DOCSLIB.ORG

Study on the Quality of the Patent System in Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Study on the Quality of the Patent System in Europe Ref. Ares(2012)1471488 - 11/12/2012 Study on the quality of the patent system in Europe Tender MARKT/2009/11/D Contract Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union 2009/S 147-214675 of 04/08/2009 March 2011 Authors: Giuseppe Scellato* (Coordinator) Mario Calderini* Federico Caviggioli* Chiara Franzoni* Elisa Ughetto* Evisa Kica1 Victor Rodriguez1 * Politecnico di Torino, DISPEA, IP Finance Institute, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy. 1 Twente University, School of Management and Governance, Department of Legal and Economic Governance Studies, Institute for Governance Studies, Centre for European Studies, P.O. Box 217, NL-7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands. DG MARKT PATQUAL Disclaims: This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors. 2 DG MARKT PATQUAL Definitions and abbreviations: ARIPO African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation DKPTO Danish Patent and Trademark Office DPMA German Patent and Trademark Office ECLA European Patent Classification EESR Extended European Search Report EPC European Patent Convention EPN European Patent Network EPO European Patent Office EQMS European Quality Management System EQS European Quality System ESOP European Search Opinion EU European Union HPO Hungarian Patent Office INPI Portuguese Institute of Industrial Property IPC International Patent Classification IPEA International Preliminary Examining Authority ISA International Search Authority ISO International Organisation for Standardisation JPO Japan Patent Office NBPR National Board of Patents and Registration of Finland NPO National Patent Office OAPI Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle PCT Patent Co-operation Treaty PPH Patent Prosecution Highway PQS Product Quality Standard PRV Swedish Patent and Registration Office QMS Quality Management System SIPO Slovenian Intellectual Property Office SIS Supplementary International Searches SPTO Spanish Patent and Trademark Office UKIPO UK Intellectual Property Office UPP Utilisation Pilot Project USPTO United States Patent and Trademark Office WOISA Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority 3 DG MARKT PATQUAL Index Disclaims: ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Definitions and abbreviations: ........................................................................................................................ 3 Index ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive summary ......................................................................................................................... 7 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 16 1.1 Objectives and scope of the study .................................................................................................... 16 1.2 Defining patent quality ........................................................................................................................ 19 1.3 Patent quality and the characteristics of the European Patent System ........................ 20 1.3.1 The relative costs of European patents ......................................................................... 21 1.3.2 The patent enforcement system in Europe .................................................................. 21 1.4 Review of previous studies on patent quality ............................................................................ 22 2 The survey to the users of the European Patent System ........................................... 24 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 24 2.2 Structure of the questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 25 2.3 Dissemination of the questionnaire ................................................................................................ 25 2.3.1 Additional contacts ................................................................................................................ 26 2.4 Results from the survey to companies ........................................................................................... 26 2.4.1 The characteristics of the sample of respondents .................................................... 26 2.4.2 Usage of the patent system - The determinants of patent quality ...................... 29 2.4.3 Filing strategies in Europe .................................................................................................. 41 2.4.4 Relevance of patent costs .................................................................................................... 42 2.4.5 The quality of the patent system – the search and examination process ........ 45 2.4.6 The quality of the patent system – the enforcement of granted patents ......... 47 2.4.7 Proposal for the improvement of the quality of the European patent system 49 2.5 Results from the survey to Universities and Public Research Organisations .............. 51 2.5.1 The characteristics of the sample of respondents .................................................... 52 2.5.2 Usage of the patent system - The determinants of patent quality ...................... 53 2.5.3 Filing strategies in Europe .................................................................................................. 55 2.5.4 Relevance of patent costs .................................................................................................... 55 2.5.5 The quality of the patent system – the search and examination process ........ 56 2.5.6 The quality of the patent system – the enforcement of granted patents ......... 