DOCSLIB.ORG

2007 EPO Board of Appeal Case Law. Special Edition of the Official

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2007 EPO Board of Appeal Case Law. Special Edition of the Official 2008 Rechtsprechung Case Law Jurisprudence Europäisches Patentamt (EPA) European Patent Offi ce (EPO) 2007 Offi ce européen des brevets (OEB) Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern des EPA Munich The Hague Vienna Sonderausgabe zum Amtsblatt 2008 Headquarters Patentlaan 2 Rennweg 12 EPO Board of Appeal Case Law Erhardtstr. 27 2288 EE Rijswijk 1030 Vienna Special edition of the Offi cial Journal 2008 80469 Munich Netherlands Austria Germany Tel. +31 (0)70 340-2040 Tel. +43 (0)1 52126-0 La jurisprudence des chambres de recours de l’OEB Tel. +49 (0)89 2399-0 Postal address Postal address Edition spéciale du Journal offi ciel 2008 Postal address Postbus 5818 Postfach 90 80298 Munich 2280 HV Rijswijk 1031 Vienna Germany Netherlands Austria Berlin Brussels Bureau Gitschiner Str. 103 Avenue de Cortenbergh, 60 10969 Berlin 1000 Brussels Germany Belgium Tel. +49 (0)30 25901-0 Tel. +32 (0)2 27415-90 Postal address 10958 Berlin Germany www.epo.org ISSN 0170/9291 Amtsblatt des Offi cial Journal Journal offi ciel de Europäischen of the European l’Offi ce européen Patentamts Patent Offi ce des brevets Herausgeber und Schriftleitung Published and edited by Publication et rédaction Europäisches Patentamt European Patent Offi ce Offi ce européen des brevets Direktion 5.2.2 Directorate 5.2.2 Direction 5.2.2 80298 München 80298 Munich 80298 Munich Deutschland Germany Allemagne Tel. +49 (0)89 2399-5225 Tel. +49 (0)89 2399-5225 Tél. +49 (0)89 2399-5225 Fax +49 (0)89 2399-5298 Fax +49 (0)89 2399-5298 Fax +49 (0)89 2399-5298 offi [email protected] offi [email protected] offi [email protected] Für den Inhalt verantwortlich Responsible for the content Responsable de la rédaction Referat Wissenschaftlicher Department Legal Research Service Recherche juridique/ Dienst/Bibliothek der Service/Library of the Boards of Bibliothèque des chambres de Beschwerdekammern Appeal recours © EPA © EPO © OEB Bestellungen sind zu richten an: Please send your order to: Les commandes doivent être Europäisches Patentamt European Patent Offi ce adressées à : Dienststelle Wien Vienna sub-offi ce Offi ce européen des brevets Postfach 90 Postfach 90 Agence de Vienne 1031 Wien 1031 Vienna Postfach 90 Österreich Austria 1031 Vienne Tel. +43 (0)1 52126-411 Tel. +43 (0)1 52126-411 Autriche Fax +43 (0)1 52126-2495 Fax +43 (0)1 52126-2495 Tél. +43 (0)1 52126-411 [email protected] [email protected] Fax +43 (0)1 52126-2495 [email protected] Druck Printer Impression Imprimerie Centrale S.A. Imprimerie Centrale S.A. Imprimerie Centrale S.A. 1024 Luxemburg 1024 Luxembourg 1024 Luxembourg Luxemburg Luxembourg Luxembourg 2008 Sonderausgabe ABl. EPA / Special edition OJ EPO / Edition spéciale JO OEB I RECHTSPRECHUNG DER BOARD OF APPEAL AND LA JURISPRUDENCE DES BESCHWERDEKAMMERN ENLARGED BOARD OF CHAMBRES DE RECOURS UND DER GROSSEN APPEAL CASE LAW 2007 ET DE LA GRANDE BESCHWERDEKAMMER IM CHAMBRE DE RECOURS JAHR 2007 EN 2007 Inhaltsverzeichnis Table of Contents Table des matières VORWORT des Vizepräsidenten 1 FOREWORD by the Vice-President 1 AVANT-PROPOS du Vice-Président 1 TEIL I 2 PART I 2 PREMIERE PARTIE 2 TÄTIGKEIT DER BOARDS OF APPEAL