DOCSLIB.ORG

Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court www.bardehle.com Content 5 1. The patent-reform package 6 1.1 Legal basis 8 1.2 Legislative objectives 8 1.3 The legal instruments 8 1.3.1 The Regulation on the unitary patent (UPR) 10 1.3.2 The Regulation on the translation arrangements for the unitary patent (UPTR) 10 1.3.3 The Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) 10 1.4 Entry into force and application of the provisions 11 2. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) 11 2.1 Organization 13 2.2 Competence 14 2.3 The judges 14 2.3.1 Composition of the panels 14 2.3.2 Qualification and selection 15 2.4 Procedure 15 2.4.1 Language of proceedings 15 2.4.2 Rules of Procedure 15 2.4.3 Representation 16 2.5 Stages of the proceedings 16 2.5.1 First instance proceedings and timing 16 2.5.2 Bifurcation 17 2.5.3 Evidence 17 2.5.4 Appeal procedure – basic outline 18 2.6 Costs 18 2.7 The future role of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) 19 3. The course of implementation of the unitary patent 19 3.1 The Select Committee of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation 20 3.2 The Preparatory Committee of the Unified Patent Court 21 3.3.Ratifications of the UPCA 24 3.4 National Preparatory Work 24 4. Alternatives for the proprietor 25 4.1 Cost benefits of the unitary patent 25 4.1.1 Renewal fees 27 4.1.2 Validation 28 4.1.3 The relevant comparison 29 4.2 National jurisdiction or Unified Patent Court 31 4.3 The bundle patent – opt-out and opt-in 33 5. Conclusions 3 Introduction The Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) was signed on February 19, 2013. Those responsible for the unitary patent system have always made very optimistic forecasts about the progress of its implementation. The original schedule of the EU Commission expected the first unitary patents to be become in force in spring 2014. However, there have been legal and political obstacles to the necessary ratifications, the last ones being the Brexit referendum and its consequences as well as the complaint before the German Constitutional Court (BVerfG) against the ratification Bill. At present, expectations go into extremely different directions. Those anticipating an imminent decision of the BVerfG to dismiss the complaint expect that Germany will ratify before the Brexit becomes effective. 4 However, the German Constitutional Court conclusive solutions to the problems might 1. The patent-reform package has a long list of cases pending and its pro- be found, the question remains whether ceedings may be burdened with an addi- conflicting national interests would make tional problem not raised by the complain- it possible to come to unanimous positions ant but in other pending cases before the for revising the UPCA. So far, the history Court, namely that the judicial independ- of implementing the unitary patent is full ence of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, of surprises and the users of the European the last instance to decide on the validity of patent system have to be prepared for all unitary patents in opposition proceedings, alternatives. has been called into question. A ratification by Germany before the Brexit becomes 1. The patent-reform package effective may have the consequence that the apparent problems connected with the Various attempts to create a community patent, participation of the UK remain unresolved i.e. a patent of the Union which is self-contained when the system becomes operative. Such in respect of grant and validity, have been made problems include that the EU Regulations since the late fifties of the last century and on the unitary patent cease to have effect in turned out to be in vain. Over the decades, the the UK after the Brexit. Furthermore, the main contested issues were a common court sys- UPCA presupposes that its member states tem and the language problem, which is always are member states to the EU and acknowl- a delicate question in Europe, in the present edge the supremacy of the Court of Justice context regarding the question into which lan- of the EU (CJEU) in interpreting EU law. guages the patent has to be translated. However, the latter requirement is in Eventually two developments made it possible conflict with