DOCSLIB.ORG

European Patent Academy Disclaimer: The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
European Patent Academy Disclaimer: The Disclaimer: The documentation used for this manual was developed in co-operation with EPLAW for the e-learning project “Patent litigation A–Z” in 2015. This is also published on the website of the European Patent Office. The information is not meant to be a comprehensive study or to provide legal advice. The references to European and national law and case law in this manual are presented for training and linguistic purposes and therefore are not meant to be substantive statements concerning patent litigation nor should they be considered the latest jurisprudence. This manual is not made available to the general public. It should be used for learning purposes only. Any views expressed in the chapters are not necessarily those of the EPO. This document may be used and reproduced for non-commercial purposes, provided that the EPO and the authors are acknowledged appropriately. Reproduction for commercial purposes is not permitted. European Patent Academy Introduction The overall aim of the EPO’s cooperation with its member states is to provide the users of the European patent system with relevant and high-quality patent-related services, to strengthen the European Patent Network and to promote the interoperability of the EPO and the stakeholders of the European patent system. To this end, the European Patent Academy, in cooperation with Principal Directorate European and International Cooperation, launched a languages training programme consisting of two projects: general language training and patent terminology training. The patent terminology training programme provides inter alia reference materials for further study of patent-related terminology. Manuals have been developed in co-operation with the three main language institutes (British Council, Institut français, Goethe-Institut) for all stakeholders of the European patent system including the EPO bodies, examiners in national patent offices, and professional representatives. The Judicial Training area of the European Patent Academy supports and develops training initiatives aimed at harmonising patent enforcement and litigation practice in Europe. This manual has been developed in co- operation with EPLAW, the European Patent Lawyers’ Association, and provides a unique overview of all aspects relating to patent litigation, both substantive and procedural, that arise in disputes. Additionally, you will find an annexed glossary with patent-related terminology in all three of the EPO’s official languages. This manual will be of interest for judges, patent attorneys, lawyers, academics, and legal staff of IP institutions. The European Patent Academy European Patent Academy | 3 What is a patent? Essentials: Patent fundamentals UK approach Dutch approach EU Unitary PCT and entry Patent Legal Scope of Priority Patent national phase procedure framework protection What is a French approach German approach patent Patent documentation Justification History SPCs Basic definition A patent is a legal title granting its proprietor the right to prevent third Product parties from commercially using an invention without authorisation. An An object, chemical or device; i.e. a physical thing invention is usually a product or a process. Process A method of making or doing something; The term of the patent is limited. a recipe Like other forms of intellectual property, the rights provided by a patent do not actually permit their owner to do anything. But they do enable him to stop other people doing things: they enable him to exclude others from practising the invention within the state in which they were granted. General considerations Patents are granted after successful application to, and examination by, Further information a patent office. This may be the national patent office of a state (e.g. the www.epo.org/ UK Intellectual Property Office, theDeutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Germany) or the Institut national de la propriété industrielle (France)). For those states that contract to the European Patent Convention (EPC), it may also be the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich. Patents are currently domestic in nature. There is at present no such thing as a transnational patent. Even though applications for protection in multiple states may be made to the EPO, these become a bundle of national patents upon grant. Accordingly, the EPO has no jurisdiction to consider issues of patent infringement. That is left to the national courts. European Patent Academy Patent litigation. Block 1 | What is a patent | 7 There are currently 38 contracting states to the EPC, each having domestic patent legislation which in its essentials follows the corresponding provisions of the EPC. Patentability In order to gain patent protection, an invention must satisfy five Article 52 EPC fundamental requirements: Patentable Inventions (1) European patents shall be granted for (1) There must in fact be an invention. any inventions, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an (2) The invention must be new. inventive step and are susceptible of (3) It must possess a degree of inventiveness over what has gone before industrial application. (i.e. it must involve what is known as an inventive step). (2) The following in particular shall not be (4) It must be susceptible of industrial application. regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: (5) It must not fall within a list of “excluded” subject-matter. (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; These fundamental requirements are set out in Article 52 EPC and are (b) aesthetic creations; replicated in the national laws of the EPO’s member states. (c) schemes, rules and methods for A patent has a maximum term of 20 years from the date of filing of the performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for patent application in the state in question. For it to stay in force for this computers; term, regular