FICPI, the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys, broadly representative of the free profession of more than 70 countries, assembled at its Executive Committee meeting held in Newport Beach, California from March, 11 to 14, 2002, passed the following Resolution :

Recognising that the WIPO Standing Committee on Patent Law is currently considering a draft Substantive Patent Law Treaty ("SPLT"); and

Recognising Draft Rule 12 of SPLT entitled "Interpretation of Claims Under Article 11(4)" concerns how claims are to be interpreted with respect to enabling disclosure, patentable subject matter, novelty, and inventive step/non-obviousness; but

Recognising, however, that claims also must be interpreted during enforcement proceedings to determine whether the claims have been infringed; and

Recognising further that decisions concerning infringement:

1. are the primary purpose of provisions such as draft Rule 12, sub-paragraph (2)(b) which states: "The claims shall not be interpreted as being necessarily confined to their strict literal wording;" and
   
   
2. are made employing provisions such as draft sub-paragraph (3)(b) which sets forth how the scope of the claims is to be determined, and sub-paragraphs (4)(a)-(d) which set forth how to construe special types of claims.

Now, therefore, FICPI urges that :

1. at a minimum, the effect of the provisions of Rule 12 on infringement determinations should also be considered during deliberations on the draft SPLT; and
   
   
2. more preferably, provisions concerning infringement determinations should also be included in the draft SPLT so that claims are interpreted consistently for both patentability and infringement.

FICPI, the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys, broadly representative of the free profession of more than 70 countries, assembled at its Executive Committee meeting held in Newport Beach, California from March, 11 to 14, 2002, passed the following Resolution :

Noting the establishment of a Working Group on Multiple Invention Disclosures and Complex Applications by WIPO's Standing Committee on the Law of Patents in connection with a draft Substantive Patent Law Treaty, and in particular noting the Working Group's mandate to consider inter alia unity of invention and special procedures for treating complex applications;

Appreciating the practical difficulties and financial issues faced by patent offices that are associated with the processing of some complex patent applications;

And recognising that the patent system must be convenient to use for all users and, in particular, that patent examiners and interested parties must be able readily to find potentially relevant patents and published patent applications;

Resolves that any practice for treating multiple invention disclosures or complex applications should offer maximal flexibility for applicants without compromising the convenience of the patent system for all users.

FICPI, the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys, broadly representative of the free profession of more than 70 countries, assembled at its Executive Committee meeting held in Newport Beach, California from March, 11 to 14, 2002, passed the following Resolution:

Observing that some countries have introduced (and other states are contemplating), by way of legislation, a regime of reduced fees for defined small entities with respect to the obtention and maintenance of Patents, and the definition of a small entity often includes individuals, universities, and certain SMEs.

Believing that the intended purpose of such regimes is to encourage individuals, universities and certain SMEs, to obtain patent rights, keeping in mind their commercial value.

Observing that, the penalty for paying small entity fees, when the individual, university or SME is no longer a small entity, in at least some countries, has been the irrevocable loss of patent rights.

Resolves:

1. that applicants and patent holders should not suffer the loss of patent rights for paying small entity fees, without the intent to deceive, when no longer falling within the definition of a small entity, as such sanction is disproportionate to such an unintentional defect.
   
   
2. that lesser sanctions such as retrospective payment of the full fees from the date of loss of small entity status, plus a reasonable penalty fee will be sufficient.