It took 20 rounds of voting over six months but the member states that make up the Administrative Council of the EPO finally chose a successor to out-going president Alison Brimelow on March 1. Four months later, on July 1, France's Benoît Battistelli took over the top job.

Being leader of one of the world's five biggest patent offices automatically gives the holder a great degree of influence in the IP system: Benoît Battistelli will be involved in international talks to find ways to increase global cooperation in the patent granting process and overseeing procedural changes at the EPO to improve its efficiency. Both will have considerable impact on the way that patent owners and their advisers prosecute their applications and protect their rights.

But Battistelli could prove particularly influential because of the timing of his appointment. It is becoming clear to many IP professionals that the EPO's long-term financial liabilities, including the potential black hole in its pension fund, need to be tackled quickly if the Office is not to find itself in a funding crisis. The situation is not helped by a growing tendency for IP owners whose patents cover innovations in fast-moving areas of technology to abandon their IP rights just as annuities – the Office's income – begin to rise sharply. How Battistelli deals with the EPO's finances will be crucial in the long-term.

The way that he handles the Office's attempts at efficiency-boosting internal reforms will also have a big impact on patent applicants. A series of rule changes relating to divisionals that came into force on April 1 have prompted unprecedented criticism from IP lawyers who say that the Office carried out little consultation with users beforehand.

"In general, there seems to be frustration that the EPO, in recent years, has stopped listening to its users and has become driven primarily by the need to solve its own internal problems – workload and accounting," one well-connected patent attorney told Managing IP. He continued: "There is a sense that some of the more recent rule changes have been not as well thought out as they could have been and are rather experimental in nature. That should be avoided in the future, and the EPO should resume its role as a visionary in the field of IP, driven by technical and legal excellence, and not by bureaucrats and accountants."

The rule changes have so infuriated some patent attorneys that they are advising clients to consider applying directly to national patent offices in Europe to protect their rights, bypassing the EPO altogether. The way in which Battistelli handles future reforms at the EPO gives him plenty of opportunity to influence the way the Office is viewed by users.

As he prepared to take over the presidency, Battistelli told Managing IP what he planned to do during his five-year term.

I am going to launch two external audits as soon as possible. One will look at the EPO's financial and budgetary situation and one will consider IT. We will put them out to tender and hope to make our selection in September and have the results by the end of 2010. We will then present and discuss the findings to the staff, then draw out conclusions, which will be submitted to the Administrative Council in March.

The idea is to have an external strategic analysis on mid- to long-term trends relating to our costs and income. We need to analyse the framework in which we are working. The audits will develop hypotheses and take into consideration macroeconomic influences and trends in patent applications.

It is important to have a view on long-term trends so we can choose the best measures for the short and medium term.

But I think it is necessary to make clear distinctions between our long-term social liabilities and our operational needs, such as training, HR and IT tools. These operational costs don't follow the same trends and we need to distinguish between them.

On the IT audit, we know that the efficiency of IT tools and systems will be increasingly essential to any IP office and require huge investment. The EPO has a very good record on IT tools – almost everyone uses Epoque or esp@cenet now, for example. We need to take time to understand the situation and help us to know which field to focus on. The audit will encompass the issue of automatic translations of patents. One of our biggest challenges is the growing importance of Asian patents, especially those from China. We need to find ways of integrating them into the global system and the state of the art. It's important for the economic community – for companies – that the access to this information is made easy. I've already discussed this point with my Chinese colleague and we agreed that more cooperation is needed in this area.

So you see, it won't be a simple technical IT audit – it will be a strategic one that helps our decision making process. Will the IT changes that the audit may recommend cost more? I can't prejudge the outcome but this issue is one of the main reasons why I will launch the IT and the finance audit at the same time. If the IT audit shows that we need to make large investments, it is essential that we fully understand our financial capabilities.

Both these audits are strategic ones in the sense that they are concrete studies that will help us to take appropriate decisions and propose a programme of actions.

