Questionnaire. On the patent system in Europe

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Questionnaire. On the patent system in Europe"

Transcription

1 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

2 INTRODUCTION The field of intellectual property rights has been identified as one of the seven cross-sectoral initiatives for the Union's new industrial policy as set out in the Commission Communication launched on 5 October Stimulating growth and innovation means improving the framework conditions for industry, which include an effective IPR system. In 1997, the Commission launched the idea of a Community Patent in its Green Paper on promoting innovation. This was taken up by Heads of State and Government in the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council of March 2000, who called for a Community patent to be available by the end of The Community Patent proposal, establishing a unitary system of patent protection for the single market, has formally been on the table of the Council since 2000 but overall agreement is yet to be achieved. The Commission remains convinced that an affordable Community Patent would offer the greatest advantages for business: we owe it to industry, investors and researchers to have an effective patent regime in the EU. Commissioner McCreevy has stated his intention to make one final effort to have the proposal adopted during his mandate. Until the time and conditions are ripe for that effort, the interim period should be used to seek views of stakeholders on en effective IPR system in the EU. Views are therefore sought on the patent system in Europe, and what changes if any are needed to improve innovation and competitiveness, growth and employment in the knowledge-based economy. Please note that this consultation focuses on the overall legal framework. Accompanying measures, such as information, awareness raising or support training, are outside the scope of consultation. The document that follows contains a number of questions: In answering them we would invite you to be as detailed as you can. Supporting evidence and statistics are also welcome. On the basis of the feedback the Commission intends to organise a hearing in Brussels in early summer This consultation is open to all, and will be closed on 31 March The Commission services will publish a report on the outcome of this consultation. It will be available on the Internal Market and Services Directorate's General website. Please either us at: Markt-D2-patentstrategy@cec.eu.int Or send your response by post to: Mr Erik Nooteboom Head of Unit Industrial Property Unit Internal Market and Services Directorate General European Commission 1049 Brussels Belgium PRIVACY STATEMT Please be sure to indicate if you do not consent to the publication of your personal data or data relating to your organisation with the publication of your response. The contact data provided by the stakeholder make it possible to contact the stakeholder to request a clarification if necessary on the information supplied. 2Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento

3 By responding to this consultation you automatically give permission to the Commission to publish your contribution unless your opposition to publish your contribution is explicitly stated in your reply. The Commission is committed to user privacy and details on the personal data protection policy can be accessed at: For further information please contact Ms Grazyna PIESIEWICZ at or at Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento

4 Section 1 - Basic principles and features of the patent system The idea behind the patent system is that it should be used by businesses and research organisations to support innovation, growth and quality of life for the benefit of all in society. Essentially the temporary rights conferred by a patent allow a company a breathing-space in the market to recoup investment in the research and development which led to the patented invention. It also allows research organisations having no exploitation activities to derive benefits from the results of their R&D activities. But for the patent system to be attractive to its users and for the patent system to retain the support of all sections of society it needs to have the following features: 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 transparent, cost effective and accessible processes for obtaining a patent predictable, rapid and inexpensive resolution of disputes between right holders and other parties due regard for other public policy interests such as competition (anti-trust), ethics, environment, healthcare, access to information, so as to be effective and credible within society Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system? We suggest rewriting the first feature as follows: Clear substantive rules on what can and what cannot be covered by patents, balancing the interests of patentees with the interests of the public in general, as passive users, and with the objectives of the patent system. By omitting the public as a key player a great mistake would noccur: the disclosure of an invention is addressed to the public in order to disseminate the technical knowledge (this is part of the price that the patentee has to pay in order to receive back from the patent system the exclusive right). The reference to public includes the real and possible competitors who have the right of exactly knowing the effective extension of the exclusive right granted to the patentee. By the way among the public there are also those patentee competitors who are likely to become active players at the judiciary stage. Cost-effectiveness must be considered not only from the right holder standpoint, but also with reference to patent system as a whole, including the public. A cost reduction (e.g. for translations) for the right holder that puts additional costs and burdens onto the public will not help competitiveness and is not in line with the basic principle according to which the applicant / right holder has to pay for obtaining and mantaining alive an IP right. It would be really absurd to force to public to pay money in translations for having access to the IP right of the competitors. 1.2 Are there other features that you consider important? 4Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento

5 Defence of the competitiveness of European enterprises, and especially SMEs, with respect to overseas competitors that own a substantial share of patent rights granted in or for EU member states In addition to the basic features, a patent system common to several countries should be in line with the provisions of the following basic laws:: - Constitutional principles of the Member States; - The European Union Treaty; - Declaration on the basic rights of European citizens (Nice Treaty-2000), to ensure that there will be no discriminatory treatment between European citizens. 1.3 How can the Community better take into account the broader public interest in developing its policy on patents? EPC is in force since 1978 and is based on three official languages (English, French and German), thus intrinsically raising a problem of discrimination for the European countries like Italy whose mother tongue is different. This situation was, however, partly compensated by the possibility for the national law to ask for a translation upon validating the granted European patent in the related country. As a matter of fact some situations of discrimination existed and still exist as regards the publication of patent applications (and consequently as regards the dissemination of technical information) and the proceedings before EPO (especially at the opposition and appeal level). An equitable patent system should avoid heavy discrimination situations both as regards the obtaining of a patent protection and as regards the disputes connected to I.P. rights. Consequently, any approach that would damage EC countries whose mother tongue is different from those officially adopted by EPC and in these countries the Small and Medium Size Enterprises (shortly SMEs) would not respect this basic principle of equity. By the way this lack of equity would also apply to the disputes between the right holders and other parties, under the point of view of the legal certainty, because the knowledge of the existing rights should be known beforehand and not only when a dispute has been already started. A patent system should clearly warrant the equity of access to the technical information and of competition, with a special attention to the weaker parties, like single inventors, University, Search Organisations, and SMEs. Consequently as regards the specific questions raised at the end of Section I, since easy dissemination and accessibility of technological information is a key point to promote innovation and technical progress, the EC policy on patents should clearly take it as the main point of interest. 5Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento

6 Section 2 The Community patent as a priority for the EU The Commission's proposals for a Community patent have been on the table since 2000 and reached an important milestone with the adoption of the Council's common political approach in March 2003 [ see also The disagreement over the precise legal effect of translations is one reason why final agreement on the Community patent regulation has not yet been achieved. The Community patent delivers value-added for European industry as part of the Lisbon agenda. It offers a unitary, affordable and competitive patent and greater legal certainty through a unified Community jurisdiction. It also contributes to a stronger EU position in external fora and would provide for Community accession to the European Patent Convention (EPC). Calculations based on the common political approach suggest a Community patent would be available for the whole of the EU at about the same cost as patent protection under the existing European Patent system for only five states. Question 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? Common political approach The common political approach is not in line with the basic European Union principle of the equality of rights amongst all European citizens. A Community Patent system must offer the same opportunities to: Have a patent granted; Enforce the patent; defend from a patent. The common political approach is not in line with the European Union principle of subsidiarity. The common political approach does not maintain the principle that the text of the Community Patent must be translated into each of the official languages of the Member States in order to allow it to become fully known to the public in general and to accrue the technological patrimony in each Member State s official language. In this way new inventions can be fostered. Taking into consideration the foreseen proposals for a Community patent (shortly CP), according to which one of the main features is that the translation into national languages of the granted patent is no longer requested, the main consequence would be that the above mentioned discrimination would become very serious, because it would affect not only the dissemination of technical information and the problems related to the proceedings before EPO, but would impose a very heavy burden on the citizens of the countries whose mother tongue is not that of the filing and prosecution proceedings. Anyone looking to develop new products and/or processes and/or machinery must carry out proper searches beforehand and that, especially in the case of SMEs, should involve the accessibility to patent documents in an immediately understandable way. 6Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento

7 Thus entities of the non-official language countries and especially SMEs would be in an unfavourable condition both from the cost and from the technical and commercial competition points of view. By the way the saving of translation costs would mainly favour patent owners extra- UE. Thus the CP might be a useful tool provided that the equity problems (as above shortly summarized) are solved and the other crucial question of the judiciary system and of the enforcement of I.P. rights is equally solved. Again, even if in principle it is correct that a unitary approach should be adopted as regards not only the court system but also and mainly the judgement criteria, the proposed solution of only one centralized court (first and second instance) would heavily discriminate the parties (especially individuals and SMEs) of most European countries. A heavy problem of costs, especially connected to the need of acting in a different language using foreign lawyers would exist and in case for instance of litigation between two SME of the same country it would be incredible to have the dispute carried out far from their country with much greater expenses, which (as it happens nowadays in countries like USA and UK) discourage the small and SMEs right holders from enforcing their rights. In this case too discrimination would de facto exist in favour of big and extra UE industries. To sum up it would not be sufficient to have the CP patent translated into the national language only in case of judiciary initiatives and disputes, because it would not solve the main problem of a reasonable industrial policy in the matter of innovation and technical development Alternative solution An alternative solution to the common political approach would consist in establishing a single right for a Group of designated Member States. By the solution it would be easy to transform the current European Patent, to be validated in a series of countries, into a Community Patent. As regards the jurisdictional system creating new structures, independent of the national courts, when the issues to be decided are very much bound up with national legal acts, facts or legal instruments (licences, contracts, prior rights, right to the invention, prescription) would lead to inappropriate and difficult to practice procedures. A reasonable alternative would be that of using the already existing national courts for the CTM and have the appeal dealt with by only one appeal court. In this way the current national jurisdictional structures existing for the 1 st instance and the appeal, as meanwhile established for Community Trade Marks and Designs, would be used. A final jurisdiction could be established, e.g. by creating a special Chamber of the Luxemburg European Court. As a practical measure a UE patent system should introduce a cost reduction to SMEs, University and Research Organisations for any fee related to patent prosecution and patent maintenance in a similar way as that provided for in the US Patent Act (one half of the fees). This initiative would foster innovation among SMEs, in particular in 7Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento

8 Europe, and the cost saving would be of the same order as that possibly achieved by the elimination of the translations. Furthermore, this initiative will favour UE enterprises more than extra UE enterprises. 8Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento

