EPI Heft 01-2014 - BARDEHLE PAGENBERG: Startseite · I – Information concerning epi 2 Editorial 3...

1 14

I – Information concerning epi

2 Editorial

3 Election results

II – Contributions from epi Members and other contributions

30 Poisonous National Priority Application for the Unitary Patent,by P. Rambelli

32 The right to be heard before the EPO Boards of Appeal – overruled by formalregulation?, by Dr. H. Wegner, P. K. Hess

37 Unitary Patent – Questions and answers: What is a Unitary Patent,by N. Fox, A. Kupecz, D. van Dam

39 What is the unified Patent Court?, by N. Fox, A. Kupecz, D. van Dam

G 10904 F | ISSN 1434-8853 | Art.-Nr. 56356304 | März 2014

Institut der beim EuropäischenPatentamt zugelassenen Vertreter

Institute of Professional Representativesbefore the European Patent Office

Institut des mandataires agréés prèsl’Office européen des brevets

Information

®

Institut der beim Europäischen Patentamt zugelassenen VertreterInstitute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent OfficeInstitut des mandataires agréés près l‘Office européen des brevets

Redaktionsausschuss / Editorial Committee / Commission de RédactionWalter HolzerTerry JohnsonThierry SchuffeneckerAlbert Wiedemann

Postanschrift / Mailing address / Adresse postaleepiP.O. Box 26 01 1280058 MunichGermanyTel: +49 89 24 20 52-0Fax: +49 89 24 20 52-20Email: [email protected]

Verlag / Publishing House / Maison d'éditionCarl Heymanns VerlagEine Marke von Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbHLuxemburger Straße 449D-50939 KölnTel. (0221) 94 373-7000Fax (0221) 94 373-7201Kundenservice: Tel. (02631) [email protected]

Anzeigen / Advertisements / PublicitéCarl Heymanns VerlagEine Marke von Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbH

Druck / Printing / ImprimeurGrafik + Druck GmbH, MünchenISSN 1434-8853© Copyright epi 2014

VierteljahreszeitschriftAbonnement im Mitgliedsbeitrag enthalten, für Nichtmitglieder € 62,00 p.a. zzgl. Versandkosten (€ 9,90 Inland / € 14,00 Ausland),Einzelheft € 20,00 zzgl.Versandkosten (ca. € 2,27 Inland / ca. € 3,20 Ausland) je nach Heftumfang. Preise inkl. MwSt. Aufkündigung desBezuges 6 Wochen vor Jahresende.

Quarterly PublicationSubscription fee included in membership fee, for non-members € 62,00 p.a. plus postage (national € 9,90 / abroad € 14,00), indivi-dual copy € 20,00 p.a. plus postage (national about € 2,27, abroad about € 3,20) depending on the size of the issue, VAT included.Cancellation of subscription is requested 6 weeks before any year’s end.

Publication trimestriellePrix de l’abonnement inclus dans la cotisation, pour non-membres € 62,00 p.a., frais d’envoi en sus (national € 9,90 / étranger € 14,00),prix à l’unité € 20,00, frais d’envoi en sus (national environ € 2,27, étranger environ € 3,20) selon le volume du numéro, TVA incluse.Résiliation de l’abonnement 6 semaines avant la fin de l’année.

Das Institut ist weder für Erklärungen noch für Meinungen verantwortlich, die in Beiträgen dieser Zeitschrift enthalten sind. Artikel werdenin der oder den Amtsprachen (deutsch, englisch, französisch) wiedergegeben, in der bzw. denen diese Artikel eingereicht wurden.

The Institute as a body is not responsible either for the statements made, or for the opinions expressed in the publications. Articles arereproduced in the official language or languages (German, English or French) in which they are submitted.

L’Institut n’est pas responsable des opinions exprimées dans cette publication. Les articles sont publiés dans celle ou celles des trois languesofficielles (allemand, anglais ou français) dans laquelle ou lesquelles ils ont été proposés.

The trade mark ”epi” is the property of the Institute and is registered nationally in Germany and as a Community Trade Mark at OHIM.

Table of Contents

Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

I – Information concerning epi

Results of the election to the 17th Council . . . 3

Election results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Committee Reports

Report of the Committee on BiotechnologicalInventions, by A. De Clercq, S. Wright . . . . . . . 18Report of the By-Laws Committee (BLC),by P. Moutard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Report of the European Patent Practice Committee(EPPC), by F. Leyder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Report of the Disciplinary Committee (DC),by P. Rosenich, V. Pröll. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Report of the Harmonization Committee (HC),by F. Leyder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Education and Training

Forthcoming epi educational events . . . . . . . . 23Candidate Support Project (CSP),M. Teodorescu, M. Fromm . . . . . . . . . . . . 23News from epi’s “Education and Training“ Section 24Information about epi student membership . . . . 25epi/EPO „Opposition and Appeal“ seminars,M. Fromm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25epi summer and autumn tutorial 2014 . . . . . . 26

Information from the EPO

Contact Data of Legal Division . . . . . . . . . . 28

Information from the Secretariat

Next Board and Council Meetings . . . . . . . . 29Deadline 2/2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29epi Disciplinary bodies and Committees . . . . . 45epi Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U3

II – Contributions from epi Membersand other contributions

Articles

Poisonous National Priority Applicationfor the Unitary Patent, by P. Rambelli (IT) . . . . . 30The right to be heard before the EPO Boardsof Appeal – overruled by formal regulations?,by Dr. H. Wegner, P. K. Hess (DE). . . . . . . . . 32Unitary Patent – Questions and answers:What is a Unitary Patent, by N. Fox (GB),A. Kupecz (NL), D. van Dam (NL) . . . . . . . . . 37What is the unified Patent Court?,by N. Fox (GB), A. Kupecz (NL),D. van Dam (NL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Book Review

Inside Intellectual Property, by M. Jewess (GB) . . 43

Letters to the Editor

Intellectual freedom on economical commonsense, by G. Kern (DE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Information 1/2014 Table of Contents 1

Editorial

T. Johnson (GB)

So it is out with the old and in with the new. Issue 2/2014of epi Information will have an editorial presented by amember of the Editorial Committee to be appointed bythe newly – elected Council in this an election year. “Onwith the Motley” might be an appropriate call in thecircumstances, the “Motley” readers will recall being amulti-coloured costume worn by a clown or Court jester.This is not to suggest, we hasten to add, that the newCouncil (or this Committee!) will in any way be clowns.Far from it. Indeed we are sure that the new Council willbe just as serious,diligent and hard-working as the out-going one was. It is, however, also worth the newPresident and the new Board remembering that in medi-eval times the jester was an important person who couldtell the truth at Court (aka Council) without fear of

punishment, even if that truth was contrary to the king’sor senior persons’ opinion. So the jester, and our Councilby extension, acts as an antidote to hubris in high places.

I cannot let this ’motley’ theme pass without beingreminded that the expression “Motley Crew” is anexpression in English used to mean a roughly organisedassembly of characters, usually of ill-repute, such aspirates. Our elections are smoothly and properly con-ducted and Council is a well-organised group of personsof the utmost integrity having the common aim offurthering the aims and objectives of our Institute andits membership. We are therefore confident that herewill be no Motley Crew in evidence over the next threeyears. Or so we hope …

2 Editorial Information 1/2014

Nächster Redaktions-schluss für epi Information

Informieren Sie bitte den Redak-tionsausschuss so früh wie möglichüber das Thema, das Sie veröffent-lichen möchten. Redaktionsschlussfür die nächste Ausgabe der epiInformation ist der 9. Mai 2014.Die Dokumente, die veröffentlichtwerden sollen, müssen bis zum die-sem Datum im Sekretariat eingegan-gen sein.

Next deadline forepi Information

Please inform the Editorial Commit-tee as soon as possible about thesubject you want to publish. Dead-line for the next issue of epiInformation is May, 9th 2014. Docu-ments for publication should havereached the Secretariat by this date.

Prochaine date limite pourepi Information

Veuillez informer la Commission derédaction le plus tôt possible du sujetque vous souhaitez publier. La datelimite de remise des documents pourle prochain numéro de epi Informa-tion est le 9 mai 2014. Les textesdestinés à la publication devront êtrereçus par le Secrétariat avant cettedate.

Ergebnisse der Wahl zum 17. Rat

HinweisMitglieder des Instituts, die gegen das Wahlergebnis Einwände erheben möchten, müssen ihre schriftlichen Einwänderechtsgültig unterzeichnet bis spätestens 29. März 2014 beim Sekretariat des Instituts einreichen. Später eingehendeEinwände werden nicht berücksichtigt.Ich danke den Mitgliedern des Wahlausschusses, den Herren M.A. Müller, H.H. Breiter, und A.Vilhjálmsson sowieFrau Vernessa Pröll (epi Sekretariat) für ihren Einsatz.

Results of the election to the 17th Council

NoticeMembers of the Institute wishing to object against the election results must submit their written objection duly signed toreach the Secretariat of the Institute by 29 March 2014 at the latest. Any objections reaching the Institute after this datewill not be taken into consideration.I thank the members of the Electoral Committee, Messrs. M.A. Müller, H.H. Breiter, A.Vilhjálmsson andMs Vernessa Pröll from the epi Secretariat for their commitment.

Résultats de l’élection au 17.Conseil

NoteLes membres de l’Institutdésirant contester les résultats de l’électiondoivent faire parvenir leurs objections écritesdûment signées au Secrétariat de l’Institut avant le 29 mars 2014 au plus tard. Toute objection parvenant à l’Institutaprès cette date ne sera plus prise en considération.Je remercie les membres de la Commission Electorale, MM. M.A. Müller, H. Breiter, et A.Vilhjálmsson etMme. Vernessa Pröll (epi Secrétariat) pour leur engagement.

João Pereira da CruzGeneralsekretär/Secretary General/Secrétaire Général

Information 1/2014 Election results 3

Erläuterung

* als stellvertretendes Mitgliedzur Wahl

** Losentscheid bei gleicherStimmenzahl

+ nominiert im wieder eröff-neten Nominationsverfahren

Legend

* stood as substitute only

** tie vote position decided by lot

+ nominated in reopenednomination procedure

Légende

* éligible comme suppléantuniquement

** classement par tirage au sortà égalité de voix

+ nominé dans la procedurede nomination ré-ouverte

4 Election results Information 1/2014

AL – Albania

Sent ballots: 19 Participation: 68% Received ballots: 13

CandidatesDODBIBA Eno 5NIKA Vladimir 6

PANIDHA Ela 3SHOMO Vjollca 4

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. NIKA Vladimir 62. DODBIA Eno 5

Substitute Members3. SHOMO Vjollca 44. PANIDHA Ela 3

AT – Austria


Private PracticeReceived ballots: 37

CandidatesFORSTHUBER Martin 17HARRER-REDL Dagmar 13

ISRAILOFF Peter 11LOIDL Manuela Bettina 10

WEINZINGER Philipp 20

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. WEINZINGER Philipp 202. FORSTHUBER Martin 17

Substitute Members3. HARRER-REDL Dagmar 134. ISRAILOFF Peter 11

Other CapacityReceived ballots: 20

CandidatesHEDENETZAlexander Gernot * 10

KOVAC Werner * 10KRAUSE Peter 6

SCHRITTWIESER Waltraud 12SCHWEINZER Friedrich 15

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. SCHWEINZER Friedrich 152. SCHRITTWIESER Waltraud 12

Substitute Members3. KOVAC Werner * /** 104. HEDENETZ Alexander Gernot * /** 10

BE – Belgium



CandidatesDE CLERCQ Ann G. Y. 23QUINTELIER Claude 24

VAN DEN BOECK Wim * + 12VAN MALDEREN Joëlle 25

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. VAN MALDEREN Joëlle 252. QUINTELIER Claude 24

Substitute Members3. DE CLERCQ Ann G. Y. 234. VAN DEN BOECK Wim * + 12



CandidatesCLERIX André 24DAELEMANS Frank F. R. 26LEYDER Francis 42

MELLET Valérie Martine * 10VANDERSTEEN Pieter * 15VIAENE Ann I. M. * 10

VOORTMANS Gilbert J. l. 26

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. LEYDER Francis 422. VOORTMANS Gilbert J. l. ** 26

Substitute Members3. DAELEMANS Frank F. R. ** 264. CLERIX André 24

BG – Bulgaria


CandidatesANDREEVA Natasha Petkova 17BENATOV Samuil Gabriel 14DARAKTSCHIEWTodor Dotschew 4GEORGIEVAAntoaneta Ganeva 6GEORGIEVA-TABAKOVAMilena Lubenova 11

IVANOV Ivan Nikolov 4KOSSEVARadislava Andreeva 17MANEV Kostadin Chanev 2NEYKOV Neyko Hristov 8PAKIDANSKAIvanka Slavcheva 10

SHENTOVAVioleta Varbanova 11SLABOVARoumiana Stefanova 6STEFANOVAStanislava Hristova 17VINAROVAEmilia Zdravkova 6

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. ANDREEVA Natasha Petkova 172. KOSSEVA Radislava Andreeva 173. STEFANOVA Stanislava Hristova 174. BENATOV Samuil Gabriel 14

Substitute Members5. SHENTOVA Violeta Varbanova ** 116. GEORGIEVA-TABAKOVA Milena Lubenova ** 117. PAKIDANSKA Ivanka Slavcheva 108. NEYKOV Neyko Hristov 8

CH – Switzerland



CandidatesBALLOT Gabriel 17BRAUN André Jr. 67LATSCHA Silvan 43LIEBETANZ Michael 76

REISS Gilles François 21REUTELERRaymond Werner 58SAAM Christophe 34

SCHIRBACH Marcel 11TOLETI Martin 23WAGNER Kathrin * 34

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. LIEBETANZ Michael 762. BRAUN André Jr. 673. REUTELER Raymond Werner 58

Substitute Members4. LATSCHA Silvan 435. SAAM Christophe ** 346. WAGNER Kathrin */** 34



CandidatesBAST Tim 43BERNHARDTWolfgang Willy-Hans * 66

DALE Gavin Christopher * 39KLEY Hansjörg 78MAUÉ Paul Georg 74

THOMSEN Peter René 88

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. THOMSEN Peter René 882. KLEY Hansjörg 783. MAUÉ Paul Georg 74

Substitute Members4. BERNHARDT Wolfgang Willy-Hans * 665. BAST Tim 436. DALE Gavin Christopher * 39

CY – Cyprus


CandidatesDEMETRIADES Achilleas L. 2 MARKIDES Hermione Al. 2 THEODOULOU Christos A. 4

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. THEODOULOU Christos A. 42. MARKIDES Hermione Al. ** 2

Substitute Members3. DEMETRIADES Achilleas L. ** 2

CZ – Czech Republic


CandidatesFISCHER Michael 6GUTTMANN Michal 17HAINZ Miloslav * 12

HARTVICHOVA Katerina 8HOLASOVA Hana 15MALUSEK Jiri 14

ZAK Vitezslav 13ZEMANOVA Veronika * 15

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. GUTTMANN Michal 172. HOLASOVA Hana 153. MALUSEK Jiri 144. ZAK Vitezslav 13

Substitute Members5. ZEMANOVA Veronika * 156. HAINZ Miloslav * 127. HARTVICHOVA Katerina 88. FISCHER Michael 6


DE – Germany



CandidatesBANSE Klaus-Dieter 92BOCKHORNI Josef 181DE ANNA Pier Luigi 41FELGEL-FARNHOLZWolf-Dieter 86FRANKE Dirk 63GOSMANN Martin 64HOFFMANN Jörg 104

KELLER Günter 147KLEMM Rolf 45LEISSLER-GERSTL Gabriele 344LINHART FriedrichKarl Eberhard 25MAIKOWSKI Michael 301POTT Thomas 69RAUH Hannelore 161

RAUNECKER Klaus Peter 42RAYKOWSKI Marcus 26RITTER Albrecht 71RUPP Christian 189SCHOBER Christoph D. 76SUN Yiming 60VOGELSANG-WENKEHeike 321

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. LEISSLER-GERSTL Gabriele 3442. VOGELSANG-WENKE Heike 3213. MAIKOWSKI Michael 301

Substitute Members4. RUPP Christian 1895. BOCKHORNI Josef 1816. RAUH Hannelore 161


CandidatesKREMER VéroniqueMarie Joséphine 124MARX Thomas 106MOHSLER Gabriele 282

STEILING Lothar 278SZYMANOWSKI Carsten 208TÜNGLER Eberhard 163VÖLGER Silke Beatrix 245

WILLEMS Volker 166WINTER Andreas 224

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. MOHSLER Gabriele 2822. STEILING Lothar 2783. VÖLGER Silke Beatrix 245

Substitute Members4. WINTER Andreas 2245. SZYMANOWSKI Carsten 2086. WILLEMS Volker 166

DK – Denmark



CandidatesCHRISTIANSEN Ejvind * 18DAMSGAARDHenriette Ammitzboll 11

HEGNER Anette 13HØIBERG Susanne 35INDAHL Peter Jensen * 30

KOEFOED Peter 37THORSBOE Eva Pernille 13

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. KOEFOED Peter 372. HØIBERG Susanne 35

Substitute Members3. INDAHL Peter Jensen * 304. CHRISTIANSEN Ejvind * 18



CandidatesJENSEN Bo Hemmer 23 KANVED Nicolai 24 PEDERSON

Soeren Skovgaard 12

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. KANVED Nicolai 242. JENSEN Bo Hemmer 23

Substitute Members3. PEDERSON Soeren Skovgaard 12

EE – Estonia


CandidatesKAHU Sirje 18KOPPEL Mart Enn 11

NELSAS Tónu 15OSTRAT Jaak * 15

SARAP Margus 12TOOME Jürgen 17

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. KAHU Sirje 182. TOOME Jürgen 173. NELSAS Tónu 154. SARAP Margus 12

Substitute Members5. OSTRAT Jaak * 156. KOPPEL Mart Enn 11

ES – Spain


CandidatesALVAREZ Fernando 3ARIAS SANZ Juan 36ARMIJO NAVARRO-REVERTER Enrique 30BERNARDO NORIEGAFrancisco 37DURAN MOYA Luis-Alfonso 25

ELOSEGUI DE LA PENA Inigo 27GALLARDO Antonio M. * 11JORDA PETERSEN Santiago * 32MASLANKA Dorota 3MOHAMMADIAN Dario 9MORGADES Y MANONELLESJuan Antonio 27

SAEZ GRANEROFrancisco Javier 43SANZ-BERMELL MARTINEZAlejandro * 16STIEBE Lars Magnus 29VILALTA JUVANTENY Luis * 30

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. SAEZ GRANERO Francisco Javier 432. BERNARDO NORIEGA Francisco 373. ARIAS SANZ Juan 364. ARMIJO NAVARRO-REVERTER Enrique 30

Substitute Members5. JORDA PETERSEN Santiago * 326. VILALTA JUVANTENY Luis * 307. STIEBE Lars Magnus 298. ELOSEGUI DE LA PENA Inigo ** 27


FI – Finland


CandidatesETUAHO Kirsikka Elina 33HÄYRINEN Ville Tapani 28HONKASALO TerhiMarjut Anneli 53

KÄRKKÄINEN Veli-Matti * 29LAMBERG Samu Petteri * + 26VÄISÄNEN Olli Jaakko 15VALKONEN Pekka Juhani 23

WESTERHOLM Carl Christian 27

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. HONKASALO Terhi Marjut Anneli 532. ETUAHO Kirsikka Elina 333. HÄYRINEN Ville Tapani 284. WESTERHOLM Carl Christian 27