ACTIVITIES ACTIVITES DES CHAMBRES DE BESCHWERDEKAMMERN IN 2007 2 RECOURS EN 2007 2 IM JAHR 2007 2 1. Einleitung 2 1. Introduction 2 1. Introduction 2 2. Statistik 2 2. Statistics 2 2. Données statistiques 2 3. Weitere Erläuterungen zur Tätigkeit der 3. More about the boards' activities 7 3. Autres indications concernant les activités des Beschwerdekammern 7 chambres de recours 7 3.1 Verfahren vor der Großen Beschwer- 3.1 Enlarged Board of Appeal 7 3.1 Procédure devant la Grande Chambre de dekammer 7 recours 7 3.2 Art der Erledigung in Verfahren vor den 3.2 Outcome of proceedings before the technical 3.2 Affaires réglées devant les chambres de Technischen Beschwerdekammern 9 boards of appeal 9 recours techniques 9 3.3 Verfahren vor der Beschwerdekammer in 3.3 Proceedings before the Disciplinary Board of 3.3 Procédures devant la chambre de recours Disziplinarangelegenheiten 10 Appeal 10 statuant en matière disciplinaire 10 3.3.1 Eingänge 2007 10 3.3.1 New cases 2007 10 3.3.1 Recours reçus en 2007 10 3.3.2 Erledigungen 2007 11 3.3.2 Cases settled 2007 11 3.3.2 Affaires réglées en 2007 11 3.3.3 Anhängige Verfahren am 31. Dezember 3.3.3 Cases pending on 31 December 2007 11 3.3.3 Procédures en instance au 31 décembre 2007 11 2007 11 3.4 Verfahrensdauer 11 3.4 Length of proceedings 11 3.4 Durée des procédures 11 3.5 Verteilung der Beschwerden und mündlichen 3.5 Breakdown of appeals and oral proceedings 3.5 Répartition des recours et des procédures Verhandlungen nach der Verfahrenssprache 11 by language 11 orales selon la langue de la procédure 11 4. Allgemeine Entwicklungen in der 4. Developments in Directorate­General 3 11 4. Evolution générale de la situation au sein de la Generaldirektion 3 11 Direction générale 3 11 5. Kontakte zu nationalen Gerichten, Anmeldern 5. Contacts with national courts, applicants and 5. Contacts avec les juridictions nationales, les und Vertretern 12 representatives 12 demandeurs et les mandataires agréés 12 6. Personalstand und Geschäftsverteilung 12 6. Number of staff and distribution of 6. Effectifs et répartition des affaires 12 responsibilities 12 7. Information über die neueste Rechtsprechung 7. Information on recent board of appeal case 7. Informations relatives à la jurisprudence récente der Beschwerdekammern 12 law 12 des chambres de recours 12 TEIL II 14 PART II 14 DEUXIEME PARTIE 14 RECHTSPRECHUNG DER BOARDS OF APPEAL AND LA JURISPRUDENCE DES BESCHWERDEKAMMERN UND DER ENLARGED BOARD OF APPEAL CHAMBRES DE RECOURS ET DE LA GROSSEN BESCHWERDEKAMMER CASE LAW 2007 14 GRANDE CHAMBRE DE RECOURS IM JAHR 2007 14 EN 2007 14 I. PATENTIERBARKEIT 14 I. PATENTABILITY 14 I. BREVETABILITE 14 A. Patentfähige Erfindungen 14 A. Patentable inventions 14 A. Inventions brevetables 14 1. Technischer Charakter der Erfindung 14 1. Technical character of the invention 14 1. Nature technique de l'invention 14 2. Behandlung von technischen und 2. Treatment of technical and non-technical 2. Traitement des caractéristiques techniques nichttechnischen Merkmalen – erfinderische features – inventive step 17 et non techniques – activité inventive 17 Tätigkeit 17 B. Ausnahmen von der B. Exceptions to patentability 20 B. Exceptions à la brevetabilité 20 Patentierbarkeit 20 1. Sittenwidrige Erfindungen 20 1. Inventions contrary to "ordre public" or 1. Inventions contraires à l'ordre public ou