Good relations with the EPO's staff are absolutely essential. Between the election and the end of June, I visited all EPO's offices and met as many people as possible, including staff representatives. For instance, I met several examiners but also patent formalities officers. The idea was to enable us to get to know each other and for me to be better informed about the EPO's internal management. They have concerns – general and specific ones – but I found the staff to be very dedicated to the EPO's mission. You know, you don't decide to work for the EPO by chance. It's part of a commitment to work for a European public organisation in a multinational environment away from home countries. They want to improve their working conditions – that's easy to understand. The impression I keep is of very dedicated people with a high level of expertise.

To facilitate this necessary relationship, I will try to develop different channels to ensure that I am easily accessible and will find ways of having the necessary dialogue. I'm not arriving with a programme but with convictions because I still have to learn. Of course, I followed issues closely when I was in the Administrative Council but this is a different matter to manage this complex organisation with more than 7,000 staff and I have to listen to people and find out what the challenges are. I would not like to give the impression that I can arrive as a magician with all the solutions ready to pull out of a hat.

It is too early to present practical plans. There has already been progress over the past few months. For example, the granting process has been enhanced with a real rise in productivity and quality.

The European economy doesn't need external costs to be raised. We must remember that the EPO is there to help the European economy. The solution is not to raise our fees. Therefore we need to develop our capacity. We should try to reduce costs for applicants and reduce the costs of patenting for companies. Our role is to grant high-quality patents at a reasonable cost, including all the HR-related costs and investments we have to make to have efficient IT processes and tools, pay for our buildings etc. This is why the budget and finance audit is very important. It will reveal the natural trends on costs. We are not in a position to change the distribution of annual fees with national patent offices, which are set at 50:50. I don't foresee any change to this. We have to live with that. We could have endless theoretical debates about the key but the fact is it won't change.

We are very interested in developments at the USPTO. I met David Kappos in Munich in mid-June. I intend to have close relations with the US Office. If they have good experiences that we could implement at the EPO, then why not? But it is important to remember that our situation and our IP systems are very different. But I'm always open to new ideas. Benchmarking is a very sound approach. The USPTO is a very interesting example but there are also developments taking place in South Korea, China and other European offices. So we will be following events elsewhere closely – not to copy them but to inspire us.

Many measures for greater cooperation have already been launched. The IP5 has 10 projects underway now. These are progressing quite well and I am very interested in seeing the results. I intend to have close relations with colleagues from the Trilateral and IP5, most of whom I know already. The heads of the big five offices will meet in Geneva in September. It will be a good opportunity to discuss some of these issues with them.

For me, the priority is the PCT. It is clear from the beginning – and for the majority of the member states of the EPO – that the PCT is the priority. I intend to work closely with Francis Gurry, whom I know very well, on increasing cooperation on the PCT. Although I am not closed to other solutions to resolve the problems of work sharing and backlogs.

There are plenty of technical ways to improve the PCT. It has been ratified by many countries but some have retained reserves on specific points. If we could lift those, step by step, it would help. Do I want the EPO to join more PPHs? First, I will look at the results of the experiments we have been involved in.

I feel close to a number of colleagues. I know all the IP office heads in Europe and many of those elsewhere. We are faced with the same kinds of situations and have similar priorities so it is very difficult to identify just one or two. We are all convinced that patenting is not an objective in itself – it is a tool for the economy. I think the Paris criteria are good ones [bringing the average time taken to grant a European patent down to 36 months]. We are all conscious of that. We have a shared vision.

I have good personal relations with the Chinese Commissioner, Tian Lipu – I've had several discussions with him during my time at INPI, and with the US one, David Kappos. There are quite new appointments at the JPO and in Korea as well. I count Jorge Amigo of Mexico, Jorge Ávila in Rio de Janeiro and Mary Carman, the Canadian IP chief, as friends. You know, in a way, IP office officials are a small family.