Substitute Members5. KÄRKKÄINEN Veli-Matti * 296. VALKONEN Pekka Juhani 237. VÄISÄNEN Olli Jaakko 158. LAMBERG Samu Petteri * + 26

FR- France



CandidatesCALLON DE LAMARCKJean-Robert * 99CASALONGA Axel 112DELORME Nicolas 57

LAGET Jean-Loup * 48LEBKIRI Alexandre 61MOUTARD Pascal Jean 49NEVANT Marc 72

NUSS Laurent 114PEUSCET Jacques 48PRUGNEAU Philippe 43VENTAVOLI Roger 21

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. NUSS Laurent 1142. CASALONGA Axel 1123. NEVANT Marc 72

Substitute Members4. CALLON DE LAMARCK Jean-Robert * 995. LEBKIRI Alexandre 616. DELORME Nicolas 57


CandidatesBAUVIR Jacques 103CONAN Philippe Claude 104GENDRAUD Pierre 78

LE VAGUERESESylvain Jacques 75RADZIMSKI Eric 61

ROUGEMONT Bernard 87TARAVELLA Brigitte * 84

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. CONAN Philippe Claude 1042. BAUVIR Jacques 1033. ROUGEMONT Bernard 87

Substitute Members4. TARAVELLA Brigitte * 845. GENDRAUD Pierre 786. LE VAGUERESE Sylvain Jacques 75


GB – Great Britain


CandidatesBOFF James Charles 189BROWN John D. 172DUNLOP Hugh Christopher 198GOWSHALLJonathan Vallance 184

GRAY John James 179HEPWORTHJohn Malcolm * 136JOHNSON Terence Leslie 167MERCER Christopher Paul 245

NORRIS Timothy Sweyn 150WRIGHT Simon Mark 224

Allotment of seats

Full Members1. MERCER Christopher Paul 2452. WRIGHT Simon Mark 2243. DUNLOP Hugh Christopher 1984. BOFF James Charles 1895. GOWSHALL Jonathan Vallance 1846. GRAY John James 179

Substitute Members7. BROWN John D. 1728. JOHNSON Terence Leslie 1679. NORRIS Timothy Sweyn 150

10. HEPWORTH John Malcolm * 136

GR – Greece


CandidatesBAKATSELOU Vassiliki 10PAPACONSTANTINOU Helen 8

TSIMIKALIS Athanasios 5VOSEMBERG-VRETOS Ileana 3

YAZITZOGLOU Evagelia S. 7

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. BAKATSELOU Vassiliki 102. PAPACONSTANTINOU Helen 8

Substitute Members3. YAZITZOGLOU Evagelia S. 74. TSIMIKALIS Athanasios 5

HR – Croatia


CandidatesBOSKOVIC Davor 6HADZIJA Tomislav 7

KORPER ZEMVA Dina 4TOMSIC SKODA Slavica 3

VUKINA Sanja 7

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. VUKINA Sanja 72. HADZIJA Tomislav 73. BOSKOVIC Davor 64. KORPER ZEMVA Dina 4

Substitute Members5. TOMSIC SKODA Slavica 3


HU – Hungary


CandidatesBIACS Mónika 7BODIZS Arpad * 7KERESZTY Marcell * 25KÖTELES Zoltan 26

KOVARI Zoltan 10LENGYEL Zsolt 16MARKO József 7PETHO Arpad 25

PINTZ György 5SOMFAI Eva 4SZENTPÉTERI Adam 31TÖRÖK Ferenc 30

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. SZENTPÉTERI Adam 312. TÖRÖK Ferenc 303. KÖTELES Zoltan 264. PETHO Arpad 25

Substitute Members5. KERESZTY Marcell * 256. LENGYEL Zsolt 167. KOVARI Zoltan 108. MARKO József ** 7

IE – Ireland


CandidatesBOYCE Conor 20CASEY Lindsay Joseph 20GAFFNEY Naoise Eoin 13HARTE Seán Paul 22

KELLY Donal Morgan * 14MCCARTHY Denis Alexis 25O’NEILL Brian * 20QUINLAN Angela * 9

SYRTSOVA Ekaterina * 15WHITE Jonathan Patrick * 13

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. MCCARTHY Denis Alexis 252. HARTE Seán Paul 223. BOYCE Conor 204. CASEY Lindsay Joseph 20

Substitute Members5. O’NEILL Brian * 206. SYRTSOVA Ekaterina * 157. KELLY Donal Morgan * 148. GAFFNEY Naoise Eoin ** 13

IS – Iceland


CandidatesFRIDRIKSSON Einar Karl 7HARDARSON Gunnar Örn 6

INGVARSSON Sigurdur 4JONSSON Thorlakur 7

MARLIN Dana Stewart 2

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. FRIDRIKSSON Einar Karl 72. JONSSON Thorlakur 7

Substitute Members3. HARDARSON Gunnar Örn 64. INGVARSSON Sigurdur 4


IT – Italy


Of which invalid: 1


CandidatesCHECCACCI Giorgio * 147DE GREGORI Antonella 103

GERLI Paolo 120MODIANO Micaela Nadia 149

RAMBELLI Paolo 131

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. MODIANO Micaela Nadia 1492. RAMBELLI Paolo 131

Substitute Members3. CHECCACCI Giorgio * 1474. GERLI Paolo 120


CandidatesCOLUCCI Giuseppe 23GIBERTI Stefano 15

GUERCI Alessandro 24MACCHETTA Francesco 24

TAGLIAFICO Giulia 26

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. TAGLIAFICO Giulia 262. GUERCI Alessandro ** 24

Substitute Members3. MACCHETTA Francesco ** 244. COLUCCI Giuseppe 23

LI – Liechtenstein


CandidatesALLWARDT Anke 13GYAJA Christoph Benjamin *13

HARMANN Bernd-Günther 9PISCHETSRIEDER Tobias M. * 11

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. ALLWARDT Anke 132. HARMANN Bernd-Günther 9

Substitute Members3. GYAJA Christoph Benjamin * 134. PISCHETSRIEDER Tobias M. * 11

LT – Lithuania


CandidatesBANAITIENE Vitalija 9DRAUGELIENEVirgina Adolfina 10GERASIMOVIC Jelena 6GERASIMOVIC Liudmila 11

KISKIS Vaclovas * 3KLIMAITIENE Otilija 10PAKENIENE Ausra 9PETNIUNAITE Jurga 10SIDLAUSKIENE Aurelija 8

SRUOGIENE Gene Ona 6VIESUNAITE Vilija 6ZABOLIENE Reda 6

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. GERASIMOVIC Liudmila 112. DRAUGELIENE Virgina Adolfina 103. KLIMAITIENE Otilija 104. PETNIUNAITE Jurga 10

Substitute Members5. BANAITIENE Vitalija ** 96. PAKENIENE Ausra ** 97. SIDLAUSKIENE Aurelija 88. SRUOGIENE Gene Ona ** 6


LU – Luxembourg



CandidatesBEISSEL Jean 9 BRUCK Mathis 9 LECOMTE Didier 1

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. BEISSEL Jean ** 9

Substitute Members2. BRUCK Mathis ** 9


CandidatesKUTSCH Bernd 2 LAMPE Sigmar * 2

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. KUTSCH Bernd 2

Substitute Members2. LAMPE Sigmar * 2

LV – Latvia


CandidatesFORTUNA Jevgenijs 12OSMANS Voldemars 8

SERGEJEVA Valentina 4SMIRNOV Alexander 3

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. FORTUNA Jevgenijs 122. OSMANS Voldemars 8

Substitute Members3. SERGEJEVA Valentina 44. SMIRNOV Alexander 3

MC – Monaco


CandidatesHAUTIER Nicolas + 2GEVERS Jacques 1

SCHMALZ Günther 2SCHUFFENECKER Thierry + 0

THACH Tum + 1

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. SCHMALZ Günther 22. GEVERS Jacques 1

Substitute Members3. HAUTIER Nicolas + 24. THACH Tum + 1


MK – former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia


Of which invalid: 1

CandidatesDAMJANSKI Vanco 7ILIEVSKI Bogoljub 7JOANIDIS Aleksandar 1JOANIDIS Biljana 2JOANIDIS Jovan 2

KJOSESKA Marija 6KOSTOVSKA-STOJKOVSKAZivka 4PEKEVSKA Anna 4PEPELJUGOSKI Valentin 9

VESKOVSKA Blagica 0VUKADINOVIC PEKEVSKAMargarita 2

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. PEPELJUGOSKI Valentin 92. DAMJANSKI Vanco 73. ILIEVSKI Bogoljub 74. KJOSESKA Marija 6

Substitute Members5. PEKEVSKA Anna ** 46. KOSTOVSKA-STOJKOVSKA Zivka ** 47. JOANIDIS Biljana ** 28. JOANIDIS Jovan ** 2

MT – Malta


CandidatesSANSONE Luigi 4 ZIERER Otto 0

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. SANSONE Luigi 4

Substitute MembersNone

NL – Netherlands


CandidatesAALBERS Arnt Reiner 81CLARKSON Paul Magnus 51DU PONT Jeroen 66HOGENBIRK Marijke 126

JORRITSMA Ruurd * 84KETELAARS MaartenF. J. M. 60KRAAK Hajo 84

MULDER Cornelis A. M. * 100TANGENAAntonius Gerardus 131WITMANS Hermanus * 73

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. TANGENA Antonius Gerardus 1312. HOGENBIRK Marijke 1263. KRAAK Hajo 844. AALBERS Arnt Reiner 81

Substitute Members5. MULDER Cornelis A. M. * 1006. JORRITSMA Ruurd * 847. WITMANS Hermanus * 738. DU PONT Jeroen 66


NO – Norway


CandidatesBERG André 13BERG Per Geir * 11FLUGE Per Roald * 9

REKDAL Kristine 17SIMONSEN Kari Helen * + 12THORESEN Liv Heidi * + 11

THORVALDSEN Knut 10THRANE Dag 15

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. REKDAL Kristine 172. THRANE Dag 153. BERG André 134. THORVALDSEN Knut 10

Substitute Members5. BERG Per Geir * 116. FLUGE Per Roald * 97. SIMONSEN Kari Helen * + 128. THORESEN Liv Heidi * + 11

PL – Poland


CandidatesBURY Lech Marek 31BURY Marek 33KAMINSKI Piotr 19KORBELA Anna 35

KREKORA Magdalena 29LEWICKA KatarzynaDorota 42MALCHEREK Piotr 34

MALEWSKA Ewa 35PAWLOWSKI Adam 24ROGOZINSKA Alicja 33WITEK Rafal 23

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. LEWICKA Katarzyna Dorota 422. KORBELA Anna 353. MALEWSKA Ewa 354. MALCHEREK Piotr 34

Substitute Members5. BURY Marek ** 336. ROGOZINSKA Alicja ** 337. BURY Lech Marek 318. KREKORA Magdalena 29

PT – Portugal


CandidatesALVES MOREIRA Pedro 20BESSA MONTEIRO César * 20CARVALHO FRANCO Isabel 20CRUZ Nuno Carlos * 20

DIAS MACHADOAntonio J. * 20FERREIRA MAGNOFernando Antonio 20

PEREIRA DA CRUZ João 20SAMPAIO José Eduardo De * 20SILVESTRE DE ALMEIDAFERREIRA Luis Humberto 3

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. ALVES MOREIRA Pedro 202. CARVALHO FRANCO Isabel 203. FERREIRA MAGNO Fernando Antonio 204. PEREIRA DA CRUZ João 20

Substitute Members5. CRUZ Nuno Carlos * /** 206. SAMPAIO José Eduardo De * /** 207. DIAS MACHADO Antonio J. * /** 208. BESSA MONTEIRO César * /** 20


RO – Romania


CandidatesBUCSA Gheorghe 9ENE Silvia 6FIERASCU Cosmina-Catrinel 12FILIPPI Valentina 4NICOLAESCU Daniella Olga 15

NITA Florina 4OPROIU Margareta 8PETREA Dana-Maria 6POP Calin Radu 1POP Virginia-Daisy 1

POPA Cristina * 15PUSCASU Dan 9TEODORESCU Mihaela 18TULUCA F. Doina 14VASILESCU Raluca 12

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. TEODORESCU Mihaela 182. NICOLAESCU Daniella Olga 153. TULUCA F. Doina 144. VASILESCU Raluca ** 12

Substitute Members5. POPA Cristina * 156. FIERASCU Cosmina-Catrinel ** 127. PUSCASU Dan ** 98. BUCSA Gheorghe ** 9

RS – Serbia


CandidatesBOGDANOVIC Dejan 6BRKIC Zeljka * + 7

PETOSEVIC Slobodan 2PLAVSA Uros 10

ZATEZALO Mihajlo 2

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. PLAVSA Uros 102. BOGDANOVIC Dejan 63. ZATEZALO Mihajlo 24. PETOSEVIC Slobodan 2

Substitute Members5. BRKIC Zeljka * + 7

SE – Sweden


CandidatesBJERNDELL Per Ingvar * 43ERIKSSON Hans Gustaf 27ESTREEN Lars J. F. 82

KARLSTRÖM Lennart 57LINDGREN Anders * 48MARTINSSON Peter 69

SJÖGREN PAULSSON Stina 102YDRESKOG Margareta 78

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. SJÖGREN PAULSSON Stina 1022. ESTREEN Lars J. F. 823. YDRESKOG Margareta 784. MARTINSSON Peter 69

Substitute Members5. KARLSTRÖM Lennart 576. LINDGREN Anders * 487. BJERNDELL Per Ingvar * 438. ERIKSSON Hans Gustaf 27

SI – Slovenia


CandidatesBORSTAR Dusan 16GOLMAJER ZIMA Marjanca 16IVANCIC Bojan * 10

KRALJIC Janez * 12KUNIC TESOVIC Barbara 17MACEK Gregor 17

OSOLNIK Renata 12REDENSEK Vladimira * 13VOJIR Andrej 7


Allotment of seatsFull Members1. MACEK Gregor 172. KUNIC TESOVIC Barbara 173. BORSTAR Dusan 164. GOLMAJER ZIMA Marjanca 16

Substitute Members5. REDENSEK Vladimira * 136. KRALJIC Janez * 127. OSOLNIK Renata 128. IVANCIC Bojan * 10

SK – Slovak Republic


CandidatesBAD’UROVA Katarina 3CECHVALOVA Dagmar 7

MAJLINGOVA Marta 9MESKOVA Viera * 1

NEUSCHL Vladimir 5ZOVICOVA Viera + 4

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. MAJLINGOVA Marta 92. CECHVALOVA Dagmar 73. NEUSCHL Vladimir 54. BAD’UROVA Katarina 3

Substitute Members5. MESKOVA Viera * 16. ZOVICOVA Viera + 4

SM – San Marino


CandidatesAGAZZANI Giampaolo 11MARTINI Riccardo 5MASCIOPINTOGian Giuseppe 11

PETRAZ Davide Luigi 9PRIMICERI Maria Vittoria 3TIBURZI Andrea 8

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. AGAZZANI Giampaolo 112. MASCIOPINTO Gian Giuseppe 11

Substitute Members3. PETRAZ Davide Luigi 94. TIBURZI Andrea 8

TR – Turkey


CandidatesARKAN Selda Mine 22ATALAY Baris + 15ERKEKLI Ferit 9

FESLIGIL Ahmet Önder 7KÖKSALDI A. Sertaç Murat 21MUTLU Aydin 14

YAVUZCAN Alev 21

Allotment of seatsFull Members1. ARKAN Selda Mine 222. KÖKSALDI A. Sertaç Murat 213. YAVUZCAN Alev 214. MUTLU Aydin 14

Substitute Members5. ERKEKLI Ferit 96. FESLIGIL Ahmet Önder 77. ATALAY Baris + 15

Report of the Committee on Biotechnological Inventions

A. De Clercq (BE), Chair; S. Wright (GB), Secretary

This report mainly summarizes the discussion that tookplace at the last yearly epi Biotech Committee Meetingheld on 20 November 2013 in Munich.

Patentability of Plants and Referrals to the EBA(G2/12 and G2/13)

A draft Amicus Curiae brief on the Broccoli II case(G2/13) prepared by an ad-hoc Committee of the Bio-tech Committee and discussed by said Committee on 19November 2013 was further discussed by the wholeBiotech Committee. It should be noted that the amicusbrief prepared by the Biotech Committee was approvedby EPPC and effectively at EPO in time after the meeting.We thank Nicole Van der Laan (epi in-house lawyer) forher active help in this matter.

In the Netherlands, in the Taste of Nature -v- Crescocase, the decision in preliminary proceedings has beenreversed in the proceedings on the merits, and the Dutchfirst instance court is now in favour of patentability. TheDutch court confirmed that under Art. 53(b) EPC prod-uct claims directed to plant are to be patentable, eventhough the processes of producing them may beexcluded from patentability. For a final (but appealable)first instance decision, the court still needs to decide oninfringement and on an allegation of prior use.

Germany changed its national law earlier in 2013, toexclude products of biological processes. The GermanGovernment said that this was a “clarification”, but itseems to have rather jumped the gun, especially inadvance of the decision resulting from second referralto the EBA.

It was noted that the Netherlands and Germany have arelatively high number of plant variety applicationsbefore the CPVO (42.3% and 18.6%, respectively).

The Committee also discussed a letter from the EUParliament to the Administrative Council of the EPO on26 September 2013, urging the EPO not to grant prod-uct claims to plants where the process for making them isunpatentable.

Separately, the EU has decided who will be on theexpert group, resulting from the EU Biotech Directive.Sisko Knuth-Lethola (FI) from the epi Biotech Committeeand some other epi members have been noted to be onthe expert group. The Biotech Committee will closelyfollow up the developments of this group.

Stem Cells

The Opposition Division decision from the EPO in theBrüstle Case was noted to contain an error, as it says thatepi supports the content of the submissions made byGreenpeace (and not George Schlich which it should

have been). The epi in the meanwhile wrote to the EPOto get this corrected.

Sequence Listings

The EPO published a new notice from the President of 18October 2013, detailing the change in policy onsequence listings starting 1 January 2014.

The EPO has also changed its Guidelines in September2013 to refer to Decision J8/11 which suggests thatsequence listings do not need to include prior artsequences.

BISSAP is the EPO’s own software for preparingSequence Listings (as an alternative to Patentin). Ourexperience of it is poor, and it does not seem to work verywell at the different offices who have tried it.

Unfortunately applicants still have to file sequencelistings on divisional applications if the sequence listing isnot part of the description. It is our opinion that If theEPO needs a sequence listing for the search they shouldbe able to use the one filed on the parent case. It was alsonoted that it is a pity that it is still not possible to filesequence listings online on PCT cases that were filedonline at the EPO.

epi members are encouraged to contact the EPO inorder to get a copy of a prior filed sequence listing. Thiswill allow us, for example, to compare it with anothersequence.

We still want sequence alignments from Examinerswhen they are relying on a prior art sequence in a lack ofnovelty objection.

US Decisions

The Myriad decision from the USA on the breast cancergene is high profile and controversial. We wonderwhether the patent was attacked because the US doesnot have a research exemption that is widely available inEurope.

Prometheus is also causing problems in the US, forcingapplicants into getting only narrow claims (if you’relucky). The US PTO guidelines are currently writtenbroadly, and are strictly enforced.