renewal fees must be paid. Failure to pay the renewal fees (d) presentations of information. may cause the patent or patent application to lapse. Introducing infringement A patent gives its owner the exclusive right to prevent third parties that Article 25 of the 1989 Draft CPC do not have the patent holder’s consent from performing certain acts Prohibition of direct use of the invention A Community patent shall confer on its with the patented invention within the territory in question. proprietor the right to prevent all third parties not having his consent: The restricted acts are derived from what is now Article 25 of the 1989 (a) from making, offering, putting on the market or using a product which is the Draft Community Patent Convention (CPC). The CPC never came into force, subject-matter of the patent, or importing but at the time that the original EPO member states were re-drafting or stocking the product for these purposes; their national laws to bring them into line with the EPC, it looked as (b) from using a process which is the subject-matter of the patent or, when the though it would. Accordingly, the states based their primary infringement third party knows, or it is obvious in the provisions upon it. The restricted acts include making, selling and using as circumstances, that the use of the process is prohibited without the consent of the well as importing or stocking for these purposes. Secondary infringement proprietor of the patent, from offering the is also possible. process for use within the territories of the Contracting States; (c) from offering, putting on the market, As already mentioned, at present there is no such thing as a transnational using, or importing or stocking for these patent. If an individual or company wants their invention to be protected purposes the product obtained directly by a process which is the subject-matter of in different states, they must ensure that they hold rights in each of the patent. those states. Producing the invention of a German patent in France (for example), or selling allegedly infringing products there, does not constitute infringement. It would, however, be an infringement to import infringing products made in France into Germany. European Patent Academy Patent litigation. Block 1 | What is a patent | 8 A brief history (Supplementary reading) UK approach Dutch approach EU Unitary PCT and entry Patent Legal Scope of Priority Patent national phase procedure framework protection What is a French approach German approach patent Patent documentation Justification History SPCs The patent system as we know it today is a relatively modern innovation. The idea of a patent office employing a corps of examiners to ensure that applications comply with the requirements for patentability was pioneered in the United States with the passage of the Patents Act of 1836. In the UK, substantive examination only came about with the Patents Act of 1902. Nevertheless, the idea of the use of monopoly privilege as an incentive to create or as a reward for creation is very old indeed. One of the earliest examples of this practice is found in the Greek city of Sybaris some 500 years BC. Sybaris was renowned for the luxurious lifestyle of its citizens, and the Sybarites are documented as having passed a law enabling the creator of a unique and excellent culinary dish to claim monopoly over that dish for one year, and to thereby reap all profit from its manufacture for this period. The intention appears to have been to induce confectioners and cooks to labour to excel. The first systematic use of monopoly that can lay claim to being a precursor to modern patent law is found in Venice in the late 15th century. The Statute of Venice of 1474 demonstrates a modern approach to the The Statute of Venice of 1474 protection of inventions. The preamble to the Statute declared that “We have among us men of great genius, apt to invent and discover ingenious devices; its intention was to provide protection so that “more men would then and in view of the grandeur and virtue of apply their genius [to create…] devices of great utility and benefit to our our city, more such men come to us every day from divers parts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • En Munich, 26.09.2019 SUBJECT: President's Activities Report SUBMITTED BY
    CA/88/19 Orig.: en Munich, 26.09.2019 SUBJECT: President's activities report SUBMITTED BY: President of the European Patent Office ADDRESSEES: Administrative Council (for information) CA/88/19 e 2019-7203 - I - TABLE OF CONTENTS Subject Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. GOAL 1: BUILD AN ENGAGED, KNOWLEDGEABLE AND COLLABORATIVE ORGANISATION 1 III. GOAL 2: SIMPLIFY AND MODERNISE EPO IT SYSTEMS 6 IV. GOAL 3: DELIVER HIGH-QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES EFFICIENTLY 10 V. GOAL 4: BUILD A EUROPEAN PATENT SYSTEM AND NETWORK WITH A GLOBAL IMPACT 21 VI. GOAL 5: SECURE LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY 37 VII. RECOMMENDATION FOR PUBLICATION 42 CA/88/19 e 2019-7203 I. INTRODUCTION Transparency of the Office's activities is ensured through regular reporting to the Council. The present report outlines the major developments and most relevant endeavours characterising 2019 so far. In June the Council unanimously approved the Strategic Plan 2023 (SP2023) that encompasses the five strategic goals the Office will pursue to evolve into a sustainable office that delivers excellence. Until now the reporting had a configuration linked to the various business areas and to the relevant departmental subdivisions, focusing more upon the operations of the Office. This report seeks to gradually move towards a report that more closely reflects SP2023, following its structure and describing the achievements in the various goals and key initiatives. This report therefore needs to be understood as a transitional one that will improve alongside the implementation of the programmes and projects of the SP. The Office also intends to propose a better aligned and more comprehensive reporting process.