Last but not least, I have an excellent relationship with the new president of OHIM, Antonio Campinos. We share a lot of views, in particular about the necessity to enhance cooperation between the OHIM, the EPO and national offices.

I think Alain Pompidou's first greatest achievement was to help the London Agreement to be ratified by France and then enforced in a growing number of countries. The second one was to develop closer relations between the EPO and the European Commission.

Alison Brimelow had the courage to underline the financial and budgetary constraints on the Organisation to staff and member states and I am very thankful to her for that.

It's very important that as soon as possible we find solutions to these two issues so that Europe can take decisions that will implement these two projects. I have personally been involved for 10 years on these issues and I will continue to be involved. The EPO, as such, is not among the decision makers but we concern ourselves very much with the process. We will try to be as active as possible to help facilitate the decision. We have a centralised granting process. We also need a harmonised litigation system.

The EU patent, as the planned Community patent is now known, will be granted by the EPO. We need to work closely with the European Commission and member states to ensure that it will be useful for companies and that they have a choice between the present European patent and the EU patent.

Members of the EPO should have full access to the European patent litigation system. That is very important to me – although it is something that already has widespread agreement.

We need to ensure that the EU patent does not create problems for the European patent and the EPO.

For the next five years I will not be speaking on behalf of the French government. But with my French hat on, I can say that France has been in favour of both the EU patent and a centralised litigation system. What we have said, and what I think has now largely been accepted, is that the two projects need to fit with the EU's legal framework. Regarding the linguistic issue, the main driver of the discussion should be that the regime which will be proposed for the EU patent has to be affordable for European companies, especially SMEs, keeping in mind that the EU patent will be a European patent, following the EPC which is based on the three languages regime, and validated for the whole EU territory. In this regard, the requested modifications should be very limited. We also have to keep in mind that significant progresses have been made in the machine translation systems, which will help to solve this issue.

I wish to develop strong cooperation between national patent offices in Europe and the EPO. In which fields should that take place? That is an open question. I would like to see us sharing IT tools and training for examiners. I know there are a lot of needs – and expectations on this issue. It is a big priority for me. Globally we need to network our competences. I intend to make some concrete proposals in the following months.

The EPO is a great success and is regarded as one of the best offices in the world I would be happy if it was still regarded like this, or even as the best office in the world. I also hope that the patent litigation system and the Patent of the EU have been implemented.

Guido Baumgartner Chair MARQUES

The next 12 months will be a crucial period for the trade mark system in Europe: the Max Planck Institute's report is due in November, and could lead to legislative changes; the ECJ is likely to be asked to rule on the issue of genuine use; and OHIM (under its new leadership) and national offices will have to work harder to cooperate and harmonise their practices. A number of associations are involved in these changes, notably AIM, BusinessEurope, ECTA, INTA and MARQUES. As chair of the latter since last year, Guido Baumgartner has pushed for increased visibility, and MARQUES has been particularly active in the discussions concerning the Max Planck report, as well as issues such as the genuine use requirement and EU rules on transhipment – on both of which it has intervened before the courts.

Ellen ‘t Hoen Senior adviser IP and Medicines Patent Pool UNITAID

Since quitting her job as policy and advocacy director of Médecins sans Frontières's campaign for access to essential medicines last year, Ellen 't Hoen has been helping to put in place a framework for patent pools at UNITAID, an organisation funded by 29 governments and charitable foundations to scale up access to AIDS, TB and malaria treatment.

The pool will not rely on charitable donations of IP rights or require IP owners to abandon their patents – licensors will be paid a royalty for the use of their rights. "This is a business proposition," says t'Hoen. "We want to make it work within the existing IP framework, although the IP environment may need to change a little." Some companies have already indicated an interest. Among the front runners who are discussing how to make it work, rather than whether they should be involved, are Gilead, Merck and Johnson & Johnson.

t'Hoen wants concrete results within a year. "I hope that we can roll it out to other diseases. The laboratories of change such as patent pools were driven by the AIDS crisis but if the mechanism works then they could serve other needs."

