SEEKING THE GOLD (STANDARD) Amendments before EPO. Marco Lissandrini European Patent Attorney

Similar documents
11th Annual Patent Law Institute

2015 Noréns Patentbyrå AB

Added matter under the EPC. Chris Gabriel Examiner Directorate 1222

JETRO seminar. Recent Rule change and latest developments at the EPO:

Aligning claim drafting and filing strategies to optimize protection in the EPO, GPTO and USPTO

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

Patenting Software-related Inventions according to the European Patent Convention

FUNCTIONAL CLAIMING UNDER THE EPC General principles and case-law

News and analysis on IP law, regulation and policy from around the world. For the latest updates, visit

Foundation Certificate

FICPI & AIPLA Colloquium, June 2007 A Comprehensive Approach to Patent Quality

The effects of the EPC

The Same Invention or Not the Same Invention? Thorsten Bausch

Demystifying Self-collision at the EPO

should disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art

11th Annual Patent Law Institute

Examiners Report on Paper DII Examiners Report - Paper D Part II

Raising the Bar and EPC changes as from 1 April 2010

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

DRAFTING A COMMON SPECIFICATION

Topic 12: Priority Claims and Prior Art

SUCCESSFUL MULTILATERAL PATENTS Focus on Europe

Our Speakers: Rudy I. Kratz Partner; Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP. Tony Wray Director and Founder; Optimus Patents Ltd.

IP CONCLAVE 2010, MUMBAI STRATEGIES WITH US PATENT PRACTICE NAREN THAPPETA US PATENT ATTORNEY & INDIA PATENT AGENT BANGALORE, INDIA

R 84a EPC does not apply to filing date itself as was no due date missed. So, effective date for and contacts subject matter is

FC3 (P5) International Patent Law 2 FINAL Mark Scheme 2017

Amendments in Europe and the United States

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

Patent Prosecution Update

General Information Concerning. of IndusTRIal designs

Practical Advice For International Patenting

Art. 123(2) EPC ADDED MATTER A US Perspective. by Enrica Bruno Patent Attorney. Steinfl & Bruno LLP Intellectual Property Law

EPO boards of appeal decisions. Date of decision 30 October 1991 Case number J 0042/

Summary and Conclusions

Overview economic research activities at the EPO 2013/2014

How patents work An introduction for law students

POTENTIAL PATENT APPLICATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Disclaimers at the EPO

pct2ep.com Guide to claim amendment after EPO regional phase entry

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS

IP LAW HARMONISATION: BEYOND THE STATUTE

Partial Priorities and Transfer of Priority Rights. Dr. Joachim Renken

IP Part IV: Patent prosecution

B+/SG/2/10 ORIGINAL: English DATE: 27/05/2015. B+ Sub-Group OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES, WITH COMMENTARY ON POTENTIAL OUTCOMES. prepared by the Chair

Patent reform package - Frequently Asked Questions

Harmonisation across Europe - comparison and interaction between the EPO appeal system and the national judicial systems

Comments on Draft Guidelines

WSPLA (Wash. State Patent Law Assoc.) Lunch Seminar

Criteria for Patentability

Foreign Patent Law. Why file foreign? Why NOT file foreign? Richard J. Melker

AIPPI Study Question - Patentability of computer implemented inventions

Inventive Step in Japan Masashi Moriwaki

Suzannah K. Sundby. canady + lortz LLP. David Read. Differences between US and EU Patent Laws that Could Cost You and Your Startup.

Unitary Patent in Europe & Unified Patent Court (UPC)

Overview of the Patenting Process

PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT): BENEFITS AND STRATEGIES FOR APPLICANTS. Seminar on WIPO Services and Initiatives Gary L. Montle Nashville, TN

QUESTION PAPER REFERENCE: FC3 PERCENTAGE MARK AWARDED: 59% six months after the publication of European search report

BOARDS OF APPEAL OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE. DECISION of 7 July 2005

PROTECTING INNOVATION INTERNATIONALLY PATENT STRATEGY IN VIEW OF DIFFERENT LEGAL REGIMES IN EUROPE AND THE USA

PCT procedure before the EPO as International Authority. Camille-Rémy Bogliolo Head, Department of PCT Affairs

Slide 13 What rights does a patent confer?

Patent Prosecution in Multiple Countries. Alessandro Steinfl U.S. and EP Patent Attorney

Chapter 1 DEFINITION OF TERMS. There are various types of IP rights. They can be categorized as:

Note concerning the Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions

The purpose of my presentation is to consider the effects of the recent. changes to the PCT, and the proposed changes that have been suggested for the

BIO-EUROPE Anticipated changes to European Patent Law. Ingwer Koch Director Patent Law European Patent Office. 12 November 2007, Hamburg

HANDLING OF PATENT APPLICATIONS UNDER THE EPC

Cambios en el el reglamento EPC desde el el 1 de abril de 2010: a a correr!

