Report from the 98th Council Meeting held on 16 November 2024 in Budapest (Hungary)
1/ Meeting opening
President THOMSEN opened the meeting at 9 am and welcomed the participants. A test vote was conducted (126 voters were present then) and scrutineers were appointed.
President THOMSEN informed Council members of the passing away of Erkan SEVINÇ (TR) and Arthur HUYGENS (NL, past epi President). Eulogies were respectively given by Baris ATALAY (TR) and Tiem REIJNS (NL). A minute of silence was then observed.
2/ Adoption of the agenda
The provisional agenda was adopted with changes. It was agreed that even though some items are shifted/added, the original numbering of agenda items will remain unchanged for practical purposes.
3/ Adoption of the minutes of the 97th Council meeting
The minutes were adopted by acclamation.
4/ Matters arising from the decisions and actions recorded during previous Council and Board meetings – Correction of the minutes of the 95th Council meeting
The matters arising from previous decisions were as listed in the accumulated file. Council approved a necessary correction of the minutes (in English) of the 95th Council meeting; the corrections will be implemented in the French and German translations accordingly.
5/ Confirmation of the list of nominations for elections to Committees and the Disciplinary Committee
The list of nominations was confirmed for the following Committees: Disciplinary Committee, Committee on Biotechnological Inventions, Litigation Committee, Professional Conduct Committee, Professional Education Committee.
6/ Report of the President and Vice-Presidents – ROSENICH motion
President THOMSEN referred to his (note from the editor: comprehensive) report in the accumulated file, which also included activities of the Vice-Presidents. President THOMSEN drew the attention of Council members to the sanction package against Russia adopted by the EU at the end of June 24. The position of the EPO has just been discussed in a meeting of the EPO Committee on Patent Law that took place on the eve of the Council meeting. It is expected that a decision will be made by the EPO Administrative Council in December 2024.
In this respect, a motion was tabled by Mr ROSENICH (Chair of the Disciplinary Committee), the aim of which was to acknowledge that epi Members – when performing their IP work – should not be personally involved in any sanctions endorsed by the EU against other states or individuals of such states.
The motion was rejected with 63,79% against and 36,21% in favour.
Although Council finally decided to not have a formal position endorsed, it expressed support for a suggestion form the Presidium that epi should formulate its discomfort with any implementation of the sanction that would discriminate between nationals/residents of EPC member states, would ignore respect for the legal integrity of the EPC and/or would put undue administrative burden and liabilities on epi members.
7/ Report on the results of the national Council delegation survey
President THOMSEN referred to his report in the accumulated file and presented proposed next steps for epi:
- Follow-up for national-specific topics where epi may help at Presidium level,
- Creating WG from IPCC, Editorial Committee and PEC to identify measures and create tools to increase awareness for the relevance of patents as well as for our profession,
- Exploring how to improve efficiency of Council meetings
- Creating WG for “smaller countries” to explore assistance to address particular challenges
- Continuing increasing impact of epi at European/international level on IP-policy processes
Proposal b. was approved by Council with 87% in favour and 13% against. Proposal d. was approved by Council with 89% in favour and 11% against.
8/ Information on EBoA cases – draft epi position paper on G1/24
An ad hoc WG of the EPPC prepared a draft amicus curiae brief to be submitted in case G1/24, chaired by Mr FLEUCHAUS. The WG took into account the results of a survey sent earlier this year. Mr FLEUCHAUS presented the draft which triggered no specific comments from Council members. An epi armicus curiae brief was submitted after the Council meeting.
9/ Report of the Secretary General
Secretary General Ms AUGUSTYNIAK referred to her report in the accumulated file. She thanked the Secretariat and Deputy Secretary General Ms De CLERCQ for their support since the last Council meeting. The locations and dates for the next Council meetings were announced:
C99 – Vilnius: 10 May 2025
C100 – Nice: 8 November 2025
10/ Report of the Treasurer – Presentation of the proposed budget and annual subscription 2025
The Treasurer, Mr SZENTPETERI, presented the 2024 financial situation of the Institute as of 8 October 2024. Based on current figures and expenses foreseen for the remainder of the year, an overall surplus of +754 k EUR is expected vs + 407 k EUR planned. Concerning the subscription fee for 2025, there was seemingly no reason to increase its amount compared with that of 2024.
11/ Report of the epi-Finances Committee
The Chair of the epi-Finances Committee, Mr QUINTELIER, referred to his report in the accumulated file. In particular, the Committee met with the Treasurer, the Deputy Treasurer, the Auditors and the Head of Finance to review the financial situation of the Institute. Overall, the Committee was satisfied that the financial situation is broadly in line with plans presented in previous meetings, and supported adoption of the Treasurer’s report.
12/ Annual budget 2025 – Annual subscription fee
The 2025 budget was presented with a planned surplus of +196 k EUR. It was approved with 97% in favour and 3% against.
