In November last year, we held a closed Colloquium to which NGOs and Government officials were invited to discuss the pendency problem being experienced by the major Patent Offices. At WIPO meetings, Government officials dominate the agenda. NGOs have little opportunity to intervene. Those using the system have little time to explain what they need. The Colloquium gave them that opportunity.

The outcome was that users require quality and certainty in patent rights granted. Large corporations and smaller entities alike supported this view.

But have the officials listened to that cry? Unfortunately, it seems not. As elsewhere explained in this edition, the USPTO is proposing to outsource searching and to stipulate that Examiners will only be permitted to top-up the search in what we were told at our meetings would be very rare circumstances. This would be acceptable if the search is of top quality covering all relevant data bases. But is this likely to be the case? I think not. If this line of thinking goes on, we will be faced with the grant of some patents which can be shown to be invalid by a more thorough search. The patents will be of lower quality and third parties and patentees alike will be uncertain as to their enforceability and valid scope. This is a result quite contrary to the outcome expressed at the Colloquium. In the interests of the patent system, I urge each and every member to do what he or she can to encourage officials to ensure patents are only granted after thorough searches have been undertaken and a full examination has followed.

This quality must begin with the PCT search and examination because this is used in some countries as the basis for grant. Let it be clear, FICPI fully supports measures to avoid reworking, provided this is accompanied by measures to ensure quality is maintained.

In view of the importance of this matter, I will be contacting each national delegate to determine what can be done at national level to support the patent system for the use of both patentees and third parties.

The interests of third parties must also be taken into account. They will be improperly deterred from taking up a development when there is a patent they suspect is invalid. This unduly restricts developmental activity and brings the patent system into disrepute. Those who cannot afford to litigate need a system that is certain in its outcomes. Will this result from the proposals now put before us?

Another related concern is the proposal to amend the PCT. Extending the time limits and merging of Chapters I and II may have attraction to Patent Offices but this change has been forced on us by the pendency problem in Europe. The extra time provided by the change can only be of temporary relief. When the work flowing in is greater than the work flowing out, a new crisis will occur in time. In order to explore these questions, a second Colloquium is being arranged in conjunction with our friends in AIPLA in Nice late in March 2003. Attendance is by invitation only to ensure that the Colloquium may cover the issues appropriately.

Finally and on a positive note, I invite you to join me in Berlin in June 2003 for a most thorough working programme covering many of the issues discussed above. Assist us in formulating FICPI policy on these important matters.

I wish you all a very happy Christmas and festive season and a prosperous 2003.