57 2.5.7 Proposal for the improvement of the quality of the European patent system 58 2.6 Summary of findings .............................................................................................................................. 59 3 An empirical assessment of EPO patent quality through an analysis of opposition cases .............................................................................................................................. 62 3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 62 3.2 The opposition procedure ................................................................................................................... 62 3.3 Previous studies of patent oppositions and research setting ............................................. 63 3.4 Data sources .............................................................................................................................................. 65 3.5 Analysis of opposition trends and characteristics ................................................................... 65 4 DG MARKT PATQUAL 3.5.1 Opposition trends in the years 2000-2008 .................................................................. 65 3.5.2 Sectoral differences in opposition trends ..................................................................... 67 3.5.3 Characteristics of opposed patents ................................................................................. 70 3.5.4 Oppositions and priority countries ................................................................................. 74 3.5.5 Oppositions and duration of the patent granting process ..................................... 75 3.6 Analysis of opposition outcomes ...................................................................................................... 75 3.6.1 Trends in opposition outcomes in the years 2000-2008 ....................................... 75 3.7 Econometric analysis ............................................................................................................................ 78 3.8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 87 4 Cost-benefit analysis of the international initiatives to improve patent quality 89 4.1 Introduction and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 89 4.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 90 4.3 International Initiatives to Improve Patent Quality .............................................................. 91 4.3.1 Strengthening the Duty of Disclosure and Codes of Conduct ............................... 91 4.3.2 IP5 Work-Sharing Initiative ............................................................................................... 94 4.3.3 Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) ................................................................................ 95 4.3.4 Shift from First-to-Invent to First-to-File ..................................................................... 96 4.3.5 US Patent Training Academy ............................................................................................. 97 4.4 Cost and Benefit
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The IP5 Offices Chapter 2
    IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Chapter 2 - The IP5 Offices Chapter 2 THE IP5 OFFICES As the world sees economic barriers between nations fade away, innovators want their intellectual creations to be protected concurrently in multiple major markets. It is believed that more than 250,000 patent applications for the same inventions are filed each year in two or more of the IP5 Offices, leading to increasing backlogs. To address this issue, the IP5 Offices are working together to try to reduce the amount of duplication of work that takes place between offices for these patent applications. Patents are used to protect inventions, and their counts are recognized as a measure of innovative activity. Fig. 2.1 shows the number of patents in force worldwide at the end of 2014. The data are based on the most recent worldwide patent information available from the WIPO Statistics Database11. At the end of 2014, 90 percent of the 10.0 million patents that were in-force were valid in one of the IP5 Offices jurisdictions. This demonstrates the prominent role that is played by the IP5 Offices. 11 www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/. Data for patents in force for 2014 are missing for some countries in the WIPO data. Where available, the most recent previous year’s data were substituted for missing 2014 data. 4 IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Chapter 2 - The IP5 Offices The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) leverages acceleration procedures available at each office, while enabling participating offices to share available work results. It is a framework in which an application found to be patentable/allowable by the Office of Earlier Examination (an office which has examined a patent application first) will be subject to accelerated examination with simple procedures, upon the request of the applicant, in a participating Office of Later Examination (an office which will then process the corresponding application).
    [Show full text]
  • HØIBERG Patent Guide How to Patent Your Inventions IMPRESSUM
