Axel H. Horns Patentanwalt European TM Attorney European Patent Attorney
|
|
- Amberlynn Glenn
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Axel H. Horns Patentanwalt European TM Attorney European Patent Attorney Patentanwalt Horns Mittermayrstraße 18 D München To: Mr Erik Nooteboom Head of Unit Industrial Property Unit Internal Market and Services Directorate General European Commission 1049 B r u s s e l s B E L G I U M Mittermayrstraße 18 D München voice fax horns@ipjur.com web vat id DE Datum / Day: Ihr Zeichen / Your Ref.: N/A Mein Zeichen / My Ref.: B0044 (prov.) Questionnaire On the patent system in Europe Sir: Having read the questionnaire On the patent system in Europe as published on the Commission's website I take the liberty to offer my comments on the issues raised therein. The answers as set out hereinbelow are given on my own responsibility and not on behalf of any particular client, although my practical experiences obtained in my work as a patent professional are forming the background thereof. 1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system? a) clear substantive rules on what can and cannot be covered by patents, balancing the interests of the right holders with the overall objectives of the patent system; Answer: Yes, but taken as such this statement appears to be hardly more than a truism. The real problem is to get an idea as to how to balance the interests of the right holders with the overall objectives of the patent system. It seems also to be less than clear what those objectives of the patent system might be in practice. In my view, the provisions as set forth in Article 52 EPC in conjunction with the respective current case law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office seem to form a basis for an appropriate solution, in particular with regard to the question of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions - HITACHI T_0258/03. GPG Key D95095DE7AA3AA48 / FP BF40 63FE A3B0 33EB D950 95DE 7AA3 AA48
2 Patentanwalt Axel H. Horns Dipl.-Phys. Seite 2 Furthermore, my impression is that at the time being the Commission's approach is, when seen in its entirety, much too much focussed on aspects of pre-grant Patent Law, i.e. material criteria of patentability, neglecting political options in the field of post-grant Patent Law, i.e. exceptions from or modifications of the legal effects of a valid patent with regard to certain circumstances of the case. Take, for example, not only the system of exemptions embodied within (continental) Copyright Law but, in the realm of patents, also provisions like, for example, Article 5ter of the Paris Convention (or, see also 11 DE-PatG): "[...] In any country of the Union the following shall not be considered as infringements of the rights of a patentee: (1) the use on board vessels of other countries of the Union of devices forming the subject of his patent in the body of the vessel, in the machinery, tackle, gear and other accessories, when such vessels temporarily or accidentally enter the waters of the said country, provided that such devices are used there exclusively for the needs of the vessel; (2) the use of devices forming the subject of the patent in the construction or operation of aircraft or land vehicles of other countries of the Union, or of accessories of such aircraft or land vehicles, when those aircraft or land vehicles temporarily or accidentally enter the said country.[...]" Solving the problem of a potential hampering of the world trade caused by the threat of locking up foreign ships in seaports on the basis of local patents enforceable on the territory to which the respective seaport belongs on the post-grant side of the patent law was, im my view, a much better idea than, on the pre-grant side, starting a debate on whether or not the body, machinery, tackle, gear and other accessories of a vessel "as such" should be patentable. Unfortunately, contrary to the situation within (continental) Copyright Law where a lot of conflicts are addressed by means of exemptions ( Schrankenbestimmungen ), postgrant exemptions currently not play such a huge role in Patent Law up to now. Exeptions of relevance in Patent Law are the exemption for non-commercial private use of a patented invention and a very few more. The bigger problem appears to be to propose exemptions and/or modifications solving real-world problems without effectively crippling the patent system in its entirety. Nobody should expect that one magic exeption could be noted down solving all of the current patent troubles. I would rather guess that it must be, like the situation on the Copyright theatre, a patchwork of small hand-tailored exeptions with and without payments in accordance with the various business models out there. I am currently thinking of three examples of possible post-grant exemptions or modifications for the patent system in conjunction with software-related markets:
3 Patentanwalt Axel H. Horns Dipl.-Phys. Seite 3 aa) Source code exemption: Source code is somewhat ambigous insofar as it is at the same time means for human-to-human communication as well as means for controlling a machine. It might, hence, considered as interference with "freedom of speech" to shut down a source code repository on the net because of there is a patent somewhere which might be infringed if the source code is compiled, linked, and run on a processor in a specific technical environment. ab) Collective Licensing for patents: It might be worth to think of establishing a legal framework for collective licensing concerning patents on CIIs as a legal basis for collecting societies. This might greatly simplify processing of RAND licenses in the field of certain mass-market technologies. ac) Maintaining patent-free open standards: I could, for example, imagine the Patent Law to be amended by introducing a rule allowing major standardising institutions like DIN, ISO or W3C to publish a full technical disclosure for a proposed interoperability standard in some kind of an Official Gazette issued by some competent Authority on EU level. Then, each and every patent holder has an opportunity to oppose against this proposal within a certain term of, say, nine months or so. If a patent holder opposes, the standardising organisation as well as the public will be notified accordingly. An opposition can be absolute (i.e. the patent holder refuses to license the patent at all) or relative (i.e. the patent holder is willing to provide a RAND license only). If a patent holder does not oppose in due time the grant of a RF license will be stipulated by law. Such procedure would not unduly harm the interests of patent holders (they merely have to closely watch the Official Gazette and make up their mind) because of they will not be forced to grant any license. On the other side, if no opposition has been filed, the standards bodies can be sure that the proposed standard is in fact patent free. If oppositions are raised, they can re-think on whether or not drop that proposal. However, as in many other cases, the problems are in the gory details. For example, it will not be easy to deal with unexamined or even unpublished patent applications. Furthermore, the proposed procedure might not scale very well. If thousands or even tens of thousands of proposals would be published per year, the burden for the patent owners would be clearly inacceptable. On the other hand, patent owners must be hindered to simply block any standard without even looking at the details by simply filing objections on the basis of each and every patent available in their patent portfolio. If the total number of published proposals per year is sufficiently low this might be achived by requiring a modest Official fee or by imposing a duty to substantiate the Opposition.