Concerning the 2025 subscription fee, it was proposed to keep its amount unchanged for 2025, i.e. 250 EUR with a penalty fee of 125 EUR (i.e. 375 EUR in total) if the subscription fee is paid on or after 1 April 2025. This was approved by Council with 98% in favour and 2% against.
13/ Amendment of By-Laws concerning: a) The role of Presidium members; b) Removal of the fixed definition of the ED position; c) Improved alignment with employment law and d) Introduction of gender neutral language and Motions of the Auditors
A (brief) history of the development of the Secretariat over the last 15 years was presented by President THOMSEN, as well as a new structure contemplated for the Secretariat as of 1 January 2025. Implementation of the new structure required amendments of the By-Laws, the most important of which consisting in the removal of the position of the Executive Director. The presentation was followed by a Q&A session.
The Auditors then presented the following motions.
Motion 1: Does Council agree to postpone the amendment of the By-Laws to the Spring 2025 meeting (Probably C99)?
This motion was rejected with 75% against and 25% in favour.
Motion 2: Does Council agree to replace Art. 16.1 By-Laws as proposed by the Auditors?
Motion 3: Does Council agree to replace the FR-version and the EN-version of Art. 17.2 by:
«To the employees of the Institute specific powers according to Articles 13, 15 or 16 may be delegated by the President, the Secretary General or the Treasurer, the extent and duration of such powers being laid down in writing. The delegation of competences shall end no later than two months after the end of the term of office of the President, Secretary General or Treasurer»,
and
«Les employés de l’Institut peuvent recevoir du Président, du Secrétaire Général ou du Trésorier des pouvoirs spécifiques aux termes de l’article 13, 15 ou 16, l’étendue et la durée de ces pouvoirs étant fixées par écrit. Ces délégations de pouvoir expirent au plus tard deux mois après la fin du mandat du Président, du Secrétaire Général ou du Trésorier».
Motions 2 and 3 were approved by acclamation.
A vote then took place on the proposed amendments to the By-Laws, which were approved by Council with 92% in favour and 8% against.
14/ Statement from the Auditors
The Auditors noted with regret that they had not been consulted (until late September) during the revision process of the double signature requirement to be introduced in the By-Laws.
The Treasurer addressed the auditors’ statement, clarifying that the issue stemmed from a communication error. He expressed his firm commitment to working closely with the auditors on any matters they are involved in. After the discussion, the auditors departed the podium following a handshake with the Treasurer.
15/ Discussion on patent quality
Mr ILIEVSKI referred to his report in the accumulated file and gave a brief presentation of the findings of the work of the SQAPs (Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels) in 2024. 100 epi members volunteered to serve in the Panels, there were however only 24 seats. For the first time this year, a Panel focused on refusal decisions. It turned out that in a majority of cases, a lack of dialogue between the applicant and Examination Division, was the cause of the refusal.
16/ Presentation from IPREE WG on threshold level – SCHOBER motion on the level of university degree as a condition to sit the EQE
The WG’s aim (in relation to Rule 11 IPREE) was to provide an improvement for the REE/IPREE which would provide a balance and fairness for all 39 EPC contracting states. The WG therefore explored options for increasing the requirements and the effects that would likely follow. These options are summarized in the graph below:
i) Maintaining the Current Level of 144 ECTS (80% of 3-year studies)
ii) Increasing to 145-180 (81%-100% of 3-Year studies)
iii) Increasing to 192 ECTS (80% of 4-year studies)
iv) Increasing to 240 ECTS (80% of 5-year studies)
The WG considered options i) and ii) viable for further investigations. Both options provide candidates with a Bachelor’s degree to have enough scientific/technical content. This would be either as currently stands at 144 ECTS credits or somewhere in the range of 145 – 180 ECTS credits, as the majority of “traditional” technical/scientific 3-Year degrees provide for scientific/technical content in this range.
The presentation was followed by a discussion within Council. A motion was then presented and explained by Mr SCHOBER. The wording of this motion is as follows:
“The IPREE, in particular Rule 11(1) IPREE, should be amended to state that
a) Candidates must, as a general rule, have a university-level degree in a scientific or technical subject with a
minimum of 240 ECTS credits and
b) The IPREE Working Group, PEC and BLC be tasked with elaborating compensatory measures for candidates from educational
systems in which university-level scientific or technical degree programmes are typically shorter, that could be
considered to fulfil the 240 ECTS requirement.”
This motion was rejected by Council with 74% against and 26% in favour.
Council was then asked to vote on the following principles.
The epi Members of the Working Group on the Second Basket for the REE/IPREE will work on the basis of these principles
in negotiations for developing the wording for an amended Rule 11 IPREE.
The principles are that:
- The candidate must have completed a university-level degree of a minimum of 3-years duration, as defined under the
Bologna process.
- “Stacking” of any completed university-level degrees is allowed.
- The candidate must have accumulated a total of 144 ECTS credits in scientific or technical subjects from completed
university-level degrees.
Council approved these principles with 78% in favour and 22% against.