clear and repeated statements to overcome obstacles on the way to a unitary of the British Prime Minister that the UK patent for the Union: will not accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU. Nevertheless, the UK Government states in First, the possibility of »enhanced cooperation« its Brexit White Paper that the UK intends among a group of EU states, created by the to explore staying in the Unified Patent Treaty of Amsterdam for situations in which Court and unitary patent system after the not all EU states are prepared to cooperate. It UK leaves the EU. makes progress possible, even if unanimity can- not be reached. Second, the decision to connect Those offering solutions to the above the new EU-title in the simplest manner with problems concede that the UPCA would the grant proceedings before the EPO and to have to be amended. Even assuming that design it as a mere option for the applicant. 5 1.1 Legal basis 1.1 Legal basis the UPCA. After the CJEU dismissed the actions of Spain against the regulations on the unitary The creation of the unitary patent patent, Italy joined the unitary patent project required three legislative acts which and became the 26th member of the enhanced constitute the patent-reform package, cooperation in September 2015. that is One EU Member State participating in ― the Regulation on the unitary patent enhanced cooperation has not signed the UPCA: (hereinafter UPR), Poland. ― the Regulation on the language regime for the unitary patent (hereinafter One EU Member State has neither participated UPTR), in the enhanced cooperation nor signed the ― the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court UPCA: Spain. (hereinafter UPCA).1 Croatia has become an EU Member as of 1 July 2013, i.e. after signature of the UPCA. The two Regulations were published on Decem- ber 31, 2012.2 The Agreement was signed by 24 Whereas Spain and Poland have taken political of the then 27 EU States on February 19, 2013.3 decisions to stay outside the unitary patent sys- tem, there is no information on the intentions of 24 EU Member States participating in the Croatia. All three states can still join the system. enhanced cooperation from the beginning have Poland can simply ratify the UPCA. Spain and signed the UPCA: Croatia would have to join the enhanced cooper- ation before. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, 10 EPO Member States – Albania, Switzerland/ France, United Kingdom, Greece, Hungary4, Liechtenstein5, Iceland, Monaco, Macedonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Norway, Serbia, San Marino and Turkey – are Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, not EU Member States. Slovenia, Slovakia.In addition, Italy has signed 1 OJ EPO 2013, 287. 2 Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of December 17, 2012 implementing enhanced in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection and Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 of December 17, 2012 imple- menting enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements, OJ EU L 361 of December 31, 2012, p. 1 and p. 89. 3 Out of the 26 countries participating in the enhanced cooperation for the time being, Poland has not signed so far. Spain is 6 not participating in the enhanced cooperation. Italy signed the Agreement, although it decided to participate in the enhanced cooperation only later on. 4 The Hungarian Constitutional Court found in June 2018 that the Hungarian Constitution has to be changed to properly imple- ment the system (X/1514/2017). 5 Obligatory common designation under the EPC. The 38 EPO Member States and their participation in the patent-reform package 7 1.2 Legislative objectives The patent-reform package does not involve 1.3 The legal instruments 1.3 The legal instruments any change for non EU Member States. They 1.3.1 The Regulation on the stay with the European bundle patent and the Whereas the unitary patent is a creation of the unitary patent (UPR) jurisdiction of the national courts. Poland, European Union, it is fundamentally different participates in enhanced cooperation but has from the other industrial property titles of the not signed the UPCA and has, at present, no EU, the Community trademark, the Commu- intention to sign. The two