4 Patentanwalt Axel H. Horns Dipl.-Phys. Seite 4 These cases aa), ab), and ac) are given for illustration purposes only. b) transparent, cost effective and accessible processes for obtaining a patent; Answer: Yes, but taken as such this statement appears to be hardly more than a truism. The real problem is to get an idea as to how to form transparent, cost effective and accessible processes for obtaining a patent. Currently, there are too many languages involved in the European patent system. I would favour a solution based on English as primary language for European patent purposes. c) predictable, rapid and inexpensive resolution of disputes between right holders and other parties; Answer: Yes, but taken as such this statement appears to be hardly more than a truism. The real problem is to get an idea as to how to obtain predictable, rapid and inexpensive resolution of disputes between right holders and other parties. The EPLA seems to be a proper approach to tackle this problem. d) due regard for other public policy interests such as competition (antitrust), ethics, environment, healthcare, access to information, so as to be effective and credible within society. Answer: In my view, the patent system should not be overburdened with other issues from outside. It should be kept in mind that the patent system creates exclusive rights preventing the public from making use of patented inventions without the patent owner's consent, i.e. patenting ethically questionable or otherwise politically disliked inventions does not mean to allow their use. Moreover, patent Examiners would clearly be overstrained if they were asked to assess also aspects of competition law, ethics, public healthcare and so on. In particular, I am strongly opposed against any attempts to solve political problems located outside the area of Intellectual Prroperty Law by excluding, on the pre-grant side of the patent law, certain classes of subject-matter from patentability: da) I understand that certain areas of biotechnology are subject to political controversies due to their (potential and/or alleged) detrimental side effects. However, the question as to whether or not genetically modified organisms and/or products thereof are to be allowed should be answered by appropriate sectoral regulation in the respective field of law, not by restricting the material criteria of patentability. db) I understand that development and deployment of software or software-based products should not unduly be hampered by the patent system. However, I strongly believe that it is strictly impossible to solve any relevant problem or conflict in the field of patenting of
5 Patentanwalt Axel H. Horns Dipl.-Phys. Seite 5 computer-implemented inventions in a balanced and satisfying way by restricting, in order to generally prevent grant of such patents, the material criteria of patentability on the pre-grant side of the patent system more than as to the limits currently observed in the HI TACHI decision of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. If particular problems on the respective markets caused by the patent system are identified so far, they should be addressed by modifications (exemptions) on the post-grant side of the patent system, not by restricting the range of patentable inventions on the pre-grant side of the Patent Law (see my above remarks on question 1.1). 1.2 Are there other features that you consider important? Answer: The fate of the Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions has urgently shown that this is not a good time to start any new approach for a general refurbishment of the European Patent Law. The risk of, in response to any new political initiative, effectively obtaining a destruction of the patent system by political groups deliberately intending to hamper the functioning of the present system of Intellectual Property Law is too high. The excessive proposals for various amendmends to the Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions as introduced during the first and second reading thereof in the European Parliament aiming to reach a virtually borderless exemption rule in order to ensure interoperability are a stern warning to everbybody not to over-estimate the preparedness of some of the patent critics to engage themselves in any meaningful, realistic and fair discussion on post-grant exemptions and modifications. However, if at any later time and under different circumstances such discussion should ever be re-started, efforts should be made to ensure that the discussion is not narrowly guided on a pre-grant track. 1.3 How can the Community better take into account the broader public interest in developing its policy on patents? Answer: I do appreciate the communication with the general public over the Internet by means of publishing papers and conducting public consultations as already done by the Commission. 2.1 By comparison with the common political approach, are there any alternative or additional features that you believe an effective Community patent system should offer? Answer: The viability of the Community Patent depends on two key factors: a) Language Problem: The translation costs must be reduced dramatically, otherwise the Community Patent is doomed to fail. I would prefer an English-only approach.
