“Round Table” of the Russian Licensing Society
On 8 December 2016, a Round Table of the Russian Licensing Society was held. Twenty-three specialists took part in the discussion. They considered the provisions of the draft amendments to the Federal Law
8 December 2016
On 8 December 2016, a Round Table of the Russian Licensing Society was held. Twenty-three specialists took part in the discussion. They considered the provisions of the draft amendments to the Federal Law “On Patent Attorneys” that, in the opinion of the professional community, were the most important. Adoption of these amendments would make it possible to significantly improve the quality of professional services provided by patent attorneys and to establish many ethical standards of the profession.
The votes of the specialists on the questions put to the Round Table participants were distributed as follows.
Should such insurance be mandatory?
70% — support; 21% — do not support; 9% — undecided.
Should such insurance be voluntary, but with mandatory notification of the client as to whether it is in place or not?
35% — support; 42% — do not support; 23% — undecided.
Thus, based on the voting results on the first three questions, it may be concluded that the majority of the Round Table participants agree on the need to establish a single professional association of patent attorneys with mandatory membership for every patent attorney. Such a professional association should:
In order to ensure the performance of these functions, regional divisions of the association should be established.
Taking into account that, on the one hand, errors in the work of a patent attorney may cause substantial financial damage to clients and, on the other hand, imposing on the patent attorney the obligation to compensate such damage in full may prove excessively burdensome, mandatory professional liability insurance for patent attorneys, whether individual or provided by the organisation, should be established by law. The majority of Round Table participants voted in favour of this proposal.
Alternatively, such insurance could be voluntary, but with mandatory notification of clients of the absence of insurance or of any limitations on coverage. This option appeared less attractive to the Round Table participants.
Patent attorneys employed by an employer that does not specialise in providing patent attorney services or performing work carried out by patent attorneys — for example, industrial companies, design organisations, research institutions and similar organisations — perform the functions of patent and licensing specialists and represent the rights and interests of their employer.
Such employees should not provide patent attorney services to other persons. They retain the right to call themselves patent attorneys, thereby confirming their qualifications certified through examination and registration with Rospatent, but they do not have the special rights granted by law and other regulatory legal acts to patent attorneys.
Accordingly, t
On 8 December 2016, a Round Table of the Russian Licensing Society was held. Twenty-three specialists took part in the discussion. They considered the provisions of the draft amendments to the Federal Law “On Patent Attorneys” that, in the opinion of the professional community, were the most important. Adoption of these amendments would make it possible to significantly improve the quality of professional services provided by patent attorneys and to establish many ethical standards of the profession.
The votes of the specialists on the questions put to the Round Table participants were distributed as follows.
- What is your opinion on the proposal to make membership of a professional association or organisation mandatory for patent attorneys?
- 91% — support; 9% — do not support.
- What is your opinion on the proposal to establish a single federal organisation of patent attorneys, with the possible creation of regional branches?
- 84% — support; 16% — do not support.
- What is your opinion on the adoption by the patent attorneys’ organisation of a code of professional conduct for patent attorneys?
- 100% — support.
- What is your opinion on the proposal to introduce professional liability insurance for patent attorneys?
- 91% — support; 9% — do not support.
Should such insurance be mandatory?
70% — support; 21% — do not support; 9% — undecided.
Should such insurance be voluntary, but with mandatory notification of the client as to whether it is in place or not?
35% — support; 42% — do not support; 23% — undecided.
- What is your opinion on the proposal to introduce special regulation, with restrictions on rights and obligations, for patent attorneys employed by an employer that is not a firm providing patent attorney services?
- 84% — support; 8% — do not support; 8% — undecided.
Thus, based on the voting results on the first three questions, it may be concluded that the majority of the Round Table participants agree on the need to establish a single professional association of patent attorneys with mandatory membership for every patent attorney. Such a professional association should:
- actively participate in the qualification examinations of candidates for patent attorney status conducted by Rospatent;
- provide conditions for the systematic improvement of the professional qualifications of patent attorneys;
- monitor compliance by patent attorneys with ethical rules when providing services and performing work covered by the patent attorneys’ association;
- ensure the active participation of patent attorneys, on behalf of the association, in legislative and other rule-making activities in the field of intellectual property.
In order to ensure the performance of these functions, regional divisions of the association should be established.
Taking into account that, on the one hand, errors in the work of a patent attorney may cause substantial financial damage to clients and, on the other hand, imposing on the patent attorney the obligation to compensate such damage in full may prove excessively burdensome, mandatory professional liability insurance for patent attorneys, whether individual or provided by the organisation, should be established by law. The majority of Round Table participants voted in favour of this proposal.
Alternatively, such insurance could be voluntary, but with mandatory notification of clients of the absence of insurance or of any limitations on coverage. This option appeared less attractive to the Round Table participants.
Patent attorneys employed by an employer that does not specialise in providing patent attorney services or performing work carried out by patent attorneys — for example, industrial companies, design organisations, research institutions and similar organisations — perform the functions of patent and licensing specialists and represent the rights and interests of their employer.
Such employees should not provide patent attorney services to other persons. They retain the right to call themselves patent attorneys, thereby confirming their qualifications certified through examination and registration with Rospatent, but they do not have the special rights granted by law and other regulatory legal acts to patent attorneys.
Accordingly, t
See also