regulations will not be nity design and the Community plant variety: applicable in Poland without entry into force of it is not granted by an EU agency but by the the UPCA (see in detail, pts. 1.4 and 4.1 below). European Patent Office (EPO). The EPO is the In its decision C-146/13, the CJEU did not executive organ of the European Patent Organ- address the argument in the Attorney General’s isation which is an independent international opinion that the participating states are obliged organisation. The unitary patent system has to ratify the UPCA in order to implement the been realized by three different legislative acts enhanced cooperation. because there are different legislative compe- tences for the different subjects. For the state of ratifications, see pts. 1.4 and 3.3. 1.3.1 The Regulation on the unitary 1.2 Legislative objectives patent (UPR) The unitary patent regulation and the EPC are The unitary patent is intended to interlinked.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office
    GUIDELINES FOR EXAMINATION IN THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE Published by the European Patent Office Published by the European Patent Office Directorate Patent Law 5.2.1 D-80298 Munich Tel.: (+49-89) 2399-4512 Fax: (+49-89) 2399-4465 Printed by: European Patent Office, Munich Printed in Germany © European Patent Office ISBN 3-89605-074-5 a LIST OF CONTENTS page General Part Contents a 1. Preliminary remarks 1 2. Explanatory notes 1 2.1 Overview 1 2.2 Abbreviations 2 3. General remarks 3 4. Work at the EPO 3 5. Survey of the processing of applications and patents at the EPO 4 6. Contracting States to the EPC 5 7. Extension to states not party to the EPC 5 Part A – Guidelines for Formalities Examination Contents a Chapter I Introduction I-1 Chapter II Filing of applications and examination on filing II-1 Chapter III Examination of formal requirements III-1 – Annex List of Contracting States to the Paris Convention (see III, 6.2) III-20 Chapter IV Special provisions IV-1 Chapter V Communicating the formalities report; amendment of application; correction of errors V-1 Chapter VI Publication of application; request for examination and transmission of the dossier to Examining Division VI-1 Chapter VII Applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) before the EPO acting as a designated or elected Office VII-1 Chapter VIII Languages VIII-1 Chapter IX Common provisions IX-1 Chapter X Drawings X-1 Chapter XI Fees XI-1 Chapter XII Inspection of files; communication of information contained in files; consultation of the Register of European
    [Show full text]
  • President's Activities Report SUBMITTED BY
    CA/88/18 Orig.: en Munich, 21.09.2018 SUBJECT: President's activities report SUBMITTED BY: President of the European Patent Office ADDRESSEES: Administrative Council (for information) CA/88/18 e 2018-4859 - I - TABLE OF CONTENTS Subject Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PERFORMANCE OF THE PATENT GRANTING PROCESS 2 A. WORKLOAD AND PRODUCTION 2 B. QUALITY 7 a) Quality action plans 8 b) Quality Management System 8 c) Asian documentation 9 d) Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) 10 e) Harmonisation efforts in relation to ICT 12 f) Harmonisation in the HBC sector: biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents 14 g) Procedures and Guidelines 14 C. RELATIONS WITH USERS 15 a) User support 15 b) User feedback 16 c) Communication with applicants 17 III. SOCIAL DIALOGUE 18 IV. IT AND AUTOMATION PROJECTS 19 A. ITR – DELIVERIES FOR THE PGP AND KMS 19 a) Delivering the digital transformation agenda 20 b) Improvements to existing tools 21 c) Other tool adaptations 21 B. DELIVERIES FOR OTHER AREAS 22 a) Corporate area 22 b) Infrastructure/data centres 23 C. LAUNCH OF AN IT AUDIT 23 V. BUILDINGS 23 A. NEW MAIN THE HAGUE 23 B. OTHER BUILDING PROJECTS 25 a) Status review of EPO premises – overview 25 CA/88/18 e 2018-4859 - II - VI. EPN 33 A. CO-OPERATION WITH MEMBER STATES 33 B. EUROPEAN PATENT ACADEMY 34 a) Institutional Strengthening 34 b) Judicial Training 34 c) Professional Representatives 34 d) Academia 35 e) E-learning 35 C. CO-OPERATION WITH THE EUIPO 35 D. REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE EPO 36 E. EUROPEAN PATENT REGISTER 36 F.