6 Patentanwalt Axel H. Horns Dipl.-Phys. Seite 6 b) Conflict resolution problem: Without a convincing conflict resolution scheme in place, the Community patent is doomed to fail. In my view there are some necessary key factors: - Technical judges sitting in a Court hearing the cases; - Courts of the first instance should be local (national); - Patent Attorneys with a technical background should be entitled to represent their clients. 3.1 What advantages and disadvantages do you think that pan-european litigation arrangements as set out in the draft EPLA would have for those who use and are affected by patents? Answer: see above under Given the possible coexistence of three patent systems in Europe (the national, the Community and the European patent), what in your view would be the ideal patent litigation scheme in Europe? Answer: An EPLA-like scheme applied also to national patents. 4.1 What aspects of patent law do you feel give rise to barriers to free movement or distortion of competition because of differences in law or its application in practice between Member States? Answer: a) Non-unitary structure of the European Patent as currently granted by the EPO; and b) Complex exhaustion rules. 4.2 To what extent is your business affected by such differences? 4.3 What are your views on the value-added and feasibility of the different options (1) (3) outlined [below]? (1) Bringing the main patentability criteria of the European Patent Convention into Community law so that national courts can refer questions of interpretation to the European Court of Justice. This could include the general criteria of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, together with exceptions for particular subject matter and specific sectoral rules where these add value. (2) More limited harmonisation picking up issues which are not specifically covered by the European Patent Convention. (3) Mutual recognition by patent offices of patents granted by another EU Member State, possibly linked to an agreed quality standards framework, or "validation" by the European Patent Office, and provided the patent document is available in the original language and another language commonly used in business.
7 Patentanwalt Axel H. Horns Dipl.-Phys. Seite 7 Answer: ad (1) ad (2) ad (3) I would appreciate the creation of a unitary Community Patent with an English-only language regime and some proper adaption to the EPLA approach. If such an attempt on the basis of a modified version of the common political approach should fail, I think that at the time being no further initiatives to bring the main patentability criteria of the European Patent Convention into Community law should be made. The fate of the Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions has urgently shown that this is not a good time to start any new approach for a harmonisation of the European Patent Law. The risk of, in response to any new political initiative, effectively obtaining a destruction of the patent system by political groups deliberately intending to hamper the functioning of the present system of Intellectual Property Law is too high. Not at the time being. The fate of the Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions has urgently shown that this is not a good time to start any new approach for a sectoral harmonisation of the European Patent Law. The risk of, in response to any new political initiative, effectively obtaining a destruction of the patent system by political groups deliberately intending to hamper the functioning of the present system of Intellectual Property Law is too high. This would ultimately mean some kind of a devolution and, finally, also a destruction of the present European Patent system built around the European Patent Office. Such a proposal does not make sense to me. Currently, the EPO is member of the club of the big three Patent Offices of the world within the Trilateral Cooperation. This gives Europe an audible voice in international patent politics. A bag of dozens of small national Patent Offices instead of the EPO seems to be no viable alternative. 4.4 Are there any alternative proposals that the Commission might consider? Answer: See my answer to section How important is the patent system in Europe compared to other areas of legislation affecting your business? 5.2 Compared to the other areas of intellectual property such as trade marks, designs, plant variety rights, copyright and related rights, how important is the patent system in Europe? 5.3 How important to you is the patent system in Europe compared to the patent system worldwide?
8 Patentanwalt Axel H. Horns Dipl.-Phys. Seite If you are responding as an SME, how do you make use of patents now and how do you expect to use them in future? What problems have you encountered using the existing patent system? 5.5 Are there other issues than those in this paper you feel the Commission should address in relation to the patent system? Yours faithfully, Axel H Horns Patentanwalt European Patent Attorney European Trade Mark Attorney /data/pat/wrapper/b/0044/060412eu-consultation-001.odt
RESPONSE TO. Questionnaire. On the patent system in Europe INTRODUCTION
RESPONSE TO Questionnaire On the patent system in Europe INTRODUCTION PRIVACY STATEMENT I do consent to the publication of my personal data or data relating to my organisation with the publication of my
More informationQuestionnaire. On the patent system in Europe
EN PATSTRAT Questionnaire On the patent system in Europe INTRODUCTION The field of intellectual property rights has been identified as one of the seven cross-sectoral initiatives for the Union's new industrial
More informationEricsson Position on Questionnaire on the Future Patent System in Europe
Ericsson Position on Questionnaire on the Future Patent System in Europe Executive Summary Ericsson welcomes the efforts of the European Commission to survey the patent systems in Europe in order to see
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMUNITY PATENT CONSULTATION COMPTIA S RESPONSES BRUSSELS, 18 APRIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMUNITY PATENT CONSULTATION COMPTIA S RESPONSES BRUSSELS, 18 APRIL 2006 http://www.comptia.org 2006 The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc. The Patent System in Europe
More informationVIRK - Västsvenska Immaterialrättsklubben
VIRK - Västsvenska Immaterialrättsklubben Response to the Commission s Consultation on the patent system in Europe Issue description The Directorate General for Internal Market and Services is consulting
More informationEuropean Commission Questionnaire on the Patent System in Europe
European Commission Questionnaire on the Patent System in Europe Response by: Eli Lilly and Company Contact: Mr I J Hiscock Director - European Patent Operations Eli Lilly and Company Limited Lilly Research
More informationQUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PATENT SYSTEM IN EUROPE. 1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system?
QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PATENT SYSTEM IN EUROPE Section 1 1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system? - We agree that clear substantive rules on patentability should
More informationQuestionnaire. On the patent system in Europe
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Internal Market and Services DG Knowledge-based Economy Industrial property Brussels, 09/01/06 Questionnaire On the patent system in Europe 1Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION Response to the Questionnaire on the Patent System in Europe Introduction: Who IPLA Are The Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (previously known as the
More information1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system?
1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system?, we need an assertion of democratic control over the patent system. 1.2 Are there other features that you consider important?
More informationFUTURE PATENT POLICY IN EUROPE PUBLIC HEARING 12 JULY European Commission "Charlemagne" Room S3 Rue de la Loi 170 Brussels REPORT
FUTURE PATENT POLICY IN EUROPE PUBLIC HEARING 12 JULY 2006 European Commission "Charlemagne" Room S3 Rue de la Loi 170 Brussels REPORT On July 12, DG Internal Market and Services held its public hearing
More informationCouncil Decision of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (2011/167/EU)
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 26 May 2011 Interinstitutional File: 2011/0093 (COD) 2011/0094 (CNS) 10629/11 PI 53 CODEC 891 NOTE from: Presidency to: Council No. prev. doc.: 10401/11 PI 49 CODEC
More informationDear Mr Nooteboom, Please acknowledge the receipt of this . Yours faithfully, Dr. Miklós Bendzsel, president Hungarian Patent Office
Dear Mr Nooteboom, Please find attached the replies of the Hungarian Patent Office to the Commission's questionnaire on the patent system in Europe. The replies reflect the opinion of our Office, and in
More informationThe EPO approach to Computer Implemented Inventions (CII) Yannis Skulikaris Director Operations, Information and Communications Technology
The EPO approach to Computer Implemented Inventions (CII) Yannis Skulikaris Director Operations, Information and Communications Technology March 2018 Background and context The EPO s approach to CII: fulfills
More informationThe Rt Hon Lord Justice Jacob. Commission Patent Consultation of
The Rt Hon Lord Justice Jacob Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London WC2A 2LL Telephone: 02079477149 Clerk: 0207 947 6771 Fax: 02079477667 lordiustice. i acoblaiudiciarv. gsi. goy. uk 8th March 2006 Mr
More informationAttachment: Opinions on the Draft Amendment of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the People s Republic of China
March 31, 2009 To: Legislative Affairs Office State Council People s Republic of China Hirohiko Usui President Japan Intellectual Property Association Opinions on the Draft Amendment of the Implementing
More informationCouncil Decision of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (2011/167/EU)
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 23 June 2011 Interinstitutional File: 2011/0093 (COD) 2011/0094 (CNS) 11328/11 PI 67 CODEC 995 NOTE from: Presidency to: Council No. prev. doc.: 10573/11 PI 52 CODEC
More informationDraft agreement on a Unified Patent Court and draft Statute - Revised Presidency text
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 26 October 2011 16023/11 PI 141 COUR 62 WORKING DOCUMENT from: Presidency to: Delegations No. prev. doc.: 15539/11 PI 133 COUR 59 Subject: Draft agreement on a Unified
More informationLaw on the protection of inventions No. 50/2008 of the Republic of Moldova can be found at:
The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Republic of Moldova... Office: The State Agency on Intellectual Property... Person to be contacted: Name: Cicinova Olga... Title:
More informationIntellectual Property Department Hong Kong, China. Contents
Intellectual Property Department Hong Kong, China Contents Section 1: General... 1 Section 2: Private and/or non-commercial use... 3 Section 3: Experimental use and/or scientific research... 3 Section
More informationCOUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 7 April /09 Interinstitutional File: 2000/0177 (CNS) PI 28
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 7 April 2009 8588/09 Interinstitutional File: 2000/0177 (CNS) PI 28 WORKING DOCUMENT from : Presidency to : Working Party on Intellectual Property (Patents) No.