Luc Devigne Head of IP and Public Procurement, DG Trade, European Commission

As the leading EU negotiator for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Devigne represents 27 of the 37 states that are likely to sign the deal, once it is confirmed. But he has also had to deal with strong opposition to some of its proposals from the public and the European Parliament. It is perhaps for this reason that Devigne is believed to have been one of the negotiators who favoured publishing the draft text in the interests of transparency – something that took place following the meeting in New Zealand in April this year. The Agreement is still scheduled to be finalised later this year – but one thing's for sure: Devigne's role defending and explaining its purpose and provisions will continue long after the ink has dried.

Margot Fröhlinger European Commission

Most European patent practitioners believe an EU patent will never be created. Fröhlinger, however, has proven in the trade mark field that disparate interests can be brought together, and her department has worked closely with OHIM and EU member states to secure a compromise deal that has seen the fees for Community trade marks reduced and a plan put in place to deal with OHIM's surplus, as well as the launch of a study into Europe's trade mark system. That study could lead to changes to the rules governing trade marks in Europe next year. By then, depending on the progress under the Belgian presidency over the next six months, we should know whether there is any chance of similar progress on patent harmonisation.

Lord Justice Jacob Court of Appeal

Polemical, witty, clever – Lord Justice Jacob has a considerable reputation throughout Europe for his erudite judgments as well as his long experience in IP matters. Next year will see the judge take up a position as the first Sir Hugh Laddie Chair in IP Law at the University College London. It is believed Jacob hopes to combine teaching with sitting part-time in the Court of Appeal, though whether that is practicable remains to be seen. Either way, it is likely that one of the relatively recently appointed Patents Court judges will be asked to fill his shoes as the main patent specialist in the Court of Appeal. And they will be quite some shoes to fill.

Antonio Campinos OHIM president-elect

In October, Antonio Campinos will become the third president of OHIM (the office that administers the Community trade mark (CTM) and design) following Jean-Claude Combaldieu and Wubbo de Boer.

Within a few months, Campinos will have to react to the European Commission's study on the trade mark system. There is also a lot of work still to do in improving the timeliness of OHIM decisions (notably in oppositions) as well as the consistency of rulings. The staff, who come from across the EU, may prove resistant to over-ambitious attempts at reform. And, above all, Campinos will be at the centre of a battle over that ever-growing surplus. Diplomacy will be a key skill.

Peter Messerli Vice-president EPO

Messerli, who joined the EPO in 1996, is now coming to the end of his third term as president of the Enlarged Board of Appeal and will retire next year. His tenure has seen not just a growing number of significant cases but greater recognition of the Board's decisions throughout Europe's courts. Until politicians can agree on setting up a European IP court, the Enlarged Board of Appeal is effectively Europe's leading patent authority.

Jesper Kongstad Chairman of the Administrative Council EPO

Last year the head of the Danish Patent and Trademark Office took part in a long and protracted four-way battle to succeed Alison Brimelow as president of the European Patent Office. He ultimately lost to France's Benoît Battistelli, a man he knows well after serving as deputy under Battistelli's chairmanship of the EPO's Administrative Council. Battistelli's move to the president's office left a vacancy as chair of the Admin Council, an oversight body made up of one representative from each of the Office's 37 member states. In an election at the end of June, Kongstad was chosen – this time unanimously – to lead it.

Joaquín Almunia European Commissioner for Competition

Joaquín Almunia, the EU commissioner and former Spanish socialist politician who took over the competition portfolio from the Netherlands' Neelie Kroes earlier this year, appears to have found a new appetite for pursuing antitrust offenders. In July, despite hopes from some in the industry that the departure of Kroes would mark a scaling back of her extensive probes into the drugs sector, Almunia made it clear that his team would continue to scrutinise deals made between originator pharmaceutical companies and their generic rivals for anti-competitive tendencies.

