Note concerning the Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions
|
|
- Trevor Greer
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 EPO III.THE RECENT IBM DECISIONS (T1173/97 AND T935/97) IV.THE NEXT STEPS : a) REVISION OF THE EPO EXAMINATION GUIDELINES b) REVISION OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION c) PROPOSED EUROPEAN UNION LEGISLATION V.THE CONSEQUENCES ON THE CLAIM FEATURES AND ON THE DESCRIPTION VI.THE ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS VII.THE PRACTICE OF THE FRENCH NATIONAL PATENT OFFICE INTRODUCTION The European Patent Convention contains provisions limiting the type of computer- related inventions for which European patents can be obtained. Corresponding provisions are present in the national patent law of Contracting States to the European Patent Convention. After explaining these legal provisions, and their application by the EPO (as seen in classical EPO caselaw and some more recent developments), we shall report on two new decisions by the EPO Boards of Appeal which significantly extend the categories of claims which can be obtained in Europe for computer- related inventions. We shall then discuss proposed modifications of the European Patent Convention and proposed European Union legislation, as well as the consequences that all of these changes have on the drafting of patent specifications.
2 I. THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION In the European Patent Convention (EPC), the legal provisions which deal with the patentability of computer- related inventions are those of Article 52(1),(2),(3)EPC: Article 52 (1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step. (2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; (b) aesthetic creations; (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; (d) presentations of information (3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter of activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such. According to this Article, programmes for computers shall not be regarded as inventions. However, these provisions exclude patentability of the subject- matter or activities referred to, only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject- matter or activities as such. As explained below, this provision has been applied by the EPO in a manner allowing patenting of computer- related inventions in many circumstances. However, only limited categories of patent claims were accepted (typically claims covering a method or system functioning in a manner determined by the computer program). As indicated above, similar provisions can be found in the national law of each member state of the EPC. II. APPLICATION OF THESE PROVISIONS, AND MAINSTREAM CASELAW OF THE EPO II.1. Classical EPO Approach The EPO considers that the A.52(2)(c) exclusion on patentability of computer programs as such does not preclude the patenting of computer-related inventions, this exclusion only affects computer programs which are of a non- technical nature. The classical EPO approach has been to ascertain what is the real technical contribution which the claimed subject matter, considered as a whole, makes to the state of the art. Typically, claims are allowed where the computer program in question is applied to the
3 control of a technical process (for example control of a machine tool, or control of the internal workings of the computer in some new way) or to the processing of data which has a physical significance (for example, the digital filtering of an image signal). Claims are also allowed where the invention s contribution to the state of the art resides in a mixture of technical and non- technical features. In other words, the presence in the claim of non- technical features does not render the claim unacceptable, provided that some technical features are also present. II.2. Some examples of developments in mainstream EPO case-law a. A first interesting example is given in decision T 769/92 (Sohei) concerning European application EP In the patent application considered in this decision, the applicant claimed a computer system for plural types of independent management including at least financial and inventory management and a method for operating said system. Data for the various types of management, which could be performed independently from each other with this system, could be inputted using a single "transfer slip", in the form of an image displayed on the screen of the display unit of the computer system, for example. Financial and inventory management would generally fall under "methods for... doing business". Thus, the invention in question related to a computer program used to perform a method of a type excluded from patentability under A.52(2)(c). The Board held, however, that the invention was not excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2)(c) and (3), for the following reason. It was considered that the particular kinds of management mentioned were not decisive, but what was important was the fact that they were of different "specific" types to be performed "independently" of each other. The patent application contained the teaching to provide, in the memory unit of the computer system, certain files and processing means for storing and further processing the entered data and causing the processing unit to perform the various different specific functions. This teaching required technical considerations in order to be implemented. In the Board's view, although the claimed invention concerned the use of a computer program to perform a non- technical method, technical considerations were applied concerning particulars of the implementation of the method by the program. The very need for such technical considerations implied that there was at least an implicit technical problem to be solved and at least implicit technical features solving this problem. In the view of the Board, the fact that claim 1 was restricted to applications in financial and inventory management did not give rise to an objection under Art. 52(2)(c). This restriction was only a further, non- technical feature in the claim which, as such, would be excluded. However, as mentioned above it is established EPO practice to allow patentability for mixtures of technical and non- technical features.
