Cost of pan-European patent protection to plummet in May

Full English translations no longer required


The cost of pan-European patent protection will be slashed on 1st May this year, the date when a new agreement on translations comes into effect. Full translations of applications filed in English will no longer be required.

The London Agreement (pdf) will halve the cost of European patents, according to the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA). Though full agreement was reached last October, the implementation date of 1st May has only now been agreed.

"Businesses here will no longer be put off by the high cost of getting patent protection throughout Europe," said Robert Weston, president of CIPA. "When other member states of the European Patent Convention that have not ratified the London Agreement follow suit it will mean that a single application, made in just one language, will give patent protection in a market of over 300 million consumers."

"This will put Europe in a similar to the situation for patenting costs that American companies have enjoyed for decades," said Weston.

The London Agreement was made in 2000 and allows for patents to be valid even if not produced in all Europe's languages, cutting translation costs dramatically.

Eight countries had to ratify the Agreement before it could come into force, and three of those had to be the UK, Germany and France. Eleven countries have now signed up, and France was the last of those to do so last October.

It does away with the need to have an entire patent application translated into the language of every country in which the applicant wants it to take effect.

Countries where English, French and German is not the native tongue will choose one of these to be their language of patents. As long as the patent is available in that language, the patent holder will not have to translate it into the official language of that country.

For countries where the official language is English, French or German the patent holder will not have to produce a translation as long as the patent is in one of those three languages. The patent claims, which outline the scope of the patent, will have to be produced in all three languages, though.

CIPA estimates that the new rules will save more than €7,000 in costs per patent, on average. Previously an applicant could get the right to have a European Patent Office patent just by filing in English, French or German.

But they had to translate the patent into the language of any country where they wanted the patent to take effect. CIPA said that translating into Europe's 22 official languages would cost over €30,000.

CIPA said that on average patents were translated into seven languages, at a cost of €1,000 per language.

“This is particularly welcome news for small and medium-sized businesses as it will reduce the average cost of getting European patent protection by more than €7,000," said Weston.

Copyright © 2008, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Related links

Further info about the London Agreement
Status of accession and ratification


Other stories you might like

  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021