INVENTION DISCLOSURE FORM

S A M P L E Q U E S T I O N S April 2002

Basic Legal Questions for Pre-Exam and Paper D

Table of Contents I INTERNATIONAL PHASE BEFORE THE RECEIVING OFFICE AND INTERNATIONAL BUREAU.. 14

The opposition procedure and limitation and revocation procedures

Table 1: General overview of the PCT procedure Legend:

PATENT ACTIVITY AT THE IP5 OFFICES

Post-Grant Patent Proceedings

The EPO approach to Computer Implemented Inventions (CII) Yannis Skulikaris Director Operations, Information and Communications Technology

Patents Bill 2008: Patentability of Computer Programs

Highlights from the European Patent Office

Patent protection on Software. Software as an asset for technology transfer 29 September 2015

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

GLOSSARY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TERMS

Accelerating the Acquisition of an Enforceable Patent: Bypassing the USPTO s Backlog Lawrence A. Stahl and Seth E. Boeshore

Comparison between Opposition Systems in Europe and Japan

SHORT GUIDE ON PATENTS

Part II. Time limit for completing the International search. Application not searched

Patent Fees and Pricing: Structures and Policies

Examination of CII and Business Methods Applications

Drafting international applications with Europe in mind. Dr. Matthew Barton, UK and European patent attorney, Forresters

MANUAL FOR THE HANDLING OF APPLICATIONS FOR PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD (THE BROWN BOOK)

RECENT CASE LAW OF THE EPO REGARDING SOFTWARE/BUSINESS METHOD- RELATED INVENTIONS

Paper 8 Tel: Entered: October 18, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Intellectual Property Teaching Kit IP Advanced Part I

Considerations for the United States

US Bar EPO Liaison Council 29th Annual Meeting Munich, 18 October EPO practice issues

Your Guide to Patents

Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012

Patents: opposition proceedings and nullity actions a comparison between Europe and Japan

IP: Patent law & prosecution

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): Latest Trends & Strategies for Applicants

Transcription:

SEEKING THE GOLD (STANDARD) Amendments before EPO Marco Lissandrini European Patent Attorney

TOPICS LEGAL FRAMEWORK: the basic principles REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES: take-away tips CONCLUSIONS: suggestions for drafting

BASIC PRINCIPLES Article 123 EPC The European patent application or European patent: may be amended in proceedings before the EPO (time) may not be amended so that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed (impact) may not be amended so that it extends the scope of protection (impact) The applicant must have at least one opportunity to amend the application of his own volition (safeguard) 3

WHEN? DURING PENDING EPO PROCEEDINGS (including Opposition and Appeal) BUT AT VERY SPECIFIC STEPS: after the European Search Report (mandatory response) For EURO-PCT: on entry the European phase in response to the OAs (even at granting stage) In any other moment: consent is needed from the Examiner

«THE GOLD-STANDARD» («disclosure-test») Extension of subject-matter An amendment must be directly and unambiguously derivable from the whole content of the application as filed. BASIC IDEAS: 1 - Provide legal certainty to third Parties (no file estoppel) 2 - Rewarding the inventor with an exclusive right for what he actually invented at the time of filing and not afterwards. EFFECT: The EPO has a very strict approach towards amendments

T 1148/12 «PARALLEL ELECTRODES» Decision of the Tech. Board of Appeal Nov. 24, 2016 European Patent Application EP 1731090 Technical field: a garment provided with electrodes for measuring biological information (e.g. ECG) Object: to provide a garment capable of high accuracy even with different body constitutions, having a simple structure and low burden for the examinee.

T 1148/12 «PARALLEL ELECTRODES» AMENDMENT: A garment (300) for measuring biological information [...] wherein the chest lead electrodes are arranged in substantially parallel from each other and arranged in a row from vicinity of the front center of the garment [ ]

T 1148/12 «PARALLEL ELECTRODES» Are the following drawings enough for the amendments «in parallel» and «in a row»?

T 1148/12 «PARALLEL ELECTRODES» NO! Reasons: 1. The application «as filed» is silent regarding the arrangement of the electrodes 2. The drawings are not reliable: their schematic nature does not allow the skilled person to derive that the arrangement of the electrodes is necessarily parallel 3. The functioning is not clear, the parallel arrangement being invariably lost when the garment is worn by a user 4. For the skilled person, no purpose for a parallel arrangement

CONCEPT «Directly and unambigously derivable» The outcome of an amendment (i.e. a group of features) must be technically meaningful and straightforward for the skilled man.