4 b. Another interesting example is given in Decision T 110/90. The patent application in question was related to a method of transforming a source document, in a first editable form, into target documents, in a second editable form. Data representing printer control codes in the documents were transformed from the first form into the second form. According to the Boards of Appeal, the claims dealt with a technical problem, the transformation of digital data representing printer control items cast in a first form into digital data, representing the same information, but in a second form. A communicative link was thereby created between two normally incompatible text processing systems. In other words, the Board ruled that control items included in a text represented in the form of digital data are characteristic of the word processing system in which they occur in that they are characteristic of the technical internal working of that system. Such control items therefore represent technical features of the word processing system in which they occur. Consequently, transforming control items which represent technical features belonging to one word processing system into those belonging to another word processing system constitutes a method of a technical nature. c. EPO approach concerning data processing. Concerning data processing, it seems, from the established EPO case law, that patentability may be conferred on a data processing invention, either because of the technical/physical significance of the data processed, or because of the processor steps performed on the data. For example, if the processor steps lack patentability because they are a purely mathematical method, patentability may however be derived from a physical significance inherent in the data. A well known example is one of images and data representing images. The EPO considers that inventions relating to the processing of image data have the necessary technical character regardless of whether the image data represents a physical object or a simulated object (such as in computer- assisted design). II.3. We are of the opinion that the criteria which have thus been established by the Boards of Appeal are quite clear and quite "client- friendly". The Boards of Appeal do not give a broad interpretation to the exclusion of computer programs from patentability, but tend to interpret it in a very strict way, to the benefit of Applicants. It must however be recalled that the technical effects, whatever their nature, that are relied on to escape the exclusion of A.52(2)(c) must be clearly explained in the description. II.4. Until now, no decision has had to be taken with regard to the problem of claims explicitly related to computer programs or to a medium carrying the instructions for working the computer program. It was even commonly believed that such claims would have no chance to be granted, in particular in view of Art. 52(3) EPC. The Guidelines (C- IV, 2.3), which can be considered as the interpretation of the EPC for the first instances of the EPO (Examining Divisions and Opposition Divisions, the Boards of Appeal not being bound by the Guidelines) even
5 mention that: " A computer program claimed by itself or as a record on a carrier, is not patentable irrespective of its content." Two recent and major Decisions issued by the Boards of Appeal have changed this interpretation. Top III. THE NEW IBM DECISIONS (T1173/97 AND T935/97) III.1. T1173/97 and T935/97 : the facts In both cases submitted to the Board of Appeal, IBM contested a decision by the Examining Division. In the first case (T935/97), the set of claims under study comprised following independent claims: 1 - A method in a data processing system for displaying information, A data processing system for displaying information A computer program product comprising a computer readable medium, having thereon computer program code means, when said program is loaded, to make the computer execute procedure to display information A computer program element comprising computer program code means to make the computer execute procedure to display information A computer program element as claimed in claim 8 embodied on a computer readable medium A computer readable medium, having a program recorded thereon, where the program is to make the computer execute procedure to display information... In the second case (T1173/97), the set of claims under study comprised following independent claims: 1 - A method for resource recovery in a computer system running an application A computer system comprising an execution environment for running an application A computer program product, directly loadable into the internal memory of a digital computer, comprising software code portions for performing the steps of claim 1 when said product is run on a computer A computer program product stored on a computer usable medium, comprising computer readable program means for causing a computer to perform an execution of an application... In both cases the Examining Division acknowledged patentability of method claim 1 and of system claims 5 and 14, but objected to the other independent claims (7 to 10 in the first case and 20, 21 in the second case) as directed to a computer program as such, and therefore excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2) and (3) EPC. III.2. The interpretation by the Board of Appeal a. In both cases, the Board of Appeal reinterpreted the provisions of Art.52(2) and (3)
6 EPC, and concluded that : A computer program claimed by itself is not excluded from patentability if the program, when loaded on a computer, produces a technical effect which goes beyond the "normal" interaction between a program and the computer on which it is run. b. The Board of Appeal confirmed the classical view that because the provisions under art. 52(2) and (3) EPC exclude computer programs from patentability only to the extent that the invention relates to a computer program "as such", this means that not all computer programs are excluded from patentability. Article 52(2)(c) does not exclude from patentability and does not concern computer programs having a technical character. The Board of Appeal stated that a technical character cannot be seen in the physical modifications usually resulting from a program when it is worked on a computer. Such modifications are common to all programs and cannot be used as criterion to distinguish computer programs "as such" from the patentable computer programs. It is necessary to look elsewhere for a technical character, for example in further effects: - having a technical character or causing the software to solve a technical problem - and deriving from the execution of a program. The Board of Appeal further stated that such a further effect may already be known in the art. When considering the patentability of an invention with regard to A.52(2)(c), the differences between the invention and the prior art, and the technical contribution over this prior art, are not to be considered, but only the question whether the computer program has a further technical effect. Assuming that a computer program running on a computer would cause such a "further technical effect", the program itself (for example when recorded on a computer readable medium) has the potential to produce this "further technical effect". The Board of Appeal considered this potential to produce a technical effect to be equivalent to an indirect technical effect inherent in the program sufficient to render the program per se patentable. Top IV. THE NEXT STEPS : IV.1. Revision of the Guidelines for Examination at the EPO The new principles established by the Boards of Appeal must now be implemented at the level of the EPO Examining and Opposition Divisions. This means that: A. From now on, the interpretation of the European Patent Convention which is contained in the Examination Guidelines at C- IV, 2.3 (see II.4. above) is obsolete.