More informationExhaustion of IPRs in cases of recycling and repair of goods (Q 205)
Die Seite der AIPPI / La page de l AIPPI Exhaustion of IPRs in cases of recycling and repair of goods (Q 205) REPORT OF SWISS GROUP * I. Analysis of the current statutory and case laws The Groups are invited
More informationFrom Law of Patents, Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits, Plant Varieties, and Industrial Designs, Chapter Two:
Saudi Patent Office Contents Section 1: General... 1 Section 2: Private and/or non-commercial use... 2 Section 3: Experimental use and/or scientific research... 3 Section 4: Preparation of medicines...
More informationDIRECTIVE 98/71/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
DIRECTIVE 98/71/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION; Having regard to the
More information[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights
Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Chile... Office: National Institute of Industrial Property (INAPI)...
More informationNew IP Code changes regarding patents, new post-grant opposition and enforcement provisions
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - TURKEY New IP Code changes regarding patents, new post-grant opposition and enforcement provisions AUTHORS Mehmet Nazim Aydin Deriş January 08 2018 Contributed by Deris Avukatlik
More informationThe methods and procedures described must be directly applicable to production.
National Patent Administration Argentina Contents Section 1: General... 1 Section 2: Private and/or non-commercial use... 3 Section 3: Experimental use and/or scientific research... 3 Section 4: Preparation
More informationFINLAND Patents Act No. 550 of December 15, 1967 as last amended by Act No. 101/2013 of January 31, 2013 Enter into force on 1 September 2013
FINLAND Patents Act No. 550 of December 15, 1967 as last amended by Act No. 101/2013 of January 31, 2013 Enter into force on 1 September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 General Provisions Section 1 Section
More information***I DRAFT REPORT. EN United in diversity EN 2011/0093(COD)
EUROPEAN PARLIAMT 2009-2014 Committee on Legal Affairs 4.10.2011 2011/0093(COD) ***I DRAFT REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council implementing enhanced cooperation
More informationQuestionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:
The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: Republic of Poland Patent Office of the Republic of Poland Person to be contacted: Name: Piotr Czaplicki Title: Director,
More informationPROPOSALS FOR CREATING UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
PROPOSALS FOR CREATING UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION The idea of a Community Patent, a single patent that can be enforced throughout the European Union (EU), is hardly new. The original
More informationPatent reform package - Frequently Asked Questions
EUROPEAN COMMISSION MEMO Brussels, 11 December 2012 Patent reform package - Frequently Asked Questions I. Presentation of the unitary patent package 1. What is the 'unitary patent package'? The 'unitary
More information[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights
[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: Morocco... Moroccan Industrial
More informationProposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 13.4.2011 COM(2011) 215 final 2011/0093 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the
More informationCOUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 27 September /12 PI 113 COUR 66 WORKING DOCUMENT
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 27 September 2012 14268/12 PI 113 COUR 66 WORKING DOCUMENT from: Presidency to: Delegations No. prev. doc.: 17539/11 PI 168 COUR 71 Subject: Draft agreement on a
More informationPeople s Republic of China State Intellectual Property Office of China
[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: People s Republic of China
More informationQuestionnaire May 2003 Q Scope of Patent Protection. Response of the UK Group
Questionnaire May 2003 Q 178 - Scope of Patent Protection Response of the UK Group 1.1 Which are, in your view, the fields of technology in particular affected by recent discussions concerning the scope
More informationLATVIA Patent Law adopted on 15 February 2007, with the changes of December 15, 2011
LATVIA Patent Law adopted on 15 February 2007, with the changes of December 15, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I General Provisions Section 1. Terms used in this Law Section 2. Purpose of this Law Section
More informationAct No. 435/2001 Coll. on Patents, Supplementary Protection Certificates and on Amendment of Some Acts as Amended (The Patent Act)
Act No. 435/2001 Coll. on Patents, Supplementary Protection Certificates and on Amendment of Some Acts as Amended (The Patent Act) Amended by : Act No. 402/2002 Coll. Act No. 84/2007 Coll. Act No. 517/2007
More informationTHE PATENT LAW 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Article 1. This Law shall regulate the legal protection of inventions by means of patents.