9 Section 3 The European Patent System and in particular the European Patent Litigation Agreement Since 1999, States party to the European Patent Convention (EPC), including States which are members of the EU, have been working on an agreement on the litigation of European patents (EPLA). The EPLA would be an optional litigation system common to those EPC States that choose to adhere to it. The EPLA would set up a European Patent Court which would have jurisdiction over the validity and infringements of European patents (including actions for a declaration of noninfringement, actions or counterclaims for revocation, and actions for damages or compensation derived from the provisional protection conferred by a published European patent application). National courts would retain jurisdiction to order provisional and protective measures, and in respect of the provisional seizure of goods as security. For more information see [ Some of the states party to the EPC have also been tackling the patent cost issues through the London Protocol which would simplify the existing language requirements for participating states. It is an important project that would render the European patent more attractive. The European Community is not a party to the European Patent Convention. However there is Community law which covers some of the same areas as the draft Litigation Agreement, particularly the "Brussels" Regulation on Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (Council Regulation no 44/2001) and the Directive on enforcement of intellectual property rights through civil procedures (Directive 2004/48/EC). [ It appears that there are three issues to be addressed before EU Member States may become party to the draft Litigation Agreement: (1) the text of the Agreement has to be brought into line with the Community legislation in this field (2) the relationship with the EC Court of Justice must be clarified (3) the question of the grant of a negotiating mandate to the Commission by the Council of the EU in order to take part in negotiations on the Agreement, with a view to its possible conclusion by the Community and its Member States, needs to be addressed. Questions 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? Collision with basic principles The EPLA draft breaks with the current basic principle of territoriality established in the European Patent System. The EPLA draft gives rise to discriminatory treatment for those European citizens whose language does not happen to be one of the three official languages of the European Patent system. The EPLA draft establishes that suits relating to infringement or validity of European Patents are to be handled by the European Patent Court in the language in which the European Patent was granted, i.e., in one of the 3 languages privileged under the European 9Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento

10 Patent system and on the basis of the corresponding text worded in that privileged language. The EPLA draft is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity and the Brussels Community Regulation that provides that the Court has to be close to the defendant s domicile since the latter is, in general, the weaker party in litigations of this type. Disadvantages The EPLA draft puts those countries with an official language other than the 3 languages of the European system in an unfavourable position with respect to the other countries. The EPLA draft is not practical on establishing a new jurisdictional structure without legal competence for many of the factors and circumstances that can arise during patent infringement suits. EPLA draft would lead to the gradual disappearance of technology translated into the official languages of the countries adhered to the Agreement when these languages happen to be other than the 3 privileged ones, with impoverishment of these nonprivileged languages and a progressive changeover from the European Patent system to a single-language system. 3.2 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? Provided that European Patent is not a right per se, whereby speaking about litigation on this right would not be proper, we consider it correct for the national Jurisdictions to handle litigations relating to national patents either obtained by the direct national route or obtained through the European Patent system. Future community patents should be handled by the jurisdictional system competent for Community Trademarks and Designs. 10Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento

11 Section 4 Approximation and mutual recognition of national patents The proposed regulation on the Community patent is based on Article 308 of the EC Treaty, which requires consultation of the European Parliament and unanimity in the Council. It has been suggested that the substantive patent system might be improved through an approximation (harmonisation) instrument based on Article 95, which involves the Council and the European Parliament in the co-decision procedure with the Council acting by qualified majority. One or more of the following approaches, some of them suggested by members of the European Parliament, might be considered: (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. To make the case for approximation and use of Article 95, there needs to be evidence of an economic impact arising from differences in national laws or practice, which lead to barriers in the free movement of goods or services between states or distortions of competition. Questions 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? At present the national patent laws of all the European Union Member States have been harmonised with the European Patent Convention. Hence, in principle there should not exist aspects of the national legislations, capable of creating barriers to the free movement of goods or representing a distortion for competition. The practice of each national law is what can be different, depending on the different interpretations that may be made by the national Courts of the Member States. There are, in fact, some points of the Convention on the European Patent open to a different jurisprudential interpretation, depending on the Member States: Patentability of first and second uses, principally, use with pharmaceutical purpose Patentability of diagnostic methods Patentability of invention relating to computer programs Patentability of therapeutical methods Patentability of plant varieties or animal races 4.2 To what extent is your business affected by such differences? 11Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento

12 Not applicable 4.3 What are your views on the value-added and feasibility of the different options (1) (3) outlined above? (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. We support this option. Moreover the European Patent Convention should be converted into community directive for the part concerning patentability criteria. The current Convention on the European Patent has harmonized the patentability criteria in the member states. Once a community Jurisdiction will be into force, the existence of a centralized highest instance judicial body will produce a harmonisation of criteria that will avoid these distortions. (2) More limited harmonisation picking up issues which are not specifically covered by the European Patent Convention. The UE shall intervene in some area with directive for harmonising the rules on the internal markets such as it has been dome with the directive on the enforcement. (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. Absolutely NO. 4.4 Are there any alternative proposals that the Commission might consider? That indicated in Section 2, suggesting to create a practical community patent based, on the one hand, on the Convention on the European Patent and, on the other hand, based on the current national jurisdictional structures. 12Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento

13 Section 5 General We would appreciate your views on the general importance of the patent system to you. On a scale of one to ten (10 is crucial, 1 is negligible): 5.1 How important is the patent system in Europe compared to other areas of legislation affecting your business? 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? How important to you is the patent system in Europe compared to the patent system worldwide? 9 Furthermore: 5.4 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? Not applicable 5.5 Are there other issues than those in this paper you feel the Commission should address in relation to the patent system? N/A 13Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento

14 (1) If you would like the Commission to be able to contact you to clarify your comments, please enter your contact details. (a) Are you replying as a citizen / individual or on behalf of an organisation? Organisation (b) The name of your organisation/contact person: Collegio Italiano dei Consulenti in Proprietà Industriale (Italian section of FICPI: Federation International des Conseils ed Proprieté intellectuelle) (c) Your address: eccetto@studiotorta.it (d) (e) Your postal address: C.so Magenta, 56 I Milano Your organisation s website (if available): (2) Please help us understand the range of stakeholders by providing the following information: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) In which Member State do you reside / are your activities principally located? Italy Are you involved in cross-border activity? Yes If you are a company: how many employees do you have? Not applicable What is your area of activity? Consultants of large, medium and small enterprises and research organisation and University Do you own any patents? If yes, how many? Are they national / European patents? Not applicable Do you license your patents? Not applicable Are you a patent licensee? Not applicable Have you been involved in a patent dispute? Yes, each member of the organisation is involved as consultant. Do you have any other experience with the patent system in Europe? Yes through the EPC and the national offices and cross border litigations. 14Errore. Nome della proprietà del documento

Questionnaire. On the patent system in Europe

Questionnaire. 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 information

RESPONSE TO. Questionnaire. On the patent system in Europe INTRODUCTION

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 information

VIRK - Västsvenska Immaterialrättsklubben

VIRK - 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 information

Ericsson Position on Questionnaire on the Future Patent System in Europe

Ericsson 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 information

European Commission Questionnaire on the Patent System in Europe

European 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 information

QUESTIONNAIRE 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. 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 information

EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMUNITY PATENT CONSULTATION COMPTIA S RESPONSES BRUSSELS, 18 APRIL

EUROPEAN 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 information

FUTURE 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 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 information

The Rt Hon Lord Justice Jacob. Commission Patent Consultation of

The 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 information

Dear Mr Nooteboom, Please acknowledge the receipt of this . Yours faithfully, Dr. Miklós Bendzsel, president Hungarian Patent Office

Dear 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 information

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

INTELLECTUAL 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 information

Patent reform package - Frequently Asked Questions

Patent 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

1.1 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? 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 information

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 23.12.2003 COM(2003) 827 final 2003/0326 (CNS) Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Justice in disputes relating to the

More information

Axel H. Horns Patentanwalt European TM Attorney European Patent Attorney

Axel H. Horns Patentanwalt European TM Attorney European Patent Attorney Axel H. Horns Patentanwalt European TM Attorney European Patent Attorney Patentanwalt Horns Mittermayrstraße 18 D - 80796 München To: Mr Erik Nooteboom Head of Unit Industrial Property Unit Internal Market

More information

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Proposal 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 information

Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent {SEC(2010) 796} {SEC(2010) 797}

Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent {SEC(2010) 796} {SEC(2010) 797} EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, COM(2010) XXX 2010/xxxx (CNS) Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent {SEC(2010) 796} {SEC(2010) 797}

More information

UNIFIED PATENT SYSTEM: A NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN EUROPE

UNIFIED 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

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 15 April /11 Interinstitutional File: 2011/0094 (CNS) PI 32 PROPOSAL

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 15 April /11 Interinstitutional File: 2011/0094 (CNS) PI 32 PROPOSAL COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 15 April 2011 9226/11 Interinstitutional File: 2011/0094 (CNS) PI 32 PROPOSAL from: Commission dated: 15 April 2011 No Cion doc.: COM(2011) 216 final Subject: Proposal

More information

Council Decision of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (2011/167/EU)

Council 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 information

Draft agreement on a Unified Patent Court and draft Statute - Revised Presidency text

Draft 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 information

Patent litigation. Block 3. Module UPC Law Essentials

Patent litigation. Block 3. Module UPC Law Essentials Patent litigation. Block 3; Module UPC Law Patent litigation. Block 3. Module UPC Law Essentials Article 32(f) of the UPC Agreement ( UPCA ) states that subject to the transitional regime of Article 83

More information

How patents work An introduction for law students

How patents work An introduction for law students How patents work An introduction for law students 1 Learning goals The learning goals of this lecture are to understand: the different types of intellectual property rights available the role of the patent

More information

EUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION

EUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION EUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION POSITION PAPER POSITION PAPER ON THE REVIEW OF DIRECTIVE 2004/48/EC ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS JUNE 2011 EGA EUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION

More information

Unitary patent and Unified Patent Court: the proposed framework

Unitary patent and Unified Patent Court: the proposed framework Unitary patent and Unified Patent Court: the proposed framework The adoption of two key regulations late last year have paved the way for the long-awaited unitary patent and Unified Patent Court By Rainer

More information

Council Decision of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (2011/167/EU)

Council 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 information

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.7.2013 COM(2013) 554 final 2013/0268 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction

More information

PROPOSALS FOR CREATING UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

PROPOSALS 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 information

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 7 April /09 Interinstitutional File: 2000/0177 (CNS) PI 28

COUNCIL 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 information

Unitary Patent Procedure before the EPO

Unitary Patent Procedure before the EPO Unitary Patent Procedure before the EPO Platform Formalities Officers EPO The Hague H.-C. Haugg Director Legal and Unitary Patent Division D.5.2.3 20 April 2017 Part I General Information What is the legal