Disunity

It had been agreed at last year’s committee meeting thatthe committee (with help from the EPPC) should presenta paper on this issue, possibly to be sent directly to theEPO after EPPC input (this was not done yet). Attorneysare still worried about providing to the EPO examples ofcases where disunity has been handled poorly; there isconcern that this might prejudice the approach taken

18 Committee Reports Information 1/2014

during examination of the cases. This issue should be puton the agenda for the “Examination Matters” seminarthis year we think. We also think that Examiners want toreduce the subject matter that they need to examine,and are using disunity to try and achieve this. It is oftenunpredictable as to whether disunity arises, eitherbecause of the art, or by virtue of how the claims arewritten. It is also often very difficult to know how theExaminer is going to divide the subject matter, and thushow it will fragment.

Added Matter – Article 123(2) EPC

Several cases were discussed. T972/04 (Oswald Board)suggests that you can not pick features from two lists.T1919/11 (also Oswald Board) suggests to draw a dis-tinction between genus and species. In T583/09, therewas a combination of 80% homology with SEQ ID. NO.69 in the same paragraph, but this was still found to addmatter.

Other cases worth mentioning are T223/11 (alsoOswald Board), and T783/09from Board 334 (whichgave a positive decision). Of course, the flip side to beinggenerous with added matter is that there may be morenovelty objections in the future and less scope for

selection inventions. It was remarked that the EPO isalso becoming stricter on priority.

Deposits and the Expert Solution

One of our members attended a workshop at Examin-ation Matters 2013, meeting an Examiner that getsmany of the deposit cases. The real problem is if thedepositor is different from the applicant. The EPO takes avery strict line at this moment in such cases in ouropinion.

Nagoya protocol

The Nagoya protocol was briefly discussed regarding therequirement to indicate the country of origin of biologi-cal material. The Committee will follow the furtherdevelopments of this matter and its importance for EPIpractitioners.

Ann De Clercq & Simon Wright

Chair & Secretary epi Biotech Committee

15 February 2013

By-Laws Committee Report

P. Moutard (FR), Chair

1. Comments on epi-EPO Memorandum of Under-standing

Further to the Prague Council meeting, the BLC wasasked by the Presidium to prepare comments on a epi-EPO Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).

Detailed comments were prepared by the BLC andsubmitted to the Presidium on December 12, 2014.

2. Meetings to which the By-Laws committee par-ticipated

2 meetings took place on January 15 at the epi:

2.1. BLC- PEC meeting

A first meeting was a joint BLC-PEC meeting in order tofurther discuss the possibilities of implementing CPE;Paolo Gerli, Günther Schmalz, Dieter Speiser and Pascal

Moutard (Chair) attended the meeting on behalf of theBLC.

2.2. BLC- PEC- Presidium meeting

A second meeting was a joint BLC-PEC-Presidium meet-ing in order to discuss the various issues raised in the BLCcomments on the MoU (see § 1 above).

Paolo Gerli, Günther Schmalz and Pascal Moutard(Chair) attended this 2nd meeting on behalf of the BLC.

3. Adaptation of the Collection of Decisions (CoD)

The work for adapting and updating the Collection ofDecisions is going on, thanks to the help of the secre-tarial staff, in particular Ms Nicole van der Laan, MsVernessa Pröhl and Ms Sadia Liebig.

Information 1/2014 Committee Reports 19


Report of the EPPC

F. Leyder (BE), Chair

This report completed on 18.02.2014 covers the periodsince my previous report dated 04.11.2013.

The EPPC is the largest committee of the epi, but alsothe one with the broadest remit: it has to consider anddiscuss all questions pertaining to, or connected with,practice under (1) the EPC, (2) the PCT, and (3) “thefuture EU Patent Regulation”, including any revisionthereof, except all questions in the fields of other com-mittees: Biotech, OCC, PDC, LitCom, and EPO Finances.

The EPPC is presently organised with seven permanentsub-committees (EPC, Guidelines, MSBA, EPO-epiLiaison, PCT, Trilateral & IP5, and Unitary Patent).Additionally, ad hoc working groups are set up whenthe need arises; in particular, thematic groups have beencreated in the fields of CII (computer-implementedinventions) and PAOC (pure and applied chemistry),and one is planned in industrial chemistry (polymers).

1. European patent with unitary effect in the par-ticipating Member States

On 06.12.2014, epi submitted a non-paper on therelationship between European patents having unitaryeffect and European patents, indicating that it wouldappear just and proportionate, and in accordance withboth UPR and EPC, for national measures to provide thatwhere unitary effect is lost, in whole or in part, it wouldbe open to the proprietor to validate the patent in anycountry to the extent that the unitary effect has been lostand the subject matter does not lack in novelty orinventive step in that country.

During its meeting of 10-11.12.2013, the Select Com-mittee (of the Administrative Council of the EPOrg) hasreviewed Rules 12-21 of the Draft Rules relating tounitary patent protection and proceeded to a secondreading of Rules 1-11 as amended (second draft).

The Select Committee considered “Issues relating tothe UPP system in the Member States”.

A. Practical measures to ensure that a Europeanpatent does not take effect as a national patent whereunitary effect is registered for that patent: these aremandatory under the Regulation.

B. Entry into the register for unitary patent protectionof information relating to compulsory licences underEuropean patents with unitary effect: what can be doneat national level to ensure that the information will besent to the EPO for inclusion in the Register of unitarypatents?

C. National validation of a European patent where arequest for unitary effect has been finally rejected: thispossibility might influence the attractiveness of the uni-tary patent system.

D. National validation of a European patent where aprior right is invoked against a European patent havingunitary effect: this was discussed as a possible fall-backposition (in the absence of one in the Regulation).

Finally, the Select Committee discussed Draft Rules forthe Compensation Scheme for translation costs andaccepted the principle of observer status of non-partici-pating EPC member states.

2. ESAB workshop on the unitary patent

The EPO’s Economic and Scientific Advisory Board orga-nised a workshop on the economic effects of the unitarypatent and the UPC, on 03-04.12.2013. No report isavailable, see http://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2013/20131209.html

It has also been announced that the ESAB has com-missioned an independent study to identify, quantify andunderstand the individual drivers behind the behaviourof market players in applying for unitary patents.

3. SACEPO/WPR10

The 10thmeeting of the Working Party on Rules was heldon 11.02.2014. The agenda included the following mainpoints:

– Possible amendment of Rule 126 EPC (notifications):allowing the EPO to use delivery service providers;increasing certainty for electronic notifications (in-cluding maintaining the ten-day rule); electronicauthentication of minutes (Rule 124(3) EPC).

– Rule 71(3) EPC: introduction of the possibility of a“waiver”.

– Address for correspondence: allowing an address forcorrespondence to be used in the proceedings beforethe EPO for all applicants acting without a pro-fessional representative (presently only allowed forlegal persons).

– Certainty from Search (new priority model in DG1):see the EPO President’s blog of 18.02.2014.

– Hand-written amendments: it was clarified that thepossibility of filing hand-written amendments duringoral proceedings remains.

4. 2014 revision of the Guidelines

epi members are kindly reminded that suggestions foramendment of the 2013 Guidelines are welcome at anytime ([email protected]).

5. European Patent Academy Symposium on Ar-ticle 123(2)

The EPO organised a symposium on 07.02.2014 andinvited several users organizations to send delegates. G.Leissler-Gerstl, J-R. Callon de Lamarck, M. Honkasalo, R.Jorritsma and H. Vogelsang-Wenke were the 5 delegatesproposed by epi and invited to the symposium.

The EPO is aware of concerns about different inter-pretations in different countries resulting from differentphilosophies. Having noted concerns amongst the usercommunity that the EPO approach had become toophotographic, they wanted to identify possible problemsand possible solutions. Breakout sessions in the after-noon included cases identified by the EPO and the users.

G. Leissler-Gerstl made a presentation emphasizingthe need for a fair balance between applicants and thirdparties, and what undesirable consequences a very strictapproach has to the applicant. She mentioned a per-ceived inconsistency between different technical areas,and discussed some issues specific to chemists.

6. 7th PCT WG

The PCT Working Group discusses future developmentof the PCT system and proposed changes to the PCTprocedural and legal framework. It will meet in Genevaon 10-13 June 2014. No working documents had beenreceived when finalising this report.

First Meeting of Representatives of the Disciplinary Board of Appealthe Disciplinary Board and the Disciplinary Committee

P. Rosenich (LI), Chair, V. Pröll (DE), Registrar

On invitation of the Chair of the Disciplinary Committee,Paul Rosenich, a meeting took place at the epi onOctober 9, 2013. The participants were the Registrar,Mr P. Martorana, and Deputy-Registrars, Ms G. Rauh andMs E. Görgmaier of the Disciplinary Board of Appeal, theChair of the Disciplinary Board, Mr H.-C. Haugg, as wellas with the Chair, Mr P.Rosenich, and Vice-Chair, Mr W.Fröhling, of the Disciplinary Committee together withtheir Registrar, Ms Vernessa Pröll and Deputy-Registrar,Ms Michele Voth and the Legal Advisor, Ms Nicole vander Laan. The main target was to achieve more trans-parency concerning the functioning working processand to increase the cooperation among the disciplinarybodies.

It was the first time since the foundation of the epiand EPO that those bodies met for an exchange.

The following items on the agenda were discussed:

• Organization and working method of the disciplinarybodies

• Forwarding of the decisions• Publication of the decisions• File keeping• Forwarding of the file• Disciplinary measures• Immunity• Revision of the Rules of Procedure• Revision of the Code of Conduct• Legal basis of the Code of Conduct

The meeting started with a presentation of the Chairof the Disciplinary Committee, Paul Rosenich. He pre-sented the tasks of the committee and the differentlevels of treatments referring to disciplinary cases. Vari-ous examples were shown to give an idea of the work. Ashort overview about typical case problems was given aswell as about the cooperation of the Disciplinary Com-mittee with other bodies.

It was indicated that the Disciplinary Committee servesas a filter. After collecting all relevant data, the Com-mittee can identify the received complaints. The Com-mittee also has a so called “memory”. It case that thecomplainant or defendant was already involved in aprevious DC-case, the Chamber of the new case willbe informed.

The other bodies reported about their proceedings inthe different matters. Possibilities of improvement werediscussed.

The upcoming UPC and the participation of EuropeanPatent Attorneys in its proceedings were discussed inview of disciplinary questions.

After having reviewed the situation, the participantsagreed that it was a very fruitful meeting and theproposal was given to set up such a meeting once a year.

Initiated by the results of the meeting, the Chair of theDisciplinary Committee, will have a meeting with theChair of the Professional Conduct Committee, Mr TimPowell, after the Council Meeting on April 30, 2014 inorder to discuss further strategies.

Information 1/2014 Committee Reports 21

Report of the Harmonization Committee

F. Leyder (BE), Secretary

The Harmonization Committee deals with all questionsconcerning the worldwide harmonization of PatentLaw,and in particular within the framework of WIPO.

20th Session of the SCP (27 to 31 January 2014)

Our Institute had decided not to send a delegate to thismeeting of the Standing Committee on the Law ofPatents. The Summary by the Chair and all workingpapers are available on the WIPO website (the Draft

Report will follow): http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=30925

As indicated in the Summary by the Chair, the SCPdecided that the non-exhaustive list of issues will remainopen for further elaboration and discussion at the nextsession of the SCP. It further agreed that its work for thenext session be confined to fact-finding and not lead toharmonization at this stage.

The 21st session would tentatively be held from 3 to 7November 2014.


Information aboutepi membership and membership subscription

orRules governing payment of the epi annual membership fee

is available on the epi website www.patentepi.com

Information 1/2014 Education and Training 23

Forthcoming epi educational events:

Scheduled epi/EPO Seminars

12-13 May 2014 – Istanbul (TR) –“Pre-Drafting and Drafting of Applications”

9 September 2014 – Barcelona (ES) –“Opposition and Appeal”

Scheduled epi/EPO webinars

Further information on the Guidelines2DAY webinars, aspublished in the epi Information 4/2013, is available at

the “Education and Training” section of the epi websitewww.patentepi.com.

PEC, together with the European Patent PracticeCommittee and the Litigation Committee, is about toset up webinars to give general information on theUnitary Patent system and the Unified Patent Court.

We intend to set up these webinars in the secondquarter of 2014.

For further information please consult the “Educationand Training” section of the epi website

www.patentepi.com.

Candidate Support Project (CSP)

M. Teodorescu (RO), epi Vice-President and M. Fromm (DE), epi Education Section

The Candidate Support Project has been set up by theEuropean Patent Office (EPO) under the “Co-operationRoadmap”. Apart from the national patent offices,Centre d’Études Internationales de la Propriété Intellec-tuelle (CEIPI) and epi support this project.

The project assists candidates from countries with lessthan five EQE-qualified European patent attorneys toprepare for and pass the European qualifying exami-nation (EQE). The project will run for the duration of theCo-operation Roadmap (2012-2015; exam years2013-2017)

Candidates receive an exhaustive set of trainingmaterials, as well as having access to the EPO’s e-lear-ning courses. Additionally they get personal supportfrom epi coaches, who stay in close contact throughoutthe programme. The coaches motivate the candidates,for example by monitoring their learning, assigning,marking and discussing homework, being available toanswer the candidate’s questions.

The course consists of three to four 1-2-1 sessions,where candidates receive training, sit mock examinationand meet their coaches. The rest of the time they contacttheir coaches digitally.

Currently there are two courses running in parallel: the2012 class and the 2013 class.

The 2012 class comprises 16 candidates and 6coaches. All of the candidates passed the pre-examin-ation in 2013 and sat papers A+B+D in 2014.

The 2013 class comprises 23 candidates and 6 coachesand all of the candidates have sat the 2014 pre-exami-nation.

Candidates from 23 EPC countries have access to thisprogramme and may apply, if they meet certain con-ditions. These countries are: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia,Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, FYR of Macedonia,Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Mon-aco, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marina,Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Turkey.

Candidates who wish to apply are asked to send a CSPapplication form and a motivation letter to their nationalpatent office (NPO).

The NPOs, together with a national epi member, willfilter applications and will forward those selected to theEPO which will make a final selection.

Applicants should also ensure that they have regis-tered for the EQE Pre-examination 2015 by the deadline(usually in May). Otherwise their application for the CSPcannot be taken into account.

The application deadline for the CSP 2014 has not yetbeen fixed, but it will be publicised on the EPO and NPOwebsites.

All in all, the CSP provides a comprehensive prepara-tion programme for EQE candidates, and we encourageall candidates from the 23 countries to apply, and benefitfrom this unique opportunity.

Further information can be found on the website ofthe European Patent Academy:

http://www.eqe-online.org/CSP/

You are also very welcome to direct any question tothe epi Education Team at [email protected]

News from epi’s “Education and Training“ Section

M. Fromm (DE), epi Education Section

A new beginning goes always hand in hand with afarewell. The successful year 2013 is over and beforewe are able properly to say “adieu”, we are busywelcoming 2014 and heading steadily towards its se-cond quarter.

2014 is an epi election year. So, we have to saygood-bye to some of the epi members who contributedso much to the profession, and to welcome new volun-teers, willing to commit themselves to the profession forthe next three years.

In the Education Section we are looking forward to apartly new Professional Education Committee (PEC).Some PEC members have decided to leave the com-mittee and to turn to new challenges. In particular, twohighly experienced “old hands” are taking well-deserved“retirement” from PEC, namely Ms Susanne Kaminski(LI) and Mr Freek Smit (NL). We will sorely miss theirexpertise and their advice.

On behalf of the PEC chair, Mr Paolo Rambelli, wethank all PEC members for their commitment over thepast term. We are looking forward to meeting the newcommittee members and we wish all the members leav-ing PEC the best for the future. We prefer to say “seeyou” rather than “good-bye”!

PEC also welcomes new digital means for providingeducation across Europe. As already mentioned in thelast issue of the epi Information, we are planning toorganise “Guidelines2DAY” webinars, as a follow-up tothe successful “Guidelines2DAY” seminars in April/May2014.

Furthermore, PEC, in co-operation with the EuropeanPatent Practice Committee (EPPC) and the LitigationCommittee (LitCom), is about to set up generalinformation webinars on the Unitary Patent systemand the Unified Patent Court.

Both courses are also addressed under “Forthcomingevents” in this issue of the epi Information.

Turning to this new medium does not mean we areleaving aside the “classic” seminars.

We have introduced a new seminar on “Oppositionand Appeal” (see separate article in this epi Infor-mation). As also mentioned under “Forthcoming

events”, the next “Opposition and Appeal” seminar isin Barcelona, on September 9, 2014.

Moreover we continued with our “Life of a patent”series of seminars in Bucharest. After the epi/EPO “Pre-drafting” and the “Drafting of Applications” seminars in2013, we organised a “Prosecution” seminar at thebeginning of March 2014. This will lead us to the lastseminar in this series, scheduled for the second half of2014, on “Opposition”. Once we have finished theseries in Bucharest, we start the series over again inIstanbul.

We have scheduled our first Istanbul “Pre-drafting andDrafting of Applications” seminar on May 12-13, 2014.Based on the successful seminars in the previous yearsand the famous Turkish hospitality we look forward tothe opportunity of holding the seminar there.

It is with much pleasure that we continue close co-operation with the European Patent Academy (EP Aca-demy) in other areas as well as the seminars.

Our successful “Pre-exam online course” finished atthe end of January 2014 with an all-time high number ofparticipants: 228! The course will re-open in summer2014, for the 2015 pre-examination preparation.

We will further strengthen our co-operation by sup-porting one of the highly rated EPO events, ExaminationMatters 2014. Some of the workshops may be presentedjointly by epi and EPO speakers, to provide a practicalapproach to addressing some of the issues facing epimembers. We welcome this opportunity to co-operatefurther with the Academy.

Every new beginning comes from some other begin-ning’s end. Seneca

Check out the “Education and Training” section of theepi website www.patentepi.com for further informationabout our events.

If you have further questions/feedback on educationrelated matters or our educational events, please contactus:

PEC: [email protected] Team: [email protected]

24 Education and Training Information 1/2014

Information about epi student membership

epi focussing on the future of the profession not onlyinvolves training its members, but also supporting EQEcandidates in preparing for the European qualifyingexamination (EQE).

For many years we have provided assistance by orga-nising EQE preparation courses, like our tutorials andMock EQEs, as well as by offering the epi studentmembership.

There are lots of good reasons to become an epistudent member!

The benefits include email alerts about our trainingcourses, priority access to our educational events, receiv-ing your own copy of the “European qualifying exami-nation – Guide for preparation” publication, receivingour quarterly magazine “epi Information”, and a 50%reduction on course fees for epi educational events,such as tutorials, Mock EQEs and seminars.

Application:

All EQE candidates may become an epi student.Candidates may apply, at any stage of their training, to

the epi Education Team, simply filling in the onlineapplication form.

EQE candidates must give the name of their sponsor,i. e. the person responsible for their professional training.As soon as the sponsor confirms the applicant’sinformation, the Education Team will issue an invoicefor the student fee (EUR 80) and, once that is paid, theepi student membership becomes effective.

Terms

The first application provides student membership forthe following three years. After that, the student mayrenew membership annually. The Education Team willsend an email reminder at the beginning of each year.

The epi student membership expires automaticallyonce the student passes all parts of the EQE or discon-tinues student membership.

Additional information, including the Rules governingepi student membership, and the application forms areavailable on our website: www.patentepi.com under“Education and Training”.

For further questions you may contact the EducationTeam at [email protected]. We are very happyto help.

epi/EPO „Opposition and Appeal“ seminars

M. Fromm (DE), epi Education Section

According to our motto ”We make high-quality andrelevant education available to all epi members at areasonable price” epi is constantly looking to offer newand interesting seminars to our members.