    [Show full text]
  • Inter Partes Re-Examination: a Low Cost Alternative to Litigation in The
    Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Inter partes Re-examination: a Low Cost Alternative to Litigation in the US and Prosecution Strategies in View of the Historically Low Allowance Rate at the by USPTO Anthony C. Tridico, and Carlos M. Téllez Los Lunes de Patentes, Madrid, 30 November 2009 Disclaimer • These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law. These materials reflect only the personal views of the panelists, are not individualized legal advice, and do not reflect the views of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., and the panelists cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., and the panelists. While every attempt was made to insure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed. 22 Outline • Re-exam as a low cost alternative to Litigation in the U.S. • Obviousness and KSR as major factors in rejection of applications • Strategies for dealing with KSR in various types of applications • General prosecution tips – If there is time – tips for avoiding inequitable conduct… 33 Monitoring and Detective Work • Time and money is spent monitoring your competitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Update on Discovery of Patent Prosecution Communications by Jeffrey Thomas, Anne Brody and Pamela Lee
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] Update On Discovery Of Patent Prosecution Communications By Jeffrey Thomas, Anne Brody and Pamela Lee Law360, New York (June 20, 2017, 5:19 PM EDT) -- In general, communications between an attorney and his client relating to the filing and prosecution of a patent application are privileged. Last year, the Federal Circuit found that such communications between a patent agent and his client are also privileged.[1] But under the joint attorney-client privilege or the common interest doctrine, communications between attorneys and two or more clients may not be privileged in a later dispute between these clients. This article discusses the challenges that courts and companies continue to face in determining whether a party can access these patent prosecution communications in disputes: (1) between two joint owners; (2) between an employer-owner and an employee- inventor; and (3) with respect to a patent agent, in other Circuits and state courts. Jeffrey Thomas Do Joint Owners Share a Joint Attorney-Client Privilege During Patent Prosecution? When a dispute arises between two joint owners, one owner may seek to access the other owner’s communications with the patent attorney relating to the patent prosecution process. In that case, a court would look at a few factors to decide. One factor would be whether the patent prosecution process was handled by only one attorney (e.g., an in-house attorney), or by two attorneys separately representing the two owners.
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting Life in the European Community: the Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 4 Volume IV Number 2 Volume IV Book 2 Article 1 1993 Patenting Life in the European Community: The Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions Janice McCoy Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Janice McCoy, Patenting Life in the European Community: The Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions, 4 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 501 (1993). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol4/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Patenting Life in the European Community: The Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions Janice McCoy' INTRODUCTION Technology has once again overtaken the law. Ever since the United States Supreme Court concluded in 1980 that anything un- der the sun that was made by man could be patented,' and especial- ly since the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") announced in 1987 that it considered nonnaturally occurring non- human animals to be patentable subject matter,2 legislative bodies in both the United States and the European Economic Community ("EEC") have been debating to what extent living matter should be patentable.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Get a European Patent
    European Patent Guide How to get a European patent 19th edition Updated to 1 April 2019 Contents Chapter 1 – Foreword .................................................................................. 7 Chapter 2 – General ..................................................................................... 9 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Nature and purpose of the European Patent Convention ....................................... 10 2.3 Relationship to other international conventions ..................................................... 11 2.4 Choosing a route: national, European or international........................................... 12 Legal factors ...................................................................................................... 12 Economic factors ............................................................................................... 13 2.5 Extending/validating European patents to/in non-contracting states ................... 14 Chapter 3 – Patentability ........................................................................... 16 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 16 3.2 Invention ...................................................................................................................... 16 3.3 Novelty ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Rights and Local Working Under the WTO TRIPS Agreement: an Analysis of the U.S.- Brazil Patent Dispute
    Patent Rights and Local Working Under the WTO TRIPS Agreement: An Analysis of the U.S.- Brazil Patent Dispute Paul Champt and Amir Attarant I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................365 II. HISTORY OF PATENTS AND LOCAL WORKING REQUIREMENTS ....................................................370 fiI. A NEGOTIATING HISTORY OF TiE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND LOCAL WORKING ..........................373 IV. LOCAL WORKING AND THE BRAZIL DISPUrE ...............................................................................380 A . Background .........................................................................................................................380 B . Article 31 .............................................................................................................................383 C. Article27(1) ........................................................................................................................386 V . CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................390 I. INTRODUCTION Before settling a recent WTO dispute with Brazil, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) came perilously close to creating a full-scale public relations disaster for the U.S. government and perhaps for the entire WTO system.' The U.S. challenge concerned a provision of Brazilian patent law 2 that Brazil says it can use to issue compulsory licenses3
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Law: a Handbook for Congress
    Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46525 SUMMARY R46525 Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 A patent gives its owner the exclusive right to make, use, import, sell, or offer for sale the invention covered by the patent. The patent system has long been viewed as important to Kevin T. Richards encouraging American innovation by providing an incentive for inventors to create. Without a Legislative Attorney patent system, the reasoning goes, there would be little incentive for invention because anyone could freely copy the inventor’s innovation. Congressional action in recent years has underscored the importance of the patent system, including a major revision to the patent laws in 2011 in the form of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Congress has also demonstrated an interest in patents and pharmaceutical pricing; the types of inventions that may be patented (also referred to as “patentable subject matter”); and the potential impact of patents on a vaccine for COVID-19. As patent law continues to be an area of congressional interest, this report provides background and descriptions of several key patent law doctrines. The report first describes the various parts of a patent, including the specification (which describes the invention) and the claims (which set out the legal boundaries of the patent owner’s exclusive rights). Next, the report provides detail on the basic doctrines governing patentability, enforcement, and patent validity. For patentability, the report details the various requirements that must be met before a patent is allowed to issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent and Trademark Cases Stephen Mcjohn
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 9 Article 1 Issue 4 January Spring 2011 Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases Stephen McJohn Recommended Citation Stephen McJohn, Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases, 9 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 1 (2011). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol9/iss4/1 This Perspective is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases Stephen McJohn January 2011 VOL. 9, NO. 4 © 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Copyright 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 9, Number 4 (January 2011) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases By Stephen McJohn* ¶1 The following are notable intellectual property decisions for patent and trademark in 2010 in the United States. Notable copyright and trade secret cases will be examined in a subsequent article. Viewed across doctrinal lines, some interesting threads emerge involving the scope of protection, the amount of secondary liability, and ownership of the intellectual property rights. ¶2 The scope of protection was at issue in both areas. Bilski v. Kappos marked a shift from using technical tests for patent subject matter to relying on the basic exclusions against patents on laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.1 Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v.
    [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]
  • Attorney-Client Privilege and the Patent Prosecution Process in the Post-Spalding World
    Washington University Law Review Volume 81 Issue 1 2003 Attorney-Client Privilege and the Patent Prosecution Process in the Post-Spalding World Jonathan G. Musch Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Evidence Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan G. Musch, Attorney-Client Privilege and the Patent Prosecution Process in the Post-Spalding World, 81 WASH. U. L. Q. 175 (2003). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol81/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND THE PATENT PROSECUTION PROCESS IN THE POST- SPALDING WORLD I. INTRODUCTION One of the oldest traditions of the Anglo-American judicial system is the concept of attorney-client privilege.1 This privilege and its much younger sibling, the work-product doctrine,2 limit the discoverability of private communications between attorney and client.3 Private communications4 between a patent attorney and a client, however, have not always enjoyed this protection.5 Due to a misconception of the role of a patent attorney within the patent prosecution process, courts denied attorney-client privilege first to all patent prosecution documents, and later to documents containing technical information. This effectively denied the privilege to most documents generated during a prosecution.6 More recently, courts afforded certain documents containing technical information protection, but under a patchwork of different standards.7 Frequently, a disagreement existed between different district courts within a circuit,8 as well as among different circuits.9 The exponential technology 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Public Interest and the Construction of Exceptions to Patentee's Rights
    The Public Interest and the Construction of Exceptions to Patentee's Rights - A comparative Study of UK and German law by Marc Dominic Mimler A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen Mary, University of London 2015 Statement of Originality I, Marc Dominic Mimler, confirm that the research included within this thesis is my own work or that where it has been carried out in collaboration with, or supported by others, that this is duly acknowledged below and my contribution indicated. I attest that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge break any UK law, infringe any third party’s copyright or other Intellectual Property Right, or contain any confidential material. I accept that the College has the right to use plagiarism detection software to check the electronic version of the thesis. I confirm that this thesis has not been previously submitted for the award of a degree by this or any other university. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. Signature: Marc Dominic Mimler Date: 28 May 2015 2 Abstract The thesis analyses the concept of public interest with regards to exceptions to patent rights. It is submitted that patent rights are generally provided for a utilitarian purpose which is to enable technological advance. This goal is meant to be achieved by providing exclusive rights over the patented invention.
    [Show full text]
  • Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination
    Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination Prepared by Policy Intern Raeanne Young [email protected] May 2008 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION eff.org Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................3 PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN .....................................................................................................4 The Problem With Patent Quality ..................................................................................................4 Policy Rationale: Encouraging Innovation .......................................................................................4 PATENT REEXAMINATION ...................................................................................................................6 Ex parte and Inter partes .............................................................................................................6 OVERALL REEXAMINATION TRENDS ......................................................................................................8 Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data: July , 98 - December 3, 2007 ...............................................8 Inter Partes Reexamination Filing Data: November 29, 999 - December 3, 2007 .............................0 Comparison of Ex Parte and Inter Partes ......................................................................................0 PROMOTING FAIRNESS IN THE PATENT SYSTEM THROUGH REEXAMINATION .............................................2
    [Show full text]