7 B. A new version of the Examination Guidelines has to be issued. In the meantime, as indicated in A, and from now on, the former practice of the EPO is amended so as to conform to the new Board of Appeal decisions. The claim has now to be considered as a whole. The claim will be granted in the case where it provides a technical effect, or it provides a solution to a technical problem. As before, a technical effect will be assumed, e.g., in the case of a program- controlled working process, or of a program- controlled manufacturing process, or when technical data is processed (T208/84, VICOM). However, it must now be found that a program for a computer has a technical character if it causes: - a technical effect (which may be known in the art) - but which goes beyond normal interaction between a program and a computer. The last part of the sentence is to exclude computer programs which, although having a certain effect on a computer, do not have any other technical effect apart from the usual functions of the computer (for example a program for displaying information in a very common way). The technical effect of a computer program can be found in a process which is controlled by the program. It can also be found in the functioning of the computer itself, but not, as explained above, in the physical modifications of the hardware causing for instance electrical currents in the computer itself. Moreover, the technical effect of the computer program enables claims to be obtained not just for the combination of the program and the hardware upon which it is running but also for the program per se (see Section V.1 below). IV.2 Revision of the European Patent Convention. The European Patent Office has recently issued a proposition to revise the current provisions of Article 52(1)- (3) EPC (cited above, see Section I). In the proposed version, sub- sections 2 and 3 of Article 52 would be deleted, and sub- section 1 of Article 52 would be replaced by the following: European Patents shall be granted for any inventions in all fields of technology which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step. With such a formulation, the European Patent Convention would be harmonised with Article 27(1) of the TRIPS Agreement.
8 This provision has the advantage of being very concise, and of containing a reference to a "technology". It would therefore allow, without the need for any interpretation, the granting of patents covering computer programs (having a technical character) either per se or loaded on a computer readable medium as well as when running on hardware. In order to be implemented, this proposed modification of the European Patent Convention requires a Diplomatic Conference (Art. 172 EPC), to be prepared and convened by the Administrative Council of the EPO. It has been proposed that such a Diplomatic Conference should be held in the course of 2000 with a view to implementing a modification of Article 52 EPC before 1st July IV.3 European Union Legislation The European Commission takes the view that computer programs in general should be patentable, provided that they meet the other criteria for patentability (notably regarding novelty and industrial application). The European Commission has expressed the intention to issue a "Directive" for harmonising all the national laws of the countries of the European Union with respect to the patentability of computer programs, in line with its opinion. Top V. THE CONSEQUENCES ON THE CLAIM FEATURES AND ON THE DESCRIPTION V.1. The features of the Claims In a European Patent Application, a computer program having a technical character may therefore be claimed: - by itself - and/or as a program product - and/or as a record on a carrier, (in addition to being claimed as part of the overall system or method in which it is used, if so desired). However, the Applicant must be aware that any claim directed to a computer program must define all the features leading to the technical effect which is invoked in support of the patentability of the program. The claim must also contain all the features which imply an inventive step. If no technical effect can be found for the program claimed, or if the program does not provide a solution to a technical problem, then an objection will be raised by the Examining Division either under existing Article 52(2)(c) EPC or, when it is in force, under the proposed new version of Article 52(1).