The Professional Education Committee (PEC), in co-operation with the European Patent Office (EPO), wasdelighted to announce a new seminar on “Oppositionand Appeal”.

The topic alone would have attracted already a lot ofmembers, but this it proved even more popular when weannounced the names of the speakers.

We were very pleased to have two very experiencedspeakers to present this topic, and to share theirimmense knowledge in this field: Mr Marcus Müller, amember of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, and MrCees Mulder, European patent attorney.

Both guided the participants through the variousaspects of proceedings, including the landmark decisions

of the Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Board ofAppeal, which every patent attorney should know du-ring opposition and appeal proceedings. The speakersalso highlighted important tactical and strategic aspects.

This approach, contrasting the EPO’s point of viewwith that of an epi speaker has already proven to be theright formulae in previous seminars. It was not surprisingthat the audience particularly appreciated this feature ofthe seminar. It not only makes the lectures more inter-esting, but the open discussion between EPO and epialso add more value to the presentations.

The seminar is not only valuable for members withsignificant experience of opposition and appeal pro-cedures, but also for patent attorneys who want torefresh or deepen their knowledge.

We have already held two of these events, with anoverwhelming response. Our seminar in Milan (De-cember 2013) was fully booked, but our seminar in


London (February 2014) exceeded our expectations.After two weeks, and during the holiday season (!) wehad to close registration, as we were already fullybooked, and unfortunately 20 enrolled people couldnot attend.

Currently PEC is in contact with the EPO to seewhether a second seminar can be organised in Londonin the end of 2014 or the beginning of 2015.

The next scheduled event will be the seminar inBarcelona on September 9, 2014.

We thank Mr Marcus Müller and Mr Cees Mulder forsharing their expertise with us, the EPO for supportingthis event and the participants for making the seminarsso successful.

We will keep all our members informed on furtherscheduled seminars, in the “Education and Training”section of our website www.patentepi.com.

We remind our members that, among other duties,PEC members are responsible for setting up nationalseminars. All epi members should get in touch with theirrespective PEC member if they would like to have aseminar organised in their city/country. To contact yourPEC member, please log onto our website, and the emailaddresses of the PEC members will be visible. Please notethat the email addresses on our website may not be usedfor any other purpose than communication on edu-cational/PEC matters.

epi summer and autumn tutorial 2014

The epi tutorials are EQE training events that providecandidates with an opportunity to sit the A/B/C/D papersprivately, to send the papers to an experienced epi tutorassigned to them and to have their individual papersreviewed and discussed.

The schedule is as follows:1. Candidates enrol indicating the papers they want to

sit. The enrolment is confirmed by the epi Secretariatand the candidates are informed about the assignedtutor(s). Two different tutors may be assigned for papersA/B and for papers C/D. A tutor will be assigned to agroup of not more than 3 to 5 candidates to allowintensive discussions.

2. In a first round candidates write the papers privately(it is recommended to do so in the time the EQE allowsfor the particular paper).

3. Candidates send their paper(s) to the tutor theyhave been assigned to by the epi Secretariat. The tutorreviews the paper(s).

Candidates who do not get an answer to their papersfrom their tutor by a due date are requested to contactthe epi Secretariat immediately.

4. In a second round discussions are scheduled forpapers A/B and C/D respectively. The papers are dis-cussed in general, particular problems are addressed,individual solutions commented on and questionsanswered. The format is flexible: it is up to the tutorand the particular group candidates to decide upon acommonly agreeable form for the tutoring session. Incase it is decided that a meeting should be held with allcandidates, time and place is to be agreed upon by thetutor and the candidates. The candidates provide in this

case their own travel expenses as well as the travelexpenses of their tutor. Alternatively a telephone con-ference could be arranged, but as indicated it is up to thetutor/candidates to agree upon a suitable format.

5. Exam papers to be discussedSummer tutorial: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013Autumn tutorial: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

6. ScheduleAs each year epi suggests a schedule to ensure a

timely feedback and to avoid an overlap of summer andautumn tutorial. This schedule should be seen as aproposal. The final agreement on the date when papersshould be returned and the date of the feedback sessionis to be decided between tutor and candidate(s).

Summer tutorial:Deadline for registration: May 23, 2014Papers to be returned: June 20, 2014Feedback to be given until: September 5, 2014

Autumn tutorial:Deadline for registration: September 15, 2014Papers to be returned: October 20, 2014Feedback to be given until: December 15, 2014

7. Fees for the tutorials: 180.– E for non epi students90.– E for epi students

For further information/enrolment form please visitour website (www.patentepi.com –> Education andTraining) or contact the epi Secretariat at:

[email protected].

26 Education and Training Information 1/2014

Contact Data of Legal Division

Update of the European Patent Attorneys database

Please send any change of contact details to the Euro-pean Patent Office so that the list of professional rep-resentatives can be kept up to date. The list of pro-fessional representatives, kept by the EPO, is also the listused by epi. Therefore, to make sure that epi mailings aswell as e-mail correspondence reach you at the correctaddress, please inform the EPO Directorate 523 of anychange in your contact details.

Kindly note the following contact data of the LegalDivision of the EPO (Dir. 5.2.3):

Thank you for your cooperation.

European Patent Office

Dir. 5.2.3

Legal Division

80298 Munich / Germany

Tel.: +49 (0)89 2399-5231

Fax: +49 (0)89 2399-5148

[email protected]

www.epo.org

28 Information from the EPO Information 1/2014

So erreichen Sie die Anzeigenabteilung:

Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbHLuxemburger Str. 449, 50939 KölnTel.: 02 21 / 9 43 73- 77 97Fax: 02 21 / 9 43 73-1 77 97

E-Mail: [email protected]

Anzeigenschluss für Heft 2/2014 ist der

15. Mai 2014

Next Board and Council Meetings

Board Meetings

91th Board meeting on September 27, 2014 in Zagreb (HR)

Council Meetings

76th Council meeting on April 28/29, 2014 in Munich (DE)

77th Council meeting on November 15, 2014 in Milan (IT)

Information 1/2014 Information from the Secretariat 29

Nächste Ausgaben · Forthcoming issues · Prochaines éditions

Issue Deadline Publication

2/2014 May 9, 2014 June 30, 20143/2014 August 8, 2014 September 30, 20144/2014 November 6, 2014 December 31, 2014

Poisonous National Priority Application for the Unitary Patent

P. Rambelli (IT)

The title of this article was inspired by the paper “Poi-sonous EPC Divisionals” by M. Lawrence and M. Wilkin-son, published in epi Information 2/2011.

The quoted paper addresses the issue that a Europeanpatent application and its divisional(s) may be mutuallyconflicting, under Art. 54(3) EPC, in the non-infrequentcase that the subject-matter claimed by the Europeanapplication is not entitled to the claimed priority/prior-ities, according to the principles of G2/98, whereas aspecific embodiment in the divisional application isentitled to the claimed priority.

Under such circumstances, the authors postulate theconclusion that the divisional application would be anovelty destroying prior right under Art. 54(3) EPC.

It is here postulated that, under the same circum-stances and principles, the priority document from astate participating to the UPC Agreement and to theUnitary Patent Regulation may be poisonous to a Euro-pean patent having acquired the unitary effect andclaiming priority there from.

At the time when the quoted paper was published, theauthors’ conclusion was not supported by case law bythe EPO Boards of Appeal, but it is now explicitly sup-ported by T1496/11 of 12.09.2012.

In T1496/11, claim 1 of the main request was con-sidered to constitute an intermediate generalization withrespect of the disclosure of the priority document, sincethe claim omitted a feature disclosed by the allegedlysupporting embodiment of the priority document.

Accordingly, the subject-matter of the claim was con-sidered not to constitute the same invention as that setout in the priority document whereby the claim was onlyentitled to the filing date.

The divisional application of the patent in suit dis-closed an embodiment, identical to that provided in thepriority document, which therefore was entitled to theclaimed priority date, whereby claim 1 was held to lacknovelty with respect to the divisional application underArt. 54(3) EPC.

It is worth to note that the decision does not considerthe issue relating to the possible entitlement to multiplepriorities in the claim of the patent in suit; however, thedecision appears to be based on G2/98, paragraph 6.7 ofthe reasons for the opinion, according to which “the useof a generic term or formula in a claim for which multiplepriorities are claimed in accordance with Art. 88(2),second sentence, EPC is perfectly acceptable underArt. 87(1) and 88(3) EPC, provided that it gives rise tothe claiming of a limited number of clearly identifiedalternative subject matters” and on the interpretationgiven to the quoted sentence by several subsequentdecisions such as particularly T1877/08 of 23 February

2010, T476/09 of 21 September 2012, T1443/05 of 4July 2008 and T1127/00 of 16 December 2003.

T1496/11 was recently heavily criticized by R. Teschen-macher in Bardehle Pagenberg IP Report 2013/IV. Theauthor finds a basis for his criticism in T1222/11 of04.12.2012, which provides a detailed analysis of themultiple priority issue to conclude that, according toG2/98, “when an application on the basis of which apriority date is claimed encompasses a narrower subject-matter already disclosed by the same Applicant in anearlier application, the decision on whether the claim topriority on the basis of the later application is valid doesnot depend on whether the narrower subject-matterdisclosed in the earlier application is identified in saidlater application”. It follows that the embodiment, con-stituting the narrower subject-matter, would not benovelty destroying if the claimed subject-matter wasgeneralized in the later application claiming priority.

Indeed, T1222/11 appears to open the way to adifferent interpretation of G2/98, conflicting withT1877/08, which would constitute an antidote to thepoisonous effect of a divisional application. However,since the argument on multiple priorities is set forththerein as an obiter dictum, at present there is nosituation of conflicting decisions by the Boards of Appealon the multiple priority issue, which may lead to an earlyreferral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

According to the case law of the EPO Boards ofAppeal, also a priority document consisting of a Euro-pean patent application can have a novelty destroyingeffect on a further European application which claimspriority there from, if the entitlement to priority is lostdue to a limitation or to a generalisation which is notsupported by the priority document, cf. Case Law of theBoards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 7thEdition, September 2013, II.D.2. paragraph 2.1.7, quot-ing T1443/05 and T0680/08.

In T1443/05 of 04.07.2008, the independent claimwas amended to include a disclaimer which could not beconsidered as unambiguously disclosed in the previousEuropean patent application from which priority hadbeen claimed. Due to loss of the priority right, theexamples included in the previous application were con-sidered to be novelty destroying under Art. 54(3) EPC.

In T0680/08 of 15.04.2010, the claim of the patentunder opposition recited a numerical range for a givenparameter which was slightly narrower than the numeri-cal range disclosed in the priority document. The Boardreached the conclusion that the subjectmatter of theclaim concerned the “same invention” as that disclosedin the priority document, however with the exception ofthe explicit reference to the particular lower limit of therange claimed for said parameter. The claim was con-

30 Articles Information 1/2014

sidered not to be entitled to priority with reference to thelower limit of the numerical range and the subject-matter of the claim was considered not to be novelunder Art. 54(3) EPC with respect to the later publishedEuropean patent application corresponding to the prior-ity document which disclosed the broader range.

Since national prior rights from EPC contracting statesdo not constitute prior art under Art. 54(3) EPC, clearlythere is no decision by the EPO Boards of Appeal dealingwith the parallel situation where the priority documentof the European patent application is a national patentapplication from a contracting state. However, undernational patent law and in view of Art. 139(2) EPC, anational prior right from an EPC contracting state isapplicable on the ground of novelty against the corre-sponding national fraction of a European patent orpatent application. Although this matter, at present, isto be decided by the national courts of the contractingstates, a priority document from an EPC contractingstate could well be considered as novelty-destroying withrespect to the national fraction of a European patentunder the same principle, mutatis mutandis, of theabove-quoted decisions T0680/08 and T1443/05.

The fact that national courts may follow the EPO caselaw on the multiple priority issue is already supported bythe decision of the English Patent Court in re Nestec SAversus Dualit Ltd (2013), although only with reference tothe case where the priority document was a Europeanpatent application.

The above-mentioned situation, which in any casemight be prejudicial only for the relevant national frac-tion of the European patent, could be cured, if spottedby the Applicant during examination, by filing with theEuropean Patent Office a different set of claims for thecontracting state from which the priority documentoriginates; alternatively, if such a situation is spottedafter grant, it may be envisaged to resort to nationallimitation proceedings, if available in that contractingstate, or to the centralised limitation under Art. 105aEPC with a set of claims for that contracting state only.

But what will happen in the case of a European patenthaving acquired unitary effect under the Unitary PatentRegulation? It has been pointed out that a prior right inone EPC contracting state participating to the UPCAgreement and Unitary Patent Regulation could invali-date the unitary patent in its entirety, in view of Art. 65 ofthe Unified Patent Court Agreement according to which:“The Court may revoke a patent, either entirely or partly,only on the grounds referred to in Art. 138(1) and 139(2)of the EPC”. Indeed, the reference to Art. 139(2) EPC hasthe effect of making national prior rights as applicable

prior art on the ground of novelty against a unitarypatent in its entirety.

Since in view of Art. 3 of the Unitary Patent Regu-lation, the European patent with unitary effect musthave the same set of claims in respect of all the par-ticipating member states, neither the centralised limi-tation procedure under Art. 105a EPC limited to onecountry, nor a national limitation procedure would beavailable as a possible remedy. More precisely, a limitingamendment by means of the centralised limitation pro-cedure would, in principle, be available, if supported, topossibly reinstate novelty, but only for all states partici-pating to the unitary patent, leading to an undesirablelimitation of the extent of protection, which would havebeen unnecessary for the European patent.

The case of a national prior right, emerging after grantof the European patent having acquired the unitaryeffect may, perhaps, not be very frequent. However, inview of the relevant backlog of the EPO, the number ofpending European patent applications claiming priorityfrom a national application from a participating state,but not fully entitled to that priority, is likely to benon-negligible.

Thus, the question arises as to whether the applicantsfor a European patent are aware that, according to thepresent EPO case law relating to multiple priorities, and ifsuch a case law is applied, by way of analogy, also to thepriority document from a participating state to a Euro-pean Patent Regulation having acquired unitary effect,there is a real danger that the unitary patent may need tobe limited in its entirety or may even be held invalid, incase that the claims of the unitary patent are not entitledto the claimed priority.

It appears therefore that, in all cases where the sub-ject-matter of a European patent application wasamended with respect to the subject-matter of thepriority document from a state participating to theUnitary Patent Regulation, particular care should beapplied prior to requesting the unitary effect. The with-drawal of the national priority application, in order toprevent its publication, could of course constitute asuitable remedy but such a remedy is clearly not availableanymore, at present, with reference to the surely highnumber of European patent applications filed manyyears ago and still pending before the EPO and for whichthe unitary effect will be available in the near future.

Needless to say that the most relevant remedy couldbe offered by a revision by the EPO Boards of Appeal orby the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the present case lawrelating to multiple priorities.

Information 1/2014 Articles 31

The right to be heard before the EPO Boards of Appeal– overruled by formal regulations?

Dr. H. Wegner (DE), P. K. Hess (DE)

In its recent decision R 1/13 of 17 June 2013, theEnlarged Board of Appeal rejected the petition for reviewas clearly unallowable in a case where a Board of Appealhad raised clarity objections for the first time in thecourse of oral proceedings, and the petitioner had filednew auxiliary requests with a view to reply to theseobjections. The new requests, though clearly respondingto the late objections, were however not admitted by theBoard. The Enlarged Board found that there was no rightof admissibility for requests filed to overcome late-raisedobjections and that Article 113(1) EPC did not overruleArticle 13(1) RPBA in the case of such requests. Rather,the right to be heard was already safeguarded underthese circumstances if the petitioner was afforded anopportunity to comment on the issue of admissibility.This leads to the question whether the right to be heardmight undergo a fundamental loss of substance beforethe Boards of Appeal.

1. The right to be heard as enshrined in the relevantprovisions

The right to be heard is enshrined in Article 113(1) EPCstipulating that the decisions of the European PatentOffice may only be based on grounds or evidence onwhich the parties concerned have had an opportunity topresent their comments. The importance of this principleof procedural law is conclusively expressed in Article112a(2)(c) EPC giving the parties the right to file a petitionfor review by the Enlarged Board of Appeal on the groundthat a fundamental violation of Article 113 occurred.According to the preparatory work to EPC 2000 whereArticle 112a was introduced for the first time, the explicitmentioning of a fundamental violation of Article 113 inthe revised Convention itself was adopted by the Diplo-matic Conference on request of the French and Germandelegations and the Secretariat

1

, thus underlining thesignificance of procedural violations in this respect.

Furthermore, the Rules of Procedure of the Boards ofAppeal (RPBA) of the EPO provide that the Board maydecide the case at any time after filing the statement ofgrounds of appeal and the written reply of the respon-dent “subject to Articles 113 and 116 EPC” (Article 12(3)RPBA) and that the Rules of Procedure are binding uponthe Boards of Appeal on condition that “they do not leadto a situation which would be incompatible with thespirit and purpose of the Convention” (Article 23 RPBA).As to Article 13 RPBA, the preparatory documents

explain that it makes the admissibility of any amendmentto a party’s case as filed (“whether relating to facts,evidence, arguments or requests”) after the cut-off pointdefined by Articles 12(1) and 13(1) RPBA a matter for theBoard’s discretion, but gives the Board a specific auth-ority to refuse the amendment inter alia on the groundsof complexity of the new subject matter submitted, ofthe current state of proceedings and the need for pro-cedural economy. In particular, amendments should notbe admitted if they would lead to adjournments of oralproceedings.

The intended overall effect of these regulations was“to prevent ’ping pong’ submissions and ’salami’ tacticsin written proceedings and to provide the Board (and therapporteur in particular) with an appeal file containingone comprehensive submission from each party”2.

2. The right to be heard as construed by established caselaw of the Boards of Appeal

According to the case law of the Boards of Appeal, theright to be heard under Article 113(1) EPC is an elemen-tary principle of the proceedings before the EPO and offundamental importance for ensuring a fair procedurebetween the EPO and a party to proceedings before it. Ifa Board of Appeal identifies a violation of the right to beheard, the consequences may be a remittal of the case tothe department of first instance and/or the reimburse-ment of the appeal fee3.

In a case where an Opposition Division or a Board ofAppeal feels bound by Article 114(1) EPC to examine newfacts or evidence, it must, in accordance with Article113(1) EPC, give the parties the opportunity to commentbefore issuing a reasoned decision based on such facts orevidence4. As regards new arguments, the requirementsof Article 113(1) EPC have been satisfied even if a partydid not have the opportunity to comment on them duringoral proceedings, insofar as such new arguments do notchange the grounds on which the decision is based5.

If the parties can be said to have been surprised, froman objective point of view, by the decision and thegrounds and evidence on which it is based, then anopportunity to present their comments cannot havebeen sufficiently granted. In other words, “the term’opportunity’ in this article can only be given effectivemeaning by applying the principle of good faith and theright to a fair hearing”6.


1 EPO Diplomatic Conference documents MR/8/00 and MR/21/00(http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/archive/documentation/tra-vaux-preparatoires/dc-documents.html)

2 T 1621/09, Reasons No. 27f3 Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 7th edition, September 2013, III.B.1.4 G 4/92, OJ EPO 1994, 149; Reasons No. 85 Loc.cit., Reasons No. 106 T 892/92, OJ EPO 1994, 664; Reasons No. 2.1

3. The role of the right to be heard in petitions for reviewby the Enlarged Board of Appeal

Pursuant to Article 112a(2) EPC, a petition may only befiled on the grounds that

(a) an excluded member of the Board of Appeal tookpart in the decision,

(b) the Board of Appeal included a person notappointed as a member of the Boards of Appeal,

(c) a fundamental violation of Article 113 occurred, (d)any other fundamental procedural defect defined in theImplementing Regulations occurred in the appeal pro-ceedings; or

(e) a criminal act may have had an impact on thedecision.

