Study Question (Patents)

Transcription

1 Study Question (Patents) Submission date: November 23, 2016 Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General Jonathan P. OSHA, Deputy Reporters General Ari LAAKKONEN, Assistants to the Reporter General Patentability of computer implemented inventions Responsible Reporter: Ari LAAKKONEN National/Regional Group Contributors name(s) contact Romania John Doe TEST I. Current law and practice 1 In your jurisdiction, are there any statutory provisions which specifically apply only to CII? Test test Praesent lacus justo, commodo sit amet tincidunt posuere, posuere ut justo. Fusce tincidunt libero eu orci iaculis fermentum. Vivamus suscipit, mi ac malesuada ullamcorper, nunc lorem molestie eros, sit amet sagittis elit lacus ut dui. Fusce molestie ac neque et rutrum. Ut cursus sed mi nec viverra. Maecenas non ipsum vulputate, imperdiet diam eu, euismod dolor. Nam scelerisque risus vitae nisl auctor, id auctor felis dignissim. Ut eleifend est quis nisl tempus, congue ullamcorper purus sodales. Praesent lobortis nisi sit amet neque congue, eu tincidunt enim auctor. 2 Please briefly describe the general patentability requirements in the written law of your jurisdiction which are specifically relevant for the examination of the patentability of CII. Praesent lacus justo, commodo sit amet tincidunt posuere, posuere ut justo. Fusce tincidunt libero eu orci iaculis fermentum. Vivamus suscipit, mi ac malesuada ullamcorper, nunc lorem molestie eros, sit amet sagittis elit lacus ut dui. Fusce molestie ac neque et rutrum. Ut cursus sed mi nec viverra. Maecenas non ipsum vulputate, imperdiet diam eu, euismod dolor. Nam scelerisque risus vitae nisl auctor, id auctor felis dignissim. Ut eleifend est quis nisl tempus, congue ullamcorper purus sodales. Praesent lobortis nisi sit amet neque congue, eu tincidunt enim auctor. 3 Under the case law or judicial or administrative practice in your jurisdiction, are there rules which specifically apply only to CII? Curabitur varius tincidunt faucibus. Donec mattis ornare enim, ut ornare nibh. Nunc porta mauris quis ipsum mattis, quis dictum purus ultricies. Duis et commodo lorem. Sed aliquam sapien sed elit tristique semper. Curabitur gravida consequat tellus, eu condimentum nulla feugiat nec. 4 Page 1 of 5

2 Please briefly describe the general patentability requirements under the case law or judicial or administrative practice of your jurisdiction which are specifically relevant for the examination of the patentability of CII. Sed et fermentum metus. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Mauris congue, augue sit amet tristique ornare, sapien velit blandit eros, ac accumsan neque turpis tempus urna. Quisque quis enim a erat lacinia fermentum. Integer accumsan molestie velit, eget tempus lectus scelerisque a. Nullam vel laoreet sapien, at tincidunt lectus. Integer cursus tellus vel libero scelerisque dignissim. Integer nibh ex, vehicula vel tincidunt in, pulvinar et erat. Nulla vestibulum risus maximus massa ultricies suscipit. Vivamus rhoncus tincidunt blandit. Fusce sagittis condimentum mauris, quis cursus sapien ultricies in. Quisque fermentum quam tellus, in semper mauris tincidunt rhoncus. Integer vel elit quis tortor tristique tincidunt. Maecenas eu metus ullamcorper, gravida libero sit amet, commodo ex. Aliquam lobortis placerat eros non dictum. Nam eu nisi ac magna varius eleifend vitae vel sapien. 5 Do the statutory provisions, case law or judicial or administrative practice (hereinafter referred to as Law / Practice) in your jurisdiction exclude any particular subject matter from patentability per se in relation to a claimed CII being relevant for CII? In this context, per se means that the non-patentable subject matter is identified without any examination of the contribution to the state of the art the claimed CII makes. 1. Etiam bibendum aliquet ligula, et tincidunt eros cursus sit amet. Nulla sed eros enim. Curabitur molestie, sapien ac ultrices facilisis, dui orci elementum turpis, nec posuere orci risus nec est. Nam consectetur neque dapibus, sagittis purus in, convallis mi. 2. In molestie blandit viverra. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Phasellus pharetra tellus ac risus condimentum 6 Please explain in detail how per se non-patentable subject matter referred to in question 5) is identified in practice. Sed et fermentum metus. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Mauris congue, augue sit amet tristique ornare, sapien velit blandit eros, ac accumsan neque turpis tempus urna. Quisque quis enim a erat lacinia fermentum. Integer accumsan molestie velit, eget tempus lectus scelerisque a. Nullam vel laoreet sapien, at tincidunt lectus. Integer cursus tellus vel libero scelerisque dignissim. Integer nibh ex, vehicula vel tincidunt in, pulvinar et erat. Nulla vestibulum risus maximus massa ultricies suscipit. Vivamus rhoncus tincidunt blandit. Fusce sagittis condimentum mauris, quis cursus sapien ultricies in. Quisque fermentum quam tellus, in semper mauris tincidunt rhoncus. Integer vel elit quis tortor tristique tincidunt. Maecenas eu metus ullamcorper, gravida libero sit amet, commodo ex. Aliquam lobortis placerat eros non dictum. Nam eu nisi ac magna varius eleifend vitae vel sapien. 7 Does the Law / Practice in your jurisdiction contain any specific claim drafting or other formal requirements which are applicable to CII, i.e. which deviate from the Law / Practice applicable to inventions which are not CII? 8 Does the Law / Practice contain any specific requirements as to sufficiency of disclosure and/or enablement which are applicable to CII, i.e. which deviate from the Law / Practice applicable to inventions which are not CII? 9 Does the examination of the patentability of CII in your jurisdiction implicitly or explicitly involve an examination of the contribution the claimed CII makes to the state of the art (such examination may be part of a general patentability test or part of the novelty and inventive step/non-obviousness test)? Yes 10 Page 2 of 5