More information

9107/15 TB/at 1 DG G 3 B

9107/15 TB/at 1 DG G 3 B Council of the European Union Brussels, 21 May 2015 (OR. en) Interinstitutional Files: 2011/0093 (COD) 2011/0094 (CNS) 9107/15 COMPET 244 PI 35 NOTE From: To: General Secretariat of the Council Council

More information

Dr Julian M. Potter February 2014

Dr Julian M. Potter February 2014 The European Patent Court and Unitary Patent Don t Panic Be Prepared Dr Julian M. Potter February 2014 (c) Dr Julian M Potter 2014 1 Patent in Europe - now National patents through respective national

More information

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 27 September /12 PI 113 COUR 66 WORKING DOCUMENT

COUNCIL 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 information

Report on the Diplomatic Conference for the Revision of the European Patent Convention. Munich, November 20-29, 2000

Report on the Diplomatic Conference for the Revision of the European Patent Convention. Munich, November 20-29, 2000 REPORTS Report on the Diplomatic Conference for the Revision of the European Patent Convention Munich, November 20-29, 2000 By Ralph Nack (1) and Bruno Phélip (2) A. Background of the Diplomatic Conference

More information

17229/09 LK/mg 1 DG C I

17229/09 LK/mg 1 DG C I COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 7 December 2009 17229/09 PI 141 COUR 87 NOTE from: General Secretariat of the Council to: Delegations No. prev. doc.: 16114/09 ADD 1 PI 123 COUR 71 Subject: Enhanced

More information

QUESTION 89. Harmonization of certain provisions of the legal systems for protecting inventions

QUESTION 89. Harmonization of certain provisions of the legal systems for protecting inventions QUESTION 89 Harmonization of certain provisions of the legal systems for protecting inventions Yearbook 1989/II, pages 324-329 Executive Committee of Amsterdam, June 4-10, 1989 Q89 Question Q89 Harmonisation

More information

EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 12 December 2012 (OR. en) 2011/0093 (COD) PE-CONS 72/11 PI 180 CODEC 2344 OC 70

EUROPEAN 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 information

Promoting innovation through patents Green Paper on the Community patent and the patent system in Europe

Promoting innovation through patents Green Paper on the Community patent and the patent system in Europe Promoting innovation through patents Green Paper on the Community patent and the patent system in Europe (presented by the Commission) Summary Patents play a central role among the different instruments

More information

President Ing Paolo MARKOVINA

President Ing Paolo MARKOVINA 11/04/2011 EU Patent: AICIPI proposals in the light of the decision of the European Council dated 10 March 2011 and the opinion of the European Court of Justice dated 8 March 2011 With the decision of

More information

Developments towards a unitary European patent system

Developments 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 information

13345/14 BB/ab 1 DG G3

13345/14 BB/ab 1 DG G3 Council of the European Union Brussels, 19 September 2014 (OR. en) 13345/14 PI 108 MI 672 IND 254 INFORMATION NOTE From: To: Subject: Presidency Council Competitiveness Implementation of the Patent package

More information

Questionnaire May 2003 Q Scope of Patent Protection. Response of the UK Group

Questionnaire 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 information

Enhancement of Attraction of Utility Model System

Enhancement 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 information

New IP Code changes regarding patents, new post-grant opposition and enforcement provisions

New 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 information

Patents in Europe 2011/2012. Greece Lappa

Patents in Europe 2011/2012. Greece Lappa Patents in Europe 2011/2012 Lappa By Eleni Lappa, Drakopoulos Law Firm, Athens 1. What are the most effective ways for a European patent holder whose rights cover your jurisdiction to enforce its rights

More information

PUBLIC LIMITE EN COUNCILOF THEEUROPEANUNION. Brussels,17November /11. InterinstitutionalFile: 2011/0093(COD) LIMITE PI154 CODEC1979

PUBLIC LIMITE EN COUNCILOF THEEUROPEANUNION. Brussels,17November /11. InterinstitutionalFile: 2011/0093(COD) LIMITE PI154 CODEC1979 ConseilUE COUNCILOF THEEUROPEANUNION Brussels,17November2011 InterinstitutionalFile: 2011/0093(COD) PUBLIC 16704/11 LIMITE PI154 CODEC1979 NOTE from: Presidency to: PermanentRepresentatives'Commitee(Part1)

More information

Understanding the Unified Patent Court: The Next Rocket-Docket for Patent Owners?

Understanding the Unified Patent Court: The Next Rocket-Docket for Patent Owners? Understanding the Unified Patent Court: The Next Rocket-Docket for Patent Owners? By Kevin R. Greenleaf, Michael W. O Neill, and Aloys Hüettermann Kevin R. Greenleaf is a counsel at Dentons US LLP where

More information

Developments towards a unitary European patent system

Developments towards a unitary European patent system Developments towards a unitary European patent system 3rd workshop The Output of R&D Activities: Harnessing the Power of Patents Data Nikolaus Thumm Chief Economist European Patent Office Seville, 13 June

More information

IP IN A POST-BREXIT EUROPE ENSURING YOUR EUROPEAN IP RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED DATE: 10 NOVEMBER 2016 PRESENTERS: CHRIS FINN, BEN GRAU AND GRAHAM MURNANE

IP IN A POST-BREXIT EUROPE ENSURING YOUR EUROPEAN IP RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED DATE: 10 NOVEMBER 2016 PRESENTERS: CHRIS FINN, BEN GRAU AND GRAHAM MURNANE IP IN A POST-BREXIT EUROPE ENSURING YOUR EUROPEAN IP RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED DATE: 10 NOVEMBER 2016 PRESENTERS: CHRIS FINN, BEN GRAU AND GRAHAM MURNANE BACKGROUND A fundamental aspect of the European Union

More information

Slide 13 What rights does a patent confer?