9 V.2. Inventive Step Analysis. The inventive step analysis which will be carried out by the Examining Division for this kind of claim will be exactly the same as for any other kind of claim : - First, the difference between the claim and the closest prior art will be identified. - The objective technical problem corresponding to this difference will then be formulated. It will be decided whether this objective technical problem is inventive or not. - If it is not, it will be decided whether the solution to this objective technical problem is within the skill of a man skilled in the art, or not. V.3. The Description. The description will have to disclose the technical functions which are implemented by the computer program. In particular, not only the result achieved by the program has to be described, but also the way it is achieved by the program. A technical problem to be solved must also be identified in the description. It will be appreciated that, in view of the criteria for patentability (see IV.1 above), all the explanations concerning the technical problem and its solution by the invention are very important, and may be even more important than in other fields of technology. The terminology used has to be consistent and understandable. A situation in which the Examiner would face expressions or terminology which are used or known only by the Applicant would certainly lead to an objection under Article 84 EPC (lack of clarity). Great care should be therefore taken, when drafting an application, to choose the appropriate terms of the art. It is highly recommended to include flow charts and examples. At present, the EPO Examination Guidelines (C- II, 4.14a) instruct Examiners to object to the presence in a European patent application of complete program listings. The content of such listings is not considered by the Examiner to provide enabling disclosure, nor to provide a basis for later amendments of the application. The presence in the application of excerpts of programs is tolerated. However, it is unsafe to rely on these excerpts as providing enabling disclosure. In our view, there is no strong and explicit basis in the EPC for a prohibition on the inclusion of complete program listings in a European patent application. Thus, it is possible that the Boards of Appeal may override this Guideline C- II 4.14a also, as practice under Article 52 EPC develops.
10 However, for the time being the EPO authorities have expressed no intention of amending examination practice in this regard. Thus, it is important to ensure that all relevant features of a computer program are described fully in the European patent application in natural language and/or by flow charts and diagrams. V.4. Summary The two IBM decisions referred to above change the explicit subject- matter for which European patent protection can be sought : a computer program can now be claimed, either as such or recorded on a computer readable medium (in addition to being claimed as part of the overall system/method in which it is used). The form of the claims which can be granted for a computer related invention is now clarified and any objection based on the current formulation of Article 52(1)- (3) EPC can now, in principle, be overcome, provided there is the basis in the application for asserting that the invention provides a "further technical effect". In view of the evolution of this technology, in particular in the field of networks, we are of the opinion that it could be useful to include in the application a description and a claim for a signal carrying the instructions for running a computer program. The information which is recorded, e.g. on a CD ROM is "frozen" and therefore a claim to such recorded information could not cover the transmission through a network of information concerning a computer program. Top VI. THE ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS VI.1. Infringement and Contributory infringement A claim directed to a computer program or a computer- readable medium will of course allow the patentee to enforce his rights against anybody offering for sale or selling or using or making a program or a CD ROM (or any other type of computer readable medium) with the corresponding instructions loaded on it. With regard to contributory infringement, we recall here the conditions set out in Art. L of the French Intellectual Property Code (noting that other Contracting States to the EPC have similar provisions): It shall also be prohibited, save with the consent of the owner of the patent, to supply or offer to supply, on French territory, to a person other than a person entitled to work the patented invention, means, relating to an essential element of the invention, of implementing the invention, on that territory, where the third party knows, or it is obvious from the circumstances, that such means are suited and intended for putting the invention into effect. Under French law, a contributory infringer is therefore someone who supplies or offers to supply, on French territory, an essential element of the invention.