aux morality 20 bonnes mœurs 20 2. Im Wesentlichen biologische Verfahren zur 2. Essentially biological processes for the 2. Procédés essentiellement biologiques Züchtung von Pflanzen und Tieren 21 production of plants or animals 21 d'obtention de végétaux ou d'animaux 21 II Sonderausgabe ABl. EPA / Special edition OJ EPO / Edition spéciale JO OEB 2008 C. Neuheit 23 C. Novelty 23 C. Nouveauté 23 1. Zugänglichmachung 23 1. Availability to the public 23 1. Accessibilité au public 23 1.1 Prospekte 23 1.1 Brochures 23 1.1 Prospectus 23 1.2 Beweislast – Veröffentlichungstag 23 1.2 Burden of proof – publication date 23 1.2 Charge de la preuve – date de publication 23 2. Feststellung von Unterschieden – 2. Ascertaining differences – extent of 2. Constatation de différences – étendue de la Schutzbereich 24 protection 24 protection 24 3. Neuheit der Verwendung 25 3. Novelty of use 25 3. Nouveauté de l'utilisation 25 3.1 Zweite (bzw. weitere) medizinische 3.1 Second (or further) medical use 25 3.1 Deuxième (ou autre) application Verwendung 25 thérapeutique 25 3.1.1 Neuheit der therapeutischen Anwendung 25 3.1.1 Novelty of the therapeutic application 25 3.1.1 Nouveauté de l'application thérapeutique 25 3.1.2 Erzeugnisanspruch nach Artikel 54 (5) 3.1.2 Product claim in accordance with 3.1.2 Revendication de produit conformément à EPÜ 2000 27 Article 54(5) EPC 2000 27 l'article 54(5) CBE 2000 27 3.2 Zweite (bzw. weitere) nichtmedizinische 3.2 Second (or further) non-medical use 28 3.2 Deuxième (ou autre) application non Verwendung 28 thérapeutique 28 3.2.1 Anspruch auf die Verwendung eines 3.2.1 Claims directed to the use of a process 28 3.2.1 Revendications portant sur l'utilisation d'un Verfahrens 28 procédé 28 D. Erfinderische Tätigkeit 30 D. Inventive step 30 D. Activité inventive 30 1. Nächstliegender Stand der Technik – Wahl des 1. Closest prior art – selection of the most 1. Etat de la technique le plus proche – sélection erfolgversprechendsten Ausgangspunkts 30 promising starting point 30 du point de départ le plus proche 30 2. Technische Aufgabe – Nachveröffentlichte 2. Technical problem – post-published 2. Problème technique – documents publiés Dokumente 30 documents 30 ultérieurement 30 3. Erfolgserwartung – "Try and see"-Ansatz 32 3. Expectation of success – "try and see" 3. Espérance de réussite – approche "try and attitude 32 see" 32 E. Gewerbliche Anwendbarkeit 32 E. Industrial applicability 32 E. Applicabilité industrielle 32 II. ANFORDERUNGEN AN DIE II. CONDITIONS TO BE MET BY AN II. CONDITIONS EXIGEES POUR LA PATENTANMELDUNG 33 APPLICATION 33 DEMANDE DE BREVET 33 A. Ausreichende Offenbarung 33 A. Sufficiency of disclosure 33 A. Suffisance de l'exposé 33 1. Für die Beurteilung der ausreichenden 1. Parts of the application relevant for assessing 1. Eléments de la demande déterminants pour Offenbarung maßgebende Teile der sufficiency of disclosure 33 l'appréciation de la suffisance de l'exposé 33 Anmeldung 33 2. Für die Beurteilung der ausreichenden 2. Knowledge of skilled person relevant for 2. Connaissances de l'homme du métier Offenbarung maßgebliches Wissen des assessing sufficiency of disclosure 34 déterminantes pour l'appréciation de la Fachmanns 34 suffisance de l'exposé 34 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appeal PART VI - APPEALS PROCEDURE 1