    [Show full text]
  • WEICKMANN & WEICKMANN LONDON Agreement Overview
    1 YEARS 2 WEICKMANN & WEICKMANN 8 0 8 0 125JAHRE Patentanwälte 2 7 European Patent Attorneys · European Trademark and Design Attorneys DIPL.-ING. H. WEICKMANN (bis 2001) DIPL.-ING. F. A. WEICKMANN DIPL.-CHEM. B. HUBER (bis 2006) DR.-ING. H. LISKA DIPL.-PHYS. DR. J. PRECHTEL LL.M. DIPL.-CHEM. DR. B. BÖHM DIPL.-CHEM. DR. W. WEISS DIPL.-PHYS. DR. J. TIESMEYER DIPL.-PHYS. DR. M. HERZOG DIPL.-PHYS. B. RUTTENSPERGER DIPL.-PHYS. DR.-ING. V. JORDAN DIPL.-CHEM. DR. M. DEY DIPL.-FORSTW. DR. J. LACHNIT Newsletter LL.M. DR. U. W. HERBERTH * DR.-ING. H.-J. TROSSIN 2008/03 * Rechtsanwalt LONDON Agreement Overview Our last newsletter (2008/02) generally informed about the London Agreement. Now further details of the translation requirements have become known. To give you an overview of the present situation, we enclose a map of the member states of the European patent organisation and a corresponding table indicating the states which are members of the LONDON Agreement (green, blue, blue hatched) and the states which are not yet member states of the LONDON Agreement (yellow). States marked green are those member states of the LONDON Agreement which do not require a translation. States marked blue are those member states of the LONDON Agreement which require a translation of the claims into the national language. States marked blue hatched are those member states of the LONDON Agreement which not only require the claims to be translated into the national language but also require the filing of an English translation of the specification if the patent specification is not written in English.
    [Show full text]
  • The Road Towards a European Unitary Patent
    EUC Working Paper No. 21 Working Paper No. 21, March 2014 Unified European Front: The Road towards a European Unitary Patent Gaurav Jit Singh Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore Photo: BNEGroup.org ABSTRACT For over forty years, European countries have held numerous conferences and signed multiple international agreements aimed at either creating a unitary patent which will be valid in all European countries upon issuance or establishing a specialized European court with jurisdiction over patents. This paper first outlines the need for a unitary patent in the European Union and then chronicles the measures taken to support and milestones toward the creation of a European-wide unitary patent system. The paper then discusses the few problems and pitfalls that have prevented European countries from coming to an agreement on such a patent system. Finally, the paper considers the closely related agreements of ‘Unitary Patent Package’, the challenges facing these agreements and examines if it would finally result in an EU Unitary patent system that benefits one and all. The views expressed in this working paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or the EU Centre in Singapore. The EU Centre in Singapore is a partnership of 13 EUC Working Paper No. 21 UNIFIED EUROPEAN FRONT: THE ROAD TOWARDS A EUROPEAN UNITARY PATENT GAURAV JIT SINGH1 INTRODUCTION Obtaining, enforcing and maintaining patents in the EU are far from efficient or cost effective. An inventor that seeks patent protection in the European Union (EU) territory now has to either file for a national patent in each one of 28 national patent offices, or file for a European patent, granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), within the framework of the European Patent Convention (EPC)2.
