DOCSLIB.ORG

Protecting Software and Computer-Implemented Inventions in Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Protecting Software and Computer-Implemented Inventions in Europe JA Kemp International International Protecting software and computer-implemented inventions in Europe By John Leeming and Martin Jackson, JA Kemp categories of invention from patentability, in particular: A patent is generally considered to be the gold • discoveries, scientific theories and standard of intellectual property, potentially mathematical methods; offering true monopoly protection for a broad • aesthetic creations; inventive concept. Although copyright is also • schemes, rules and methods for performing important for software, its value has been mental acts, playing games or doing reduced by recent European Court of Justice business, and programs for computers; and judgments that copyright does not extend to • presentations of information. ‘look and feel’ or command syntax. However, the apparent prohibition on However, this was only to the extent that patenting computer programs in Europe has often the invention related to these things ‘as such’. discouraged the pursuit of patent protection The term ‘as such’ has over time been for software and computer-implemented used to diminish the prohibition to such an inventions. According to our research, in spite extent that it is now routinely possible to of the increasing penetration of software into all obtain patent protection for many computer parts of technology, the percentage of granted programs. In the test for patentability, it European patents that involve software has is what the computer program does that increased by only about 8% to 9% (see Figure 1). determines whether protection is available. It is clearly possible to obtain patent The meaning of these provisions was protection for many software and computer- first considered in a famous 1986 case called implemented inventions in Europe. Case law Vicom (T 0208/84). The decision noted that at the European Patent Office (EPO) is now the categories listed in the EPC as being settled and, as a result, it is possible to make excluded had in common the fact that they an early realistic judgement of patentability. were all “non-technical”. It was therefore Under the EPO’s now settled practice, concluded that an invention was not excluded it is necessary to consider both whether an invention is excluded from patentability and Figure 1: Granted European patents whether it has an inventive step (ie, sufficient involving software in their implementation as innovation to merit patent protection). The a percentage of all grants inventive step must be technical – business, administrative or abstract features are 12% ignored. A pure business method is therefore 10% not patentable in Europe and a computer- 8% implemented method must have some invention 6% in the technical aspects of the implementation. 4% 2% History 0% The European Patent Convention (EPC), originally agreed in 1973, excluded certain 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 www.iam-magazine.com IP Value 2014 21 International JA Kemp from patentability if it made a “technical method, but with no details of the computer contribution”, meaning that it had an effect or other means. For example, a claim might in the real world or related to something specify “a processor for determining the technical – in this case a digital image. price of a contract”. In such a case, the Following this decision, a number of cases step of determining the price of a contract pushed the boundaries of what is patentable. is considered to be non-technical and However, in 2000 the relevant Board of Appeal disregarded. The claim feature is therefore started to develop a new approach to software reduced to “a processor”, which is not new. and computer-implemented inventions which involve a mix of technical and non-technical Recent examples features. Following criticism by the UK Court Some examples of cases in which objections of Appeal, the new approach was endorsed based on non-technical subject matter were by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in Opinion not upheld on appeal include the following: G3/08 in 2011. • SAP/Fulfilment Coordination (T 0964/12) related to a system for tracking fulfilment of EPO’s current approach orders to a company, but went into details The EPO’s current approach to software and of the content and routing of messages in computer-implemented inventions can be the system (as can be seen from Figure 2), summarised as follows: which were considered to be technical. • A pure business or abstract method, • Network Appliance (T 0743/11) related containing no technical features at all, is to allocating space for files in a storage excluded from patentability, even if it is system, which was clearly technical. novel and has an inventive step. • If an invention involves any technical Some recent examples of cases rejected by the feature, however known or trivial, it EPO Boards of Appeal include the following: cannot be excluded. • Deutsche Börse – three cases (T 0907/09, T • When considering the novelty and 2078/08, T 2061/08) relating to valuation inventive step of such a mixed invention of futures contracts based on a basket (ie, an invention containing a mixture of of credit default swaps were rejected as technical and non-technical features), all of lacking any inventive technical features. the non-technical features are disregarded. Even claims specifying details of the algorithm used were rejected, as “the In other words, you need to isolate the algorithm serves an economic