11 Another condition for contributory infringement is that there is an act of infringement committed or planned by another third party, to whom an essential element of the invention is supplied. Since a computer readable medium like a CD- ROM can now be the essential element of a claim, it can form, in principle, a basis for contributory infringement, just as any other essential features of any other kind of claims. The same remark holds for a computer program, not necessarily loaded on such a computer readable medium. VI.2. However, we do not yet know how the judges, at national levels, will evaluate the validity and the scope of claims explicitly reciting computer programs and computer readable medium. Therefore, for the time being, we would recommend that in European patent applications you should maintain an independent process claim and an independent system claim, with appropriate additional claims directed to a computer program and/or computer readable medium and/or signal carrying or representing the instructions for a computer program. Top VII. THE PRACTICE OF THE FRENCH NATIONAL PATENT OFFICE Concerning national French Applications, the French Patent Office regrettably still raises objections against claims explicitly reciting computer programs either per se or stored on a computer readable medium. We do not know yet whether this practice will be changed in view of the change in practice at the European Patent Office. Anyway, and as already mentioned above (see IV.2), legislation at European Union level will soon harmonise all national laws of EU member states in the same way, in line with Art. 27 of the TRIPS Agreement. Pascal MOUTARD CABINET BEAU DE LOMENIE, APRIL 1999
US Bar EPO Liaison Council 29th Annual Meeting Munich, 18 October EPO practice issues
US Bar EPO Liaison Council 29th Annual Meeting Munich, 18 October 2013 5. EPO practice issues A. Patenting of digital gaming 18 October 2013 Overview Article 52(2) and (3) EPC History of the legal practice
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 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 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 informationAIPPI Study Question - Patentability of computer implemented inventions
Study Question Submission date: June 1, 2017 Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General Jonathan P. OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK, Assistants to
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 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 informationUnity of inventions at the EPO - Amendments to rule 29 EPC
PATENTS Unity of inventions at the EPO - Amendments to rule 29 EPC This document presents provisions of the European Patent Convention regarding unity of invention and their applications by the EPO, both
More informationTitle: The patentability criterion of inventive step / non-obviousness
Question Q217 National Group: China Title: The patentability criterion of inventive step / non-obviousness Contributors: [Heather Lin, Gavin Jia, Shengguang Zhong, Richard Wang, Jonathan Miao, Wilson Zhang,
More informationRECENT CASE LAW OF THE EPO REGARDING SOFTWARE/BUSINESS METHOD- RELATED INVENTIONS
RECENT CASE LAW OF THE EPO REGARDING SOFTWARE/BUSINESS METHOD- RELATED INVENTIONS Reinhard Knauer, Partner of Grünecker, Kinkeldey, Stockmair & Schwanhäusser Introduction The recent developments in case
More informationMateo Aboy, PhD (c) Mateo Aboy, PhD - Aboy & Associates, PC
! Is the patentability of computer programs (software) and computerrelated inventions in European jurisdictions signatory of the European Patent Convention materially different from the US?! Mateo Aboy,
More informationComputer-implemented inventions under the EPC in the light of the Opinion of the EBA G 3/08
Computer-implemented inventions under the EPC in the light of the Opinion of the EBA G 3/08 Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle 42th World Intellectual Property
More informationAIPPI Study Question - Patentability of computer implemented inventions
Study Question Submission date: June 19, 2017 Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General Jonathan P. OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK, Assistants
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 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 informationHow 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 information2008 Patently-O Patent Law Journal
2008 Patently-O Patent Law Journal Paul Cole 1 Patentability of Computer Software As Such The Court of Appeal decision in Symbian obliges the UK Patent Office to take a broader view of what is patentable.
More informationEPO Decision G 1/15 on Partial Priorities and Toxic Divisionals: Relief and Risks
EPO Decision G 1/15 on Partial Priorities and Toxic Divisionals: Relief and Risks In Europe, the claiming of multiple priorities and the concept of partial priority in the context of a single patent claim
More informationshould disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art
Added subject-matter Added subject-matter in Europe The European patent application should disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled
More informationSoftware patenting in a state of flux
Software patenting in a state of flux Ewan Nettleton is a senior associate solicitor in the Intellectual Property Department at Bristows. He specialises in Intellectual Property Law with an emphasis on
More informationArt. 123(2) EPC ADDED MATTER A US Perspective. by Enrica Bruno Patent Attorney. Steinfl & Bruno LLP Intellectual Property Law
Art. 123(2) EPC ADDED MATTER A US Perspective by Enrica Bruno Patent Attorney US Background: New matter Relevant provisions 35 USC 132 or 35 USC 251 If new subject matter is added to the disclosure, whether
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 informationPatent protection on Software. Software as an asset for technology transfer 29 September 2015
Patent protection on Software Software as an asset for technology transfer 29 September 2015 GEVERS 2015 www.gevers.eu Frank Van Coppenolle European Patent Attorney Head of GEVERS High-Tech Patent Team
More informationExamination of CII and Business Methods Applications
Joint Cluster Computers of and Business Methods Applications Die Dienststelle Wien WWW2006 Edinburgh Dr. Clara Neppel Examiner EPO, München Joint Cluster Computers Das Europäische Patentamt The European
More informationGuidebook. for Japanese Intellectual Property System 2 nd Edition
Guidebook for Japanese Intellectual Property System 2 nd Edition Preface This Guidebook (English text) is prepared to help attorneys-at-law, patent attorneys, patent agents and any persons, who are involved
More informationMajor Differences Between Prosecution at EPO and JPO
Major Differences Between Prosecution at P and JP Kiyoshi FUKUI Patent & Trademark Attorney Chief Deputy Director General HARAKZ WRLD PATT & TRADMARK 1 P JP 2 Major Differences Between Prosecution at P
More informationSuzannah K. Sundby. canady + lortz LLP. David Read. Differences between US and EU Patent Laws that Could Cost You and Your Startup.