IN PRACTICE Take-away tips A group of features is technically meaningful and straightforward if: (boolean operator «and») Structure/function of features is readily clear and realiable (in T1148/12 they were not, because «schematic»); Features do properly work (in T1148/12 they were not, because the «parallel arrangement lost»); Features are purposive for the skilled man at the time of filing (in T1148/12 they were not, because no purpose for «parallel»)

«PARALLEL ELECTRODES» A further issue «Intermediate generalization» (or «partial» restriction) «in substantially parallel from each other and arranged in a row» Even if supported by the drawings, the amendment would not be allowed as it does not introduce other features related to the electrodes of the same embodiment: «same shape» and «spaced by an equal distance»

«PARALLEL ELECTRODES» What if in US? United States Patent US 9,026,200 (issued on May 5, 2015) A garment to measure biological information, [ ] the garment comprising chest electrodes, formed of a conductive material, [ ], the chest electrodes being arranged along a body axis of the examinee in parallel lines [ ]in at least six positions located from a near presternal region [ ]

«PARALLEL ELECTRODES» What if allowed? Art. 123(3) EPC «Trap» A garment (300) for measuring biological information [...] wherein the chest lead electrodes are arranged in substantially parallel from each other and arranged in a row from vicinity of the front center of the garment to vicinity of the left side of the garment [ ] «in parallel» and «in a row» Without amendments

T2232/12 «CROSSING THE LINE» Decision of the Tech. Board of Appeal May 6, 2015 European Patent Application EP 2256610 Technical field: method for operating a touch screen Object: to prevent the user from miss-touching the touch screen; the touch screen is unlocked by touching and sliding.

T2232/12 «CROSSING THE LINE» ORIGINAL FORM: A method [ ] unlocking the screen-locked state of the touch screen when determining that the touch operation is started from the first touch area and ended in the second touch area. AMENDMENT: A method for unlocking a screen-locked state of a touch screen [ ] unlocking the screen-locked state of the touch screen when determining that the touch operation crosses a line separating a first portion of the unlocking area from a second portion of the unloking area.

T2232/12 «CROSSING THE LINE» The outcome of the amendment: Unlocking happens when the touch operation crosses a line separating the first from the second portion.

T2232/12 «CROSSING THE LINE» NO! Crossing the separate line, taken alone, (independently from the starting/ending point of the touch operation) does not necessarily mean that the touch operation starts in the first area and ends in the second area, in the event of more than two touch areas 1 2 3

T2232/12 «CROSSING THE LINE» Reasons: («directly and unambigously») All the «examples» share the same technical features (i.e. starting/ending points of the touch operation are, respectively, in the first and second area) The features are depicted as essential («if the touch operation is not started from the first or not ended in the second the screen-locked state of the touch screen is not to be unlocked» One of the possible general statements is, anyway, «according to the «examples» which share the features depicted as essential

CONCLUSIONS

WHAT CAN I DO IN ADVANCE? Drafting suggestions for EP applications (1/2) A good set of dependent claims: grouping together the claims is easy and prevent objections (at least cut-and-paste in the Spec.) Disclose all the main features stand-alone for avoiding intermediate generalization (in the summary ) aspect of the invention vs. embodiment the latter might imply a mutual relation between features previously introduced for the same embodiment Describe the main features of the drawings in words

WHAT CAN I DO IN ADVANCE? Drafting suggestions for EP applications (2/2) The figures do illustrate embodiments, hence: the drawings illustrate non-limiting embodiments of the disclosure and, together with the description, serve to explain the principles of the disclosure Avoiding statements that might depict a feature as essential you may want to delete the feature Whenever possible, describe the technical effect of the features it smooths the problem-solution approach and might prevent the intermediate generalization

Computer Implemented Invention at the EPO A quick update

More at PLI Handbook 2017 «Amendments before EPO» by Marco Lissandrini Contacts: Marco Lissandrini European Patent Attorney lissandrini@bugnion.it www.bugnion.eu

Marco Lissandrini BIO Graduated in Aerospace Engineering at the Polytechnic University of Milan European and Italian patent, trademark and design attorney Managing Partner of Verona office and Member of the Board of Directors of Bugnion. AREAS OF PRACTICE Patent search, drafting, prosecution and dispute in opposition proceedings at EPO and in judicial proceedings before the Italian courts, as technical expert Advisory on eligibility and infringement issues EXPERTISE Background in aerospace, mechanical engineering and software Food processing machinery, packaging and bottling systems, fluid-operated devices, such as pumps, cooling and heating systems and valve control systems, laser sintering apparatus, medical devices, locking systems and computer software.