DOCSLIB.ORG

Patent Harmonisation and Utilisation: First Europe and Then the World?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Patent Harmonisation and Utilisation: First Europe and Then the World? Dr Mark Weaver 3 December 2009 Director Practice & Procedure Utilisation and Harmonisation - Drivers Challenges • Worldwide Patent Application Backlogs - Millions • Duplication of Work • Increased Costs • Lack of Consistency • Increased Legal Uncertainty Possible Solutions • Utilisation and Work Sharing • New Bilateral or Multi-Lateral Agreements • Improve on Existing Work Sharing Agreements • Substantive Patent Law Harmonisation • Simplified Language Requirements First Europe ... European Patent Landscape EPO - 36 Member States Unified Patent Litigation System Austria • Belgium • Bulgaria • Croatia • UPLS Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Iceland • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Liechtenstein • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Former Yugoslav Republic of European and Macedonia • Malta • Monaco • Netherlands • Community Norway • Poland • Portugal • Romania • Community San Marino • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Patents Court Patent Sweden • Switzerland • Turkey • United Kingdom ECPC European patent applications and patents can European also be extended at the applicant's request to Enhanced Patent Network the following states: Partnership Albania • Bosnia-Herzegovina • Serbia EPN Status: December 2009 European Patent Landscape • Unified Patent Litigation System • Draft Council Conclusions on an enhanced patent system in Europe http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st14/st14040.en09.pdf • Draft Council Agreement on the European and Community Patents Court (ECPC) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st07/st07928.en09.pdf European Patent Landscape • EU Competition ministers meeting today and tomorrow to discuss: –ECPC – Community Patent • EU to accede to European Patent Convention (EPC) – Enhanced Partnership based on European Standard for Searches (ESS) • criteria for quality standards on e.g. training, tools, feedback and assessment • ESS to be implemented within context of European Patent Network (EPN) • especially EPO Initiatives – European Quality System (EQS) – Utilisation Project Constraints • Member states have asked European Court of Justice (ECJ) to provide an opinion as to the legality of a unified patent litigation system (UPLS) – Any agreement at the meeting of the Competitiveness Council conditional on a positive response from the Court – Decision is expected next year • Final agreement on Community patent and ECPC – Input required from European Parliament under Lisbon Treaty European & Community Patents Court Establishment of the European and Community Patents Court (ECPC) • Exclusive jurisdiction in respect of civil litigation related to infringement & validity of Community patents and European patents • Court of First Instance, Court of Appeal, Registry • Court of First Instance – Central division – Local and regional divisions Community Patent • Unitary patent throughout the European Union • Contrast with European patents granted under the EPC – Bundle of nationally enforceable patents in the designated states – Enforcement only through national courts – Possible inconsistency of result before national courts • EU-wide consistent patent right • Centralised enforcement through ECPC • Draft Council Regulation on the Community patent http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st08/st08588.en09.pdf Enhanced Partnership • European Patent Office to make use of search results of EPC member state NPOs • Promote innovation by enhanced patent granting process through decreased duplication of work • More rapid delivery of patents • Increase speed of access to market for innovative products and services • Fully respect the central role of the European Patent Office in examining and granting European patents • European Patent Office to consider but not obliged to use the work of NPOs • European Patent Office free to carry out further searches • No restriction on the possibility for applicants to file their application directly at the European Patent Office European Patent Network • Utilisation by the EPO of work done by NPOs • Implementation of a European Quality System • User support activities • New cooperation policy - EPO and NPOs • Study on future workload Utilisation Project Two main goals of utilisation • enhance the efficiency of the patent system in Europe – enabling the EPO to make use of work carried out by NPOs – reducing duplication of work • improve the quality of the patent system in Europe – feedback mechanism from EPO examiners to NPOs – implementation of the European Quality System Utilisation - First Steps Rule 141 EPC & Rule 70b EPC from January 2011 • Request applicants to provide national office search products