THE PATENT LAW 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1 This Law shall regulate the legal protection of inventions by means of patents. Article 2 This Law shall also apply to the sea and submarine areas adjacent
More informationCA/PL 7/99 Orig.: German Munich, SUBJECT: Revision of the EPC: Articles 52(4) and 54(5) President of the European Patent Office
CA/PL 7/99 Orig.: German Munich, 2.3.1999 SUBJECT: Revision of the EPC: Articles 52(4) and 54(5) DRAWN UP BY: ADDRESSEES: President of the European Patent Office Committee on Patent Law (for opinion) SUMMARY
More informationROMANIA Patent Law NO.64/1991 OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF ROMANIA, PART I, NO.613/19 AUGUST 2014
ROMANIA Patent Law NO.64/1991 OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF ROMANIA, PART I, NO.613/19 AUGUST 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS Art. 1 Art. 2 Art. 3 Art. 4 Art. 5 CHAPTER II - PATENTABLE INVENTIONS
More informationQuestionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:
The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Germany Office: Federal Ministry of Justice and for Consumer Protection / German Patent and Trademark Office Person to be contacted:
More informationTHE PATENTABILITY OF COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED INVENTIONS. Consultation Paper by the Services of the Directorate General for the Internal Market
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES DG Internal Market Brussels, 19.10.2000 THE PATENTABILITY OF COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED INVENTIONS Consultation Paper by the Services of the Directorate General for the
More informationHUNGARY Patent Act Act XXXIII of 1995 as consolidated on March 01, 2015
HUNGARY Patent Act Act XXXIII of 1995 as consolidated on March 01, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I INVENTIONS AND PATENTS Chapter I SUBJECT MATTER OF PATENT PROTECTION Article 1 Patentable inventions Article
More informationPatenting Software-related Inventions according to the European Patent Convention
ECSS 2013 October 8, 2013, Amsterdam Patenting Software-related Inventions according to the European Patent Convention Yannis Skulikaris Director, Directorate 1.9.57 Computer-Implemented Inventions, Software
More informationThe European Patent Office
Joint Cluster Computers European Patent Office Das Europäische Patentamt The European Service For Industry and Public Joint Cluster Computers European Patent Office CII examination practice in Europe and
More informationNotwithstanding Article 29, any invention that is liable to injure public order, morality or public health shall not be patented (Article 32).
Japan Patent Office (JPO) Contents Section 1: General... 1 Section 2: Private and/or non-commercial use... 2 Section 3: Experimental use and/or scientific research... 3 Section 4: Preparation of medicines...
More information[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights
[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: HONDURAS... Office: DIRECTORATE GENERAL
More informationAmendments in Europe and the United States
13 Euro IP ch2-6.qxd 15/04/2009 11:16 Page 90 90 IP FIT FOR PURPOSE Amendments in Europe and the United States Attitudes differ if you try to broaden your claim after applications, reports Annalise Holme.
More informationOFFICIAL GAZETTE OF ROMANIA, PART I, NO.613/19 AUGUST 2014 REPUBLICATION PATENT LAW NO.64/1991 1
OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF ROMANIA, PART I, NO.613/19 AUGUST 2014 REPUBLICATION PATENT LAW NO.64/1991 1 CHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS Art. 1 - (1) The rights in inventions shall be recognized and protected on
More informationNote concerning the Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions
PATENTS Note concerning the Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions INTRODUCTION I.THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION II. APPLICATION OF THESE PROVISIONS AND MAINSTREAM CASELAW OF THE
More informationQuestionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:
Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Australia... Office: IP Australia... Person to be contacted: Name:
More informationSection 1: General. This question does not imply that the topic of exclusions from patentability is dealt with in this question exhaustively.
Section 1: General 1. As background for the exceptions and limitations to patents investigated in this questionnaire, what is the legal standard used to determine whether an invention is patentable? If
More informationThe National Center of Intellectual Property Belarus. Contents
The National Center of Intellectual Property Belarus Contents Section 1: General... 1 Section 2: Private and/or non-commercial use... 3 Section 3: Experimental use and/or scientific research... 4 Section
More informationSWEDEN PATENTS ACT No.837 of 1967 in the version in force from July 1, 2014
SWEDEN PATENTS ACT No.837 of 1967 in the version in force from July 1, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. General Provisions Article 1 Article 1a Article 1b Article 1c Article 1d Article 2 Article 3 Article
More informationThe EPO follows the EU s Directive on biotechnology patents
EPO - Press releases The EPO follows the EU s Directive on biotechnology patents Munich, 27 October 2005 The European Patent Office (EPO) has noted the concern that several groups in the European Parliament
More informationFREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CROATIA AND SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CROATIA AND SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA AND SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO ON AMENDMENTS TO THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
More informationPatent Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Patent Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan With an adoption of the Law On Amendments and Additions for some legislative acts concerning an intellectual property of the Republic of Kazakhstan March 2, 2007,
More informationUNIFIED PATENT SYSTEM: A NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN EUROPE
March 2013 UNIFIED PATENT SYSTEM: A NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN EUROPE After four decades of negotiations, on 19 February 2013 24 EU states signed the agreement on a Unified Patent Court
More information[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights
[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: Dominican Republic... National
More informationDraft Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection revised version of Rules 1 to 11 of SC/16/13
SC/22/13 Orig.: en Munich, 22.11.2013 SUBJECT: SUBMITTED BY: ADDRESSEES: Draft Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection revised version of Rules 1 to 11 of SC/16/13 President of the European Patent
More informationCompilation date: 24 February Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, Registered: 27 February 2017
Patents Act 1990 No. 83, 1990 Compilation No. 41 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017 This compilation includes commenced amendments
More informationLAW ON THE PROTECTION OF INVENTIONS. No. 50-XVI of March 7, Monitorul Oficial nr /455 din * * * TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Translation from Romanian LAW ON THE PROTECTION OF INVENTIONS No. 50-XVI of March 7, 2008 Monitorul Oficial nr.117-119/455 din 04.07.2008 * * * TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I General Provisions Article 1.