    Key to the European Patent Convention Edition 2015 Part VI Article 106 - Decisions subject to appeal PART VI - APPEALS PROCEDURE 1. decisions [A106(1)] G0005/91 [T0479/04] Article 106i - Decisions subject to appeal Composition of the opposition division, partiality. (1) An appeal shall lie from decisions1 of the Receiving Section2, Examining Divisions, Opposition Divisions3 Under the EPC is no legal basis for separate appeal and the Legal Division. It4 shall have suspensive5 ef- against an order by a director of a department of first fect. instance such as an opposition division rejecting an ob- 6 jection to a member of the division on the ground of (2) A decision which does not terminate proceedings suspected partiality. The composition of the opposition as regards one of the parties can only7 be appealed to- 8 9 10 division could however be challenged on such a ground gether with the final decision , unless the decision in an appeal against its final decision or against a sepa- 11 12 allows a separate appeal . rately appealable interlocutory decision under article (3) The right to file an appeal against decisions relating 106 (3) EPC. to the apportionment or fixing of costs in opposition proceedings may be restricted in the Implementing D0015/95 [D0028/97, D0001/98, D0023/99, Regulations. D0024/99, D0009/03, D0025/05, D0004/11] Ref.: Art. 104 R. 63, 65, 68, 90 Of the Disciplinary Committee. PCT: R. 82ter Appealability of a Disciplinary Committee decision dismissing a complaint. A Disciplinary Committee de- cision dismissing a complaint is a decision in the legal 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Reform in Serbia 2008–2012
    VESNA RAKIĆ- VODINELIĆ ANA KNEŽEVI Ć BOJOVIĆ MARIO RELJANOVIĆ JUDICIAL REFORM IN SERBIA 2008–2012 CENTAR ZA UNAPREĐIVANJE PRAVNIH STUDIJA prof. dr Vesna Rakić Vodinelić • dr Ana Knežević Bojović dr Mario Reljanović JUDICIAL REFORM IN SERBIA 2008–2012 Library Editor Prof. dr Jovica Trkulja Published by Center For Advanced Legal Studies Goce Delceva 36, 11 000 Beograd tel: 2608 360, fax:2608 346 e-mail: [email protected], www.cups.rs For The Publisher prof. dr dr.h.c. Vladimir Vodinelic Reviewed by prof. dr Momčilo Grubač prof. dr Mihajlo Dika prof. dr Zoran Ivošević Translated by Ana Knežević Bojović Language Editing Svetlana Imperl Prepress and printing „Dosije studio“, Beograd Circulation 500 copies ISBN 978-86-7546-076-3 dr VESNA RAKIĆ VODINELIĆ dr ANA KNEŽEVIĆ BOJOVIĆ dr MARIO RELJANOVIĆ JUDICIAL REFORM IN SERBIA 2008–2012 Belgrade 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface. 9 Abbreviations. 11 Vesna Rakić-Vodinelić PART ONE I: REFORMING THE JUDICIARY – THE 2008–2010 PERIOD . 13 1. Introductory Observations . 13 1.1. Is There a Formula of „Good Judiciary“? . 13 1.2. Elements of the „Good Judiciary“ Formula. 17 1.3. Judicial Councils . 18 1.4. Legal Reception of European Standards Concerning the Judiciary in Serbia . 22 2. Normative Grounds . 35 2.1. International Legal, Theoretic, Constitutional and Statutory Grounds of the Latest Judicial Reform . 35 2.2. The Constitution and the ConStitutional act for the Implementation Of the Constitution . 39 2.3. Judicial Organisation Statutes . 44 2.4. Decision on Establishing the Criteria and Norms for Assessing the Competence, Capacity and Worthiness for the Appointment of Judges and Court Presidents .