to the EPO in connection with a European patent application through application of Article 124 EPC • Further investigate mechanisms for inter-office co-operation to exchange data (Art. 130 EPC) • Agree with NPOs to deliver products (e.g. searches) on time within the priority year, such that they can be used by the applicant and the EPO during the handling of the EP filing European Quality System • Establish EQS within the framework of the EPN • Define minimum requirements of the EQS • Convergence of NPOs participating in the EPN • Continuous improvement in quality of products & services • Foundation for participation in EPO utilisation scheme Thorny Issues • Relationship of EPO to National Offices – Central Role (Centralisation Protocol) – Work distribution – EPO staff concerns (quality, consistency) –Users wishes • Community Patent Renewal Fees – Progressive – Cost-covering – Accrue to EPO • Keep 50% • Remainder to member states • Distribution key Thorny Issues • General question of languages and translations will not be dealt with at the EU Ministers' meeting – European Commission to put forward a separate proposal – Most important next step in reaching a deal •ECPC – Central, Regional, Local • Competence • Consistency – EU- and EPC-wide application of Court decision – Forum Shopping (Price, Result) Thorny Issues • Languages of ECPC – Fairness & predictability – Translation & Interpretation • Language of community patent application – EPO model, OHIM model, official member state language • Community patent translations – London Agreement model, local language(s) • Lisbon Treaty – Language arrangements for IP rights in Europe decided by member states – no co-decision procedure ... Then the World International Patent Landscape International Patent Landscape - PCT • Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) – long-established cooperation mechanism • Administered by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/ • Filing of a single international patent application • Same effect as national applications • Protection in up to 142 states • International cooperation for applications only • Patent granting remains national or regional • "PCT Patent" advocated by WIPO in the past, but no current proposals PCT - Scope for Working Sharing and Harmonisation • WIPO and most developed countries want to strengthen PCT • PCT Draft Roadmap • National Offices (national and international roles) should – eliminate duplication within their own Offices – encourage work sharing and reduction of duplication between different Offices – take further steps to ensure the availability of high quality search and examination reports • Significant opposition from developing countries – Duplication not necessarily a bad thing (different national patent law requirements) – Threat to sovereignty and use of IP protection as policy tool – Harmonisation by the back door • "Studies" will be undertaken (always bad news - stalling tactic) • Possible progress via PCT International Authorities – Mainly developed countries, but increasingly also developing countries – JPO not always pro-PCT – Major changes need majority agreement of all PCT Contracting States Substantive Patent Law Treaty • Proposed text to be adopted and applied by signatory states • Driven by WIPO • Intended to harmonise substantive patent law internationally • First proposed 2000 • Too many differences to reach agreement • No consensus on "modalities and scope of future work" • No progress since 2005 Trilateral Cooperation • Trilateral cooperation between EPO, JPO, USPTO since 1983 http://www.trilateral.net/index.html • Traditionally technical (data and document exchange, standards) • Increasingly patent policy • Work sharing (such as PPH) • Common Quality Standards and Systems (TQS) • Catalogue of Differing Practices – Substantive Patent Law – Assumption that majority of provisions and practices are the same – Establish catalogue where differences exist – Initially for work sharing (utilisation) – Potential for harmonisation – EPO initiative, approach welcomed by other Trilateral offices IP5 Cooperation • Trilateral offices plus China and South Korea (since 2008) • Mission Statement: "The elimination of unnecessary duplication of work among the offices, enhancement of patent examination efficiency and quality, and guarantee of the stability of patent rights" • Ten "Foundation Projects" – mainly information and documentation standardisation – Search and Examination Rules – Quality Management • Quality Management similar to European and Trilateral schemes • Search and Examination Rules – Diametrically opposite approach to Trilateral project (catalogue of all practices) – Model rules (similar practice already exists or majority of IP5 offices apply) – Common Rules (to be established; could be completely
Recommended publications
  • State of Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement in Armenia

