 |
 |
| Home | People | Portfolio | Articles | Links | Contact us |
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
The London AgreementNew Translation Regime Reduces Cost of Post-Grant Validation of European PatentsAndrew R N ClementsFollowing the ratification by France of the London Agreement on the application of Article 65 EPC, a new era of reduced translation costs for European patents will enter into force on 1 May 2008.
At present, most contracting states of the European Patent Convention (EPC) require the filing of a translation of the specification in order for a granted European patent to come into force in that state. This validation process and, in particular, the requirement for translations is estimated to account for 25% of the cost of the average European patent application (typically about €7000).
These costs will be significantly reduced for European patent applications whose grant is mentioned in the European Patent Bulletin after 1 May 2008. Initially fourteen EPC contracting states will implement the London Agreement, with others expected to join in the future. This will result in savings of approximately half of the current translation costs as of 1 May 2008, depending on the states in which the granted European patent is to be validated.
In states sharing one of the official languages of the EPO (France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Switzerland and the United Kingdom), the translation requirements will be dispensed with entirely. In other countries, translation of the claims and, in some cases, the description may still be required. However, a number of countries (Croatia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and the Netherlands) have indicated that an English translation of the description should be filed, thus avoiding the need for separate translations of the description for each of these countries. Committed StatesThe new translation requirements in the fourteen contracting states currently committed to the London Agreement are set out more fully below:-Switzerland (CH) – translation requirements for national validation abolished Germany (DE) – translation requirements for national validation abolished Denmark (DK)* – translation of claims into Danish; translation of description into English or Danish France (FR) – translation requirements for national validation abolished United Kingdom (GB)** – translation requirements for national validation abolished Croatia (HR) – translation of claims into Croatian; translation of description into English Iceland (IS) – translation of claims into Icelandic, translation of description into English or Icelandic Liechtenstein (LI) – translation requirements for national validation abolished Luxembourg (LU) – translation requirements for national validation abolished Latvia (LV) – translation of claims and title of the invention into Latvian Monaco (MC) – translation requirements for national validation abolished The Netherlands (NL) – translation of claims into Dutch; translation of description into English Sweden (SE)* – translation of claims into Swedish; translation of description into English Slovenia (SI) – translation of claims into Slovene; providing two copies of the drawings in the EP specification together with a translation of any text matter
* The date of entry into force of the London Agreement is yet to be confirmed by the national governments in Denmark and Sweden although it is expected that this will coincide with the entry into force in the other states committed to the London Agreement. ** The abolition of translation requirements in the United Kingdom will apply to all European patents for which publication of mention of grant took place after 1 February 2008. Non-Committed StatesThe following contracting states have not yet acceded to or ratified the London Agreement:-Austria (AT) Belgium (BE) Bulgaria (BG) Cyprus (CY) Czech Republic (CZ) Estonia (EE) Spain (ES) Finland (FI) Greece (GR) Hungary (HU) Ireland (IE) Italy (IT) Lithuania (LT) Malta (MT) Norway (NO) Poland (PL) Portugal (PT) Romania (RO) Slovakia (SK) Turkey (TR)
Thus, the existing translation requirements will be maintained in these latter states.
CorrespondenceAndrew Clements
|