Slide 13 What rights does a patent confer? Slide 13 What rights does a patent confer? The term of the European patent shall be 20 years from the date of filing of the application (Article 63(1) EPC. However, nothing in Article 63(1) EPC shall limit

More information

UPC FUTURE OF PATENT LITIGATION IN EUROPE. Alexander Haertel

UPC FUTURE OF PATENT LITIGATION IN EUROPE. Alexander Haertel UPC FUTURE OF PATENT LITIGATION IN EUROPE Alexander Haertel MAIN TOPICS What will happen? - The Unified Patent Court (UPC) will change the landscape of patent litigation in Europe - It is a front-loaded

More information

Unitary Patent Guide. Obtaining, maintaining and managing Unitary Patents

Unitary Patent Guide. Obtaining, maintaining and managing Unitary Patents Unitary Patent Guide Obtaining, maintaining and managing Unitary Patents 1 st edition August 2017 Unitary Patent Guide Obtaining, maintaining and managing Unitary Patents 1st edition, 2017 Contents A.

More information

No. prev. doc.: 15819/13 PI 159 European Patent with Unitary Effect and Unified Patent Court - Information by the Presidency

No. prev. doc.: 15819/13 PI 159 European Patent with Unitary Effect and Unified Patent Court - Information by the Presidency COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 19 May 2014 (OR. en) 9563/14 PI 63 NOTE From: To: General Secretariat of the Council Council No. prev. doc.: 15819/13 PI 159 Subject: European Patent with Unitary

More information

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 28 April /08 Interinstitutional File: 2000/0177 (CNS) PI 22

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 28 April /08 Interinstitutional File: 2000/0177 (CNS) PI 22 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 28 April 2008 8928/08 Interinstitutional File: 2000/0177 (CNS) PI 22 WORKING DOCUMT from: Presidency to: Working Party on Intellectual Property (Patents) No. prev.

More information

Effective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents

Effective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents Effective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents Walter Holzer 1 S.G.D.G. Patents are granted with a presumption of validity. 2 A patent examiner simply cannot be aware of all facts and circumstances

More information

Introduction of the Madrid Protocol

Introduction of the Madrid Protocol Introduction of the Madrid Protocol Japan Patent Office Asia - Pacific Industrial Property Center, Japan Institute for Promoting Invention and Innovation 2016 Collaborator: Junko Saito Patent Attorney

More information

ti Litigating Patents Overseas: Country Specific Considerations Germany There is no "European" litigation system.

ti Litigating Patents Overseas: Country Specific Considerations Germany There is no European litigation system. Wolfgang Festl-Wietek of Viering Jentschura & Partner Speaker 11: 1 LSI Law Seminars International ti Litigating Patents Overseas: Country Specific Considerations Germany by Wolfgang Festl-Wietek Viering,

More information

Questionnaire 2. HCCH Judgments Project

Questionnaire 2. HCCH Judgments Project Questionnaire 2 HCCH Judgments Project Introduction 1) An important current project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is the development of a convention on the recognition and

More information

EUROPEAN COMMISSION PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR INQUIRY PRELIMINARY REPORT - 28 November 2008 COMMENTS FROM THE EPO

EUROPEAN COMMISSION PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR INQUIRY PRELIMINARY REPORT - 28 November 2008 COMMENTS FROM THE EPO 10.03.2009 (Final) EUROPEAN COMMISSION PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR INQUIRY PRELIMINARY REPORT - 28 November 2008 COMMENTS FROM THE EPO PART I: GENERAL COMMENTS The EPO notes with satisfaction that the European

More information

THE PATENTABILITY OF COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED INVENTIONS. Consultation Paper by the Services of the Directorate General for the Internal Market

THE 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 information

Overview economic research activities at the EPO 2013/2014

Overview economic research activities at the EPO 2013/2014 Overview economic research activities at the EPO 2013/2014 Theon van Dijk EPO Chief Economist PSDM 2013, Rio de Janeiro 12 November 2013 Overview 1. Trends in European patenting 2. Follow-up IPR-intensive

More information

European patent with unitary effect Reduction of the high costs relating to patents valid throughout the EU?

European patent with unitary effect Reduction of the high costs relating to patents valid throughout the EU? European patent with unitary effect Reduction of the high costs relating to patents valid throughout the EU? Bachelor s thesis within Commercial and Tax Law (Intellectual Property Law) Author: Tutor: Helena

More information

European Unitary Patents and the Unified Patent Court

European Unitary Patents and the Unified Patent Court European Unitary Patents and the Unified Patent Court Kevin Mooney July 2013 The Problem European Patent Convention Bundle Patents Single granting procedure but national enforcement No common appeal court

More information

AUSTRALIA - Standard Patents - Schedule of Charges

AUSTRALIA - Standard Patents - Schedule of Charges AUSTRALIA - Standard Patents - Schedule of Charges Effective 1 January 2018 Applications 1 Filing non-convention Standard application (filed electronically) 370.00 630.00 1000.00 2 Filing PCT AU National