    State of Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement in Armenia

    State of intellectual property protection and enforcement in Armenia 2020 Supported by Implemented by Table of contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... 5 About Editors ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 7 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 9 Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1 Contribution of IP system and IP protection to economic growth and development .......................................................................................................................................... 13 1.1. Importance of efficient IP system for economic growth and development ............. 13 1.2. Importance of IP protection for national economies ............................................... 15 Chapter 2. Current state of the IP system in Armenia ..................................................................
  • The European Patent Convention and the London Agreement

    The European Patent Convention and the London Agreement

    Feature European changes The European Patent Convention and the London Agreement EPC 2000 – why change? By Pierre-André Dubois and Shannon The EPC 1973 came into force in 1977 and Yavorsky, Kirkland & Ellis International LLP revolutionised patent practice. However, in the last 30 years, the patent landscape The European Patent Convention (EPC 2000) changed significantly and it became apparent came into force on 13th December 2007, that there was a real need to overhaul the introducing sweeping changes to the dated legislation. First, the Agreement on European patent system. The new Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual convention governs the granting of European Property Rights (TRIPs) and the Patent Law patents by the European Patent Office (EPO) Treaty (PLT) came into force, and it was and applies throughout the 34 contracting questionable whether the EPC 1973 was in states of the European Patent Organisation line with the provisions of each of these (ie, the 27 EU Member States as well as agreements. As one example, the EPC 2000 Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, clarifies that, in accordance with TRIPs, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey). The original patents can now be granted in all fields of convention (EPC 1973), which dates back to technology as long as they are new, 1973, was outdated due to a number of comprise an inventive step and are developments in international law and the susceptible of industrial application. Second, need to improve the procedure before the the EPC 1973 was difficult to amend and, in EPO. While the new convention does not the face of fast-changing technology and overhaul substantive patent law (ie, what European legislation, required greater is patentable and what is not), it does legislative flexibility.
  • En Munich, 23.11.2018 SUBJECT: Future

    En Munich, 23.11.2018 SUBJECT: Future

    CA/99/18 Orig.: en Munich, 23.11.2018 SUBJECT: Future EPO building projects – Orientation paper SUBMITTED BY: President of the European Patent Office ADDRESSEES: Administrative Council (for opinion) SUMMARY This document describes the status of the EPO premises and the related building activities to be further elaborated on in the coming months for a more detailed proposal to the Administrative Council in June 2019. By then the different possible scenarios and their pros and cons will have been evaluated for further decision-making, and initial time schedules and cost estimates for the preferred scenarios will be presented. CA/99/18 e 2018-5337 - I - TABLE OF CONTENTS Subject Page I. STRATEGIC/OPERATIONAL 1 II. RECOMMENDATION 1 III. MAJORITY NEEDED 1 IV. CONTEXT 1 V. ARGUMENTS 3 A. MUNICH 3 B. THE HAGUE 6 C. BERLIN 8 D. VIENNA 8 VI. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 10 VII. DOCUMENTS CITED 10 VIII. RECOMMENDATION FOR PUBLICATION 10 CA/99/18 e 2018-5337 I. STRATEGIC/OPERATIONAL 1. Strategic II. RECOMMENDATION 2. The Council is requested to give an opinion on this orientation paper. III. MAJORITY NEEDED 3. N.A. IV. CONTEXT 4. The President presented the overall strategy for building management and a status review of the EPO premises in his last activities report (CA/88/18). It is stated there that the EPO's building strategy is to deliver a modern working environment along with efficient and effective space management and to preserve the value of the EPO's assets. The Office's main goals for its buildings and the layout of workplaces are: Transparent, flexible and modern workplaces to foster collaboration Similar working conditions for all EPO staff at all sites Working conditions that improve staff well-being Maintenance to preserve asset value Increased sustainability and, in particular, reduction in carbon dioxide footprint Compliance with changing legal requirements to continuously ensure safety and security.
  • Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group

    Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group

    Annex 1 E PCT/WG/11/27 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: JANUARY 11, 2019 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group Eleventh Session Geneva, June 18 to 22, 2018 REPORT adopted by the Working Group 1. The Patent Cooperation Treaty Working Group held its eleventh session in Geneva from June 18 to 22, 2018. 2. The following members of the Working Group were represented at the session: (i) the following Member States of the International Patent Cooperation Union (PCT Union): Algeria, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe (69); and (ii) the following intergovernmental organizations: the European Patent Office (EPO), the Nordic Patent Institute (NPI), and the Visegrad Patent Institute (VPI) (3). 3. The following Member States of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Union) participated in the session as an observer: Mauritius, Yemen (2). 4. The following intergovernmental organizations were represented by observers: African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), African Union (AU), Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO), European Union (EU), Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office), South Centre (7).
  • The European Patent Convention, 3 Md

    The European Patent Convention, 3 Md

    Maryland Journal of International Law Volume 3 | Issue 2 Article 10 The urE opean Patent Convention Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil Part of the International Law Commons, and the International Trade Commons Recommended Citation The European Patent Convention, 3 Md. J. Int'l L. 408 (1978). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil/vol3/iss2/10 This Notes & Comments is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION The European Patent Convention' (EPC) is an attempt to simplify European patent law. The Convention provides a procedure for securing a single, European patent,2 which has the effect of a national patent in the signatory nations designated in the application. Through this alternative to national procedures, widespread patent coverage should be easier to obtain. Require- patent, however, are rigorous and its ments for a European 3 attraction is primarily the consolidation of the grant procedures. The EPC establishes several organs to handle the various aspects of the patent application procedure. The European Patent Office (EPO), located in Munich, is the international equivalent of a national patent office. Its administrative divisions are the General Search Division, the Examining Division, and the Opposition Division. The Receiving Section is at The Hague. The first procedural step is the filing of an application at either a national patent office or directly with the EPO.4 The application may be in any of the three official languages (English, French, or German) and the applicant's choice becomes the language of the proceedings.5 The Receiving Section subjects the application to both a preliminary6 and a supplementary formal examination to determine whether it is in proper form and all fees are paid.
  • Doing Business in Kazakhstan

    Doing Business in Kazakhstan

    DOING BUSINESS 2021 IN KAZAKHSTAN Doing Business in Kazakhstan 2021 Baker McKenzie – CIS, Limited Almaty office Samal Towers, 8th Floor 97 Zholdasbekov Street Almaty, Kazakhstan 050051 Phone: +7 727 3 300 500 Facsimile: +7 727 258 40 00 [email protected] www.bakermckenzie.com The information in this brochure is for informational purposes only and it may not reflect the most current legal developments, judgments or settlements. This information is not offered as legal or any other advice on any particular matter. The Firm and the contributing authors expressly disclaim all liability to any person in respect of anything and in respect of the consequences of anything done or omitted wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents of Baker McKenzie’s “Doing Business in Kazakhstan” brochure. No client or other reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any matter contained in this brochure without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances. Doing Business in Kazakhstan Table of Contents 1 Kazakhstan — an overview ..................................................... 1 1.1 Geography .................................................................... 1 1.2 Population .................................................................... 1 1.3 History.......................................................................... 1 1.4 Government and political system ................................. 2 1.5 Economy .....................................................................
  • EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE Guidelines for Examination General Part Amended in December, 2007

    EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE Guidelines for Examination General Part Amended in December, 2007

    EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE Guidelines for Examination General Part Amended in December, 2007 CONTENTS 1. Preliminary remarks 2. Explanatory notes 2.1 Overview 2.2 Abbreviations 3. General remarks 4. Work at the EPO 5. Survey of the processing of applications and patents at the EPO 6. Contracting States to the EPC 7. Extension to states not party to the EPC 1 1. Preliminary remarks In accordance with Art. 10(2)(a) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), the President of the European Patent Office (EPO) had adopted, effective as at 1 June 1978, the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office. These Guidelines have been and will be updated at regular intervals to take account of developments in European patent law and practice. Amended or new text (as compared to the latest previous version only) is indicated by a vertical line in the right-hand margin. Mere deletions are indicated by two horizontal lines in the right-hand margin. Usually, updates only involve amendments to specific sentences or passages on individual pages, in order to bring at least part of the text more closely into line with patent law and EPO practice as these continue to evolve. It follows that no update can ever claim to be complete. Any indication from readers drawing the attention to errors as well as suggestions for improvement are highly appreciated and may be sent by e-mail to: [email protected] The Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office are also published by the EPO in an electronic, searchable form on the Internet via the EPO website: http://www.epo.org 2.
  • INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Patent Cooperation

    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Patent Cooperation

    TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 13-1218.1 ________________________________________________________________________ INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Patent Cooperation Treaty Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and OTHER GOVERNMENTS Adopted at Geneva June 1, 2000 with Amended Schedule Adopted May 15, 2008 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 (80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)— “. .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent evidence . of the treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof.” MULTILATERAL Intellectual Property: Patent Cooperation Treaty adopted at Geneva June 1, 2000; Transmitted by the President of the United States of America to the Senate September 5, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-12, 109th Congress, 2d Session); Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations September 11, 2007 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-6, 110th Congress, 1st Session); Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate December 7, 2007; Ratified by the President May 6, 2008; Ratification deposited September 18, 2013; Entered into force December 18, 2013. With Amended Schedule adopted May 15, 2008. PATENT LAw TREATY (PLT) PATENT LAW TREATY (PLT) and REGULATIONS UNDER THE PATENT LAW TREATY Done at Geneva on June 1, 2000 and EXPLANATORY NOTES ON THE PATENT LAW TREATY and THE REGULATIONS UNDER THE PATENT LAW TREATY 2 NOTE: This page appears to be intentionally blank, except for page number.
  • The European Patent Office

    The European Patent Office

    INTEllECTUAl PROPERTY 286 CHIMIA 2000, 54, No.5 Chimia 54 (2000) 286-287 © Neue Schweizerische Chemische Gesellschatl ISSN 0009-4293 Safeguarding Europe-Wide Patent Protection: the European Patent Office Ulrich Schatz* Abstract: The European patent system, created in 1977, provides for the co-existence of a national and a centralised procedure for the grant of patents. Central grant authority for European patents is the European Patent Office in Munich, which carries out its task on the basis of the provisions laid down in the European Patent Convention. The establishment of a Europe-wide patent system has led to a significant increase in the demand for patent rights in Europe. Inthe framework of their co-operation, the member states of the European Patent Organisation have also created a unique patent information network for accessing the information contained in patent documents. In view of its impending eastward expansion, the European Patent Organisa- tion is set to undertake a revision of the European patent system to ensure its flexibility in the future. Keywords: esp@cenet . Europe· Innovation· Internet· Patent information' Patents The conclusion of the European Patent borders proves that this Organisation has grounds for revocation by the EPO in an Convention on 5 October 1973 was an changed the landscape of industrial prop- opposition procedure and those by na- important milestone on the road to a uni- erty protection in Europe. The worldwide tional courts in revocation or infringe- fied patent in Europe. In 1997 the Europe- development in the field of patents has, ment procedures. Furthermore, the Con- an Patent Office celebrated its 20th anni- moreover, been significantly influenced vention provides for professional repre- versary, The founding of the European by the European Patent Convention enter- sentation before the EPO, creates the Patent Organisation in 1977 and the open- ing into force.
  • An Enhanced European Patent System