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Border Cooperation in the Execution Of
    Crime, Law and Social Change (2020) 74:381–404 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-020-09900-7 Cross-border cooperation in the execution of sentences between the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium: an empirical and comparative legal study on the implementation of EU framework decisions 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA Robin Hofmann1 & Hans Nelen1 Published online: 14 May 2020 # The Author(s) 2020 Abstract This study aims at comparing legal practices in the execution of sentences within the framework of cross-border cooperation between The Netherlands, Belgium and Ger- many. Based on quantitative and qualitative data, the implementation of the EU Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA on the transfer of prisoners and 2008/947/JHA on the mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions in the three countries is analyzed. Interview data with legal practitioners suggest that social rehabilitation, consents of the convicted individuals and the actual place of living, play an important role in the initiations of transfers. Empirical evidence that both Framework Decisions are increasingly instrumentalized for migration control purposes, as the current scien- tific debate suggest, is weak in the three case countries. The relatively small numbers of transfers of prisoners and judgements show, that the transfer instrument is still not implemented to its full potential. This study exemplifies remaining challenges connect- ed to the principle of mutual trust in the daily practice of cross-border legal cooperation within the EU. Keywords Comparative criminal law . Penology . Cross-border cooperation . Sentencing . Crimmigration . Prison population . Prisoner transfer * Robin Hofmann [email protected] 1 Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Bouillonstraat 1-3, 6211 LHMaastricht, The Netherlands 382 Hofmann R., Nelen H.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Court Judgment No. 237/2005, of September 26 (Unofficial Translation)
    Constitutional Court Judgment No. 237/2005, of September 26 (Unofficial translation) The Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court comprising Mr. Guillermo Jiménez Sánchez, President, Mr. Vicente Conde Martín de Hijas, Ms. Elisa Pérez Vera, Mr. Ramón Rodríguez Arribas and Mr. Pascual Sala Sánchez, Judges, has rendered IN THE NAME OF THE KING the following J U D G M E N T in the appeal for protection proceedings Nos. 1744-2003, 1755-2003 and 1773-2003, the first of which was filed by Ms. Rigoberta Menchú Tumn, Ms. Silvia Solórzano Foppa, Ms. Silvia Julieta Solórzano Foppa, Mr. Santiago Solórzano Ureta, Mr. Julio Alfonso Solórzano Foppa, Mr. Lorenzo Villanueva Villanueva, Ms. Juliana Villanueva Villanueva, Mr. Lorenzo Jesús Villanueva Imizocz, Ms. Ana María Gran Cirera, Ms. Montserrat Gibert Grant, Ms. Ana María Gibert Gran, Ms. Concepción Gran Cirera, Mr. José Narciso Picas Vila, Ms. Aura Elena Farfán, Ms. Rosario Pu Gómez, C. I. Est. Prom. Derechos Humanos, Mr. Arcadio Alonzo Fernández, Conavigua, Famdegua and Ms. Ana Lucrecia Molina Theissen, represented by Court Procurator Ms. Gloria Rincón Mayoral and defended by the attorney Mr. Carlos Vila Calvo, and by the Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras, represented by Court Procurator Ms. Isabel Cañedo Vega and defended by the attorney Mr. Antonio García Martín; No. 1755-2003 by the Asociación de Derechos Humanos de España, represented by Court Procurator Ms. Irene Gutiérrez Carrillo and defended by the attorney Mr. Víctor Hortal Fernández; and No. 1773-2003 by Asociación libre de Abogados, Asociación contra la Tortura, Associació d’Amistat amb el Poble de Guatemala, Asociación Centro de Documentación y Solidaridad con América Latina y África and Comité Solidaridad Internacionalista de Zaragoza represented by Court Procurator Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution on Inadmissibility
