IAM Magazine - IAM Blog - There are 40,000 patent att... http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=e32...

There are 40,000 patent attorneys in the US and under 10,000 in the EU. That can't be
right
I have had quite a few interesting emails and telephone conversations since posting the article I wrote for
the latest issue of the CIPA Journal concerning the lack of European patent attorneys on this blog last week.

First of all, I have learned that the problem is far worse than I thought. Around 30% of those people currently
entitled to call themselves European patent attorneys are able to do so under the so-called "grandfather"
clause of Article 163 of the old European Patent Convention, which has been largely incorpoatted into the
EPC 2000 as part of Article 134. This states that anyone qualified as a patent attorney in a country at the time
it signs up to the EPC automatically becomes a European patent attorney. This may or may not mean that
such people have gone through a stringent period of training (you will need to check the rules in the relevant
country), but it will almost certainly mean that they will not have had intensive training in how to prosecute
patents at the EPO.

If you want to ensure that the patent attorney you are using in Europe has passed the EPO examinations, you
can look at the EPO website here. If your attorney is not named, you can take it that he/she has not.

Be careful, too, of bilateral agreements between European countries. For example, on application any patent
attorney in Italy automatically becomes licensed to practise as an attorney in San Marino. As San Marino
joined the EPC last year, it could well be that some Italian attorneys have managed to get European
credentials by registering in San Marino (I was told that as many as 50 may have done this, but I cannot verify
that figure). This example was mentioned to me specifically, but it could well be that there are similar ones
relating to other EPC member states.

While I can understand that people will want to ensure that their European patent attorney has passed the
European qualifying examination, what I have also found interesting (read worrying) is just how few people are
successful in their attempts to do so. A document I was sent shows that in 1998 1,092 candidates sat the
exam and 234 passed. By 2007, the numbers sitting had risen to 2,311, while the numbers passing stood at
just 407.

Although I have been told that 2007 was a particularly bad year and that pass rates before and after were
slightly higher, it is certainly the case that it is incredibly difficult to become a European patent attorney via the
examination route. Apparently, papers are set by a board whose members are equally divided between
European Patent Office officials and members of the European Patent Institute, the body that represents
European patent attorneys. While it is good to have high standards, there is a fine line between being
demanding and being unreasonable. After all, we are not talking about any old Tom, Dick or Harry being able
to sit these exams in the first place - you have to have "a university-level scientific or technical
qualification" or equivalent, as well as having trained "under the supervision of a professional representative
or as an employee dealing with patent matters in an industrial company established in one of the contracting
states". One correspondent likened the whole process to having to prove you are someone with Formula One
credentials in order just to pass your driving test.

The danger with having standards that are too high is that people who could be very good patent attorneys do

1 of 4 1/14/10 7:18 AM
IAM Magazine - IAM Blog - There are 40,000 patent att... http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=e32...

not get the chance because they fall just short, while others are put off from trying in the first place. You also
run the risk of being accused of operating what is essentially a closed shop. I am sure that this is not a
deliberate policy, but it is certainly the case that the fewer European patent attorneys there are, the more work
there is for those that are qualified and, therefore, the less competition there is between attorneys - meaning
less incentive to be flexible with pricing and to develop innovative ways of delivering services to your clients.

On top of all this, it also seems to be the case that the current European qualifying exams do not actually
cover strategic issues at all - there is nothing in any of the papers candidates sit that focuses on how
companies can or should manage their patent rights, or whether they should be creating them in the first
place. In today's European economy, that looks like a startling omission to me. But, again, what incentive do
examiners have to change it or even to discuss changing it?

According to the USPTO website, there are currently "9711 active agents and 29493 active attorneys"
authorised to prosecute patents at the office. That compares to under 10,000 in Europe (and probably well
under that number in active practice). Now, I am not calling for such a dramatic leap in numbers over here, but
I do note that US companies are probably the world's most sophisticated in the ways they view and use
patents. There are many reasons for this - including, of course, the nature of US patent litigation - but I can't
help wondering whether the sheer number of service providers also has something to do with it.

