Rosenich (LI) presented the report of the DC and provided statistical information on the recent activities of the Committee, including data on appeal cases. Furthermore, Paul Rosenich presented selected noteworthy cases and highlighted certain aspects considered to be of particular interest, with particular importance being given to situations involving recurrence of similar conduct as repeated acts are considered to carry greater weight and may have increased relevance for the professional representative concerned.
28. Election of the Disciplinary Committee
Members of the Disciplinary Committee were elected. The list of DC members can be found on the epi website (https://patentepi.org/en/epi-bodies/the-disciplinary-committee).
29. Election of the Auditors and their Deputies
The Auditors and their Deputies were elected. Names can be found on the epi website (https://patentepi.org/en/epi-bodies/auditors.html).
30. By-election of Committee members.
By-elections were conducted for the following Committees: European Patent Practice Committee, Litigation Committee, Professional Conduct Committee, and Professional Education Committee.
Information about Committee members can be found on the epi website (https://patentepi.org/en/epi-bodies/epi-committees).
31. Setting up and fixing the Terms of Reference of Committees
The proposed terms of reference of the Nomination Committee and of the Committees Election Committee were both approved by acclamation.
32. Reports of the Working Groups
Presentations were given by Oana Boncea (RO, Chair of the Working Group on IP Awareness), and Luigi Sansone (MT, Chair of the Working Group of Small Countries). Oana Boncea in particular presented the LinkedIn Project Advent calendar, provided an evaluation of the project and related activities. She stressed that while the epi LinkedIn account contains valuable content, increased engagement is needed to achieve broader dissemination. Oana Boncea further pointed out that initiatives are being developed, including an IP careers module.
33. Extension of the term of the Working Groups and confirmation of their composition
The following motions were tables by President Peter Thomsen (CH).
Motion 1
“Does Council agree to extend the term and the mandate of the Small Countries WG in the current composition – but with additional members representing the following constituencies: Greece and Slovakia and without members representing Luxembourg – until the end of the present Council term to further discuss – and work on – the various concerns raised in the questionnaire.”
The motion was adopted with 91 votes in favour and 19 against.
Motion 2
“Does Council agree to extend the term and the mandate of the Disciplinary System WG in the current composition until entry into operation of the new DB-epi to monitor the preparations for the new disciplinary system to start, in particular to verify if the implementing provisions – and in particular the Additional Rules for Elections and Appointment to the Disciplinary Board of epi – present any issues and to propose possible amendments if needed.“
The motion was adopted with 110 votes in favour and 9 against.
Motion 3
“Does Council agree to extend the term and the mandate of the IP Awareness WG in the current composition until the end of the present Council term?”
The motion was adopted with 108 votes in favour and 9 against.
The Terms of Reference of all existing other Committees is confirmed by acclamation.
34. Foundation of new Working Groups
a) Working Group European IP Strategy
Christian Mohr (DE) presented his motion concerning the establishment of a Working Group on a “European IP Strategy”. He explained that Europe’s innovation, competitiveness and security increasingly depend on the effective protection, enforcement and valorisation of intellectual property within a highly integrated European framework. He noted that innovation systems and value chains are inherently cross‑border, while purely national approaches to IP strategy are increasingly reaching their limits. Christian Mohr stressed that the objective of the proposed Working Group is not to replace national policies or take political positions, but to identify, from a practitioner’s perspective, those areas where cross‑border coordination and practical guidance can improve the functioning of the European IP system.
Various comments and remarks were made in the ensuing discussion, and the following motions were eventually put to the vote.
Motion 1
“Does Council agree to establish a Working Group entitled “European IP Strategy”?”
The motion was adopted with 87 votes in favour and 25 against.
Motion 2
“Does Council mandate the President in collaboration with Dr. Christian A. Mohr to conduct the preparatory work to populate the Working Group “European IP Strategy” with no more than twelve (12) members until the next Board meeting. The composition of the Working Group shall be proposed to the Council C103 for validation of the Working Group members?”