    * REPUBLIKA E KOSOVEs - PEnYJiJIHKA~ KOCOBO - REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO GJYKATA KUSHTETUESE YCTABHM CY,lJ; CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Prishtina, on 17 December 2020 Ref. no.:RK 1665/20 This translation is unofficial and serves for informational purposes only. RESOLUTION ON INADMISSIBILITY In Case No. KI189/19 Applicant Alban Miftaraj Constitutional review of Judgment [ARJ-UZPV. No. 85/2019] of the Supreme Court of 26 June 2019 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO composed of: Arta Rama-Hajrizi, President Bajram Ljatifi, Deputy President Bekim Sejdiu, Judge Selvete Gerxhaliu-Krasniqi, Judge Gresa Caka-Nimani, Judge Safet Hoxha, Judge Radomir Laban, Judge Remzije Istrefi-Peci, Judge, and Nexhmi Rexhepi, Judge Applicant 1. The Referral was submitted by Alban Miftaraj, with permanent address in Prishtina (hereinafter: the Applicant). 1 Challenged decision 2. The Applicant challenges the constitutionality of Judgment [ARJ-UZPV. No. 85/2019] of the Supreme Court of 26 June 2019, which was served on him on 15 July 2019. Subject matter 3. The subject matter of the Referral is the constitutional review of the challenged Judgment [ARJ-UZPV. No. 85/2019] of the Supreme Court, of 26 June 2019, which allegedly violates the Applicant's rights guaranteed by Articles 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], 49 [Right to Work and Exercise Profession] and 55 [Limitations on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo (hereinafter: the Constitution), in conjunction with Article 6 [Right to a fair trial] of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the ECHR). Legal basis 4. The Referral is based on paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, Articles 22 [Processing Referrals] and 47 [Individual Requests] of Law No.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Claims Proceedings in Practice a Few Lessons Learned
    Mass Claims Proceedings in Practice A Few Lessons Learned By Pierre A. Karrer* Every mass claims process is different from the next. Mass claims pro- ceedings are set up by usually complex political processes. Legal and moral is- sues come to the fore. Money matters, but it is particularly important to see that somebody still cares. The relevant facts are difficult to establish and are often traumatic. to the next, a few lessons Still, as one goes from one mass claims1 process may be learned and may be worth recording. 1. SHOULD MASS CLAIMS COMMISSIONS BE ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS? 1.1. No. They should, however, be composed and operate to some extent like arbi- tral tribunals. 1.2. To be composed in arbitral fashion gives a mass claims commission legitimacy. The two sides of the controversy, or at least the champions of two sides of a controversy which may involve many more players, have a say about the com- 2 position of the commission. * Dr. iur.(Zurich); LLM (Yale), FCIArb; Hon. President, ASA Swiss Arbitration Associa- tion; Chairman, Property Claims Commission of the German Foundation "Remembrance, Responsi- bility and the Future." The views here expressed are the author's, not necessarily the Commission's. I. For a presentation of the Property Claims Commission's work which is now ending, see Karrer, "Mass Claims to provide rough justice", in Festschrift Peter Schlosser, 2005. See also www.iom.int; www.compensation-for-forced-labour.org. 2. For instance, two members of the Property Claims Commission were appointed by the Governments of the United States of America (Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • NILLESEN POLLITT FINAL Dutch Regulatory Failure7
    Cambridge Working Papers in Economics CWPE 0446 UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE Department of Applied Economics The Consequences for Consumer Welfare of the 2001-2003 Electricity Distribution Price Review in the Netherlands Paul H. L. Nillesen and Michael G. Pollitt Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research CMI Working Paper 50 Cambridge Working Papers in Economics UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE Department of Applied Economics Not to be quoted without permission M assachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research CMI Working Paper THE CONSEQUENCES FOR CONSUMER WELFARE OF THE 2001-2003 ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION PRICE REVIEW IN THE * NETHERLANDS Paul H L Nillesen1 Assistant Director, Corporate Finance & Recovery PricewaterhouseCoopers De Entree 201 Amsterdam, The Netherlands [email protected] Michael G Pollitt2 Senior Lecturer in Business Economics Judge Institute of Management Cambridge CB2 1AG United Kingdom [email protected] September 2004 Abstract The Dutch regulatory process for setting the first X-Factors in the electricity distribution sector has gone badly wrong. During two-and-a-half years four different X-Factors were published by the regulator. These X-Factors fluctuated wildly. We demonstrate that Dutch electricity consumers will pay at least €300mln. more over three years for the distribution of electricity than might otherwise have been the case. We estimate that benefits for the companies in terms of extra revenue from lowered X-Factors amounts to 3~5 percent of total asset value. We provide a history of the regulatory process and analyse the impact of the different X-Factors on the final bills of consumers.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Origin of Specis” (Patent Specifications) BASIC FACTS (A.K.A