    HØIBERG Patent Guide How to patent your inventions IMPRESSUM HØIBERG Patent Guide 2016 Also available for download at www.hoiberg.com PUBLISHER HØIBERG EDITOR Susanne Westphael Skov, HØIBERG A special thanks to Sensative AB, Thürmer Tools and Windar Photonics A/S for contributing to this guide. DESIGN & PRODUCTION Sebastian Sejer & Co A/S HØIBERG Adelgade 12, 1304 København K Åbogade 25 A, 8200 Aarhus N Mobilvägen 10, 223 62 Lund, Sweden Tel. +45 3332 0337 www.hoiberg.com CONTENTS 0 Introduction . 3 Foreword from HØIBERG by Pernille Winding Gojkovic og Peter Borg Gaarde . 3 1 Why patent? . 5 2 What protection does a patent provide?. .9 Case 1: Sensative “Aligning an IPR strategy with business partnerships” . 10 3 Who is the rightful owner of a patent? . 12 4 Criteria for patentability . 15 5 Can software be patented? . 19 6 Filing – when and where? . 23 7 Patent application drafting and prosecution . 27 Case 2: Windar Photonics – “An example of successful commercialization of university based research” . 32 8 Going public? How and when to to publish . 35 9 International patenting. 39 10 Alternative IP protection . 43 11 Freedom-to-operate . 47 12 IPR strategy and business plan . 53 Case 3: Thümer Tools ”We are 118 years old – but we just got started!” . 56 13 Licensing patents – Collaboration and licensing . 58 14 What is your patent worth? . 61 15 Due diligence . 64 16 Enforcing patent rights . 68 17 Glossary . 70 18 Contributors . 73 1 2 Foreword from HØIBERG We are proud to present The HØIBERG Patent Guide. Intellectual Property Rights in general and patents in particular are becoming increasingly important to any firm engaged in product development.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Patent Convention and the London Agreement
    Feature European changes The European Patent Convention and the London Agreement EPC 2000 – why change? By Pierre-André Dubois and Shannon The EPC 1973 came into force in 1977 and Yavorsky, Kirkland & Ellis International LLP revolutionised patent practice. However, in the last 30 years, the patent landscape The European Patent Convention (EPC 2000) changed significantly and it became apparent came into force on 13th December 2007, that there was a real need to overhaul the introducing sweeping changes to the dated legislation. First, the Agreement on European patent system. The new Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual convention governs the granting of European Property Rights (TRIPs) and the Patent Law patents by the European Patent Office (EPO) Treaty (PLT) came into force, and it was and applies throughout the 34 contracting questionable whether the EPC 1973 was in states of the European Patent Organisation line with the provisions of each of these (ie, the 27 EU Member States as well as agreements. As one example, the EPC 2000 Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, clarifies that, in accordance with TRIPs, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey). The original patents can now be granted in all fields of convention (EPC 1973), which dates back to technology as long as they are new, 1973, was outdated due to a number of comprise an inventive step and are developments in international law and the susceptible of industrial application. Second, need to improve the procedure before the the EPC 1973 was difficult to amend and, in EPO. While the new convention does not the face of fast-changing technology and overhaul substantive patent law (ie, what European legislation, required greater is patentable and what is not), it does legislative flexibility.
    [Show full text]
  • The Global Patent Prosecution Highway: Enhancing Attractiveness for Applicants and Patent Offices
    JULY 2015 COMMENTARY The Global Patent Prosecution Highway: Enhancing Attractiveness for Applicants and Patent Offices History of Patent Prosecution Highways Office (“SIPO”)—cooperate to improve efficiency and During the last couple of years, a considerable num- address the backlogs in applications worldwide. ber of Patent Prosecution Highway (“PPH”) programs between national and regional patent offices were However, PPH programs are not just limited to the launched. Five years ago, we commented on those world’s largest IP offices. A large number of national involving the European Patent Office (“EPO”), the offices of various countries around the globe, includ- United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), ing the German Patent and Trademark Office (“GPTO”), and the Japan Patent Office (“JPO”).1 Since then, the profit immensely from PPH programs by tightening their programs have been refined and largely expanded. cooperation with the various participating patent offices. Most PPH programs are initially limited to trial peri- A PPH provides a framework in which an application ods of one to three years, so that their feasibility can whose claims have been determined to be patent- be assessed. Depending on the outcome of these able by an Office of First Filing or Office of Earlier assessments, the trials are extended or the programs Examination (“OEE”) is eligible to go through an accel- are stopped. However, the assessments of unsuc- erated examination in an Office of Second Filing or cessful programs are helpful in devising new trial pro- Office of Later Examination (“OLE”) with a simple pro- grams. In that way, PPH programs are continuously cedure, upon an applicant’s request.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Guidelines Q238 Second Medical Use and Other Second
