As you probably know, FICPI is one of the main advocates in favour of a Grace Period, and in this FICPI represents patent attorneys all over the world, most of whom suffer with their clients under legislation incorporating the absolute novelty concept.

All patent attorneys have a responsibility for their clients, which include sole inventors as well as SMEs (which, as a recent survey showed, employs 70% of all working people).

Under this responsibility, FICPI has passed several Resolutions over the years asking for a worldwide Grace Period. We have reacted to the injustice of the absolute novelty concept, which we experience in our daily work, and to the perennial needs of our clients for such exceptional grace. It is simply incomprehensible and illogical for an inventor, that in publishing, testing or practising his own invention, should turn against himself, giving the public a tool to withhold his justified reward for his invention, namely a patent, and to open the field to copy the invention by others.

Many inventions are made by inventors under time pressure. They often have to develop their products and processes in view of a trade show or other public exhibition in order to get a feeling for commercialisation and its success. Frequently, only at the last moment, or sometimes even later, they think of the formality of patenting. This is even more true for scientists in Universities who are forced to publish their work as early as possible, mostly before they can even conceive of or plan for commercialisation, which is of course a prerequisite for patenting.

Any patent attorney who has experienced the horrified disappointment of an inventor or scientist when he is confronted with the fact of losing all patent rights for what he thought to have done a benefit to the public by early publishing, will understand and join our plea for a Grace Period.

It is true, that some (but not all) European industry, namely some big companies, represented by UNICE and others are set firmly against the Grace Period. That is self-evident, because they consider, that their R & D departments are so close to their patent departments that they can usually avoid undue early publication. Naturally, in the absence of a Grace Period, they can also more easily benefit from the good ideas of other inventors who, for whatever reason, failed to consult a patent attorney early enough. Do we want to accept and promote this ?

The enemies of the Grace Period argue an alleged legal uncertainty, because a Grace Period may prolong the time before another, who wants to use a new development, knows of the existence of a corresponding patent application. Consider, who is it that is kept in uncertainty? Only those that want to copy the development of the inventor!

Do you think that this is a justified reason to withhold a patent from his author? We are here to protect inventors, not the copyists!

Moreover: Ask anyone in a country, which has or had a Grace Period, whether there has ever been any problem with the use of the Grace Period. You will hear that there is no problem at all. The only problem, of which you will hear, is that the Grace Period was, up to now, not worldwide accepted, but we are now here to solve this problem.