    The Origin of Specis (or, nearly everything you wanted to know about patents, but couldn’t be bothered asking) 22.Sep.2021 © Tony McStea 1992-2021 22.Sep.2021 About the Author… (with apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan) When I was a lad, I served a term As patent tech. assistant in a big paint firm I wrote applications and I argued and tried Patent offices to show that grant was justified And this sort of thing so suited me That now I’m patent attorney in industry. Acknowledgement My grateful thanks to all of you out there who helped me with this revised version by offering comments, corrections, criticisms, suggestions and advice, some of which I ignored, which is why the booklet still exists. The responsibility for any errors (not to mention the mediocre drawings and terrible jokes (or is it mediocre jokes and terrible drawings?)) is entirely mine. The responsibility for any views or opinions expressed herein is also entirely mine. N.B. Most costs mentioned herein were correct (more or less) at June, 2015, but, because of the tendency of official fees to fluctuation (and exchange rates to go up and down like yo-yos), and the consequent work of constantly adjusting them, they have been left as they are and are there to be general guides only. 22.Sep.2021 Note: changes to US Law On 16 March 2013 (thus missing by one day the Blessing of St. Patrick on the entire enterprise), the Leahy-Smith “America invents” Act (AIA), the most significant change to US patent law in half a century, came fully into effect.
    [Show full text]
  • How Could It Go So Wrong? Reformatio in Peius Before the Grand Chamber of the Ecthr in the Case Janowiec and Others V
    XXXIII POLISH YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW DOI 10.7420/pyil2013k 2013 PL ISSN 0554-498X Susana Sanz-Caballero* HOW COULD IT GO SO WRONG? REFORMATIO IN PEIUS BEFORE THE GRAND CHAMBER OF THE ECtHR IN THE CASE JANOWIEC AND OTHERS V. RUSSIA (OR POLISH COLLECTIVE MEMORY DECEIVED IN STRASBOURG) INTRODUCTION By a strange coincidence (or not) on 21 October 2013, the European Court of Hu- man Rights (hereinafter ECtHR) issued two judgments which created social alarm in two European States with a vivid interest in the facts under scrutiny. Both were rulings in cases introduced by individuals ex Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights1 (hereinafter ECHR). However, what was behind them was not only a personal situation. Instead, the people of those States, namely, Poland and Spain, were deeply concerned because the applications touched upon very sensitive issues at the national level. When the verdicts were given, most people in Poland and Spain gasped, because they had been expecting a very specific solution from the European Court which did not come. They turned their eyes towards the Strasbourg Court in disbelief. The ECtHR guarantees the application of the ECHR and its protocols in the ter- ritory of those European States that have ratified the treaties, but only with respect to events which occurred after the State’s ratification. No more, but no less, than that. Its function is not to heal historical wounds, nor to confirm national authorities’ views or policies on sensitive domestic issues such as the fight against terrorism or the search for truth concerning mass crimes committed decades ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Edition 2013
    Key to the European Patent Convention Edition 2013 Part VI Article 106 - Decisions subject to appeal PART VI - APPEALS PROCEDURE 1. decisions [A106(1)] G0005/91 [T0479/04] Article 106i - Decisions subject to appeal Composition of the opposition division, partiality. (1) An appeal shall lie from decisions1 of the Receiv- ing Section2, Examining Divisions, Opposition Divi- Under the EPC is no legal basis for separate appeal sions3 and the Legal Division. It4 shall have suspen- against an order by a director of a department of first sive5 effect. instance such as an opposition division rejecting an 6 objection to a member of the division on the ground of (2) A decision which does not terminate proceedings