More information

Implementing the Patent Package Second progress report. 1. State of implementation of the EU regulations N 1257/2012 and 1260/2012

Implementing the Patent Package Second progress report. 1. State of implementation of the EU regulations N 1257/2012 and 1260/2012 Implementing the Patent Package Second progress report 1. State of implementation of the EU regulations N 1257/2012 and 1260/2012 1.1. General framework The EU Regulation N 1257/2012 defines a European

More information

Attachment: Opinions on the Draft Amendment of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the People s Republic of China

Attachment: 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 information

Patent litigation. Block 1. Module Priority. Essentials: Priority. Introduction

Patent litigation. Block 1. Module Priority. Essentials: Priority. Introduction Patent litigation. Block 1. Module Priority Introduction Due to the globalisation of markets and the increase of inter-state trade, by the end of the nineteenth century there was a growing need for internationally

More information

Summary Report. Report Q189

Summary Report. Report Q189 Summary Report Report Q189 Amendment of patent claims after grant (in court and administrative proceedings, including re examination proceedings requested by third parties) The intention with Q189 was

More information

Patent Litigation. Block 2; Module Plaintiff /Claimant. Essentials. The patent proprietor as plaintiff/claimant in infringement proceedings

Patent Litigation. Block 2; Module Plaintiff /Claimant. Essentials. The patent proprietor as plaintiff/claimant in infringement proceedings Patent litigation. Block 2. Module Essentials The patent proprietor as plaintiff/claimant in infringement proceedings In a patent infringement action and/or any other protective measure, the plaintiff/claimant

More information

THE NEW EUROPEAN UNIFIED PATENT COURT & THE UNITARY PATENT

THE NEW EUROPEAN UNIFIED PATENT COURT & THE UNITARY PATENT THE NEW EUROPEAN UNIFIED PATENT COURT & THE UNITARY PATENT November 2015 Washington Kevin Mooney Simmons & Simmons LLP The Current Problems with enforcement of European patents European Patent Convention

More information

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT (RAISING THE BAR ACT) 2012

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT (RAISING THE BAR ACT) 2012 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT (RAISING THE BAR ACT) 2012 AUTHOR: MICHAEL CAINE - PARTNER, DAVIES COLLISON CAVE Michael is a fellow and council member of the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys

More information

PATENT HARMONISATION. A CIPA policy briefing on: 18-month publication period Conflicting applications Grace periods Prior user rights

PATENT HARMONISATION. A CIPA policy briefing on: 18-month publication period Conflicting applications Grace periods Prior user rights PATENT HARMONISATION A CIPA policy briefing on: 18-month publication period Conflicting applications Grace periods Prior user rights By Rebecca Gulbul Foreword by Tony Rollins FOREWORD by Tony Rollins

More information

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 No., 2013

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 No., 2013 00-0-0-0 The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Presented and read a first time Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 0 No., 0 (Industry, Innovation, Climate Change,

More information

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

COMMISSION 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 information

the UPC will have jurisdiction over certain European patents (see box The unitary patent and the UPC: a recap ).

the 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 information

Patents in Europe 2016/2017. Helping business compete in the global economy

Patents in Europe 2016/2017. Helping business compete in the global economy In association with Greece Maria Athanassiadou and Henning Voelkel Dr Helen G Papaconstantinou and Partners Patents in Europe 2016/2017 Helping business compete in the global economy Dr Helen G Papaconstantinou

More information

Questionnaire 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: 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 information

August 6, AIPLA Comments on Partial Amendment of Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property Under the Antimonopoly Act (Draft)

August 6, AIPLA Comments on Partial Amendment of Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property Under the Antimonopoly Act (Draft) Person in Charge of the Partial Amendment of the IP Guidelines (Draft) Consultation and Guidance Office, Trade Practices Division Economic Affairs Bureau, Secretariat, Japan Fair Trade Commission Section

More information

Threats & Opportunities in Proceedings before the EPO with a brief update on the Unitary Patent

Threats & Opportunities in Proceedings before the EPO with a brief update on the Unitary Patent Threats & Opportunities in Proceedings before the EPO with a brief update on the Unitary Patent MassMEDIC Jens Viktor Nørgaard & Peter Borg Gaarde September 13, 2013 Agenda Meet the speakers Threats &

More information

General Information Concerning. of IndusTRIal designs

General Information Concerning. of IndusTRIal designs General Information Concerning Patents The ReGIsTRaTIon For Inventions of IndusTRIal designs 1 2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 1. What is a patent? 4 2. How long does a patent last? 4 3. Why patent inventions?

More information

The Progress to Date with the Unitary European Patent and the Unified Patent Court for Europe

The Progress to Date with the Unitary European Patent and the Unified Patent Court for Europe Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 18, November 2013, pp 584-588 European IP Developments The Progress to Date with the Unitary European Patent and the Unified Patent Court for Europe Trevor Cook

More information

American Chamber of Commerce in the Czech Republic. Position Paper. Questionnaire. On the patent system in Europe. Answering.