Rule 104 EPC exemplifies Article 112a(2)(d) by men-tioning

(a) a failure to arrange for the holding of oral proceed-ings requested by the petitioner, or

(b) a decision on the appeal without deciding on arequest relevant to that decision.

In practice, the grounds listed in Article 112a(2) andRule 104 EPC are, however, of very unequal importance.De facto, it has turned out that the ground of Article112a(2)(c) EPC, i. e. a fundamental violation of the rightto be heard, is the most important ground and by farpredominant in review cases. An analysis shows that thevast majority of petitions filed down to the present dayare based on this ground. For instance, of the 19petitions filed in 2012, all but one at least inter alia referto Article 112a(2)(c) EPC. Similarly, all the 20 petitionsfiled to date in 2013 claim a violation of the right to beheard7.

It is thus evident that the review proceedings underArticle 112a EPC have become a major, or even the mostimportant, instance for the Enlarged Board of Appeal toconstrue the right to be heard, the Enlarged Board’sinterpretation of this fundamental principle having directimplications for all EPO proceedings. This fact is in somecontrast with the intentions expressed in the preparatorywork for introducing this Article8.

4. The Enlarged Board’s original approach to the reviewissue

In its decision G 1/97 “Request with a view to revision/ETA” underlying the introduction of new Article 112ainto EPC 20009, the Enlarged Board emphasized “thatwhile, on the one hand, legal certainty and the principlethat all litigation must end within a reasonable interval

are essential elements in any jurisdictional system, aflagrant violation of a fundamental procedural principleis inimical, on the other hand, to the very idea of justiceand does serious harm to the image of the judicial bodiesconcerned. This would be the case, for example, if ittranspired that a decision had been crucially influencedby an illicit or even criminal act such as forging docu-ments or giving false oral evidence”10.

Hence, it appears that the necessity of reviewing adecision by a Board of Appeal was originally consideredto be very exceptional, if arising at all. Only the “exotic”case of illicit or criminal acts was explicitly referred to,which has little importance in practice. One might there-fore conclude that according to the Enlarged Board’soriginal expectations, the number of successful petitionsshould be very low and in particular should not originatefrom a Board’s own behavior.

If this conviction prevailed, very strict standards mightbe applied wittingly or unwittingly to keep such numberlow, irrespective on which ground a petition is based.This would, of course, also affect the most commonground for review, i. e. a violation of the right to beheard, the legal principle itself thus undergoing a gradualprocess of loss of substance in the light of the EnlargedBoard’s case law on petitions.

5. A recent example: case R 1/1311

5.1 In case T 808/11-3.5.03, the patent proprietor hadfiled an appeal against the decision of the oppositiondivision to maintain the patent in amended form. In thecourse of oral proceedings before the Board, the Boarddid not allow the proprietor’s main and first auxiliaryrequests and, when considering the proprietor’s secondauxiliary request, raised a clarity objection against a termthat was already present in the claims of the patent asgranted and had never been objected to before. Theproprietor then filed two new auxiliary requests includ-ing amendments meant for clarifying that term.Although in the course of a debate on the new requests,the chairman of the Board had indicated that the newrequests now appeared to be clear, the Board, after adeliberation, announced that the new requests were notadmitted into the proceedings due to a prima facie lackof clarity, dismissed the appeal and closed the proceed-ings. The patent proprietor then filed a petition forreview under Article 112a EPC, in substance based onthe argument that by surprisingly not admitting the newrequests the Board would be in contravention of Article113(1) EPC12.

5.2 The Enlarged Board considered the followingfacts as established from the file,

(a) that the Board of Appeal’s objection under Article84 EPC against claim 1 of the second auxiliary request


7 See the cases cited at http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/eba/decisions-petitions.html and http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/eba/pending-petitions.html

8 MR/2/00 „Basic proposal for the revision of the European Patent Conventi-on“, New Article 112a EPC, No. 5: „Under no circumstances shall thepetition for review be a means to review the application of substantive law.This restriction is justified because the function of the petition for review is toremedy intolerable deficiencies occurring in individual appeal proceedingsbut not to further develop the practice in proceedings before the EPO or toensure the uniform application of the law.“(emphasis added)

9 CA/PL 17/00, 27.03.2000, No. I.2f (http://documents.epo.org/projects/ba-bylon/eponet.nsf/0/CFE03D88F62C3984C1257280002F7329/$File/capl_00017_en.pdf)

10 OJ EPO 2000, 322, Reasons No. 911 http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/

r130001eu1.html#q=%22R%200001%2F13%22. Summary of decisioncited from S.V. Steinbrener, Bardehle Pagenberg IP Report 2013/IV(http://www.bardehle.com/en/publications/search_in_all_publications/do-cument/ip-report-2013iv.html)

12 R 1/13, Facts and submissions

was raised for the first time during the oral proceedingsbefore the Board;

(b) that the new requests were filed during the oralproceedings in response to that objection; and

(c) that the chairman of the Board remarked that theclaims of those newly filed requests appeared to beclear13.

However, the Enlarged Board could not find anysuggestion in the petition of a denial of the petitioner’sopportunity to present its comments on the admissibilityof those requests. Quite the contrary, far from showing adenial of an opportunity to comment, in the EnlargedBoard’s view the petition confirmed that the opportunityoccurred14.

5.3 On this basis, the Enlarged Board then rejectedthe petitioner’s main arguments to the effect that theBoard of Appeal did not consider the new requestssufficiently or was obliged to admit the new requestsor exercised its discretion incorrectly, each argumentbeing said to demonstrate a violation of Article 113EPC15.

5.4 The petitioner’s first argument was based on thepremise that Article 113 EPC enshrined the possibility ofa full reaction to overcome any late raised objection. Aprima facie assessment to establish whether a newrequest was likely to overcome an objection was notadequate to satisfy the right to a thorough discussionunder Article 113 EPC of all points at issue. In theEnlarged Board’s view this premise was false. The deci-sion in question here was whether or not to admit thepetitioner’s new requests, and the petitioner had andused the opportunity to comment on that issue. Thepetitioner’s suggestion that the right to be heard carriedwith it, in the case of requests filed in response to lateobjections, a right to a full discussion which transcendedthe requirement of admissibility was simply incorrect. Alate objection might lead to more latitude in the filing ofrequests in response but there was no certainty ofadmissibility, let alone of a more thorough discussion ifadmissibility was achieved. The requirement of admissi-bility for late-filed requests served several purposes –inter alia to ensure the requests offered a prospect ofsuccess – and the requirement was not suspended forlatecomers, however understandable the lateness offiling their requests might be. If that were not the case,Article 13 RPBA would have little or no purpose16.

5.5 The petitioner’s second argument, i. e. thatArticle 113 EPC overruled Article 13(1) RPBA so thatthe Board had no discretion in respect of the admissibilityof such requests, was considered by the Enlarged Boardto be no more than a necessary corollary of the previousargument starting from the false premise of a “right to athorough discussion”, which would mean that Article 13RPBA had little or no purpose. It was thus rejected for thesame reason17.

5.6 The petitioner’s third argument that it wasresponding with new requests to a late objection, thatthe new requests were not an abuse of procedure andthat therefore a prima facie assessment resulting innon-admissibility was also a fundamental violation ofthe right under Article 113 EPC to react fully to newissues, was again seen by the Enlarged Board to rely onthe petitioner’s fallacious view that Article 113 EPCprovided a right of full response18.

5.7 The petitioner’s fourth and final argument wasthat on the assumption that the Board did have adiscretion under Article 13(1) RPBA not to admit newrequests in response to late objections, the Board exer-cised that discretion in an unduly restrictive manner sincepursuant to that Article the new requests could not beconsidered late and did not introduce any complexity asthey attempted to overcome the objection. The state ofthe proceedings could not apply since the petitioner wasresponding to a new objection to terms which had beenon file since the beginning of the appeal procedure; andprocedural economy could not justify the adverse exer-cise of discretion since that would outweigh the right ofthe petitioner to defend its case. The Enlarged Board,however, found that this argument again erroneouslysupposed rights to flow from Article 113 EPC overridingArticle 13 RPBA. Furthermore, the petitioner overlookedthat Article 13(1) RPBA stated that the Board’s discretionshould be exercised in view of inter alia those criteria.Therefore other considerations could be taken intoaccount, a well-established one of which was whetherthe claims were likely to overcome the objectionraised19.

5.8 All its previous arguments having been foundwholly unconvincing, the only remaining argumentdeployed by the petitioner to support a denial of oppor-tunity to comment was that the petitioner was surprisedby the decision not to admit its new requests because ofthe remark by the chairman of the Board that therequests appeared to be clear. The Enlarged Board alsofound this argument unconvincing for various reasons.Firstly, the petitioner and its representatives must haveknown that the remark was that of one member onlyand any additional significance they gave it had nothingto do with the proceedings. To seek subsequently toelevate the remark into something more in order tosupport a petition for review was not merely unconvinc-ing but implausible. Rather, it was apparent that thepetitioner conducted its case in reliance on its ownassumptions. Hence, only the petitioner and its represen-tatives could be responsible if such assumptions provedincorrect and the petition for review procedure was not aremedy for the consequences. Furthermore, the chair-man of the Board had not actually said that the newrequests were admissible. In addition, Article 15(4) RPBAcould not be interpreted to mean that a remark orindication by the chairman had to be relied on by aparty without question, let alone that it had the status of


13 Loc. cit., Reasons No. 614 Loc. cit., Reasons No. 915 Loc. cit., Reasons No. 1216 Loc. cit., Reasons Nos. 13.1ff17 Loc. cit., Reasons Nos. 14.1f

18 Loc. cit., Reasons No. 1519 Loc. cit., Reasons Nos. 16.1ff

a ruling or the removal of a previous objection. Lastly, theEnlarged Board observed that in accordance with estab-lished case law, surprise, while being an understandablesubjective reaction of a party which expected to but didnot succeed, could not affect an objective review of thedecision – so if the petitioner knew the issues whichmight be raised and had an opportunity to commentthereon, its subsequent surprise was of no relevance20.

5.9 The petition for review was therefore unani-mously rejected as clearly unallowable21.

6. Comments

Case R 1/13 is remarkable from various points of view. Itdoes not appear to be an isolated incident, but may wellexemplify an overall tendency characterizing theEnlarged Board’s approach in R-cases on the right tobe heard. Such being the case, the author of these linesfeels that it should provoke some comments.

6.1 Case management by Board 3.5.03

As has been pointed out above, the Rules of Procedure ofthe Boards of Appeal have been drafted with a view to“to prevent ’ping pong’ submissions and ’salami’ tacticsin written proceedings”. The question, however, ariseswhether it is fair to impose the requirement of an earlydisclosure of facts, submissions and arguments one-sidedly on the parties to the appeal proceedings. Propercase management by a Board should be expected to alsoidentify possible problems at an early stage of the pro-ceedings and to inform the parties accordingly.

This is exemplified by the Draft Rules of Procedure ofthe Unified Patent Court (RoP)22 which may be con-sidered as a synthesis of a proper conduct of patentinfringement and revocation proceedings in the coun-tries establishing the Court. Rule 101 RoP entrusts thejudge rapporteur with the task of making all necessarypreparations for the oral proceedings. In accordancewith Rule 104 RoP this includes the obligation to identifythe main issues and, where appropriate, to clarify theposition of the parties as regards these issues. Theseprovisions make clear that a proper case managementrequires a court to play an active role at an early stage ofthe proceedings in order to have the decisive questionsproperly prepared as a basis for the final discussion in theoral proceedings.

While late objections cannot be absolutely ruled outthey should be exceptional and not be presented for thefirst time in concluding oral proceedings.. Moreover, thepresent case is extraordinary in that the late clarityobjection was raised by the Board against a term thatexisted already in claim 1 as granted (!). Hence, itsalleged lack of clarity lay dormant for many years, andthe mere fact that under these circumstances this issue

became virulent at the end of appeal proceedings mustalone be highly surprising.

6.2 Balance of powers and arguments

Should a Board, nevertheless, feel obliged to raise objec-tions “out of the blue”, one would expect that theaffected party will be given an opportunity to deal withsuch late objection comprehensively or that the oralproceedings will be adjourned. It may be worthwhilerecalling that Article 13(3) RPBA even excludes admit-tance of such issues if they were raised late by a party andcould neither be dealt with by the other party nor by theBoard without adjournment of the oral proceedings. Thereason for that regulation must be seen in preventingsituations where the right to be heard would enforce animpairment of procedural economy. However, again theBoards’ own Rules do not appear to apply to the Boardswho are hardly subject to any restrictions in this respect.

Since the Board apparently did not raise its surprisingclarity objection on a prima facie basis (otherwise theclarity problem should have been discovered much ear-lier), for a fair balance of argument one would assumethat a reasonable reaction of the patent proprietor tocope with the new problem would be fully considered onits merits. The Enlarged Board, however, found that aprima facie assessment in the context of an admissibilitydiscussion of the new requests was sufficient for respect-ing the right to be heard. Therefore, it must be con-cluded that the Enlarged Board considered the admissi-bility issue to be the overruling aspect and focused on thelate filing of the requests, thereby thrusting aside anyreasons as to why these requests could not have beenfiled earlier. In accordance with this interpretation, theright to be heard is already complied with if a response toa surprising substantive objection of a Board undergoes acursory review by the same Board and is then notadmitted into the proceedings.

This apparent imbalance of powers and arguments,now having the Enlarged Board’s blessing, does notseem to be easily compatible with the requirement ofa fair procedure.

6.3 The Board’s discretion under Article 13 RPBA

Since the Enlarged Board put so much emphasis onArticle 13 RPBA, it is useful to look into this article again.The intention “to prevent ’ping pong’ submissions and’salami’ tactics in written proceedings” led to vesting theBoards with the discretion to preclude any late issuesraised by a party “in view of inter alia the complexity ofthe new subject matter submitted, the current state ofthe proceedings and the need for procedural economy”(Article 13(1) RPBA).

Hence, the question arises whether this provision alsoapplies to late subject-matter raised by the Board itself,and in particular whether the Board still has discretionnot to admit party submissions filed in response to suchsubject-matter. One might hesitate to answer this ques-


20 Loc. cit., Reasons Nos. 18ff21 Loc. cit., Order22 Available on the future Court’s homepage http://www.unified-patent-

court.org/

tion in the affirmative since the intention underlying thisArticle and the consequences resulting from it do notappear to address the Board’s own behavior. In particu-lar, the provision’s basic objective, i. e. to prevent pingpong submissions and salami tactics by a party in writtenproceedings, evidently does not apply.

In any case, this cannot mean that the right to beheard is irrelevant in the present context. Quite thecontrary: A late objection by the Board is, as a rule,much more dangerous for the patentee than a lateattack by the opponent. A late attack is often not morethan a last attempt to strengthen the opponent’s caseand the opponent has to convince the Board of itsrelevance. A late objection from the Board normallymeans that the Board has already a preliminary opinionin this regard and it may be rather difficult for thepatentee to persuade the Board that the objection iswithout merits. In such a situation, the Board assumesthe role of the patentee’s adversary and one mighttherefore conclude that the patentee’s interest in aproper opportunity to defend his patent deserves evenmore protection than in case of a late attack of theopponent. In inter partes proceedings the principle ofequal treatment applies23 which implies that the admis-sion of late objections based on new facts and evidencerequires the admission of late amendments in reply tothese objections and vice versa24. There is no reasonwhatsoever to deny a full and proper opportunity foramendments including a full and proper consideration oftheir merits if the Board turns out to be the patentee’s“adversary”. When late submissions of the parties are atstake, the Boards of Appeal tend to cite G 9/91 and G10/91 putting emphasis on their judicial function to givea decision upon the correctness of the decision taken bythe department of first instance and stating that thisreview can, in principle, only be based on the reasonsalready submitted in the proceedings of first instance.25

All this seems to be of no relevance when the Boardintends to make a new objection of their own motion. Inthis situation, the principle of party disposition is set asideand examination ex officio takes place even at the veryend of the proceedings. The least, a patentee may expectin such a situation is that he gets a fair chance to save hispatent on the basis of an amendment to be admittedbecause it has been filed in reaction to the objection.

If under particular circumstances it might neverthelessbe accepted that a Board has discretion not to admitreactions to its own late objections, possibly on theassumption that such reactions might be unfounded orcreate entirely new problems, such discretion should inany case be exercised duly.

In the present case, the criteria mentioned explicitly inArticle 13(1) RPBA apparently cannot be used to pre-clude the proprietor’s new requests: Neither were theserequests complex since they only explained the allegedlyunclear term, nor could they be filed earlier, nor couldthey be seen as a cause for adversely affecting pro-

cedural economy. The Board and the Enlarged Boardtherefore resorted to the “inter alia” clause in Article13(1) RPBA and asserted that a further criterion forexercising the discretion was whether the requests wereclearly allowable on a prima facie basis26.

Apart from the fact that this further criterion is some-what logically flawed by mixing up aspects of admissi-bility and merits, it does not seem to be appropriate inthe present case where the new requests clearly aimed atovercoming the clarity problem, and it appears utterlyunfair to first raise an objection and then judge reason-able attempts for overcoming it only on a provisionalevaluation of their probability of success, and not on afull consideration of their merits. In this context, thepetitioner rightfully referred to a passage of decision R3/1027, where the Enlarged Board (in a different com-position) held:

”The right to be heard is a fundamental right of theparties which has to be safeguarded, irrespective of themerits of the party’s submissions. The necessity torespect it is absolute and therefore cannot be madedependent on a prior assessment of the merits of theparty’s submissions, which in the present case wouldinvolve an assessment of the degree of likelihood thatthe arguments of the petitioner would have convincedthe Board to acknowledge inventive step.

It is the very essence of the right to be heard that theparty is given a full opportunity to defend its case and topersuade the deciding body that its position is the correctone. This right would be undermined if it were madedependent on an evaluation as to whether the party’sstandpoint is likely to be justified.”

This was commented by the Enlarged Board in R 1/13to only mean that the petitioner was to be heard on theadmissibility of the new requests, and the petitioner hadbeen given a full opportunity to defend its case in thisrespect28. However, the Enlarged Board ignored that inthe case under consideration the admissibility issue hadindeed been linked with an evaluation of likelihood as towhether the clarity objection would be overcome by thenew requests. Hence, R 1/13 seems to be at odds with R3/10. Since case R 3/10 was one of the very raresuccessful petitions, one may wonder whether this factis due to taking the right to be heard more seriously.

When stating that the petitioner had been given a fullopportunity to defend its case for admissibility, theEnlarged Board seems to restrict the party’s right to beheard to the mere formal aspect whether or not admis-sion of the request has been discussed. However, thesubstance of the right to be heard requires that thediscretion exercised in deciding on the admission ofsubmissions has been based on all relevant criteria meet-ing the fundamental requirement of fair proceedings.The right to be heard would be meaningless if animproper use of the discretion bestowed on the Boardsof Appeal could not be reviewed.


