European Patent Owners May Have Found Their Champion

Joff Wild
date: Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Whisper it quietly but it looks like more than a few people were very wrong about Alain Pompidou. The French scientist and former MEP has made a strong impression since assuming the presidency of the European Patent Office in July 2004. As a result, he has confounded a number of critics who said that someone without formal training in patent law should not assume such an important position at so critical a time in the development of Europe’s patent system.

Pompidou was one of two individuals vying for the President’s job after previous incumbent Ingo Kober announced his retirement in 2002. The other was Alison Brimlow, the former head of the UK Patent Office and the favoured option of many because of her long experience in intellectual property. Several rounds of voting, however, proved inconclusive so, with neither candidate prepared to withdraw, a novel solution to the impasse was reached. Both were to be EPO President, the normal six-year period of tenure would be divided into two three year stretches, with Pompidou having first go.

While it was an outcome that may have had diplomats purring with delight, for many in the IP world it was merely another example of national pride being put before the interests of patent owners and applicants. The fact that the French had insisted on Pompidou, despite his perceived lack of credentials to do the job, seemed to demonstrate yet again how little Europe’s leaders knew or cared about patent rights. At a time when the EPO was facing a number of major challenges - such as growing pendency times, reform of the European Patent Convention and the possible introduction of the Community patent – how could a man without the right background provide the necessary leadership?

Six months later and it is a question that no-one seems to be worrying about anymore. Far from being a weakness, Pompidou has demonstrated that his background is actually a strength. As a scientist who has worked on a number of international technological and research-based projects, and as the owner of a European patent, he has actual experience of using the system and this has informed many of his early policy initiatives. For the first time in many years, for example, the EPO has held a series of public hearings on its future. During October and November 2004, both SMEs and larger corporations, as well as financial institutions, were asked to explain how they would like to see Europe’s patent regime improved. The hearings were a direct initiative of Pompidou’s, and the fact that those attending the events made it clear that reducing application costs, maintaining quality of grants and achieving greater certainty in enforcement were their clear priorities gives him plenty of ammunition to throw at national governments and other organisations as debates about the future continue.

For what Pompidou has realised very quickly is that much of what he has to do over the next three years revolves around playing politics. And the 10 years experience he gained while operating in the European Parliament, combined with the work he has done for the French government in the past, ensures that politics is something he does very well indeed – in sharp contrast to many others in the European IP community. He is forthright and very public in his defence of the EPO in the face of a growing tendency among some national patent offices to ask for the right to be involved in aspects of the European patent application process on the basis that if this were allowed the process would be speeded up. Quality, Pompidou says, is paramount and national offices do not have the ability to handle the search phase to the standards required.

He has also lost little time in pointing out the apparent contradiction between politicians stating that they want Europe to be the leading player in the world’s knowledge economy, while at the same time failing time after time to provide the intellectual property infrastructure – in terms of cost and certainty – that are necessary to underpin this. Reports of a frank exchange of views with Gerhard Schroeder over the German Chancellor’s refusal to pressure French President Jacques Chirac to ratify the London Protocol – a voluntary initiative among some EPC countries designed to lessen the translation requirements in European patent applications so making the process cheaper – should gladden the hearts of all patent owners and applicants: here is a man who is unafraid to confront the great and the good in Europe over their disgraceful indifference to intellectual property. It is something that too many European patent owners have themselves failed to do.

Of course, it is one thing to make a noise and quite another to put policies in place that bring about change. However, for too long there has been no-one in Europe willing to stand up and make a forthright case for patents. If Pompidou can make politicians see that they should pay far more attention to rights that have a direct bearing on the jobs of tens of millions of Europeans and to the viability of the continent’s economy, then whatever else he achieves, his three years at the EPO will be seen as a success. So far, the signs are encouraging.