    An Enhanced European Patent System

    An Enhanced European Patent System The Select Committee The Preparatory Committee An Enhanced European Patent System In December 2012 the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament agreed on two regulations1 laying the foundation for unitary patent protection in the EU. Shortly afterwards, in February 2013, 25 EU Member States signed the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC). This committed the Contracting Member States to establish a Court common to them with exclusive jurisdiction for future European patents with unitary effect (Unitary Patent Protection, UPP) as well as for European patents validated in one or several of the contracting states – “classical” European patents. The aim of the reform is to offer business an alternative by simplifying the existing system and support a cost effective route to patent protection and dispute settlement. It will still be possible to use the national route for those preferring to seek protection in individual Member States and to validate a European patent in one or several Member States. It will also be possible to combine the new system with the 1) Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the crea- tion of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. 2 old one and have a European Patent with unitary effect and in addition validate the patent as a classical European Patent in other EPC Contracting States.
  • RESTRICTED WT/TPR/S/390 11 June 2019 (19-3978)

    RESTRICTED WT/TPR/S/390 11 June 2019 (19-3978)

    RESTRICTED WT/TPR/S/390 11 June 2019 (19-3978) Page: 1/127 Trade Policy Review Body TRADE POLICY REVIEW REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT THE REPUBLIC OF NORTH MACEDONIA This report, prepared for the second Trade Policy Review of the Republic of North Macedonia, has been drawn up by the WTO Secretariat on its own responsibility. The Secretariat has, as required by the Agreement establishing the Trade Policy Review Mechanism (Annex 3 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization), sought clarification from the Republic of North Macedonia on its trade policies and practices. Any technical questions arising from this report may be addressed to Mr. Mark Koulen (tel: 022 739 5224); Ms. Martha Lara Fernandez (tel: 022 739 6033); and Mr. Pierre Latrille (tel: 022 739 5266). Document WT/TPR/G/390 contains the policy statement submitted by the Republic of North Macedonia. Note: This report is subject to restricted circulation and press embargo until the end of the first session of the meeting of the Trade Policy Review Body on the Republic of North Macedonia. This report was drafted in English. WT/TPR/S/390 • The Republic of North Macedonia - 2 - CONTENTS SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 7 1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................ 13 1.1 Main Features of the Economy .....................................................................................13 1.2 Recent Economic
  • 2. Annual Report and Strategic Plan 2023 US Bar-EPO Liaison Council

    2. Annual Report and Strategic Plan 2023 US Bar-EPO Liaison Council

    2. Annual Report and Strategic Plan 2023 US Bar-EPO Liaison Council Washington, DC, 24 September 2019 Heli Pihlajamaa Director, Patent Law 24 September 2019 The EPO at a glance Our mission Our locations: We provide patent Munich (headquarters), protection for inventions The Hague, Berlin, in up to 40 European countries on Vienna and the basis of one single application Brussels nd Self-financing: 2 largest Budget of EUR bn intergovernmental 2.4 institution in Europe without any public funding 7 000 employees, of which around 4 300 highly qualified patent examiners working in all fields of technology European Patent Office 2 European Patent Office: granting protection for 44 countries, covering an area of 700 million people European Patent Organisation: 38 European member states Belgium • Germany • France • Luxembourg • Netherlands Switzerland • United Kingdom • Sweden • Italy • Austria Liechtenstein • Greece • Spain • Denmark • Monaco Portugal • Ireland • Finland • Cyprus • Turkey Bulgaria • Czech Rep. • Estonia • Slovakia Slovenia • Hungary • Romania • Poland • Iceland Lithuania • Latvia • Malta • Croatia • Norway North Macedonia • San Marino • Albania • Serbia Two European extension states Bosnia and Herzegovina • Montenegro Four validation states Republic of Moldova • Morocco • Tunisia Cambodia European Patent Office 3 Total European patent applications in 2018 152 703 160 004 159 087 166 594 174 317 +4.6% 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Source: EPO. Status: 21.1.2019. European patent applications include direct European applications and international (PCT) applications that entered the European phase during the reporting period. European Patent Office 4 Origin of European patent applications1 in 2018 Others 6% R. Korea 4% Germany 15% P.R. China 5% France 6% Japan 13% Switzerland 5% EPO states Netherlands 4% 47% United Kingdom 3% Italy 3% United States 25% Other EPO states 11% Source: EPO.