Differences between US and EU Patent Laws that Could Cost You and Your Startup Suzannah K. Sundby United States canady + lortz LLP Europe David Read UC Center for Accelerated Innovation October 26, 2015
More informationCOMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT INVENTIVE STEP (JPO - KIPO - SIPO)
COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT ON INVENTIVE STEP (JPO - KIPO - SIPO) CONTENTS PAGE COMPARISON OUTLINE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS I. Determining inventive step 1 1 A. Judicial, legislative or administrative criteria
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 informationLaw Firm of Naren Thappeta*
Law Firm of Naren Thappeta* Sigma Soft Tech Park, Patent, Copyright and Trademark Matters th Floor, Beta Block, Whitefield Main Road nt@iphorizons.com Opp to Varthur Lake, Varthur Kodi Telephone: +91.80.28441/4129196/97
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 informationUncertainty for computer program patents after the Astron Clinica and Symbian judgments of 2008
Uncertainty for computer program patents after the Astron Clinica and Symbian judgments of 2008 Item Type Newsletter Authors Guth, Jessica Citation Guth, J. (ed.)(2008). Uncertainty for computer program
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 informationAIPPI Study Question - Patentability of computer implemented inventions
Study Question Submission date: May 28, 2017 Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General Jonathan P. OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK, Assistants to
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE PATTEN Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 518(Pat) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF THE PATENTS ACT 1977 AND IN THE MATTER OF UK PATENT APPLICATION NO. GB 0325145.1 IN THE NAME
More informationDETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS
DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface... v v About the Authors... xiii vii Summary Table of Contents... xv ix Chapter 1. European Patent Law as International Law... 1 I. European Patent Law Arises From Multiple
More informationJudgments of Intellectual Property High Court ( Grand Panel ) Date of the Judgment: Case Number: 2005(Gyo-Ke)10042
Judgments of Intellectual Property High Court ( Grand Panel ) Date of the Judgment: 2005.11.11 Case Number: 2005(Gyo-Ke)10042 Title(Case): Judgment upholding a Decision of Revocation in an opposition procedure
More informationExaminers Report on Paper DII Examiners Report - Paper D Part II
Examiners Report on Paper DII Examiners Report - Paper D Part II In the first part of this paper, candidates had to deal with different inventions made by Electra Optic and its new subsidiary, Oedipus
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 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 informationPCT/GL/ISPE/1 Page 154 PART V WRITTEN OPINION/INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION REPORT
Page 154 PART V WRITTEN OPINION/INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION REPORT Chapter 17 Content of Written Opinions and the International Preliminary Examination Report Introduction 17.01 This chapter
More informationCOMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 -
COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT ON TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 - CONTENTS PAGE COMPARISON OUTLINE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS I. Determining inventive step 1 1 A. Judicial, legislative or administrative
More informationPatent Law in Cambodia
Patent Law in Cambodia September 2012 No 64, St 111 PO Box 172 Phnom Penh Cambodia +855 23 217 510 +855 23 212 740 +855 23 212 840 info@bnglegal.com www.bnglegal.com Patent Law in Cambodia September 2012
More informationAIPPI Study Question - Patentability of computer implemented inventions
Study Question Submission date: May 7, 2017 Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General Jonathan P. OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK, Assistants to
More informationInventive Step in Korea
Inventive Step in Korea AIPPI Forum October 11-12, 2009 Buenos Aires, Argentina Oct. 2009 Seong-Ki Kim, Esq. Seoul, Korea 1 - Contents - I. Statutory Scheme II. III. IV. Steps for Determining Inventive
More informationPTO Publishes Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101 in View of In Re Bilski
PTO Publishes Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101 in View of In Re Bilski Stuart S. Levy[1] Overview On August 24, 2009, the Patent and Trademark
More informationCHAPTER 2 AUTHORS AND PATENT OWNERS Article 5. Author of the Invention, Utility Model, and Industrial Design Article 6.