23 G 1/86, OJ EPO 1987, 44724 See e.g. recently T 366/11, Reasons No. 325 Case Law, loc. cit. IV.E.1. ,

26 R 1/13, Reasons Nos. 11 and 16.2f27 R 3/10, Reasons No. 2.10 (http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-ap-

peals/recent/r100003eu1.html#q=%22R%200003%2F10%2228 R 1/13, Reasons No. 13.5


6.4 Legal expectations

The Enlarged Board is right in finding the Chairman’sunchallenged remark that the claims of the new requestsappeared to be clear to have been provisional and notbinding on the Board29, as all members have equal rightsin deciding a case (Article 19 RPBA).

However, as the Enlarged Board also correctly notes,pursuant to Article 15(4) RPBA, the “Chairman presidesover the oral proceedings and ensures their fair, orderlyand efficient conduct”. It is therefore usual practice thatthe Chairman has a special responsibility in conductingthe oral proceedings and can normally be expected tospeak for the whole Board. Otherwise, members couldask questions or make comments of their own volition.This not being the case, it may, at least on a prima faciebasis, be assumed that the Chairman actually expressesthe common views of all members.

Hence, the Chairman’s remarks must be seen to carryparticular weight and may well create legal expectations.Such expectations were, however, not satisfied by theBoard announcing after deliberations that the newrequests were not admitted since they were prima facieunclear. This must naturally have been surprising for thepetitioner, in particular since the Chairman was respon-sible for the fair conduct of the oral proceedings, andfairness would have required to inform the petitionerthat either the remark expressed the Chairman’s per-sonal opinion or that the Board had changed their mind.Misguiding a party in oral proceedings would normallynot fall under the notion of “fair conduct”. The onlyadvice given by the Enlarged Board in this context is thatparties should not rely on remarks or indications by theChairman without question.

The Enlarged Board’s conclusion seems to be in aremarkable contrast to the approach by the GermanFederal Supreme Court allowing a party to rely on aremark of the Federal Patent Court indicating that it is

inclined to follow the party’s position with the conse-quence that the party is not required to strengthen itsposition by further submissions and is allowed to addsuch submissions if the Court changes its position.30

7. Conclusions

There is reasonable concern that the right to be heard, afundamental principle of procedural law, is undergoing aloss of substance in proceedings before the EPO Boardsof Appeal. This trend is mainly due to the EnlargedBoard’s narrow interpretation of Article 113(1) EPC inits case law on petitions for review without there beingany need or even good reason for doing so.

In accordance with this case law, the right to be heardis at risk of being increasingly constrained or overruled bymeans of secondary provisions of basically formal nature,as encoded in the Rules of Procedure of the Boards ofAppeal, in particular in Articles 12 to 15 RPBA. Theseprovisions are predominantly directed to the parties ofthe proceedings by giving them directions and stipulat-ing their responsibilities. However, without hesitation theEnlarged Board still applies these provisions one-sidedlyto the parties in cases where they should in fact also beapplied to the Boards when raising late objections.

The result is an accepted imbalance of powers andarguments leading to unfair and surprising situations forthe party actually affected by such objections. The rightto be heard, however, primarily finds expression in theprinciple of good faith and the right to a fair hearing,avoiding surprise actions also by the Boards. The decisivequestion is thus not whether Article 113(1) EPC overrulesthe Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal, butwhether the Rules of Procedure are interpreted by theEnlarged Board of Appeal so as to avoid surprise deci-sions as required by the right to be heard.

Unitary Patent – Questions & Answers

N. Fox (GB)1, A. Kupecz (NL)2, D. van Dam (NL)3

What is a Unitary Patent?

A Unitary Patent, also known as a European patent withunitary effect, will be a European patent which covers allof the EU member states with the exception of Italy,Spain and Croatia who are currently not participating in

the Unitary Patent scheme. The Unitary Patent is basedon EU regulations 1257/2012 and 1260/2012. Althoughfuture amendments in the applicable legislation arepossible, a basic framework for the Unitary Patent hasemerged, the outlines of which are discussed in the restof this article.3

29 Loc.cit., Reasons No. 2030 BGH GRUR 2013, 912 – Walzstrasse. See also Case Law of the Boards of

Appeal of the EPO, 7th ed. 2013, IV.D.5.4.1, last sentence.

1 European and UK Patent Attorney & Solicitor, Simmons & Simmons LLP,London, [email protected]

2 European and Dutch Patent Attorney & Advocaat, Simmons & Simmons LLP,Amsterdam, [email protected]


How do I get a Unitary Patent?

Unitary Patents will be granted by the European PatentOffice (’EPO’)4 and can be derived from any Europeanpatent applications which designate all the countriesinvolved in the Unitary Patent scheme and are pendingbefore the EPO when the Unitary Patent comes intoeffect.5 In practice this will be almost all patent applica-tions pending before the EPO with a filing date on orafter 1 March 2007, which was the date when Maltaacceded to the European Patent Convention.

Unitary Patent applications will be examined in theordinary way by the EPOand will be subject to theprovisions of the European Patent Convention (“EPC”)just like the current European patents.When the EPOagrees that an application is in order for grant, the EPOwill give applicants the option of obtaining either abundle of individual national patents for all designatedstates, or a Unitary Patent that covers the participatingmember states, with individual national patents for thenon-participating states (such as Italy and Spain and thenon-EU EPC member states such as Iceland and Turkey).

To obtain a Unitary Patent, an applicant must confirmthat it wants a Unitary Patent rather than nationalpatents in respect of the participating member states,and – during a transitional period of at most 12 years –must file a translation of the patent with the EPO.6 Thistranslation will need to be in English if the Europeanpatent application was not in English, or any otherofficial language of the EU if the European patentapplication was prosecuted in English. The translationwill have to be filed with the EPO – together with arequest for “unitary effect” in order to obtain the UnitaryPatent – no later than 1 month after the date of grant.

Why would I want one?

A Unitary Patent will be a single right that extends to allparticipating member states. The formalities for obtain-ing a Unitary Patent will be significantly less onerous thanthe formalities for obtaining equivalent protection via a“traditional” European patent that lead toa bundle ofnational patents or filing a number of separate nationalpatent applications. As discussed above, only a singletranslation of the patent into English or a language ofone of the EU member states needs to be filed.7In thecase of a typical patent this can reduce costs by aroundE30,000 compared with trying to obtain equivalentcoverage under the existing system.8

Maintaining a granted Unitary Patent should also beless onerous than maintaining a bundle of equivalentnational patents as a single annual renewal fee will needto be paid opposed to separate renewal fees being

payable to each of the national patent offices whereprotection is to be maintained. Similarly, if a UnitaryPatent is transferred to a new proprietor, a single requestto update the European patent register will be sufficient.

When will the first Unitary Patent be issued?

It is intended that the EPO will issue the first UnitaryPatents on the same day as the Unified Patent Courtcomes into existence.9 For this to happen, the UnifiedPatent Court Agreement must be ratified by 13 memberstates including the UK, Germany and France. Amend-ments to Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 on jurisdiction andthe recognition and enforcement of judgements in civiland commercial matters must also be in force for thenew Court to come into effect on or after 1 January2014.

The changes to the EU regulation are likely to takeplace sometime in 2013. Ratification of the UnifiedPatent Court Agreement will probably be completedtowards the end of 2014 or early 2015. The UnifiedPatent Court and the first Unitary Patents will come intoexistence four months after that date. At present it istherefore expected that the first Unitary Patents will beissued possibly as soon as the middle of 2015. However,this date could be delayed if there are delays in ratifyingthe Unified Patent Court Agreement.

What happens if any of the member states fail toratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement?

As Unitary Patents can be granted four months afterUnified Patent Court Agreement has been ratified by atleast 13 member states (which must include the threemost popular countries for validation i. e.UK, Germanyand France), it is possible that the Court Agreement andthe Unitary Patent may come into effect before theratification process has been completed by all the par-ticipating member states. If this happens, the scope ofeach Unitary Patent will be limited to those countrieswhich had completed ratification and for which the newCourt is in force when the unitary effect is registered. Themost likely country to be effected by this provision isPoland which, although it has indicated it is participatingin the Unitary Patent is still debating whether or not tojoin the Unified Patent Court and has not yet signed theUnified Patent Court Agreement. If Poland decides notto be involved in the Unified Patent Court, UnitaryPatents would not have effect in that territory.

How much will it cost?

The costs of the prosecuting a Unitary Patent through togrant will be similar as the costs for any other Europeanpatent application as the new agreement does notchange the prosecution process.

Upon grant, however, translation costs will be muchreduced as a Unitary Patent will only have to be trans-


4 Reg. EU 1257/2012 Article 9(1)5 Reg. EU 1257/2012 Article 3(1)6 Reg. EU 1260/2012 Article 67 Unless the Unitary Patent is enforced in which case additional translation

requirements to provide an alleged infringer with a translation of the patentapply.

8 Estimate provided by the European Commission based on a review ofgranted European patents. 9 Reg. EU 1257/2012 Article 18(2)


lated into one other language (during a transition periodof at most 12 years), typically costing in the region ofE2,500for a patent application of average length.10

After the transition period, translation requirementsare to disappear and translations will only be requiredin the event of a dispute.

The renewal fees for a Unitary Patent are yet to befixed.11 However, it is expected that the fees are likely tobe set at a level similar to the current costs for main-taining national patents in the UK, Germany and France(in the region of about E25,000 over a 20 year period,according to the current fee schedules). If that is thecase, a Unitary Patent will provide coverage in countriesthat represent about 80% of the EU market (in terms ofGDP) for the costs of covering about 50% of the EUmarket under the current European Patent regime. Aswith existing patent renewal fees, renewal fees forUnitary Patents are likely to rise from a few hundredEuros in the early years of a patent’s life, to a fewthousand in the final year.

How can I enforce a Unitary Patent?

Unitary Patents can only be enforced in the new UnifiedPatent Court which will come into existence at the sametime as the EPO begins to grant Unitary Patents.

What do I need to be thinking about now?

Due to the time it takes for the EPO to grant patents, it islikely that many currently pending patent applicationswill be eligible for Unitary Patent protection upon grant.Proprietors will have to weigh up the benefits of obtain-ing Unitary Patents, such as broader coverage at signifi-cantly less expense than is required under the currentsystem, against possible disadvantages, such as theinability to opt-out of the jurisdiction of the untestednew Court and that Unitary Patents will be subject tocentral attack.

It will also be important to weigh up the hidden costsin portfolio management, such as the benefits of havingto manage a single renewal fee and deal with a singlepatent register rather than multiple national patent feesand patent registers as is currently the case. Equally,however, the unitary nature of the new right may onoccasion be a disadvantage – for example, it will only bepossible to maintain or abandon the entire right ratherthan merely dropping one or two of the less importantjurisdictions as is possible under the current system.

Unitary Patents with coverage across the 25 EUmember states will be highly valuable assets and inno-vative companies should therefore be reviewing thecosts involved with their current portfolios, their pendingpatent applications and also performing a realistic stra-tegic appraisal of how they use their patents to establishhow they can take maximum commercial advantage ofthe new Unitary Patent when it comes into force.

The Unified Patent Court – Questions & Answers

N. Fox (GB)1, A. Kupecz (NL)2, D. van Dam (NL)3

What is the Unified Patent Court?

The Unified Patent Court is a new court based on anagreement between all EU member states, apart fromSpain and Poland who have not (yet) agreed to join thenew court system and Croatia which joined the EUafter the Unified Patent Agreement was concluded.After coming into effect, the Court will enable theenforcement or revocation in a single court action of:corresponding European patents granted by the Euro-pean Patent Office (’EPO’) in force in EU countriesparticipating in the Court; European patents withunitary effect (otherwise known as Unitary Patents)4;and any related supplementary protection certifi-

cates.5 Part of the legislation relating to the UnifiedPatent Court (rules of procedure) is still being devel-oped. In this paper we discuss some main lines of theagreement and the rules in their current form.

When will the Unified Patent Court come into effect?

The Unified Patent Court will come into effect 4 monthsafter the Unified Patent Court Agreement has beenratified by 13 member states which must include thethree most popular countries for validating Europeanpatents (i. e. UK, Germany and France).6Also, before thenew Court comes into effect, Regulation (EU) No1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition andenforcement of judgements in civil and commercialmatters must be amended. The changes to the EUregulation on jurisdiction and the recognition andenforcement of judgements are likely to take place in

10 Figures provided by the EU Commission11 Reg. EU 1257/2012 Article 12 sets out the principles to be applied to the

setting of the level of renewal fees.

1 European and UK Patent Attorney & Solicitor, Simmons & Simmons LLP,London, [email protected]



4 Unitary Patents will be discussed in greater detail in a separate article to bepublished in the EPI Information.

5 Article 4 UPC6 Article 89 UPC

2013 and ratification of the agreement will probably becompleted towards the end of 2014 or early 2015. Sincethe – still unamended – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012will apply at least through to 10 January 2015, theUnified Patent Court is expected to come into existencenot earlier than the middle of 2015.

What will the impact of the Unified Patent Court beon my business?

The Unified Patent Court will have a significant impacton any business which is involved in patent litigation orlicensing.

At present, patent rights are national rights and are tobe enforced through individual enforcement actions ineach of the national courts. This means that where apatentee seeks to enforce corresponding rights acrossEurope, multiple court actions are required.7 Similarly, ifsomeone wants to clear the way and have differentnational parts of a European patent revoked other thanthrough Opposition before the EPO, separate revocationactions are required. When the Unified Patent Court fullycomes into existence, it will be possible to enforce orrevoke such rights across almost the entirety of the EU ina single court action before the Unified Patent Court.

As the Unified Patent Court removes the need formultiple parallel court actions, the cost of patent liti-gation will be reduced. Because of the similarities instructure and procedure, the cost of litigation in the newCourt is likely to be similar to the cost involved in a courtaction in a single continental European jurisdiction suchas the Netherlands or Germany. Litigation in the UnifiedPatent Court is therefore likely to be cheaper than e.g.enforcement in the UK, which is currently the mostexpensive jurisdiction for enforcement of patent rightsin Europe. By cutting down costs and numbers of pro-cedures, both patent enforcement and defence againstunfounded claims should be improved, thus meetingone of the primary purposes of the Unified Patent Court.

Who can sue in the Unified Patent Court?

Patent proprietors, holders of supplementary protectioncertificates and exclusive licensees of such rights will beable to bring actions for actual or threatened infringe-ment before the Court.8 A holder of a non-exclusivelicence can in principle also enforce their rights in theUnified Patent Court. However, this is only in so far asexpressly permitted by the licence agreement.9 In addi-tion, anyone may bring an action to revoke such rights orfor a declaration of non-infringement.10

Where will actions be heard?

At first instance, the Court will consist of a number oflocal or regional divisions (’national or regionalchambers’) and a Central Division divided into threesections located in Paris, London and Munich.11The sec-tion of the Central Division in Munich will handle casesconcerning mechanical inventions, the section in Londonwill be responsible for chemical and pharmaceuticalinventions and all other inventions, such as electronicsand telecoms, will be handled by the section in Paris.12

Infringement actions have to be brought before thenational or regional chamber where infringement isalleged to have occurred or alternatively before thenational or regional chamber where a defendant isdomiciled.13Procedures that start as a revocation actionor as an action for a declaration of non-infringementhave be brought before one of the sections of theCentral Division,14 unless an action for infringementbetween the same parties has already be brought beforea local or regional division in which case any revocationaction can only brought in that division.15

National chambers can be established in any partici-pating member state. Alternatively, two or more coun-tries can choose to establish a joint regional chamber. It isexpected that national chambers will be established in allof the countries where there is currently a significantamount of patent litigation, such as the UK, Germany,France, Holland and Italy. In Germany, it is expected thatmultiple chambers will be established, most likely in thesame locations as the existing German courts whichhandle a significant amount of patent litigation, namelyMannheim, Düsseldorf and Munich.

The Danish government16 has proposed that aregional chamber should be jointly established by Den-mark, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.The proposed Nordo-Baltic court would have its seat inMalmö. Discussions are also on-going betweenRomania, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus about establish-ing a South-eastern regional chamber. In both cases it isbeing proposed that English should be the workinglanguage of the proposed regional chambers.

If no local or regional court is established in a particularjurisdiction, infringement actions concerning infringe-ment in that jurisdiction or against defendants domiciledin that jurisdiction can be brought before the CentralDivision, as may any action against a defendant who isdomiciled outside of the territory of the contracting EUmember states.17

Appeals against decisions made at the first instance ofthe Unified Patent Court will be heard in the Court ofAppeal based in Luxembourg.18


7 Although, based on the Solvay/Honeywell ECJ case (C616-10), somenational courts (notably the Dutch court) have accepted cross-borderjurisdiction to take provisional measures in patent cases.

8 Article 47(1) UPC9 Article 47(3) UPC

10 Article 47(6) UPC

11 Article 7(1) & (2) UPC12 Article 7(2) UPC & Annex to the Statute of the Unified Patent Court13 Article 33(1) UPC.14 Article 33(4) UPC15 Article 33(4) UPC16 Location of a Regional Division of the Court of First Instance (UPC), Ministry

of Business and Growth, Denmark, 08 April 201317 Article 33(1) UPC18 Article 9(5) UPC

What will the language of proceedings be?

Actions brought before the Central Division will beconducted in the language in which the patent wasprosecuted before the EPO.19 In approximately 80% ofcases this is English, in around 15% of cases it will beGerman and in around 5% it will be French.

The language of proceedings in cases before thenational and regional chambers will depend upon thechamber. In many cases this will be the national lan-guage of the country where the chamber is established,although some chambers may provide litigants with achoice of languages.20

As presently drafted, if a local or regional divisionprovides litigants with a choice of languages, proceed-ings are required to be brought in the language in whichthe defendant normally conducts its business in thatjurisdiction.21

Who will be the Judges?

Each case will be heard by a multi-national panel ofjudges.22 Where a case is brought before a local divisionin a country where a ’significant amount’ of patentlitigation has previously been brought, or before aregional division, two of the judges will be from thatcountry respectively region and the third will beappointed from elsewhere.23 If the local division isestablished in a country without a ’significant amount’of patent litigation, there will be one local judge and twojudges from other jurisdictions, probably jurisdictionswith a history of patent litigation.24

A ’significant amount’ of litigation, for the purposes ofthe rules, is at least 50 patent cases per calendar year(averaged over a 3-year period). This means thatchambers in Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Hollandwill have two local judges. It is also possible that aSwedish chamber may sit with a panel of two localjudges. Any local chamber outside of those countries isexpected to have one local judge and two foreign judgesappointed from a list.

Any regional chamber will have two judges appointedfrom within the jurisdictions hosting the regionalchamber and one judge appointed from outside of theregion.25

Initially, the Court will be staffed with the existingpatent judges from the various national courts. So, forexample, the local judges in the Italian chambers will bedrawn from the existing judges in the IP courts. Similarly,the local judges for the German chambers will be drawnfrom the judiciary serving in the Bundespatentgerichtand judiciary handling patent matters in the Landgericht.

The rules also provide for technical judges to beappointed to the Court, on request and whenever the

Court considers it appropriate or is considering invaliditymatters.26 Any technical judges will be appointed from alist of individuals with relevant university degrees andproven expertise in a field of technology and knowledgeof civil and procedural law relevant to patent litigation.27

What law will apply?

The basic law on validity and the scope of patent pro-tection will be drawn from the existing European patentconvention (EPC).28 The Unified Patent Court Agreementcontains provisions defining acts of infringement whichbasically correspond to existing national law.29 In additionthe agreement also provides for the court to base itsdecisions on provisions of EU law and in particular the EUregulations for the Unitary Patent.30 The Court will alsorefer to international agreements applicable to patentswhich are binding on the member states such as TRIPSand the Paris Convention, and to national (patent) law.31

What are the rules of procedure?