    Working Guidelines by Thierry CALAME, Reporter General Sarah MATHESON and John OSHA, Deputy Reporters General Anne Marie VERSCHUR, Sara ULFSDOTTER and Kazuhiko YOSHIDA Assistants to the Reporter General Q238 Second medical use and other second indication claims Introduction 1) This question seeks to determine the type, scope and enforcement of patent protection for new uses of known chemical compounds when a known substance is found to have a new therapeutic use. For convenience, these guidelines will refer to such use as 'second medical use'. Various types of second medical use are described below. 2) The granting of patent protection for second medical uses potentially provides an important incentive for the identification and development of solutions for unmet medical needs. Second medical use patents can also be a major tool of the originator pharmaceutical industry as part of patent lifecycle management. However, the additional research and development work is time- consuming and expensive. Patent protection is important, but sufficient incentive to encourage research into second medical uses lies in the potential availability of enforceable patent rights of effective scope. 3) Currently, whether patent protection for second medical uses is permitted at all, and if so, the form of permissible claims, varies from country to country. The ability to enforce permissible claims, and the scope of protection afforded, also varies between jurisdictions. Lack of harmonisation impacts both originator and generic pharmaceutical companies by creating uncertainty both for patent holders and assumed infringers. 4) The granting of patent protection for second medical uses gives rise to competing positive and negative impacts on the provision of effective medicines to the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent-Related Barriers to Market Entry for Generic Medicines in the European Union
    atents play an important role in modern society. In order to encourage the creation, dissemination and efficient P exploitation of technology, patents provide inventors Patent-related Barriers with a limited term legal monopoly on their invention. Generic medicines play an equally important role in promoting to Market Entry for pharmaceutical innovation and ensuring the affordability and sustainability of European healthcare systems. In this regard, Generic Medicines in immediate market access of generic medicines after patent expiry is of crucial interest to society, and any hurdle to this the European Union access should be eliminated. However, a number of developments point to a strategic use of patents—of sometimes questionable quality—which is directed more toward preventing others from innovating and competing, A Review of Weaknesses in the Current than toward creating truly innovative products. When misused European Patent System and their Impact in this manner, patents can present a barrier to entry onto the on the Market Access of Generic Medicines generic medicines market. This report identifies some of the hurdles that generic medicines companies face in this regard in the European Union. Editor Kristof Roox | Attorney at the Brussels Bar | Belgium European Patent Office Headquarters | Munich, Germany EUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION EUROPEAN GENERIC Rue d’Arlon 50 B-1000 Brussels | Belgium MEDICINES ASSOCIATION Tel: +32 (0) 2 736 84 11 | Fax: +32 (0) 2 736 74 38 www.egagenerics.com | [email protected] Layout & Design:
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group
    Annex 1 E PCT/WG/11/27 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: JANUARY 11, 2019 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group Eleventh Session Geneva, June 18 to 22, 2018 REPORT adopted by the Working Group 1. The Patent Cooperation Treaty Working Group held its eleventh session in Geneva from June 18 to 22, 2018. 2. The following members of the Working Group were represented at the session: (i) the following Member States of the International Patent Cooperation Union (PCT Union): Algeria, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe (69); and (ii) the following intergovernmental organizations: the European Patent Office (EPO), the Nordic Patent Institute (NPI), and the Visegrad Patent Institute (VPI) (3). 3. The following Member States of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Union) participated in the session as an observer: Mauritius, Yemen (2). 4. The following intergovernmental organizations were represented by observers: African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), African Union (AU), Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO), European Union (EU), Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office), South Centre (7).
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE Guidelines for Examination General Part Amended in December, 2007
    EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE Guidelines for Examination General Part Amended in December, 2007 CONTENTS 1. Preliminary remarks 2. Explanatory notes 2.1 Overview 2.2 Abbreviations 3. General remarks 4. Work at the EPO 5. Survey of the processing of applications and patents at the EPO 6. Contracting States to the EPC 7. Extension to states not party to the EPC 1 1. Preliminary remarks In accordance with Art. 10(2)(a) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), the President of the European Patent Office (EPO) had adopted, effective as at 1 June 1978, the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office. These Guidelines have been and will be updated at regular intervals to take account of developments in European patent law and practice. Amended or new text (as compared to the latest previous version only) is indicated by a vertical line in the right-hand margin. Mere deletions are indicated by two horizontal lines in the right-hand margin. Usually, updates only involve amendments to specific sentences or passages on individual pages, in order to bring at least part of the text more closely into line with patent law and EPO practice as these continue to evolve. It follows that no update can ever claim to be complete. Any indication from readers drawing the attention to errors as well as suggestions for improvement are highly appreciated and may be sent by e-mail to: [email protected] The Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office are also published by the EPO in an electronic, searchable form on the Internet via the EPO website: http://www.epo.org 2.