    [Show full text]
  • Germany, Reparation Commission)
    REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL DES SENTENCES ARBITRALES Interpretation of London Agreement of August 9, 1924 (Germany, Reparation Commission) 24 March 1926, 29 January 1927, 29 May 1928 VOLUME II pp. 873-899 NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONS Copyright (c) 2006 XXI a. INTERPRETATION OF LONDON "AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 9, 1924 *. PARTIES: Germany and Reparation Commission. SPECIAL AGREEMENT: Terms of submission contained in letter signed by Parties in Paris on August 28, 1925, in conformity with London Agree- ment of August 9, 1924. ARBITRATORS: Walter P. Cook (U.S.A.), President, Marc. Wallen- berg (Sweden), A. G. Kroller (Netherlands), Charles Rist (France), A. Mendelssohn Bartholdy (Germany). AWARD: The Hague, March 24, 1926. Social insurance funds in Alsace-Lorraine.—Social insurance funds in Upper Silesia.—Intention of a provision as a principle of interpretation.— Experts' report and countries not having accepted the report.—Baden Agreement of March 3, 1920.—Restitution in specie.—Spirit of a treaty.— Supply of coal to the S.S. Jupiter.—Transaction of private character. For bibliography, index and tables, see Volume III. 875 Special Agreement. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPARATION COMMISSION AND THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT. Signed at London. August 9th, 1924. Ill (b) Any dispute which may arise between the Reparation Commission and the German Government with regard to the interpretation either of the present agreement and its schedules or of the experts' plan or of the •German legislation enacted in execution of that plan, shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the methods to be fixed and subject to the conditions to be determined by the London conference for questions of the interpretation of the experts' Dlan.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules Relating to Unitary Patent Protection - Revised Version
    SC/10/14 Orig.: en Munich, 06.06.2014 SUBJECT: Rules relating to unitary patent protection - revised version SUBMITTED BY: President of the European Patent Office ADDRESSEES: Select Committee of the Administrative Council (for decision) SUMMARY Implementation at the European Patent Office of Regulations (EU) No 1257/2012 and No 1260/2012. This document follows document SC/3/14 dated 7 March 2014 and takes into account the comments and suggestions made at the 7th meeting of the Select Committee of 26 March 2014. It contains a revised and clean version of the Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection. The amendments to SC/3/14 are indicated by grey hatching in Annex 1. The grey hatchings in Rules 1 to 6 show the amendments already contained in document SC/3/14 with the exception of Rule 1(2) where a new amendment has been added. The provisions on the compensation scheme (Rules X, Y, Z, W including the explanatory remarks of document SC/35/13 Rev. 1) have been inserted in Part II, as new Chapter II (see new Rules 8 to 11). This document has been issued in electronic form only. SC/10/14 e 141320004 - I - TABLE OF CONTENTS Subject Page PART I INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS 2 CHAPTER I SUBJECT MATTER 2 Rule 1 Subject matter 2 CHAPTER II SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL 4 Rule 2 Competences and duties 4 CHAPTER III FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EPO AND SPECIAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE EPO 8 Rule 3 Functions and powers of the President of the European Patent Office 8 Rule 4 Unitary Patent Protection Division 10 PART II PROCEDURES
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Information 4/2000 117 Table of contents Editorial .................... 118 Oral proceedings and training therefor at the EPO in practice, by E. Krause (EPO) .... 150 How to satisfy trainingdemands I ± Information concerning epi by the Professional Qualifications Committee of epi, by S. Kaminski (epi)......151 Practical experiences of European Patent Council Meeting Attorneys in industry and private practice, by T. Onn (epi)..................154 Bericht über die 49. Ratssitzung, Rhodos, The oral hearingwithin education and 23. Oktober 2000 ............... 119 professional practice of the German Patent Entwurf der Beschlussliste............ 120 Attorney, by H. Lichti (PAK) ........... 155 Report of the 49th Council meeting, Rhodes, Further developments toward representation 23 October 2000 ................ 121 before courts ± Zehn Gründe für eine Draft List of Decisions.............. 122 Vertretungsbefugnis der Patentanwälte Compte rendu de la 49me rØunion du Conseil, in Europa vor einem künftigen Europäischen Rhodes, 23 octobre 2000 ............ 123 Patentgericht, by U. Dreiss (PAK)......... 158 Projet de Liste des DØcisions. .......... 124 President©s report ................ 125 Report on the 2nd Intergovernmental epi Membership / epi Subscription ...... 163 Conference on Reform of the EPO, by W. Holzer 126 Abschiedsworte an Herrn F. Jenny........ 131 Treasurer©s report ................ 132 Information from the Secretariat Deadline 1/2001................. 171 Committee Reports Queen Mary College Training Course ...... 186 epi Membership chart as of 31.10. 2000..... 187 Report of the EASY Committee, by D. Speiser . 132 epi Disciplinary bodies and Committees ..... 188 Report of the EPO Finances Committee, epi Board.................... U3 by J. Boff .................... 134 Report of the European Patent Praxis Committee (EPPC), II ± Contributions from epi-Members and other by A. Casalonga ................ 135 contributions Report of the epi Finance Committee, by B.