More informationPatents Bill 2008: Patentability of Computer Programs
January 2010 P/025/PR004/005 Patents Bill 2008: Patentability of Computer Programs Supplementary Report to Commerce Select Committee Summary The Committee, after considering the Ministry s recommendations
More informationUtility Models Act. Passed RT I 1994, 25, 407 Entry into force
Issuer: Riigikogu Type: act In force from: 01.01.2015 In force until: In force Translation published: 23.12.2014 Amended by the following acts Passed 16.03.1994 RT I 1994, 25, 407 Entry into force 23.05.1994
More informationthe UPC will have jurisdiction over certain European patents (see box The unitary patent and the UPC: a recap ).
THE UNITARY PATENT CENTRAL ENFORCEMENT OF PATENTS IN EUROPE In the second of a two-part series, Susie Middlemiss, Adam Baldwin and Laura Balfour of Slaughter and May examine the structure and procedures
More informationUnited Kingdom. By Penny Gilbert, Kit Carter and Stuart Knight, Powell Gilbert LLP
Powell Gilbert LLP United Kingdom United Kingdom By Penny Gilbert, Kit Carter and Stuart Knight, Powell Gilbert LLP Q: What options are open to a patent owner seeking to enforce its rights in your jurisdiction?
More informationAUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017
AUSTRALIA Patents Act 1990 Compilation date: 24 February 2017 Includes amendments up to: Act No. 61, 2016 Registered: 27 February 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introductory 1 Short title 2 Commencement
More informationSUCCESSFUL MULTILATERAL PATENTS Focus on Europe
Elizabeth Dawson of Ipulse Speaker 1b: 1 SUCCESSFUL MULTILATERAL PATENTS Focus on Europe 1. INTRODUCTION All of us to some extent have to try to predict the future when drafting patent applications. We
More information11th Annual Patent Law Institute
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Course Handbook Series Number G-1316 11th Annual Patent Law Institute Co-Chairs Scott M. Alter Douglas R. Nemec John M. White To order this book, call (800) 260-4PLI or fax us at
More informationUtility Model Protection in Germany
Utility Model Protection in Germany www.bardehle.com 2 Content 5 1. What is a utility model? 5 2. What can be protected by a utility model? 6 3. What constitutes the relevant prior art for a utility model?
More informationG3/08 PATENTABILITY OF SOFTWARE : DETAILS EXPECTED FROM
G3/08 PATENTABILITY OF SOFTWARE : DETAILS EXPECTED FROM THE ENLARGED BOARD OF APPEAL WILL BE WELCOME By Jean-Robert CALLON DE LAMARCK Partner European and French Patent Attorney The debate on software
More information[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights
[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: EL SALVADOR... National Registration
More informationFREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CROATIA AND THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CROATIA AND THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA AND THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA PREAMBLE The Republic of Croatia and
More informationDesigns. Germany Henning Hartwig BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbb. A Global Guide
Designs 2015 Henning Hartwig A Global Guide ... IP only. BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. Selected teams of legally and technically qualified professionals
More informationThe European Patent Office An overview on the procedures before the EPO: up to grant, opposition and appeal
The European Patent Office An overview on the procedures before the EPO: up to grant, opposition and appeal Yon de Acha European Patent Academy Bilbao, 07.10.2010 25/10/2010 Contents Patents Grant Procedure
More informationGENEVA STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF PATENTS. Thirteenth Session Geneva, March 23 to 27, 2009
E WIPO SCP/13/3. ORIGINAL: English DATE: February 4, 2009 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y O RGANI ZATION GENEVA STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF PATENTS Thirteenth Session Geneva, March 23 to 27, 2009 EXCLUSIONS
More informationAbstract. Keywords. Kotaro Kageyama. Kageyama International Law & Patent Firm, Tokyo, Japan
Beijing Law Review, 2014, 5, 114-129 Published Online June 2014 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/blr http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/blr.2014.52011 Necessity, Criteria (Requirements or Limits) and Acknowledgement
More informationAFRICAN DECLARATION. on Internet Rights and Freedoms. africaninternetrights.org
AFRICAN DECLARATION on Internet Rights and Freedoms africaninternetrights.org PREAMBLE Emphasising that the Internet is an enabling space and resource for the realisation of all human rights, including
More informationGermany. Stefan Abel and Pascal Böhner. Bardehle Pagenberg
Stefan Abel and Pascal Böhner Overview 1 Are there any restrictions on the establishment of a business entity by a foreign licensor or a joint venture involving a foreign licensor and are there any restrictions
More informationEnhancement of Attraction of Utility Model System
Enhancement of Attraction of Utility Model System January 2004 Patent System Subcommittee, Intellectual Property Policy Committee Industrial Structure Council Chapter 1 Desirable utility model system...
More informationEUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 12 December 2012 (OR. en) 2011/0093 (COD) PE-CONS 72/11 PI 180 CODEC 2344 OC 70
EUROPEAN UNION THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT THE COUNCIL Brussels, 12 December 2012 (OR. en) 2011/0093 (COD) PE-CONS 72/11 PI 180 CODEC 2344 OC 70 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMTS Subject: REGULATION OF THE
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 09.03.2005 COM(2005) 83 final 2002/0047 (COD) COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article
More informationThe Unitary Patent Unified Patent Court. Taylor Wessing LLP
The Unitary Patent Unified Patent Court Taylor Wessing LLP The European patent reform package The European patent reform package new legal bases > Proposed EU regulations (x2) on: Council/Parliament Regulation
More informationof Laws for Electronic Access SLOVAKIA Law on Inventions, Industrial Designs and Rationalization Proposals (No. 527 of November 27, 1990)*
Law on Inventions, Industrial Designs and Rationalization Proposals (No. 527 of November 27, 1990)* TABLE OF CONTENTS** Sections Purpose of the Law... 1 Part One: Inventions Chapter I: Patents... 2 Patentability
More information[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights
[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Costa Rica... Office: Industrial Property
More informationReaffirming their firm commitment to the principles of a market economy, which constitutes the basis for their relations,
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA The Czech Republic and the Republic of Estonia, hereinafter called the Parties, Recalling their intention to participate actively
More informationDenmark. Claus Barrett Christiansen Bech-Bruun
Claus Barrett Christiansen Bech-Bruun 1. Design protection In Denmark, design protection is regulated by the Designs Act (1259/2000), as amended up to January 28 2009. 1 The act implemented the EU Designs
More informationAIPPI REPORT OF THE NETHERLANDS GROUP ON 2016 STUDY QUESTION (PA- TENTS) ADDED MATTER: THE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENTS
AIPPI REPORT OF THE NETHERLANDS GROUP ON 2016 STUDY QUESTION (PA- TENTS) ADDED MATTER: THE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENTS Members of the working group: Jeroen Boelens; Sophie
More informationDevelopments towards a unitary European patent system
Developments towards a unitary European patent system Nikolaus Thumm Chief Economist European Patent Office Paris, 28 November 2012 The European patent system in a nutshell The European Patent Convention
More informationThe Government of the State of Israel and the Government of Romania (hereinafter "the Parties"),
PREAMBLE The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of Romania (hereinafter "the Parties"), Reaffirming their firm commitment to the principles of a market economy, which constitutes the
More informationSelection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection
Question Q209 National Group: Title: Contributors: AIPPI Indonesia Selection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection Arifia J. Fajra (discussed by
More informationRepresentation before the Unified Patent Court by European Patent Attorneys. epi Board Members, National IP Associations in the EPC Member States
Ausschuss für Streitregelung Litigation Committee Commission Procédure Judiciaire Subject: By: To: Summary: Representation before the Unified Patent Court by European Patent Attorneys epi epi Board Members,
More information11th Annual Patent Law Institute
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Course Handbook Series Number G-1316 11th Annual Patent Law Institute Co-Chairs Scott M. Alter Douglas R. Nemec John M. White To order this book, call (800) 260-4PLI or fax us at
More informationSecuring evidence across borders in EU patent litigation
VO International International Securing evidence across borders in EU patent litigation By Peter de Lange, VO Technical evidence is often essential for enforcing patents, in particular patents for processes.
More informationFREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA AND ROMANIA
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA AND ROMANIA PREAMBULE THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA AND ROMANIA (hereinafter called the Parties ), REAFFIRMING their commitment to the principles of market
More informationQuestionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights
Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of: Country: Office: India The Patent Office Person to be contacted: Name: Dr
More information10 Strategic Drafting of Applications for U.S. Patents by Japanese Companies from an Enforcement Perspective
10 Strategic Drafting of Applications for U.S. Patents by Japanese Companies from an Enforcement Perspective It has become more and more important for Japanese companies to obtain patents in Europe and
More informationAllowability of disclaimers before the European Patent Office
PATENTS Allowability of disclaimers before the European Patent Office EPO DISCLAIMER PRACTICE The Boards of Appeal have permitted for a long time the introduction into the claims during examination of
More information