3 If yes, does this test implicitly or explicitly involve excluding contributions from areas of human endeavour which are not deemed to be sources of patentable inventions? In other words, does patentability of CII implicitly or explicitly require a contribution from areas of human endeavour which are deemed to be sources of patentable inventions (e.g. engineering, natural sciences)? Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Phasellus pharetra tellus ac risus condimentum 11 If the test implicitly or explicitly involves excluding contributions from areas of human endeavour which are not deemed to be sources of patentable inventions, does this test also implicitly or explicitly require that the relevant contribution the CII makes to the state of the art qualifies as inventive/non-obvious? This additional test may be integrated into the general inventive step / non-obviousness examination, or may be a stand-alone test. 12 Is there an implicit or explicit consensus in your jurisdiction as to the list of areas of human endeavour which are accepted as sources of patentable CII? If yes, is it possible to define these areas of human endeavour? 13 Do courts and administrative bodies in your jurisdiction apply the Law / Practice for patentability of CII in your jurisdiction in a harmonized way? II. Policy considerations and proposals for improvements of your current law 14 Is the current law in your jurisdiction regarding the patentability of CII considered understandable and workable? No 15 If no, why not? 16 Does the current law in your jurisdiction regarding patentability of CII provide appropriate outcomes, in particular from an economic perspective? No 17 If not, why not? 18 In your jurisdiction, is copyright protection of CII regarded as sufficient from an economic standpoint? Yes 19 If not, why not? 20 Alternatively, is there an explicit or implicit consensus that patent protection of CII is required to ensure sufficient reward of investments made into the development of CII? 21 Page 3 of 5

4 In your jurisdiction, is there an implicit or explicit consensus that availability of patent protection should be limited to contributions from certain areas of human endeavour, excluding contributions from all other areas of human endeavour, no matter how advanced these contributions? III. Proposals for harmonisation 22 Do you consider that harmonisation regarding patentability of CII is desirable? If yes, please respond to the following questions without regard to your Group's current law. Even if no, please address the following questions to the extent your Group considers the law and practice in your jurisdiction could be improved. 23 Should there be any exclusion of subject matter from patentability per se being relevant for CII? In this context, "per se" means that the non-patentable subject matter has to be identified without any examination of the contribution to the state of the art the claimed CII makes. 24 Please explain in detail how per se non-patentable subject matter should be identified in practice. 25 Should there be any specific claim drafting or other formal requirements which are applicable to CII, i.e. which deviate from the rules or practice applicable to inventions which are not CII? 26 If yes, what should those requirements be? 27 Should there be any specific requirements as to sufficiency of disclosure and/or enablement which are applicable to CII, i.e. which deviate from the rules or practice applicable to inventions which are not CII? 27 If yes, what should those requirements be? 29 Should the examination of subject matter eligibility of CII involve an examination of the contribution the claimed CII makes to the state of the art? 30 If yes, should such examination be made under a test specific to CII, or should it be part of the usual novelty and inventive step/non-obviousness test? Please state why in either case. 31 If yes, should contributions from areas of human endeavour which are not deemed to be sources of patentable inventions be excluded? In other words, should patentability of CII require a contribution from areas of human endeavour which are deemed to be sources of patentable inventions (e.g. engineering, natural sciences)? 32 If the test implicitly or explicitly should involve excluding contributions from areas of human endeavour which are not deemed to be sources of patentable inventions, should the test also require that the relevant contribution the CII makes to the state of the art qualifies as inventive/non-obvious? This additional test may be integrated into the general inventive step / non-obviousness examination, or may be a stand-alone test. 33 Page 4 of 5

5 If yes, should there be a non-exhaustive list of areas of human endeavour which are accepted as sources of patentable CII, taking into account the ultimate purpose of patent law (protecting unforeseen, non obvious subject matter)? If yes, please provide such a list. 34 Please comment on any additional issues concerning patent protection of CII that you consider relevant to this Study Question. Page 5 of 5