    [Show full text]
  • IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Edition
    IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Edition IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Edition European Patent Office, Japan Patent Office, State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China, Korean Intellectual Property Office, United States Patent and Trademark Office Edited by JPO, December 2016 IP5 Statistics Report 2015 Executive Summary Executive Summary The IP5 SR is an annual compilation of patent statistics for the five largest Intellectual Property Offices- the IP5 Offices - namely EPO, JPO, SIPO, KIPO and USPTO. ・At the end of 2014, 10.0 million patents were in force in the world (+6.2 percent). 90 percent of these patents were valid in one of the IP5 Offices jurisdictions. ・In 2014, 2.3 million patent applications were filed worldwide, either as direct national, direct regional or international phase PCT applications, of which 93 percent originated from the IP5 Blocs. ・In 2015, 2.4 million patent applications were filed at the IP5 Offices (+8 percent). ・In 2014, the proportion of applications filed via the PCT was 9 percent for applications originating from the IP5 Blocs. ・Together the IP5 Offices granted 1,017,375 patents in 2015 (6.5 percent more than 2014). ・In 2015, the main developments at the IP5 Offices were: - IP5: On May 22, 2015, the 8th Meeting of the IP5 Heads of Office was held in Suzhou, China. At the meeting, requests from users were discussed to expand the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program to more offices and improve the operation of the PPH. The meeting decided to discuss PPH initiatives within the IP5 with the aim of improving accessibility for users.
    [Show full text]
  • Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications Relating to Medical Inventions in the Intellectual Property Office
    Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications relating to Medical Inventions in the Intellectual Property Office April 2016 © Crown copyright 2016 Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office April 2016 3 Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................paragraphs 1-5 Basic principles .............................................................................................................paragraphs 6-10 Methods of treatment or diagnosis ...........................................................................paragraphs 11-15 Therapy Definition of “therapy” ....................................................................................................paragraphs 16-17 Therapeutic methods: form of claims ............................................................................paragraphs 18-19 Guidelines for determining whether a method is “treatment by therapy” .....................paragraphs 20-22 Claims to both therapeutic and non-therapeutic methods ...........................................paragraphs 23-28 Therapeutic and non-therapeutic methods: specific examples i) Cosmetic treatments ................................................................................................. paragraph 29 ii) Removal of parasites .........................................................................................paragraphs 30-31 iii) Oral care .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ------ ------SEQUENOM, INC., Petitioner, V
    No. 15-1182 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- SEQUENOM, INC., Petitioner, v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF OF PROFESSOR TIMO MINSSEN AND ROBERT M. SCHWARTZ WITH 10 EUROPEAN AND AUSTRALIAN LAW PROFESSORS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ANDREW J. DHUEY Counsel of Record 456 Boynton Avenue Berkeley, CA 94707 (510) 528-8200 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae TIMO MINSSEN Professor of Biotechnology Law (fr. 1 May 2016) FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Studiestraede 6 DK-1455 Copenhagen K, Denmark ROBERT M. SCHWARTZ Researcher FACULTY OF LAW LUND UNIVERSITY Lilla Gråbrödersgatan 4 222 22 Lund, Sweden ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... ii INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................ 2 ARGUMENT ........................................................... 3 I. The European legal framework for patent eligibility .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group
    PCT/WG/13/15 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: JUNE 30, 2021 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group Thirteenth Session Geneva, October 5 to 8, 2020 REPORT adopted by the Working Group 1. The Patent Cooperation Treaty Working Group held its thirteenth session in Geneva from October 5 to 8, 2020. The session took place as a hybrid meeting due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 2. The following members of the Working Group were represented at the session: (i) the following Member States of the International Patent Cooperation Union (PCT Union): Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe (65); and (ii) the following intergovernmental organizations: the European Patent Office (EPO), the Nordic Patent Institute (NPI), the Visegrad Patent Institute (VPI) (3). 3. The following Member States of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Union) participated in the session as
    [Show full text]