suspected partiality. The composition of the opposition as regards one of the parties can only be appealed division could however be challenged on such a together7 with the final decision8, unless the deci- 9 10 11 ground in an appeal against its final decision or against sion allows a separate appeal . a separately appealable interlocutory decision under (3) The right to file an appeal against decisions relat- article 106 (3) EPC. ing to the apportionment or fixing of costs in opposi- tion proceedings may be restricted in the Implement- D0015/95 [D0028/97, D0001/98, D0023/99, ing Regulations. D0024/99, D0009/03, D0025/05] Ref.: Art. 104 R. 63, 65, 68, 90 Of the Disciplinary Committee. PCT: R. 82ter Appealability of a Disciplinary Committee decision dismissing a complaint. A Disciplinary Committee decision dismissing a complaint is a decision in the 1. decisions [A106(1)] ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reopening of Proceedings in Cases of Trial in Absentia: European Legal Standards and Croatian Law*
    Elizabeta Ivičević Karas, PhD, Associate Professor University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law Trg Republike Hrvatske 14, 10 000 Zagreb [email protected] REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS IN CASES OF TRIAL IN ABSENTIA: EUROPEAN LEGAL STANDARDS AND CROATIAN LAW* ABSTRACT In contemporary criminal procedure, trial in absentia is considered an exception to the general principle that that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled to take part at the hear- ing. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights defined several rules on trial in absentia, as prerequisites of compliance with fair trial standards from Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). One of those rules con- cerns the possibility of retrial. Recently Croatia was condemned before in Sanader case, for vio- lation of the right to a fair trial proclaimed in Article 6 ECHR, for the applicant’s inability to obtain a rehearing after conviction in absentia, without prior surrendering to custody based on that conviction. The execution of Sanader judgment included legislative amendments, which were adopted in July 2017. The paper analyses to what extent the present regulation of reopen- ing of proceedings in cases of trial in absentia in Croatian legislation and practice corresponds to the European legal standards. The paper contains theoretical and normative analysis, as well as the research of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and of recent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia. It showed that in Croatian judicial practice there are doubts on the purpose of reopening of proceedings in case of trial in absentia, which should provide “a fresh determination of the merits of the charge” by a court” in “full respect of defence rights”.
    [Show full text]
  • Case T-822/16: Action Brought on 21 November 2016
    C 22/50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.1.2017 Mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a ‘V’) — Application No 10 263 978 Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 in Case R 2030/2015-4 Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — amend the contested decision by rejecting the opposition in its entirety; — in the alternative, amend the contested decision by declaring that the opposition is also rejected for the goods ‘Goods made of leather or imitations of leather; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas; parasols and walking sticks; wallets; bags and pouches; rucksacks; belt bags; briefcases; school satchels; school satchels for sport; beach bags; keyrings; hip bags; card cases’ in Class 18 and ‘Clothing, footwear, headgear; belts; gloves’ in Class 25; — in the further alternative, annul the contested decision; — order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings. Pleas in law — infringement of Rule 19(2) and (3) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95; — infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; — infringement of the first sentence of Article 60, Article 63(2) and the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/ 2009 and of the principle of reformatio in peius as well as of the right to be heard. Action brought on 21 November 2016 — KiK Textilien und Non-Food v EUIPO — FF Group Romania (_kix) (Case T-822/16) (2017/C 022/68) Language in which the application was lodged: German Parties Applicant: KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany) (represented by: S.
    [Show full text]