    [Show full text]
  • President's Activities Report SUBMITTED BY
    CA/44/19 Orig.: en Munich, 08.03.2019 SUBJECT: President's activities report SUBMITTED BY: President of the European Patent Office ADDRESSEES: Administrative Council (for information) CA/44/19 e 2018-5940 - I - TABLE OF CONTENTS Subject Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PERFORMANCE OF THE PATENT GRANTING PROCESS 2 A. WORKLOAD AND PRODUCTION 2 a) Search, examination and opposition 7 b) Early Certainty timeliness 8 B. QUALITY 9 a) User satisfaction 10 b) Quality indicators 11 c) Quality action plans 12 d) Quality management system 14 e) Asian documentation 18 f) Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) 18 g) Patent procedures management documented by QMS 21 h) Streamlining practices and procedures 21 C. RELATIONS WITH USERS 26 a) User support 27 b) User events 27 c) Praktika Extern 2018 28 d) Pan-European Seal Programme 29 e) User feedback 30 f) Communication with applicants 31 III. SOCIAL MATTERS 32 A. SOCIAL DIALOGUE 32 a) Outcomes of discussions with social partners 32 b) Continuous dialogue with staff 33 c) Internal justice system 33 B. RECRUITMENT AND WORKFORCE PLANNING 35 IV. IT AND AUTOMATION PROJECTS 37 A. ITR DELIVERIES FOR THE PGP AND KMS 37 a) Delivering the digital transformation agenda 37 b) Improvements to current tools 38 CA/44/19 e 2018-5940 - II - B. DELIVERIES FOR OTHER AREAS 38 C. IT AUDIT 39 V. BUILDINGS 39 A. NEW MAIN THE HAGUE 39 B. OTHER BUILDING PROJECTS 40 VI. EPN 41 A. CO-OPERATION WITH MEMBER STATES 41 B. EUROPEAN PATENT ACADEMY 42 C. CO-OPERATION WITH EUIPO 43 D. REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE EPO 43 E.
    [Show full text]
  • EPC 2000 the Revised European Patent Convention + the London Agreement
    EPC 2000 The Revised European Patent Convention + The London Agreement 2nd edition Königstraße 70 Am Literaturhaus 90402 Nürnberg Telefon: (0911) 89138-0 Telefax: (0911) 89138-29 Am Stein 12 D-97080 Würzburg Telefon: (0931) 286410 Telefax: (0931) 282597 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.ip-goetz.eu 1 What is the EPC? A multilateral treaty (34 contracting states) for a centralised patent grant procedure before a single patent office (EPO). To modernize the European patent system and adapt it to TRIPS (Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) and PLT (Patent Law Treaty), the revised EPC 2000 has entered into force on 12/13/2007. 2 What is the London Agreement? A multilateral sub-treaty (14 contracting states) to the EPC for the purpose to save translation costs (see at the end). 3 EPC 2000: Highlights at first glance (I) Changes in substantive patent law ➔ inventions in „all fields of technology“ (adaptation to TRIPS) no substantial change of current practise ➔ use-limited product protection for a second or further medical use of a kown substance (see example below) ➔ novelty-destroying effect of subsequently published EP application having an earlier priority date independent of country designation (see examples below) ➔ strengthening of extent of protection (see below) 4 EPC 2000: Highlights at first glance (II) Procedural „innovations“: ➔ Drastically decreasing requirements for the filing date (adaptation to PLT – see below) ➔ Re-establishment of rights and corrections in respect of priority claim ➔ Further processing of an application as standard legal remedy in respect of observing time limits ➔ Request by patent owner for centralised limitation or revocation of the EP patent ➔ Introduction of a third instance (Enlarged Board of Appeal) for the case of fundamental procedural defects in appeal proceedings (e.g.
    [Show full text]