For each one of those close to 40,000 agents and attorneys to make a living, they have to develop businesses
in the face of a level of competition that just does not exist in Europe. That puts the onus on them going out
and finding clients, and offering them pricing and services they cannot get from elsewhere. I just do not think
that this happens enough in Europe. Until it does, we are going to lag behind in our companies' willingness
and abilities to use patents to create real value.

Sectors
IP management, IP politics, Patents, IP business

Comments

RE: There are 40,000 patent attorneys in the US and under 10,000 in the EU. That can't be right

This whole thread seems predicated on two unassailable axioms, 1. That there is sufficient demand to justify
the supply of huge numbers of new European patent attorneys, and 2. Europe and the US have a
homogeneous IP culture.

As to 1, how about some utilization figures for EPAs? Are you sure they're not twiddling their thumbs at this
precise moment? As to 2, that is simply not correct. If it were then Europe's attorneys would simply borrow
their innovative business models from the US and hence no need for more competition here to develop them
ourselves.

Finally, on the benefit of exams, they are no substitute for experience. Out here in Asia I see many developing
jurisdictions introducing IP qualification regimes and at least part of their motivation is simply protectionism.

Tom Grek, Yu & Partners - Associated with Rouse Legal on 12 Jan 2010 @ 02:26

RE: There are 40,000 patent attorneys in the US and under 10,000 in the EU. That can't be right

Tom - My whole point is that currently there is no real incentive for European patent attorneys to go out and
create business, despite the fact that use of the IP system by European companies - and SMEs in particular -
is very low. There may well be European patent attorneys twiddling their thumbs waiting for business to come
to them. To me that indicates that they are not being proactive enough and are not offering potential clients
services that they are willing to pay for. My belief is that competition leads to proactivity, which is why more
patent attorneys on the ground in Europe may well be a positive thing. Your point on exams is well made. Joff

Joff Wild, IAM Magazine on 12 Jan 2010 @ 09:06

RE: There are 40,000 patent attorneys in the US and under 10,000 in the EU. That can't be right

2 of 4 1/14/10 7:18 AM
IAM Magazine - IAM Blog - There are 40,000 patent att... http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=e32...

I'm sorry, but you should make sure that you aren't comparing apples and oranges.

US patent attorneys (and agents, which you happily throw into the total, something which I sustect US patent
attorneys wouldn't be very happy about) don't just do patent prosecution. US patent attorneys also do
litigation, which in most of Europe (Britain being the notable exception) is outside the reach of "mere" patent
attorneys. US patent attorneys also have to deal with design patents, whereas the European equivalent
(registered designs) is dealt with by trademark attorneys. To make a reasonable comparison, you should at
least add the numbers of IP-specialised litigators and those of trademark attorneys working in the area of
registered designs to those of European patent attorneys. Then, you'd in my opinion, also have to take the
nationally qualified patent attorneys into consideration.

Secondly, I seriously dispute that the EQE is too stringent. It is tough, but its requirements are quite
reasonable considering the responsabilities of a patent attorney. It isn't as if the bar is set any lower for US
patent attorneys: they have to have a postgraduate degree in law (Juris Doctor) and pass both the Patent Bar
and State Bar exams, and neither of these is known for being a cakewalk.

Thirdly, while exams aren't a replacement for experience, the opposite also applies: experience isn't a
replacement for the knowledge and understanding that an exam are set to prove. Experience, in and by itself,
is quite useless if it is experience in doing things wrong...

Ultimately, I do agree that Europe, or at least some parts of it, should need more patent attorneys. But
watering down the qualification requirements is quite the wrong approach in my opinion. Rather, more
investment into training and the right incentives for young graduates to take this path should be considered.
Otherwise it can't be explained how some countries manage to be very well represented among the corps of
European patent examiners, yet hardly produce any European patent attorneys, when the skillsets are quite
similar...

Of course, these are merely my own private views, and cannot be considered to represent those of any one of
my past, present or future clients or employers.