American Chamber of Commerce in the Czech Republic. Position Paper. Questionnaire. On the patent system in Europe. Answering. First Vice Second Vice Czech American Chamber of Commerce in the Czech Republic Position Paper Answering Questionnaire On the patent system in Europe Section 5 General 5.5 Are there other issues than those

More information

The European patent system

The European patent system The European patent system Presenter: Dominique Winne Examiner (ICT) 7 November 2017 Contents EPC PCT Granting procedure at the 2 1 Optional The patent system yesterday and today Senate of Venice, 1474

More information

Client Privilege in Intellectual Property Advice

Client Privilege in Intellectual Property Advice Client Privilege in Intellectual Property Advice Prepared by the Commission on Intellectual Property I The WIPO/AIPPI Conference on 22-23 May 2008 1. Client privilege in intellectual property advice was

More information

IS 2016 THE FINAL STRETCH BEFORE THE ENTRY IN FORCE OF

IS 2016 THE FINAL STRETCH BEFORE THE ENTRY IN FORCE OF IS 2016 THE FINAL STRETCH BEFORE THE ENTRY IN FORCE OF THE UNITARY PATENT AND THE UNIFIED PATENT COURT? By Christian TEXIER Partner, REGIMBEAU European & French Patent Attorney texier@regimbeau.eu And

More information

The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR)

The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) The Secretary General German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 11. RheinAtrium.

More information

The Unitary Patent Unified Patent Court. Taylor Wessing LLP

The 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 information

AUSTRALIA 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 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 information

Judicial training in the framework of the Unified Patent Court as a prerequisite for the success of the Unitary Patent System

Judicial training in the framework of the Unified Patent Court as a prerequisite for the success of the Unitary Patent System ERA Forum (2015) 16:1 6 DOI 10.1007/s12027-015-0378-z EDITORIAL Judicial training in the framework of the Unified Patent Court as a prerequisite for the success of the Unitary Patent System Florence Hartmann-Vareilles

More information

Preliminary set of provisions for the Rules of procedure of the Unified Patent Court

Preliminary set of provisions for the Rules of procedure of the Unified Patent Court 27 January 2012 Preliminary set of provisions for the Rules of procedure of the Unified Patent Court Status 1. First draft dated 29 May 2009 discussed in expert meetings on 5 June and 19 June 2009 2. Second

More information

IP Part IV: Patent prosecution

IP Part IV: Patent prosecution IP Part IV: Patent prosecution Tech Transfer course 2017 22 August 2017 Griet Den Herder, PhD, IP Manager Patent prosecution Interaction between applicants and a patent office regarding a patent application

More information

Associazione Italiana dei Consulenti ed Esperti in Proprietà Industriale di Enti o Imprese

Associazione Italiana dei Consulenti ed Esperti in Proprietà Industriale di Enti o Imprese Associazione Italiana dei Consulenti ed Esperti in Proprietà Industriale di Enti o Imprese www.aicipi.it info@aicipi.it Segretario Dr.ssa Maria PODESTA m.podesta@chiesigroup.com Presidente Dr. Francesco

More information

***I DRAFT REPORT. EN United in diversity EN 2011/0093(COD)

***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 information

PUBLIC LIMITE EN COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 1 December /11 LIMITE PI 170 COUR 72 NOTE

PUBLIC LIMITE EN COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 1 December /11 LIMITE PI 170 COUR 72 NOTE Conseil UE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION PUBLIC Brussels, 1 December 2011 17580/11 LIMITE PI 170 COUR 72 NOTE from: to: No. prev. doc.: Subject: Presidency Permanent Representatives Committee (Part 1)

More information

5 Multiple Protection of Inventions

5 Multiple Protection of Inventions 5 Multiple Protection of Inventions From the perspective of helping front runners efforts to obtain multiple protection rights and achieving international harmonization of systems, research studies were

More information

Patent litigation in Europe Major changes to come. Anne-Charlotte Le Bihan, Partner, Bird & Bird ABPI, Rio de Janeiro August 20, 2013

Patent litigation in Europe Major changes to come. Anne-Charlotte Le Bihan, Partner, Bird & Bird ABPI, Rio de Janeiro August 20, 2013 Patent litigation in Europe Major changes to come Anne-Charlotte Le Bihan, Partner, Bird & Bird ABPI, Rio de Janeiro August 20, 2013 Introduction: Patent litigation in Europe today and tomorrow Patent

More information

Response to the EC consultation on the future direction of EU trade policy. 28 July 2010

Response to the EC consultation on the future direction of EU trade policy. 28 July 2010 Response to the EC consultation on the future direction of EU trade policy 28 July 2010 Question 1: Now that the new Lisbon Treaty has entered into force, how can we best ensure that our future trade policy

More information

The Patents Act 1977 (as amended)

The Patents Act 1977 (as amended) The Patents Act 1977 (as amended) An unofficial consolidation produced by Patents Legal Section 17 December 2007 UK Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office 1 Note to users

More information

Patent litigation. Block 2. Module Jurisdiction and procedure Complementary reading: Unified Patent Court Agreement ( UPCA )

Patent litigation. Block 2. Module Jurisdiction and procedure Complementary reading: Unified Patent Court Agreement ( UPCA ) Essentials: Patent litigation. Block 2. Unified Patent Court Agreement ( UPCA ) PART I - GENERAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS The Unified Patent Court (UPC) will be a specialised patent court common to

More information

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 4 April 2007 (05.04) (OR. fr) 8302/07 PI 11

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 4 April 2007 (05.04) (OR. fr) 8302/07 PI 11 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 4 April 2007 (05.04) (OR. fr) 8302/07 PI 11 COVER NOTE from: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director date of receipt:

More information