or financial technical features and determine whether they purpose without any technical relevance. are new and inventive in order to determine Accordingly, the algorithm does not enter patentability. into the examination for an inventive step”. • Ricoh (T 0972/07) claimed a computer How it works in practice system for managing the exchange between In a patent application, the claims define the different manufacturers of goods that had steps of the method or the features of the been collected for recycling and brought system that are to be protected. Features are to a central exchange facility. Again it was often defined by specifying function and the concluded that the computer system had no features alone determine patentability. inventive features after the administrative A pure business method claim is one that features had been disregarded. sets out only business or administrative steps, • Microsoft/Bayesian Scoring (T 1281/10) without even specifying that they are carried related to Bayesian techniques applied out by a computer or other technical system. to scoring of player skill in online multi- Such claims are relatively rare in the EPO and player computer games. This was held to are routinely rejected. be a game rule, not a technical matter. It is more common for a business method to be claimed in terms of a computer system The definition of ‘technical’ is uncertain or means for carrying out steps of the and the Boards of Appeal have resisted calls 22 IP Value 2014 www.iam-magazine.com JA Kemp International Figure 2: SAP/fulfilment coordination 500 Determination of physical Logical receiver Transformation from sender technical addressing determination based on format and values into information (address, business level routing rules receiver format and values transport protocol,...) 503 555 Sending Integration server Receiving component component 505 system system 557 Receiving Sending Message 520 Message 520 Message 520 Message application 520 application Header: R Header: Header: Header: Physical A V Logical -receiver R -sender -receiver Mapping -receiver address address routing Outbound -... -... framework -... resolution -... Inbound framework proxy framework proxy Body Body Body Body 510 outbound outbound inbound inbound 515 document 530 document 545 document 559 document 525 535 Get routing rules Get transformation Get receiver address Routing model Mapping Service 542 directory 547 directory directory 540 Integration directory 548 for its meaning to be clarified. They take the rejecting many cases that the EPO would likely view that they recognise technical subject have allowed. matter when they see it. Rest of the world National patent offices in Europe Patents are inherently territorial and The patent statutes of the member states of definitions of what can be protected are the European Patent Office are harmonised with harmonised only to a limited extent. An the European Patent Convention. Therefore, international business must bear in mind the the different patent offices ought to take position in all significant markets and those the same approach as the EPO. Although the of its competitors. Most countries restrict or German Patent Office has sometimes been said prohibit patents for business methods and to be stricter than the EPO, the main dissident other forms of abstract invention, but the is the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). criteria applied vary from country to country. The UKIPO’s general approach, following A detailed analysis of the position in other UK case law, is to identify what further countries is beyond the scope of this chapter. contribution the invention makes over the It is worth briefly mentioning the situation prior art (relevant inventions previously in the United States. The State Street Bank case disclosed), and then decide whether that of 1998 was widely seen as throwing open the contribution is technical. This could be seen doors of patentability to any method. A flood of as simply a reordering of the EPO approach business method patents followed, with some (which is to identify technical features, then ludicrous examples. The doors were closed determine whether they are inventive), and UK substantially by the Bilski case, decided by the courts have said that it ought to give the same US Supreme Court in 2010, and the Court of result. However, the UKIPO takes a narrow Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s judgment in view of what is a technical contribution, CLS Bank v Alice. However, there remains a lack www.iam-magazine.com IP Value 2014 23 International JA Kemp of clarity over the exact test for patentability.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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
    [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, November 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]
  • Sipim-Dissertation-Final 1
