On January 8, the Israel PTO, in conjunction with the Department of Policy Planning and Strategy in the Ministry of Justice, announced a “roundtable” meeting scheduled for January 31 at the Ministry of Justice offices in Tel-Aviv, from 14:30-16:00. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss proposals for new ethics rules for Israel patent practitioners. People wishing to participate must respond by email to [email protected]. It should be noted that no actual rules have been proposed – the notice itself merely lists some topics, without explaining with the MOJ’s position is or why those topics are included (and why others are excluded).
If you didn’t know about this meeting, you’re not alone: although a notice was posted on the Israel PTO web site, no notice was sent via the Israel PTO’s regular email distribution system. Instead, email invitations were sent to people who responded to an earlier “call for comments” that was posted on October 20 and that had a short response deadline of November 10.
To the best of my knowledge, the comments that were received in response to that “call for comments” have not been posted anywhere, and my email request to receive a copy of them – sent to the same email address above – hasn’t even elicited a “received with thanks email”.
By way of background, Israel’s patent statute was enacted in 1967. The statute says that the relevant minister has the authority to enact (as regulations) “ethics” rules for patent practitioners. To date, no such rules have been enacted, but the practice doesn’t seem to be any worse for the wear. Which leads one to wonder what the impetus is for enacting ethics rules for patent practitioners davka now, or even who is pushing for the adoption of such. (In around 2013 or 2014, there was a push from within the MOJ to adopt such rules, and there was a similar “roundtable” meeting at the PTO, but that project did not result in the adoption of such rules.)
As I have noted in the past in comments to the MOJ/PTO, if you use an online search engine, you’ll find canonical lists of lawyer jokes, but jokes about patent attorneys are few and far between. There’s just far less potential for patent practitioners to engage in mischief of the kind that makes people distrust lawyers generally, and what potential there is would seem to be adequately covered by tort law. Additionally, the statute includes provisions for discipline of practitioners, with “breach of the [non-existent] ethics rules” being only one of the things for which a practitioner can be disciplined, and as a practical matter, an ad hoc committee of practitioners has from time to time been formed by the Israel PTO when a complaint about a practitioner was received. In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
One long-standing point of contention within the community of patent practitioners in Israel has been whether or not a practitioner can list himself as an inventor on an application he’s drafted. To any US-licensed practitioner, the answer to that question is a no-brainer: of course. And the way to regulate such situations is to make the practitioner assign his rights to the clients, at no extra cost, as was done in the case I reported on here, here, here and here.
A point that doesn’t seem to be on the MOJ’s radar, but which should be, is providing notification to clients when a practitioner leaves an office to practice elsewhere. It’s not uncommon for a practitioner to work with a particular client, local or foreign, over the course of years, during which that practitioner will often become familiar with the client’s technologies, personnel, and patent portfolios. In such a situation, the client would be best served by being given the choice of staying with the departing practitioner – thus preserving institutional memory – or staying with the old firm, with the understanding that someone new may need to learn about client’s needs. I am not aware of any firm in Israel that notifies clients when such departures occur and lets the clients know they have the option of staying with the departed practitioner.
Given the lack of transparency in how the current push for practitioner ethics rules has been handled to this point – no broad email distribution; no names of the people in the MOJ who are responsible; no disclosure of the comments received thus far; no explanations of why certain rules are deemed necessary, let alone actual draft rules to which the public can respond; a one-and-a-half hour meeting, when more time than that will probably be required – I am not alone among my colleagues in thinking that this “roundtable” is just a fig leaf to cover a fait accompli, and that the MOJ and PTO are just going through the motions of soliciting public input.
Update, a few minutes after posting: Earlier today I re-sent my email requesting copies of the comments to the email address above, with a cc to a particular person in the Israel PTO. Shortly after I initially posted this blog post, I received copies of the five (!) submissions received in response to the "call for comments", one of which was my own submission. Interestingly, the response from a group called "The Israel Patent Attorneys Association" suggested that a "roundtable" be held to discuss issues. I include links to all these documents below, although only my own comments were written in English.
Download Response of small offices
Download Response of association