The motion was adopted with 95 votes in favour and 16 against.
b) Working Group Use of AI
Martina Stork (DE, Chair of the Professional Conduct Committee) and John Gray (GB, Chair of Online Communication Committee) presented a proposal for the establishment of a new overarching Working Group on the Use of AI. Martina Stork drew the attention that numerous activities relating to the use of AI are currently being carried out across different Committees, including conduct‑related issues within the PCC, the use of AI by the EPO within the EPPC, data security aspects within the OCC, considerations on the future of the profession within the IP Awareness Working Group, and educational activities such as podcasts and publications within the PEC and the Editorial Committee. Martina Stork and John Gray emphasised that epi should speak with one coherent and strong voice on the use of AI and that improved coordination of activities across Committees is required. The proposed Working Group is intended to act as a central hub covering different aspects of AI with input from various Committees and members active in this field.
Various comments and remarks were made in the ensuing discussion, and the following motion was put to the vote.
“Does Council agree to create a new Working Group “Use of AI” with a maximum number of 12 members, including members from PCC, OCC, EPPC, IP Awareness WG and PEC, with the aim to monitor the Use of AI in the profession, support the education of epi members and clients and coordinate the work of committees on this topic?“
The motion was adopted with 94 votes in favour and 20 against.
35. epi Congress
President Peter Thomsen (CH) gave a presentation on the idea of organising a larger event focused on patent law in Europe. He explained that such an event could take place every two to three years, with the first edition envisaged in the context of the 50th anniversary of epi. The concept foresees a two‑day on‑site event in spring 2028, potentially in Munich or another centrally located European city, with an expected participation of approximately 250 to 500 participants. It is noted that the event would not be free of charge and should aim to be cost neutral while keeping financial risk at a low level.
President Peter Thomsen mentioned that the initiative aims to strengthen the identification of regular members with epi and to demonstrate the concrete support provided by the Institute to their members in addressing current challenges and explained that a final decision would be taken at a later stage, in connection with the budget planning foreseen for 2027.
The floor was given to Council members for questions and comments. Support was expressed for the initiative, in particular in view of the 50th anniversary, with some speakers highlighting the opportunity to strengthen epi’s visibility and role at international level. At the same time, caution was expressed regarding the definition of topics, target audience and expected attendance, as well as the need to manage financial risks appropriately. The President thanked the Council for the discussion and indicated that the proposal will be reconsidered.
36. Miscellaneous
President Peter Thomsen (CH) requested a correction of a point from the previous day concerning Article 38 By‑Laws. It was explained that the provision relates not only to the right to file motions but also to the right to take the floor in relation to motions. The corresponding wording in the proposal was to be amended accordingly, and Council voted on the following motion.
“Does Council agree to delete from Art 41.1 By-Laws – as amended by Decision 30 of C102 – second paragraph, the wording “and for the Disciplinary Board” in line with Decision 29 of C102?”.
The motion was adopted with 103 votes in favour and 6 against.
Secretary General Magdalena Augustyniak (PL) then presented another motion for clarification and correction of a previously taken decision.
“Does Council agree to clarify that in Decision 7 of C102 the wording “C105” should be read as meaning “the autumn Council meeting of 2027”?”
The motion was adopted by acclamation.
37. AOB
No topics were raised.
38. 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, which list was approved by acclamation.
39. The new President addresses Council
President Peter Thomsen (CH) in view of the advanced time, thanked the Council members for the trust placed in him and in the team. He expressed his appreciation to those who supported the work during the past term, in particular Annette Hegner for her contributions within the EPPC and its Guidelines Subcommittee, as well as Hans Jörg Kley and Ann De Clercq for their continuous and reliable support. The President also thanked the Croatian delegation for their involvement in the organisation of the meeting and expressed his gratitude to the staff of the epi Secretariat for their work and support. President Peter Thomsen then officially closed the meeting.