With the US Federal Trade Commission equally determined to tackle so-called reverse payments in the pharmaceutical sector, IP professionals in the industry can expect Atlantic inspection of their operations to continue apace.

Annette Kur Research fellow Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property

Annette Kur is a researcher at the Max Planck Institute. Along with fellow academics Reto Hilty and Roland Knaak, she is preparing a report for the European Commission into the state of the Community trade mark, which is expected to be submitted in November.

The evidence so far suggests that users of the CTM are, overall, a fairly contented lot. But one issue that the trio will address is the tricky question of what constitutes use of a trade mark, following the Benelux IP Office's ruling that the Onel CTM had not been put to "genuine use" in the EU as it was only used in the Netherlands. "If you looks closely, the positions are not as far apart as they seem," says Kur. "No one favours autonomy. But there are differences in attitude and we need to address those."

David Rosenberg Vice-president, corporate IP policy GlaxoSmith- Kline

Few industries face more legal hurdles than pharmaceuticals – from patent expiry and complex court challenges to competition enquiries, regulatory controls and product liability suits. It's important therefore for the industry to have respected spokespeople. David Rosenberg, a lawyer who for 10 years has worked on IP and policy issues for GSK, is one such.

Charles Dunstone Chairman of TalkTalk

Charles Dunstone, chairman of TalkTalk, has long been a vocal opponent of the former Labour government's plans to require internet service providers to play a key role in the battle to fight online piracy, criticising the proposals in the media and in postings on his corporate blog. But now his company has teamed up with BT, the former state-owned telecoms company, to ask the courts for a judicial review of the Digital Economy Act.

If the Court backs Dunstone and his colleagues in the UK's internet service provider industry, it will be a big blow to copyright owners. The Court's decision is expected before the end of the year.

Nathalie Moullé-Berteaux IP director Louis Vuitton

It is not surprising that luxury goods companies are willing to spend time and money fighting fakes. Their profits, after all, depend heavily on maintaining brand value and perpetuating an air of exclusive cachet about their products. And when it comes to taking action, LVMH is the trade mark owners' trade mark owner, with in-house counsel Nathalie Moullé-Berteaux responsible for much of its go-get 'em reputation. Recent years have seen the company take part in French-government brokered talks with online platforms, target landlords of premises where fakes are sold as well as online auction houses such as eBay, and sue Google over the search engine's AdWord programme.

Neelie Kroes Vice-president of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda

The Dutch politician and businesswoman's areas of interest are wide. She has already told Icann's general meeting to introduce new gTLDs "carefully", for example, and warned the internet body that managing the expansion and avoiding chaos will be a "big challenge".

Kroes will also attempt to reform Europe's patchwork of copyright rules to make it easier for online and digital service providers to offer pan-EU products by simplifying copyright clearance, management and licensing. Another part of her ambitious programme will see her work alongside Antonio Tajani, the commissioner in charge of entrepreneurship and industry, to propose reforms of the European system of standards.

Rosario Silva de Lapuerta Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Later this year, Europe's highest court is due to rule on the legality of the EU joining a proposed system to simplify patent litigation across the continent.

Although a "yes" vote from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJ) will not lead automatically to the establishment of a specialised, unified patent court, it will make it harder for those member state governments who oppose the scheme to question its legality and will remove one more barrier to achieving a Europe-wide patent litigation system. A "no" vote would be a severe, and potentially fatal, blow to the plan. The Court's answer will be drafted by the Spanish judge Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, the reporting judge in the case who is responsible for overseeing its progress through the system.

Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon Co-founders Spotify

Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon launched their music streaming service Spotify in late 2008. Copyright owners are watching closely. If they succeed in persuading users of illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing sites to switch to their legal alternative, the two entrepreneurs could help content industries regain the business initiative they lost in the digital revolution. If they fail, record and movie companies could soon find themselves running out of options.