Draft Code of Conduct for Patent & Trade Mark Attorneys

Intellectual Property Regulation Board (IPREG)

The Shadow Board of the Intellectual Property Regulation Board has considered the current codes of conduct applying to the Patent and Trade Mark Attorney professions and has gone on to agree the attached draft set of Rules of Conduct which might apply to the professions. The purpose of this letter is to ask you to let the IPREG have the views of the Chartered Institute and Institute and to invite your registrants and members to submit their views to IPREG.

The aim of these Rules, when eventually agreed and adopted by the substantive Board of IPREG when it comes into being, will be to provide practitioners and firms within which both Patent Attorneys and Trade Mark Attorneys practice with a single set of Rules. Also, as you will see, the draft Rules incorporate draft guidance, which the Shadow Board considers will assist practitioners in the application of the Rules. This Guidance is, as the draft explains, not part of the rules and therefore not mandatory. It would be useful to know if this arrangement is convenient and helpful to practitioners. If not, what format would respondents want?

The Rules are based on principles and do not seek to provide detailed regulation. The Shadow Board has sought to keep the Rules in line with those governing the other professions involved in the provision of legal services but with a clear focus on proportionality. In that regard, Rule 10, dealing with Financial Matters, has been drafted on the basis that Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys do not handle significant sums of money on behalf of Clients (unlike Solicitors or Conveyencers) and therefore the Guidance suggests a straightforward practical approach to the issue. We would like to know if this “principle” based approach meets with approval and if the draft code strikes the right balance in relation to proportionality.

One particular area on which the Shadow Board would be grateful for views is Indemnity Insurance. Though no decision has been made, Rule 16, as currently drafted, states that practitioners should have a minimum of £1Million of Indemnity Insurance. This is significantly higher than the minimum required in the Rules of Professional Conduct of  the Chartered Institute at present and is also significantly higher than the level of cover which a number of individual Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys have currently. Before the Shadow Board considers the matter it would be useful to have views from practitioners on whether the  figure set out in the draft is reasonable and if not what should the figure be and why.

Any comments should be sent to tm@itma.org.uk by Friday, 8th August, 2008.

Mike Knight
Acting Chief Executive
Intellectual Property Regulation Board