Detailed draft rules of procedure have been issued andput out to formal consultation which runs until 1October 2013after which any submissions made willbe considered and the rules will then be finalised.

The rules of procedure can be regarded as a mixture ofvarious aspects roughly similar to existing national laws.The rules provide for obtaining evidence by way of a saisiecontrafaçon procedure32 such as currently exists in Italyand France, and for the filing of protective letters33 suchas are currently used in Germany and Holland. In theperiod straight after proceedings have been commenced,parties will be required to provide detailed explanationsof the case in writing34, such as is currently the case inHolland and Germany. At the end of this’written pro-cedure’, the Court will hold a case management con-ference35 similar to the procedure in the English PatentCounty Court36 to decide upon the next steps in the case.This can include the Court ordering parties to disclosespecific documents and orders for the cross-examinationof witnesses.37The extent of any such cross-examinationwill be limited to specific issues in the manner of Danishpatent proceedings. After any such additional evidencehas been obtained and any cross-examination has takenplace, an oral hearing will be held to provide the partieswith a final opportunity to summarise their case and


19 Article 49(6) UPC20 Article 49 (1)-(5) UPC21 Draft Rules of Procedure Rule 14(2)22 Article 8(1) UPC23 Article 8(3) UPC24 Article 8(2) UPC25 Article 8(4) UPC

26 Article 8(6) & Draft Rules of Procedure Rules 33, 34, 37(3)27 Article 15(3) UPC28 Article 24(1)(c)UPC29 Articles 25-27 UPC30 Article 24(1)(a) UPC31 Article 24(1)(d) & (e) UPC32 Draft Rules of Procedure Rules192-19833 Draft Rules of Procedure Rule 20734 See for example. Draft Rules of Procedure Rule 13(l),(m) & (n) & Rule 24 (e)(f)

& (g)35 Draft Rules of Procedure Rule 101(3) &10436 Renamed as the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court with effect from 1

October 2013.37 Draft Rules of Procedure Rules 176-179

present arguments to the Court.38Such an oral hearingwill typically be concluded within a single day.

Will the Court hear infringement and validity to-gether?

Local and regional chambers hearing infringement casesin which a defendant files a counter-claim for revocationof a patent will have a choice. After having heard theparties, the chamber may choose to hear infringementand validity together; may choose to hear only argumentson infringement and send the validity proceedings to beheard by the Central Division; or alternatively, with theagreement of the parties, may send the entire case to beheard by the Central Division.39If a local or regionalchamber does decide to split a case and only hear argu-ments relating to infringement and send the validity caseto the Central Division, the chamber will have the optionto stay the infringement proceedings pending the out-come of the validity case and will be obliged to do so ifthere is a high likelihood of a patent being found invalid.40

Who can appear before the court?

Parties are required to be represented by lawyers41 oralternatively European Patent attorneys who have anappropriate litigation qualification.42 A European PatentLitigation qualification will be established for this pur-pose. At present it is not clear whether national qualifi-cations such as the UK Intellectual Property LitigationCertificate which enables UK national patent attorneysto represent clients independently of lawyers before theEnglish courts will be considered to be an appropriatequalification for appearing before the Courts.

National patent attorneys and European Patent attor-neys regardless of whether they have a European PatentLitigation qualification may assist parties’ representativesand will be allowed to speak at hearings subject to arepresentative’s responsibility to co-ordinate the presen-tation of a party’s case.43

Can I opt out?

During a transitional period the new Court will run inparallel with the existing national patent enforcementsystems.44 For at least the first seven years45 of theUnified Patent Court, patent proprietors will be able tooptboth granted European patents and European patentapplications pending before the European Patent Officeout from the jurisdiction of the new Court unless anaction has already been brought before the new Court,thus avoiding risking valuable assets in an untried sys-

tem. It is not yet clear whether there will be an adminis-trative fee for doing so.

Depending on the costs involved, opting-out may bean attractive option for patent proprietors as it preventscompetitors from being able to apply to revoke patentsacross Europe in a single court action. Further, the rulesof procedure permit a proprietor to withdraw an opt-outunless an action has already been brought before a“conventional” national court. Accordingly, if a patentproprietor wishes to enforce a patent they in principalhave the option of either using the existing nationalcountry-by-country enforcement procedures or optingback into the new Court at that stage.

What do I have to do now?

The actions required by patent proprietors at this timeare relatively limited.

Patent proprietors should review their existing patentportfolios so determine whether or not they want to fileopt-outs on any of their existing European patents. Anyopt-outs will have to be chosen on a case by case basis.Deciding upon an appropriate strategy and assessing theappropriate approach for the various patents in a largepatent portfolio will be a substantial task. Fortunately, asratification is unlikely to take place until 2015, patentproprietors currently still have time to make their deci-sions.

In the short term, patent proprietors should alsoreview the countries where they choose to validate theirEuropean patents. Many European patents are onlyvalidated in the larger European countries, namely:UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain as those countriesaccount for the majority of the EU market.However,when the new Court comes into force it will no longer benecessary to initiate separate court proceedings in eachindividual member state. This increases the value ofvalidating patents in the next tier, particularly in countrieswhich are members of the London agreement where-national validation of patents prosecuted before the EPOcan be achieved by simply filing claims translations intothe national language (e.g. Netherlands and Sweden).Additional validations will increase the impact of thesingle court action in the Unified Patent Court and wouldalso increase the options available as to the national andregional chambers where court actions might be initi-ated).

Patent proprietors should also consider the expectedtiming of the prosecution of patent applications beforethe EPO, in view of the possibility to take advantage ofthe new Unitary Patent system which will come intoforce at the same time as the new Court. Where it is feltthat a Unitary Patent is particularly attractive, applicantsshould refrain from taking actions to speed up prosecu-tion so that grant does not occur before the option of aUnitary Patent becomes available.


38 Draft Rules of Procedure Rules 176 & 178(5)39 Article 33(3)UPC40 Draft Rules of Procedure Rule 37(3)41 Article 48(1) UPC42 Article 48(2) UPC.43 Article 48(4) UPC and Draft Rules of Procedure 292 & 287(6) & (7)44 Article 89 UPC45 Article 89(1) UPC

Inside Intellectual Property

M. Jewess (GB)

Published by CIPA

As a patent attorney involved in mainly patent-relatedcases in the UK Courts I recall one now retired judge whoinvariably would say to an advocate addressing him on aparticularly thorny point of law“, Right Mr. X, let’s getback to basics”,where upon he would reach for the CIPAGuide to the Patents Acts (aka ’The Black Book’), consultit, read out the relevant text, and await the advocate’sresponse. I confess to having used the Judge’s back-to-basics approach in all levels of Hearings at the EPO, andelsewhere, as it helps to concentrate the minds of allinvolved. Which brings me to the book under review. Dr.Jewess goes back to basics too in that he gives detailedadvice on basic tools an IP practitioner should have at hisdisposal, such as being able to monitor dates, developdrafting skills, and the practice of peer review of thepractitioner’s work, particularly for example of priorityfiling texts.

But this is not by any means a textbook on just thebasics of IP. Dr. Jewess develops the world of IP throughchapters on for example ethics and privilege, IP manage-ment systems, R&D and innovation (it being pointed outthat this latter term is not the same as ’novelty’ in patentlaw, innovation being the successful intrusion of an ideainto the “real world”, eg of economics), patent strategyeg where to file, and why, and educating the client. As apractitioner in private practice, these latter two chaptersare close to my heart as they are topics my formercolleagues will remember me banging on about adnauseam. Dr. Jewess does not ’bang on’, he givessensible practical advice, valuable insights, and helpfulguidelines. The topics I have mentioned are just someincluded in the impressive and comprehensive spread of

the text based as it is on research of ’best practice’ (anexpression used in the sub-title of the book) provided bya survey of 10 UK patent attorney private practices, the IPdepartments of 5 UK solicitor firms, and 10 in-housecompany IP departments.The results of the survey,coupled with the author’s own personal, and wide,experience of IP and his attention to detail provide acompelling read for all those who practice IP. By this Imean practitioners in private practice, in in-housedepartments, in solicitor IP departments, and those IPpolicy makers on the ’Official Side’.

I emphasise too that the book is wide-ranging in thatthe author covers all the major jurisdictions, including theEPC/EPO, the PCT, and the pitfalls which can be con-nected with translation. Dr. Jewess also has refreshingthoughts on the topics covered, for example the desir-ability of acceptance or otherwise of non-mandatoryrequirements, such as the use of the ’two-part’ claimformat.

Every chapter of the book is studded with footnotes,all of them gems, and these together with a compre-hensive index and list of references, and pertinentappendices, for example on representation and attor-ney-client privilege under the UPC, make this well–written and readable book a “ must have” for all IPpractitioners of whatever nationality and wherever theypractice world-wide.

If I have any quibble, it is with the Title: the word“Inside” could be omitted, for this book covers IP in all itsramifications and suggests proven best IP practice.

T. Johnson (GB)

Information 1/2014 Book Review 43

Intellectual freedom and economical common-sense

G. Kern (DE)

Dear Colleagues,

Please take notice of the following opinion:

Intellectual freedom and economical common-sense

With respect to numerous modern publications, inparticular to a “Commentary on J.E. Stiglitz’s article: lifeor profit” in epi information 3/2013, publication of P.Rosenich (LI), it urgently needs be well understood thatintellectual property as such can never be subject ofindividual rights.

The actual notion of intellectual property is derivedfrom an individual conquest made to appropriate anextraordinary and uncommon intellectual structure as anindividual possession which could probably be keptsecret for a while as long as it is not published orotherwise used in a commercial context. Such possessionmay be the unexpected result of an extraordinary effortto conceive an exceptional or exquisite artistic product,be it pictorial or graphic art or literature or music or atechnical invention intended for an objective of realisteconomy. However at all events, it is the result of anactivity in regular and respectable use of intellectualfreedom.

It further urgently needs be well understood thatintellectual freedom is in fact the only one undeniablefreedom of mankind in general and thus, is the funda-mental basis of now nowadays acknowledged humanrights, Although human rights may justify and serve to

legalize individual property on definite material objectsacquired by activities in real economy, they cannotlikewise justify and serve to legalize individual propertyon intellectual possessions acquired by individual appro-priation out of public competences to exercise intellec-tual freedom. Thus, intellectual property is not a preceptof human rights. And a technical patent cannot beclaimed on the basis of some intellectual property as itwere derived from the acquisition of individual knowledge about useful technical means and methods ofactivity only.

A claim of intellectual property signifies an individuallyrestricted contest contrary to intellectual freedom andthus, is worthless. But the effective ground of theinstitution of technical patents is in fact nothing butthe result of common-sense in realist economy, and theresult of fairness in commercial competition with tech-nical competence. And in this respect, the Nobel-Pricewinner Stiglitz may well have some useful economicalcompetence to evaluate and judge modern patent sys-tems for the benefit of our society.

Let us go back to the roots of technical patent rights.We so may find Stiglitz’s ideas present in public tuitionand born in respect since over 100 years. and still dulymaintained for instance in the original conception of theEuropean Patent Convention.

Yours sincerely

Gerbert Kern

44 Letters to the Editor Information 1/2014


Disziplinarorgane und AusschüsseDisciplinary Bodies and Committees · Organes de discipline et Commissions

Disziplinarrat (epi) Disciplinary Committee (epi) Commission de Discipline (epi)

AL – Melina NikaAT – Wolfgang Poth°°BE – Thierry DebledBG – Vesel PendichevCH – Raymond ReutelerCY – Vasiliki A. RousounidouCZ – Michael FischerDE – Werner Fröhling°DK – Susanne HøibergEE – Sirje KahuES – Inigo Elosegui de la PenaFI – Christian WesterholmFR – Bernard Rougemont

GB – John GrayGR – Athanasios TsimikalisHR – Dina Korper ZemvaHU – József MarkóIE – Shane SmythIS – Árni Vilhjálmsson**IT – Bruno MuracaLI – Paul Rosenich*LT – Vitalija BanaitieneLU – Pierre KihnLV – Ileana FloreaMC – Eric AugardeMK – Blagica Veskovska

MT – Antoine CamilleriNL – Arjen HooiveldNO – Elin AndersonPL – Alicja RogozinskaPT – Antonio J. Dias MachadoRO – Calin PopRS – Dejan BogdanovicSE – Lennart KarlströmSI – Janez KraljicSK – Tomas HörmannSM – Giampaolo AgazzaniTR – Tuna Yurtseven

Disziplinarausschuss (EPA/epi)epi-Mitglieder

Disciplinary Board (EPO/epi)epi Members

Conseil de discipline (OEB/epi)Membres de l’epi

BE – Georges Leherte DE – Walter DabringhausGB – James Boff

FR – Bruno Quantin

Beschwerdekammer inDisziplinarangelegenheiten (EPA/epi)

epi-Mitglieder

DisciplinaryBoard of Appeal (EPO/epi)

epi Members

Chambre de recoursen matière disciplinaire (OEB/epi)

Membres de l’epi

DE – Nanno LenzDK – Ejvind Christiansen

ES – Pedro Sugrañes MolinéFR – Pierre GendraudGB – Huw George Hallybone

GB – Terry JohnsonNL – Bart van Wezenbeek

Ausschuss für epi-Finanzen epi Finances Committee Commission des Finances de l’epi

CH – André jr. BraunDE – Michael Maikowski*FR – Jean-Loup Laget

GB – Timothy Powell**IT – Salvatore BordonaroLT – Marius Jason

LU – Jean BeisselPL – Ewa MalewskaSE – Klas Norin

GeschäftsordnungsausschussOrdentliche Mitglieder

By-Laws CommitteeFull Members

Commission du Règlement intérieurMembres titulaires

FR – Pascal Moutard* GB – Terry JohnsonIT – Paolo Gerli

MC – Günther Schmalz

Stellvertreter Substitutes Suppléants

AT – Martin Forsthuber DE – Dieter Speiser FR – Sylvain Le Vaguérèse

Ausschuss für StandesregelnOrdentliche Mitglieder

Professional Conduct CommitteeFull Members

Commission deConduite professionnelle

Membres titulaires

AT – Friedrich SchweinzerBE – Philippe OverathBG – Neyko NeykovCH – Regula RüediCZ – Dobroslav MusilDE – Holger GeitzDK – Leif RoerboelEE – Raivo KoitelES – Juan Antonio MorgadesFI – Juhani Kupiainen

FR – Jean-Robert Callon de LamarckGB – Timothy Powell*HR – Aleksandar BijelicHU – Mihaly LantosIE – Michael LuceyIS – Thorlakur JonssonIT – Paolo GerliLT – Virgina DraugelieneLU – Henri KihnLV – Sandra Kumaceva

NL – Hans BottemaNO – Per FlugePL – Ludwik HudyPT – César de Bessa MonteiroRO – Lucian EnescuSE – Ronny JansonSI – Jure MarnSK – Dagmar CechvalovaSM – Giuseppe MasciopintoTR – Kazim Dündar


AT – Eberhard PisoCH – Paul Georg MauéCZ – Vitezslav ZakDE – Rainer KasseckertDK – Anne SchouboeEE – Jürgen ToomeES – Anna Barlocci

FI – Jonna SahlinFR – Philippe ConanGB – Simon WrightHR – Albina DlacicIE – Brian O'NeillIS – Einar FriðdrikssonIT – Andrea Marietti

LT – Vitalija BanaitieneLU – Romain LambertNL – John PetersNO – Lorentz SelmerPL – Miroslaw KlarRO – Gheorghe BucsaSE – Stina Sjögren PaulssonSI – Marjanca Golmajer Zima

*Chair /**Secretary °Vice-Chair / °°Vice-Secretary

46 Information from the Secretariat Information 1/2014

Ausschuss fürEuropäische Patent-Praxis

European Patent PracticeCommittee

Commission pour laPratique du brevet européen

AL – Vladimir NikaAT – Werner KovacAT – Andreas VögeleBE – Ludivine CoulonBE – Francis Leyder*BG – Ivanka PakidanskaBG – Violeta ShentovaCH – Ernst IrnigerCH – Paul Georg MauéCY – Christos A. TheodoulouCZ – Ivana JirotkovaCZ – Jiri MalusekDE – Ingo HeinzelmannDE – Heike Vogelsang-WenkeDK – Eva CarlssonDK – Soeren PedersenEE – Jaak OstratEE – Margus SarapES – Enrique ArmijoES – Luis-Alfonso Durán MoyaFI – Marjut Honkasalo°FI – Arja Weckman

FR – Jacques BauvirFR – Jean-Robert Callon de LamarckGB – Jim BoffGB – Chris Mercer°GR – Manolis Samuelides°HR – Tomislav HadzijaHR – Gordana TurkaljHU – Zsolt LengyelHU – Zsolt SzentpéteriIE – Olivia CatesbyIE – Denis McCarthyIS – Einar Friðriksson**IS – Ragnheidur SigurdardottirIT – Francesco MacchettaIT – Micaela ModianoLI – Christoph GyajaLI – Roland WildiLT – Ausra PakenieneLT – Jurga PetniunaiteLU – Sigmar Lampe°LU – Philippe Ocvirk**LV – Jevgenijs Fortuna

LV – Alexander SmirnovMC – Michael FleuchausMC – Günther SchmalzNL – Arnt AalbersNL – Ruurd JorritsmaNO – André BergNO – Kristine RekdalPL – Katarzyna LewickaPL – Ewa MalewskaPT – Pedro Alves MoreiraPT – Fernando Ferreira MagnoRO – Daniella NicolaescuRO – Doina TulucaSE – Carl CarlssonSE – Anita SkeppstedtSI – Bojan IvancicSK – Marta MajlingovaSK – Robert PorubcanSM – Antonio MarosciaSM – Andrea PerronaceTR – Hülya CayliTR – Aydin Deris

Ausschuss fürBerufliche BildungOrdentliche Mitglieder

ProfessionalEducation Committee

Full Members

Commission deFormation Professionnelle

Membres titulaires

AL – Eno DodbibaAT – Friedrich Schweinzer**BE – Nele D'HalleweynBG – Radislava KossevaCH – Wolfgang BernhardtCY – Christos A. TheodoulouCZ – Jiri AnderaDE – Felix LetzelterDK – Pia StahrEE – Tónu NelsasES – Francisco Saez Granero

FI – Tomi KonkonenFR – Francis FernandezGB – Jon GowshallHR – Tomislav PejcinovicHU – Dóra TepfenhártIE – Conor BoyceIS – Sigurdur IngvarssonIT – Paolo Rambelli*LI – Susanne KaminskiLT – Otilija KlimaitieneLU – Didier Lecomte

LV – Edvards LavrinovicsMK – Valentin PepeljugoskiNL – Freek SmitNO – Per BergPL – Piotr MalcherekPT – Isabel FrancoRO – Cosmina-Catrinel FierascuSE – Martin HolmbergSI – Antonija FlakSM – Davide PetrazTR – Alev Yavuzcan


AT – Herwig MargottiBE – Bart Van Den HazelBG – Vesel PendichevCH – Michael LiebetanzCZ – Irena LangrovaDE – Gabriele AhrensDK – Bo Hammer JensenES – Ismael IgartuaFI – Terhi Nykänen

