A FICPI delegation, which was headed by the Vice-President, in the unfortunate absence of the President due to illness, and which included the immediate past President, the Secretary General and the President of the CET (the Study and Work Commission), who were joined in China by the Treasurer General and the President of the Contact Commission, visited with senior officials and colleagues in Japan and China between 11 and 15 April 2002.

The delegation aimed to improve the awareness of FICPI and its concern for those in private practice, and to discuss subjects of mutual interest with members of intellectual property organisations and with government officials.

At meetings with the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, the Director of Appeals and the Director of the International Affairs Division of the Japanese Patent Office on 11 April 2002, which were also attended by representatives of FICPI Japan, discussions ranged over FICPI's concern about privilege for patent attorneys, the problem of the backlog in examination at the Japanese patent office, and the possibility of the mutural recognition of search and examination reports, which at least one major patent organisation appears not to favour. The Japanese Patent Office has a database of Japanese documents which can be accessed by others using automatic translation software.

WIPO's agenda for the development of the international patent system and a paper prepared by FICPI were discussed. The opposition of European industry to a grace period was noted. The strict examination of business method applications in Japan was said to result in a 25% rate of grant, compared to the general average of 50%.

At meetings with representatives of the Japanese Patent Attorneys Association (JPAA) and the Japanese Intellectual Property Association (JIPA) on 12 April, the revised Japanese Patent Attorney Law was explained to the FICPI delegation. Japanese patent attorneys will have the right of representation with respect to "specified infringement litigation (which excludes copyright)", subject to co-representation with an attorney-at-law and to having passed a qualifying examination. Much work will need to be done in organising training courses and clarifying the extent of the privilege. On its side, the visiting FICPI representatives gave details of their educational courses and thanked JPAA for providing a tutor for the course in Malaysia.

JIPA has 803 full members, and 19 committees, and provides substantial training facilities. The representatives of JIPA made clear that Japanese industry considered that it was necessary for there to be mutual recognition of search and examination reports by different authorities as soon as possible and that, in their opinion, prior substantive harmonisation of patent laws is not necessary.

It was agreed that claim interpretation constituted a problem, and the FICPI representatives cautioned that too easy a grant of patent rights may result in a large number of patents and more difficulty in giving clearance advice. JIPA is supportive of the discussions between the Japanese and US patent offices aimed at achieving mutual recognition.

VISIT TO CHINA

In China, the delegation met with representatives of the All China Patent Attorneys Association (ACPAA), which has nine branches with a total of 4500 members employed in approximately 500 different firms. The Chinese government has decided that, except for the major state-owned ones, all patent agencies should become privatised and around 250 patent agencies have achieved this status. Some 23 firms have so far been authorised to handle foreign work and it is expected that the restriction will soon be removed from the remainder.

The objectives of FICPI, particularly in relation to the private profession, were explained by the visiting delegation and the response that had been made to WIPO's agenda was discussed. The possibility of membership of FICPI by Chinese colleagues was explored and it is hoped that it will be possible to pursue this matter further when the reforms which are taking place have been completed.

The FICPI delegation also had an interesting and useful meeting at the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) with the Deputy Commissioner (who knows FICPI well, having attended the Augsburg Congress) and the Programme Officer. It is well understood in China that a diversified system is necessary, because, for example, the needs of SMEs and multi-national companies are different.

It was learnt that the Trade Mark Office is separate from SIPO and that there is a Copyright Office. The Trade Mark Office has responsibility for the trade mark profession upon which there are no longer any restrictions regarding the handling of foreign work. As in many countries, SIPO has a significant backlog problem which they hope to solve with the recruitment of additional examiners during the next three years.

The delegation's meetings in Japan and China were very informative and it is believed that they were mutually beneficial. FICPI's profile was undoubtedly enhanced, but it is believed that more effort is needed to make FICPI better known among many national professions.