BELARUS Law of the Republic of Belarus On Patents for Inventions, Utility Models, and Industrial Designs December 16, 2002 No 160-Z Amended as of December 22, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. LEGAL PROTECTION
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 informationInformation and Guidelines Concerning the Patent and Copyright Process at East Tennessee State University
Information and Guidelines Concerning the Patent and Copyright Process at East Tennessee State University I. Steps in the Process of Declaration of Your Invention or Creation. A. It is the policy of East
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 informationWorking Guidelines Q217. The patentability criteria for inventive step / non-obviousness
Working Guidelines by Thierry CALAME, Reporter General Nicola DAGG and Sarah MATHESON, Deputy Reporters General John OSHA, Kazuhiko YOSHIDA and Sara ULFSDOTTER Assistants to the Reporter General Q217 The
More informationDRAFT PATENT LAW OF GEORGIA CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
DRAFT PATENT LAW OF GEORGIA CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1 This Law regulates property and personal non-property relations formed in connection with the creation, legal protection and usage of
More informationEffective 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 informationIPFocus LIFE SCIENCES 9TH EDITION WHEN IS POST-PUBLISHED EVIDENCE ACCEPTABLE? VALEA
IPFocus LIFE SCIENCES 9TH EDITION WHEN IS POST-PUBLISHED EVIDENCE ACCEPTABLE? VALEA 2011 EPO: INVENTIVE STEP When is post-published evidence acceptable? Ronney Wiklund and Anette Romare of Valea discuss
More informationSummary Report Study Question Patents. Patentability of computer implemented inventions
Summary Report by Sarah MATHESON, Reporter General John OSHA and Anne Marie VERSCHUUR, Deputy Reporters General Yusuke INUI, Ari LAAKKONEN and Ralph NACK Assistants to the Reporter General Introduction
More informationPart II. Time limit for completing the International search. Application not searched
II.6. Time limit for completing the International search Art.18(1) PCT The International search report must be ready within the prescribed time limit. R42.1 PCT The International search report (or the
More informationNews and analysis on IP law, regulation and policy from around the world. For the latest updates, visit
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT >>> News and analysis on IP law, regulation and policy from around the world. For the latest updates, visit www.bna.com International Information for International Business
More informationProposed Computer-Implemented Invention Examination Guidelines
Proposed Computer-Implemented Invention Examination Guidelines Department of Commerce U.S. Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No. 95053144-5144-01] RIN 0651-XX02 Request for Comments on Proposed Examination
More informationPROFESSIONAL PROGRAMME UPDATES FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: LAWS AND PRACTICES MODULE 3- ELECTIVE PAPER 9.4
PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMME UPDATES FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: LAWS AND PRACTICES (Relevant for students appearing in June, 2018 examination) MODULE 3- ELECTIVE PAPER 9.4 Disclaimer: This document has
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 informationPaper 48 Tel: Entered: July 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 48 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. VERITAS
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 informationPatent 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 informationSection I New Matter. (June 2010) 1. Relevant Provision
Section I New Matter 1. Relevant Provision Patent Act Article 17bis(3) reads: any amendment of the description, scope of claims or drawings shall be made within the scope of the matters described in the
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 informationComments on Draft Guidelines
TECH CORP LEGAL LLP ADVOCATES & INTERNATIONAL LEGAL CONSULTANTS Comments on Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) W:, E: llp@techcorplegal.com Date: July 09, 2013 To: Controller
More informationDisclaimers at the EPO
Introduction Enlarged Board of Appeal ("EBA") decision G 2/10 (August 2011) sought to clarify a previously existing divergence of interpretation as to the general question of when a disclaimer may be validly
More informationAdded matter under the EPC. Chris Gabriel Examiner Directorate 1222
Added matter under the EPC Chris Gabriel Examiner Directorate 1222 April 2018 Contents Added matter under the EPC Basic principles under the EPC First to file Article 123(2) EPC Interpretation Gold standard
More informationPractical Advice For International Patenting
Practical Advice For International Patenting A Presentation For The NAPP Annual Conference July 30, 2016 Overview 1. Filing strategies 2. Drafting tips 3. IP in Europe 4. EPO practice tips 5. Brexit Introduction
More information2015 Noréns Patentbyrå AB
Self-Collision in patent applications How to Avoid Shooting Your Client in the Foot A European perspective with some thoughts on the global situation, including other jurisdictions Jan Modin FICPI Special
More informationTo, The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks Bhoudhik Sampada Bhavan, Antop Hill, S. M. Road, Mumbai
July 26, 2013 To, The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks Bhoudhik Sampada Bhavan, Antop Hill, S. M. Road, Mumbai - 400 037 Subject: Comments on the Draft Guidelines for
More informationJETRO seminar. Recent Rule change and latest developments at the EPO:
JETRO seminar Recent Rule change and latest developments at the EPO: Alfred Spigarelli Director Patent procedures management DG1 Business services EPO Düsseldorf 4 November, 2010 Overview RAISING THE BAR
More information1. Inventions that are new, that involve an inventive step and that are susceptible of industrial application shall be patentable.