FR – Jérôme CollinGB – Gary WhitingHU – Imre RavaditsIE – Seán HarteIS – Gunnar HardarsonIT – Isabella FerriLI – Anke AllwardtLT – Aurelija SidlauskieneLU – Mathis BrückLV – Valentina Sergejeva

NL – Bart van WezenbeekNO – Eirik RøhmenPL – Adam PawlowskiPT – José de SampaioRO – Mihaela TeodorescuSE – Christer JönssonSI – Zlata RosSM – Andrea PerronaceTR – Ayse Ünal Ersönmez

Examination Board Members on behalf of epi

DE – Ulla Allgayer DE – Stefan Kastel GB – Ian Harris*



Ausschuss fürbiotechnologische Erfindungen

Committee onBiotechnological inventions

Commission pour lesInventions en biotechnologie

AL – Diana SinojmeriAT – Albin SchwarzBE – Ann De Clercq*BG – Stanislava StefanovaCH – Dieter WächterCZ – Roman HakDE – Günter KellerDK – Anne SchouboeES – Francisco Bernardo NoriegaFI – Sisko Knuth-LehtolaFR – Anne Desaix

GB – Simon Wright**HR – Tihomir DragunHU – Arpad PethöIE – Anna-Louise HallyIS – Thorlakur JonssonIT – Olga CapassoLI – Burkhard BogensbergerLT – Liudmila GerasimovicLU – Pierre KihnLV – Valentina SergejevaNL – Bart Swinkels

NO – Liv ThoresenPL – Jadwiga SitkowskaPT – Alberto CanelasRO – Cristina PopaRS – Zeljka BrkicSE – Niklas MattssonSI – Mojca BencinaSK – Katarína Makel'ováSM – Maria PrimiceriTR – Ayse Ildes Erdem

Ausschuss für EPA-FinanzenOrdentliche Mitglieder

Committee on EPO FinancesFull Members

Commission des Finances de l’OEBMembres titulaires

DE – Walter Dabringhaus FR – Pierre GendraudGB – Jim Boff*

IE – Lindsay Casey


IT – Alessandra Longoni NL – Erik Bartelds PL – Ewa Malewska

HarmonisierungsausschussOrdentliche Mitglieder

Harmonization CommitteeFull Members

Commission d’HarmonisationMembres titulaires

BE – Francis Leyder**CH – Axel Braun

DE – Lothar SteilingFR – Philippe ConanIT – Filippo Santi

GB – John D. Brown*SE – Nils Ekström


BG – Natasha AndreevaFI – Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

IT – Stefano GibertiLI – Anke AllwardtLT – Gediminas Pranevicius

PL – Marek BeslerSM – Paolo Ferriero

Ausschuss für StreitregelungOrdentliche Mitglieder

Litigation CommitteeFull Members

La Commission procédure judiciaireMembres titulaires

AT – Werner KovacBE – Pieter VandersteenBG – Ivanka PakidanskaCH – Peter Thomsen**CY – Christos A. TheodoulouCZ – Michal GuttmannDE – Matthias WagnerDK – Nicolai KanvedEE – Mart KoppelES – Enrique ArmijoFI – Kirsikka EtuahoFR – Axel Casalonga*

GB – Edward Lyndon-StanfordHR – Mladen VukmirHU – Ferenc Török°IE – Triona WalsheIS – Gunnar HardarsonIT – Giuseppe ColucciLI – Bernd-Günther HarmannLT – Vilija ViesunaiteLU – Mathis BrückLV – Voldemars Osmans

MC – Günther SchmalzNL – Leonardus SteenbeekNO – Haakon Thue LiePL – Lech BuryPT – Nuno CruzRO – Ileana FloreaSE – Stina Sjögren PaulssonSI – Nina DrnovsekSK – Vladimir NeuschlSM – Gian Giuseppe MasciopintoTR – Aydin Deris


AT – Harald NemecCZ – Eva HalaxovaDE – Gabriele MohslerDK – Ejvind ChristiansenES – Inigo EloseguiFI – Arja WeckmanFR – Pierre Gendraud

GB – Terry JohnsonHR – Sanja VukinaIE – Jonathan WhiteIS – Einar FriðrikssonIT – Antonella De GregoriLI – Roland WildiLT – Ausra PakenieneLU – Valérie Mellet

NL – Paul ClarksonNO – Kari SimonsenPL – Anna KorbelaRO – Dan PuscasuSE – Lars EstreenSK – Katarina Bad'urováTR – Serra Coral


48 Information from the Secretariat Information 1/2014

Redaktionsausschuss Editorial Committee Commission de Rédaction

AT – Walter Holzer DE – Albert WiedemannFR – Thierry Schuffenecker

GB – Terry Johnson

Ausschuss fürOnline-Kommunikation (OCC)

OnlineCommunications Committee (OCC)

Commission pour lesCommunications en Ligne (OCC)

DE – Ludger EckeyDK – Peter IndahlFI – Antero Virkkala*

FR – Catherine MénèsGB – John GrayIE – David Brophy**

IT – Luciano BosottiNL – Johan van der VeerRO – Doina Greavu

Ausschuss für PatentdokumentationOrdentliche Mitglieder

Patent Documentation CommitteeFull Members

Commission documentation brevetsMembres titulaires

AT – Birgitta Gassner DK – Peter Indahl* /**FI – Tord Langenskiöld

IE – Brian O’Neill


FR – Jean-Robert Callon de Lamarck GB – John GrayIT – Alessandro Guerci

NL – Bart van Wezenbeek

Interne RechnungsprüferOrdentliche Mitglieder

Internal AuditorsFull Members

Commissaires aux Comptes internesMembres titulaires

CH – Hansjörg Kley FR – Philippe Conan


LI – Bernd-Günther Harmann

Wahlausschuss Electoral Committee Commission pour les élections

CH – Heinz Breiter CH – Markus Müller* IS – Árni Vilhjálmsson

Ständiger BeratenderAusschuss beim EPA (SACEPO)

Standing Advisory Committeebefore the EPO (SACEPO)

Comité consultatif permanentauprès de l’OEB (SACEPO)

epi-Delegierte epi Delegates Délégués de l’epi

BE – Francis LeyderDE – Gabriele Leißler-GerstlFI – Antero Virkkala

GB – Jim BoffGB – Chris MercerGB – Simon WrightIT – Luciano Bosotti

LU – Sigmar LampeNL – Antonius TangenaRO – Mihaela Teodorescu

SACEPO –Arbeitsgruppe Regeln

SACEPO –Working Party on Rules

SACEPO –Groupe de travail Règles

BE – Francis Leyder GB – Chris Mercer LU – Sigmar Lampe

SACEPO –Arbeitsgruppe Richtlinien

SACEPO –Working Party on Guidelines

SACEPO –Groupe de travail Directives

DE – Gabriele Leißler-Gerstl DK – Anette Hegner GR – Manolis Samuelides

SACEPO –PDI

SACEPO –PDI

SACEPO –PDI

AT – Brigitta Gassner DK – Peter Indahl IR – Brian O’NeillFI – Tord Langenskiöld

*Chair /**Secretary

NEU

SchultePatentgesetz mit Europäischem PatentübereinkommenKommentar9. Aufl age 2013, 3.016 Seiten, gebunden, inkl. jBook, € 228,–ISBN 978-3-452-27586-8Heymanns Kommentare

Online im Shop bestellen:www.carl-heymanns.deGebührenfreie Bestellhotline:0800 7763665Im Buchhandel erhältlich.

kostenloser Online-Zugriff durchsuchbar wie eine Datenbank verlinkt mit Normen und Entscheidungen

Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbH • Postfach 2352 • 56513 NeuwiedTelefon 02631 8012222 • Fax 02631 8012223 • [email protected] • www.wolterskluwer.de

Mit PatNovG 2013

Die Kommentierung anhand der deutschen und europäischen Rechtsprechung ist ganz auf die Bedürfnisse der Praxis ausgerichtet: Bündige Kürze, klare Sprache und Übersicht-lichkeit der Darstellung zeichnen das Werk aus. Deutsches und europäisches Recht werden in den harmonisierten Bereichen ge-meinsam erläutert. Auf Abweichungen wird jeweils hingewiesen. Wo beide Rechte sich unterscheiden, sind sie getrennt dargestellt.

Der Herausgeber:Dr. Rainer Schulte ist Vorsitzender der juristischen Beschwerdekammer des EPA und Richter am Bundespatentgericht i.R.

Die 9. Aufl age – ein Standardwerk für jeden Praktiker – bringt den Kommentar auf denneuesten Stand und berücksichtigt alle gesetzlichen Änderungen, insbesondere:

das Patentnovellierungsgesetz (PatNovG) mit den zahlreichen Änderungen von PatG, PatKostG, IntPatÜG;

die Verordnung zur Änderung von ERVDPMAV, DPMAV, EAPatV, PatKostZahlVO, DPMAVerwKostV;

die neue EuGVVO.

„Schultes Neunte“

□ Einhefter: 4 Seiten, Heftmitte € 5.545,–

Preis pro Tausend

□ Beilagen: bis 25 g (min. 105 x 150 mm – max. 200 x 290 mm)

€ 399,–

je weitere 5 g: € 30,–

epi InformationAufl age: 10.700 ExemplareErscheinungsweise: 4 x jährlich

AnzeigenbestellscheinFax: 0221 94373-17797

Mediaberater:

Karsten KühnMedia Sales Manager

Tel.: 0221 [email protected]

Format Breite x Höhe Preis

□ 1/1 Seite * 210 mm x 297 mm € 2.995,–

□ 1/2 Seite * 186 mm x 134 mm € 1.595,–

□ 1/2 Seite * 92 mm x 270 mm € 1.595,–

□ 1/4 Seite 92 mm x 134 mm € 845,–

□ 1/4 Seite 186 mm x 65 mm € 845,–

□ 1/8 Seite 92 mm x 65 mm € 495,–

* SONDERAKTION bei Buchung bis 31.12.2014: Der Farbzuschlag in Höhe von 3 x € 299,– entfällt.

Zeitschriftenformat: 210 mm x 297 mm · Satzspiegel: 186 mm x 270 mm · Anschnitt: 216 mm x 303 mm Ablauf: Nach der Buchung erhalten Sie eine Auftragsbestätigung mit der Nachricht, welche Informationen und Daten wir von Ihnen benötigen. Preise: Alle Preisangaben zzgl. ges. MwSt. AE: Der Verlag gewährt 15% Mittler-Agenturprovision auf den Nettopreis. AGB: Für unsere Vertragsabschlüsse und Anzeigenaufträge gelten unsere AGB, die Sie unter http://www.wolterskluwer.de/kontakt/mediadaten/agb fi nden. Ausgenommen von diesem Angebot sind bestehende Sondervereinbarungen.

E-Mail

PLZ / Ort

Ansprechpartner

Telefon

Ort, Datum

Straße, Hausnummer

Name / Firma / Kanzlei

Unterschrift

Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbHLuxemburger Str. 449 • 50939 Köln • E-Mail: [email protected] • Telefon: 0221 94373-7797 • Fax: 0221 94373-17797

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Köln • HRB 58843 Amtsgericht KölnGeschäftsführer: Dr. Ulrich Hermann (Vorsitz), Michael Gloss, Christian Lindemann, Frank Schellmann • USt.-ID.Nr. 188836808

www.gewerblicher-rechtsschutz.de

Heymanns Gewerblicher RechtsschutzDas Spezialistenportal für Patentanwälte und Anwälte im Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

NEU

Jetzt mit neuester

JURION-Technologie!

Jetzt 4 Wochen kostenlos testen!

Mit den führenden Standardkommentaren

Schulte, Patentgesetz; Ströbele/Hacker,

Markengesetz und Singer/Stauder, EPÜ

aus dem Carl Heymanns Verlag.

Themenportale

Eisenführ/SchennenGemeinschaftsmarkenverordnungKommentar4. Aufl age 2014, 2.020 Seiten,gebunden, inkl. jBook,€ 218,–ISBN 978-3-452-27896-8Heymanns Taschenkommentare


NEU

Der Kommentar konzentriert sich unter weitgehendem Verzicht auf wissenschaftliche Streitfragen, gleichwohl nicht ohne kritische Beleuchtung, darauf, wie sich das Gemeinschaftsmarken-recht heute in der Praxis des Amtes und der Rechtsprechung des EuGH darstellt.

Das erweiterte Autorenteam:PA Dipl.-Ing. Günther Eisenführ, Dr. Detlef Schennen, RA Dr. Julian Eberhardt, RAin Marlene Feddermann, RA Harald Förster, RAin Yvonne Holderied, RAin Dr. Stefanie Overhage, RA Ulrich Sander

„Der ‚Eisenführ/Schennen‘ bringt seinen Nutzer schnell auf den Stand der Entschei-dungspraxis des HABM und der Rechtspre-chung. Er bleibt damit die unerlässliche Hilfe für alle, die mit den erforderlichen Vorprüfun-gen und der Anmeldung selbst, mit Wider-spruchsverfahren und weiteren Streitigkeiten hinsichtlich der Gemeinschaftsmarke befasst sind.“

RA Constantin Rehaag, Frankfurt/Main, zu Voraufl age in: Mitteilungen 04/11


Der bewährte Kommentar aus europäischer PerspektiveDer erste zur GMV bereits in 4. Aufl age!

Das Standardwerk zur Beurteilung von Kollisionsfällen

NEU

Der „Richter/Stoppel“ bietet eine alphabe-tisch geordnete Aufl istung aller Waren und Dienstleistungen, deren Ähnlichkeitsverhält-nis zu anderen Waren oder Dienstleistungen Gegenstand der hier erfassten Spruchpraxis gewesen ist. Ausgewertet werden u.a. Ent-scheidungen des BPatG und BGH sowie Entscheidungen aus Österreich, der Schweiz, den Widerspruchsabteilungen und Be-schwerdekammern des HABM in Alicante und der Gerichte der Europäischen Union.

Für die Neuaufl age wurden aus den Entschei-dungen zur Markenkollision nahezu 800 neue Ähnlichkeitsfälle eingearbeitet, wobei der quantitative Schwerpunkt wie schon in den Vorjahren immer mehr bei der Spruch-praxis des HABM und den europäischen Institutionen liegt. Selbstverständlich hat auch die Entscheidung des EuGH in Sachen „IP Translator“ Berücksichtigung gefunden, da es hierbei nicht nur um die Abfassung von Waren- und Dienstleistungsverzeichnissen geht, sondern vor allem um die Auslegung von Oberbegriffen der Nizzaer Klassifi kation und damit den Schutzumfang von Marken und das Verhältnis von Waren und Dienst-leistungen zueinander.

Richter/StoppelDie Ähnlichkeit von Waren und Dienstleistungen16. Aufl age 2014, 450 Seiten, Leinen, € 178,–ISBN 978-3-452-27996-5



Das komplette Wissen für Beruf und Patentanwaltsprüfung

NEU

Im Mittelpunkt des Handbuchs steht das Rüstzeug für den Patentanwaltsberuf: die Vertretung und Beratung von Mandanten, das Mandatsverhältnis (Vertrag, Vergütung und Haftungsfragen) bis hin zur Vertrags-gestaltung und den berufsrechtlichen Pfl ichten.

An Fallbeispielen und Abbildungen wird alles erläutert, was ein Patentanwalt für den Berufsalltag und ein Bewerber für die Patentanwaltsprüfung benötigt, insbeson-dere die nationalen und internationalen Schutzrechtssysteme.

Die 4. Aufl age berücksichtigt die neusten Entwicklungen in Rechtsprechung und Gesetz und deren Auswirkungen auf die tägliche Praxis des Patentanwalts. Berück-sichtigt sind insbesondere PatNovG und das neue Designgesetz sowie das EU-Patent-Reform-Paket zum Einheitspatent und einheitlichen Patentgericht.

Der Autor:Prof. Dr. Ing. Dr. Jur. Uwe Fitzner ist Patent- und Rechtsanwalt in Ratingen.

FitznerDer PatentanwaltBeruf und Beratung im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz4. Aufl age 2014, ca. 650 Seiten,gebunden, inkl. jBook,ca. € 118,–ISBN 978-3-452-28133-3In Vorbereitung für Juli 2014




Die einzigartige Darstellung des vollständigen Designrechts


NEU

Das Werk liefert eine in dieser Form einzigartige Darstellung des vollständigen Designrechtes mit seinen Bezügen zum Urheber- und Wettbewerbsrecht anhand kommentierter Muster und Formulare.

Die Gliederung orientiert sich an den typischen Stationen der Praxis: 1. Schutzerlangung für Designleistungen, 2. Durchsetzung der Rechte im Verletzungsfall sowie 3. wirtschaftliche Verwertung von Designleistungen.

Praktiker fi nden gezielte Handlungsanleitun-gen zu den wichtigen Fragen der Anmelde-verfahren vor den Ämtern (DPMA, HABM, WIPO), der Verletzungsverfahren vor den Gerichten sowie zur Vertragsgestaltung für die erfolgreiche Kommerzialisierung von Designerleistungen. Sämtliche Vorlagen ermöglichen dem Nutzer eine schnelle und sichere Lösung für den Einzelfall ohne dabei das Gesamt-bild aus dem Blick zu verlieren. Zahlreiche Schautafeln und Übersichten erleichtern den Überblick. Viele Praxis- und Strategietipps vermitteln Spezial-Know-how.

Hoffmann/KleespiesFormular-Kommentar Designrecht2014, ca. 900 Seiten, gebunden, inkl. jBook, ca. € 188,–ISBN 978-3-452-27840-1In Vorbereitung für Juli 2014



Mit neuem

Designgesetz

Vorstand / Board / Bureau

Präsident / President / PrésidentNL – Antonius Tangena

Vize-Präsidenten / Vice-Presidents / Vice-PrésidentsDE – Gabriele Leißler-GerstlRO – Mihaela Teodorescu

Generalsekretär / Secretary General / Secrétaire GénéralPT – João Pereira da Cruz

Stellvertretender Generalsekretär /Deputy Secretary General / Secrétaire Général AdjointCH – Michael Liebetanz

Schatzmeister / Treasurer / TrésorierBE – Claude Quintelier

Stellvertretender Schatzmeister / Deputy TreasurerTrésorier AdjointCZ – František Kania

Mitglieder / Members / Membres

AL – Vladimir NikaAT – Friedrich SchweinzerBG – Natasha AndreevaCY – Christos A. TheodoulouDE – Lothar SteilingDK – Bo Hammer JensenEE – Margus SarapES – Luis-Alfonso Durán MoyaFI – Marjut HonkasaloFR – Jacques BauvirFR – Laurent NussGB – Edward Lyndon-StanfordGB – Simon WrightGR – Vassiliki BakatselouHR – Davor BoškovicHU – Ádám SzentpéteriIE – Lindsay CaseyIS – Thorlakur JonssonIT – Paolo RambelliLI – Burkhard BogensbergerLT – Reda ZabolieneLU – Bernd KutschLV – Jevgenijs FortunaMC – Günther SchmalzMK – Valentin PepeljugoskiMT – Luigi SansoneNO – Dag ThranePL – Anna Slominska-DziubekRS – Slobodan PetosevicSE – Lars EstreenSI – Gregor MacekSK – Dagmar CechvalováSM – Andrea TiburziTR – Selda Arkan

epi / P.O. Box 26 01 12 / 80058 Munich, Germany

EPI Heft 01-2014 - BARDEHLE PAGENBERG: Startseite · I – Information concerning epi 2 Editorial 3...

Documents

Transcript of EPI Heft 01-2014 - BARDEHLE PAGENBERG: Startseite · I – Information concerning epi 2 Editorial 3...