Our policy in relation to the publication of our decisions is set out below:

Any decision of an initial “sift panel” to reject a complaint will not be published.

If the initial sift panel determines that a prima facie case has been made out but proceeds to consider the case summarily the name, the respondent and judgement will be published.

The details of any case brought forward to full disciplinary hearing will consist of the name of the respondent and the status of the case e.g. applicable rule(s) (the subject of the hearing)/“pending”/“heard but not determined”/“determined.”

The determination of the Disciplinary Panel will be published in full although names and details or other identifying features can be withheld if the Panel requires, in its discretion, in the interest of public or private safety or protection.

Current and concluded cases are as follows:

Complainant v A Patent Attorney and A Licensed Body was determined by the Complaint Review Commitee on 21 December 2017.  Details relating to the matter are no longer being published because the notice issued against A Licensed Body has now expired under IPReg’s Disciplinary Procedure Rules.

IPReg (The Patent Regulation Board) v A Patent Attorney was determined on 9th September 2013. Details relating to the matter are no longer being published as IPReg considers it would be disproportionate to do so bearing in mind the length of time since the events in question, the nature of the breaches admitted and the severity of the sanction imposed.

IPReg (The Patent Regulation Board) v A Patent Attorney was determined on 21st January 2013.  Details relating to the matter are no longer being published as IPReg considers it would be disproportionate to do so bearing in mind the length of time since the events in question, the nature of the breaches admitted and the severity of the sanction imposed.