Patent Act 1995 (Netherlands) ENTRY INTO FORCE: April 1, 1995, except for provisions relating to extension of priority right and the criterion for a non-voluntary license: January 1, 1996. Chapter 1 General
More informationGeneral 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 informationLUXEMBOURG Patent Law as amended by the law of May 24, 1998 ENTRY INTO FORCE: June 21, 1998
LUXEMBOURG Patent Law as amended by the law of May 24, 1998 ENTRY INTO FORCE: June 21, 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE I GENERAL Art. 1. Definitions Art. 2. International Conventions TITLE II PATENTS FOR
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 informationPATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT)
E PCT/GL/ISPE/6 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: June 6, 2017 PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) PCT INTERNATIONAL SEARCH AND PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION GUIDELINES (Guidelines for the Processing by International Searching
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 informationDouble Patenting at the EPO
Double Patenting at the EPO I. Summary Recent case law confirms that patents granted on parent and divisional applications cannot contain claims of identical scope, and potentially restricts the ability
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 informationThe 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 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 informationPATENT ACT (UNOFFICIAL CLEAR TEXT) I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
PATENT ACT NN 173/03, 31.10.2003. (in force from January 1, 2004) *NN 87/05, 18.07.2005. (in force from July 18, 2005) **NN 76/07, 23.07.2007. (in force from July 31, 2007) ***NN 30/09, 09.03.2009. (in
More informationAligning claim drafting and filing strategies to optimize protection in the EPO, GPTO and USPTO
Aligning claim drafting and filing strategies to optimize protection in the EPO, GPTO and USPTO February 25, 2011 Presented by Sean P. Daley and Jan-Malte Schley Outline ~ Motivation Claim drafting Content
More informationNovelty. Japan Patent Office
Novelty Japan Patent Office Outline I. Purpose of Novelty II. Procedure of Determining Novelty III. Non-prejudicial Disclosures or Exceptions to Lack of Novelty 1 Outline I. Purpose of Novelty II. Procedure
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 informationPatent protection in Latin America: Main provisions and recommended strategy
Patent protection in Latin America: Main provisions and recommended strategy Speaker: Mr. Rafael Freire Technical & Legal Services Manager Clarke, Modet & Cº Brazil AGENDA Summary - Patent Prosecution
More informationAn introduction to European intellectual property rights
An introduction to European intellectual property rights Scott Parker Adrian Smith Simmons & Simmons LLP 1. Patents 1.1 Patentable inventions The requirements for patentable inventions are set out in Article
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case :0-cv-0-MHP Document 0 Filed //00 Page of 0 CNET NETWORKS, INC. v. ETILIZE, INC. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendant. / No. C 0-0 MHP MEMORANDUM & ORDER Re: Defendant s Motion for
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 informationPatents in Europe 2018/2019. Helping business compete in the global economy. How to prepare for oral proceedings for European patents
In association with How to prepare for oral proceedings for European patents NLO Hans Hutter and René van Duijvenbode Patents in Europe 2018/2019 Helping business compete in the global economy HOW TO FORTIFY
More informationTHE ACTS ON AMENDMENTS TO THE PATENT ACT */**/***/****/*****/******/*******
Patent Act And THE ACTS ON AMENDMENTS TO THE PATENT ACT */**/***/****/*****/******/******* NN 173/2003, in force from January 1, 2004 *NN 87/2005, in force from July 18, 2005 **NN 76/2007, in force from
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 informationPSMP. In contrast to a patent the duration of protection of a utility model is limited to ten years from the date of application.
UTILITY MODELS Utility models, like patents, are technical protective rights, i.e. a technical background must form the basis of the protection request. The utility model act (GbrMG) also rules in 1 (1)
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 informationPatent Prosecution Update
Patent Prosecution Update July 2010 After Bilski: The USPTO Response and Claim Drafting The Supreme Court recently announced its greatly anticipated decision in Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, 2010 WL 2555192
More informationCriteria for Patentability
2 Criteria for Patentability Patentability Criteria v Formality Examination Documents required Procedural requirements v Substantive Examination Unity of invention Patent eligibility Novelty Inventive
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 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: Austria... Office: Austrian Patent Office (APO)... Person to be contacted: Name:... Title:... E-mail:... Telephone:... Facsimile:...
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 information