17/ Report from the Diversity & Inclusion Working Group
Mr NEVANT referred to his report in the accumulated filed and noted that during B130, the Board endorsed the expansion of the Working Group on Diversity and Inclusion to up to 15 members. The following motions were then put to vote.
Motion 1: Does Council agree that the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group continue their work until at least the 2025
ordinary Spring Council meeting?
Motion 2: Does Council agree that the maximum number of members in the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group is
increased from 10 to 15?
Motion 3: Does Council agree that Claudia DUFFY and Christian MOHR be appointed as members of the Diversity and
Inclusion Working Group?
Motion 1 was approved by acclamation.
As far as motion 2 is concerned, it was pointed out that the proposed increase was de facto a 50% increase in the size of the WG. Motion 2 was then amended to read “up to 12 members” instead of “up to 15 members”. Amended motion 2 was approved by Council with 69% in favour and 31% against.
Motion 3 was approved by acclamation.
18/ By-Elections of committee members and Disciplinary Committee
All nominated persons were appointed by acclamation. The updated list of members of Committees (including the Disciplinary Committee) is available on the epi website (https://patentepi.org/en/epi-bodies).
19/ Committees requests for amendment
a) The Studentship Admissions Committees requested that the rules governing epi studentship be amended to align with the wording of the new REE.
Council approved this request by acclamation.
b) The Committee for Biotechnological Inventions requested to change their name into “Biotechnology Committee”.
Council approved this request by acclamation.
20/ Update by WG on review of the Disciplinary System
Mr CHECCACCI reported on the work of the WG. The following issues were considered for potential improvement:
- ensure high quality of the decisions
- make proceedings quicker
- revise the available sanctions
- improve knowledge of the disciplinary system and confidence in it.
A number of ideas were discussed within the WG, including: number, size and composition of Chambers; publication of decisions; training; mediation; composition of the disciplinary bodies; merging the two bodies of first instance; deadlines; electronic communication; rules of procedure and docketing; sanctions.
No discussion with the EPO has taken place so far; this will happen soon under supervision of the epi President, with the aim to complete work by the end of 2025. Also planned is an audit of the current system by an independent external legal expert.
21/ Report of the Disciplinary Committee - ROSENICH Motion
Mr ROSENICH gave a presentation on the work of the DC including the following topics:
- Current workload and current activities of the DC
- Annual Meeting and Training session (on Conflicts of Interest)
- Budget and statistical Information
- Interesting recent Decisions (D1/2022)
- Use of AI through the internet by epi Members
- Ongoing work for amending the Additional Rules of Procedure of the DC.
Mr ROSENICH then presented the following motion:
“When a Chairperson of an epi Committee including the Disciplinary Committee requests a publication the Editorial Committee may support said Chairperson however it cannot censor said publication.”
This motion was rejected by Council with 76% against and 24% in favour.
22/ DC proposal of AddRPDC – Opinion of PCC – ROSENICH motion – STORK motions
Mr ROSENICH presented to Council for information and opinion a proposal from the DC to amend their Additional Rules of Procedure (AddRPDC). The amendments are essentially intended to codify existing best practice of the DC, improve quality and efficiency by establishing streamlined provisions, and providing modern means of communication. The proposal was shared with the Disciplinary Board of Appeal, the Disciplinary Board, the EPO President and the epi President. The current proposal includes comments that were received.
Ms STORK (Chair of the Professional Conduct Committee) then presented the opinion prepared by PCC on the proposed amendments to the AddRPDC. The PCC had concerns about the wording of new article 1(3), amended article 2(2), new article 2(4), amended article 7(2) and 7(4) and amended article 8(4).
Mr ROSENICH then presented the following motion:
“Council requests DC to take note of the comments from PCC and consider whether any further amendments are necessary when proposing the amended AddRPDC.»
This motion was approved by Council with 67% in favour and 33% against.
Ms STORK in turn presented the following motions:
Motion A: Council requests DC to thoroughly review the amended version of the AddRPDC dated 7 Nov. 2024, ensuring its
compatibility with the RDR and other overarching regulations, as well as its clarity and its suitability for improving
the disciplinary system.
Motion B: Council requests DC to submit any version approved by the DC to Council to allow for giving a detailed opinion
before it is presented to the Administrative Council for approval.
Motion A was approved by Council with 83% in favour and 17% against.
Motion B was approved by Council with 78% in favour and 22% against.
23/ Guidelines for the use of generative AI
Council adopted the epi Guidelines “Use of generative AI in the Work of Patent Attorneys” prepared by the Professional Conduct Committee, with 81% in favour and 19% against with the explicit task for PCC to further revise the Guidelines according to incoming comments and technical developments of AI tools.
24/ Discussion of grievance through third member - procedure, terms and condition
Council approved the document prepared by the Professional Conduct Committee. Therefore, epi will provide a framework for mediation in disputes ongoing between epi members.
25/ Closing of meeting
Secretary General Ms AUGUSTYNIAK read the list of decisions and actions taken during the meeting, and President THOMSEN then officially closed the meeting at 6:50 pm.