Rodrigo Calvo de Nó, Gevers & Vander Haeghen on 12 Jan 2010 @ 15:59

RE: There are 40,000 patent attorneys in the US and under 10,000 in the EU. That can't be right

Rodrigo - not all US patent attorneys actively prosecute patents at the USPTO, but they are entitled to do so.
Most patent litigators in Europe are not authorised to prosecute patents and in the majority of countries would
not actually be able to as they lack a scientific/technical background. The same applies to trademark
attorneys. So maybe it is more a case of me comparing different types of apple. In any case, my main point is
that being a patent attorney should not just be about prosecuting patents. The job should be much more
focused on providing clients with IP-related business advice. This is the only way that SMEs in Europe will
begin to engage with the IP system. At the moment, however, there is little incentive for attorneys to do this;
and, what's more, the EQE does not even cover it. That cannot be right. Joff

Joff Wild, IAM Magazine on 12 Jan 2010 @ 16:26

RE: There are 40,000 patent attorneys in the US and under 10,000 in the EU. That can't be right

Joff,

"The job should be much more focused on providing clients with IP-related business advice." Why? The skills
required to draft, prosecute, oppose and defend patent applications aren't quite the same as those required for
providing business advice (IP-related or otherwise). There isn't any reason why somebody whose job would
be focussed on providing clients IP-related business advice should be qualified to practice before the EPO or
call himself "patent attorney", for that matter. Indeed, if many US patent attorneys choose not to actively
prosecute patents at the USPTO, despite having dedicated very substantial amounts of time, effort and money
to be allowed to practice before the USPTO, then shouldn't be rather be deploring their waste?

Division of labour is the basis of the modern economy. There are perhaps reasons for patent attorneys to
become more business-savvy, just as there are good reasons for business and engineering and science
schools to start treating IP more seriously in their curricula. However, there being 6 bn people in the world, it is

3 of 4 1/14/10 7:18 AM
IAM Magazine - IAM Blog - There are 40,000 patent att... http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=e32...

also generally more efficient to specialise on rather narrow tasks than to try to do many different things badly
(politicians being very good at the latter: see where this brings us). Rather than watering down the
qualification requirements to inflate the ranks of patent attorneys, it should better to form teams of specialists,
each one focussing on what they can do best.

And because there is already quite a complex division of labour in place, and the boundaries are quite
different in the US and Europe, it appears to me disingeneous to try to make such comparisons in numbers
without taking these differences into account.

Of course, these are merely my own private views, and cannot be considered to represent those of any one of
my past, present or future clients or employers.

Rodrigo Calvo de Nó, Gevers & Vander Haeghen on 12 Jan 2010 @ 18:04

RE: There are 40,000 patent attorneys in the US and under 10,000 in the EU. That can't be right

Rodrigo - Patent attorneys already exist. To create a new profession will take time. Europe does not have
time. Joff

Joff Wild, IAM Magazine on 12 Jan 2010 @ 18:14

RE: There are 40,000 patent attorneys in the US and under 10,000 in the EU. That can't be right

Joff,

that's a short, simple answer. Unfortunately, like most short, simple answers, I believe it has also the
significant defect of being wrong. In fact, it is you who is proposing to create a whole new profession of patent
attorney instead of the existing one. Where are those 30,000 new patent attorneys going to come from? Isn't
their training also going to take some time, especially if you want them to take on more tasks than their current
ones?

I think most people will agree that if there's something there isn't any shortage of in Europe, it's business
consultants. That's an existing profession, one without many (or any) barriers to entry, and which is at least
supposed to do the job of proferring sound business advice. Shouldn't it be easier, safer and faster to train at
least some of those business consultants in IP, and to have them join efforts with patent attorneys? I know I
already do.

Of course, these are merely my own private views, and cannot be considered to represent those of any one of
my past, present or future clients or employers.

Rodrigo Calvo de Nó, Gevers & Vander Haeghen on 12 Jan 2010 @ 18:46

RE: There are 40,000 patent attorneys in the US and under 10,000 in the EU. That can't be right

Rodrigo - I would be very happy if business consultants were to become part of the offering patent attorneys
put in front of their clients. Unfortunately, though, not many do. So the question is: how do we encourage it to
happen? If there are more patent attorneys (not 30,000 more by the way, another few thousand would
probably do the trick), there is more competition, so more incentive for patent attorneys to think about what
they offer their clients - actual and potential - and how much they charge them. Joff

Joff Wild, IAM Magazine on 12 Jan 2010 @ 18:56

© Copyright 2003-2010 Globe White Page Ltd

4 of 4 1/14/10 7:18 AM