    The ASEAN Patent System: The Adoption of Regional Patent Office in ASEAN Sipim Wiwatwattana A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2017 Reading Committee: Toshiko Takenaka, Chair Kyoko Tokuno Robert W. Gomulkiewicz Dongsheng Zang Program Authorized to Offer Degree: School of Law © Copyright 2017 Sipim Wiwatwattana University of Washington Abstract The ASEAN Patent System: The Adoption of Regional Patent Office in ASEAN Sipim Wiwatwattana Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Toshiko Takenaka School of Law With the goal of establishing itself as a single market and competitive economic region, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) recognizes the patent system as a mechanism to promote a pro-business environment and to attract technological investment to the region. However, despite efforts to improve patent services, the limited institutional capacity and the flaws in patent registration system in ASEAN countries are still important obstacles for development. This study argues that ASEAN should consider adopting another regional model, namely the regional Patent Office, to remove such difficulties and promote the patent registration system in ASEAN. The core of this study, therefore, is the ASEAN regional Patent Office. The aim of this study seeks to examine the concept and potential impacts, both positive and negative, that the establishment of the regional Patent Office has on ASEAN and to determine whether the regional Patent Office can be a mechanism that helps ASEAN remove the flaws and serve ASEAN’ s interests. Based on a qualitative research, the study examines ASEAN regional framework, current situation, and constraints of patent registration system in ASEAN.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 the IP5 OFFICES
    IP5 Statistics Report 2011 Chapter 2 Chapter 2 THE IP5 OFFICES Patents are recognized throughout the world as a measure of innovative activity. The EPO, the JPO, the KIPO, the SIPO and the USPTO are the largest IP Offices in terms of the volume of patent applications they handle. The following figure shows the prominent role played by the IP5 Offices in terms of the number of patents in force at the end of 2010. The data are based on the most recent worldwide patent information available from the WIPO Statistics Database.8 Fig. 2.1 shows the number of patents in force by bloc in 2010. At the end of 2010, 89 percent of the 7.4 million patents in force were valid in one of the IP5 Offices jurisdictions. 8 http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/. Data for patents in force for 2010 are missing for some countries in the WIPO data. Where available, the most recent previous year’s data were substituted for missing 2010 data. 5 IP5 Statistics Report 2011 Chapter 2 EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE The EPO is the only central patent granting authority for Europe, providing patent protection in up to 40 European countries on the basis of a single patent application and a unitary grant procedure. This represents a market of more than 610 million people. At the end of 2011, the 38 members of the underlying European Patent Organization were: Albania Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Greece Estonia Finland France Germany Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxemburg Malta Monaco Fyr of Macedonia Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania San Marino Slovakia Slovenia Spain Serbia Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom Two other states have agreements with the EPO to allow applicants to request an extension of European patents to their territory: Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro The EPO has also developed a new scheme called validation agreements, allowing the protection of a European patent beyond the borders of the Organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Policy Issues in the Governance of the European Patent System
    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Science and Technology Options Assessment S T O A Current policy issues in the governance of the European patent system STUDY (IP/A/STOA/IC-2008-188) IP/A/STOA/2009-01 PE 424.763 DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT A: ECONOMIC AND SCIENTIFIC POLICIES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS ASSESSMENT Current policy issues in the governance of the European patent system REPORT ABSTRACT The European Parliament has been working towards building a discussion platform and a resource for further policy actions in the field of intellectual property rights. The Science and Technology Options Assessment Panel has set the goal of further enlarging the area of investigation in light of recent policy developments at the European level. In particular, the current study covers current policy issues in the governance of the European patent system, such as the backlog issue, the enhancement of patent awareness within the European Parliament, patent enforcement, the regional dimension of intellectual property in Europe, patents and standardisation, the use of existing patents, and patents and competition. These issues were discussed in the conference with stakeholders from European to national patent offices, from private to public sector actors. As a result of the conference, it was stated the need for an IP strategy for Europe. IP/A/STOA/IC/2008-188 MARCH 2010 PE 424.763 EN STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment _________________________________________________________________________________________ This
    [Show full text]
  • Link to Patent Quality
    Working Paper No 2013/14| June 2013 The Structure of Patent Costs and Patent Offices’ Funding: The (Missing) Link to Patent Quality Michelangelo Temmerman Although each system, whether the USPTO, the EPO is working with a different approach in this respect; none of them works along a consistent decoupling of the patent office’s funding from the number of patents granted. More financial resources – an essential part in achieving better patent quality – thus has to pass through more patent being granted. In other words, the office needing to decide on whether or not an invention should be granted a patent will have less income if it says the invention should not. This is a classic case of conflicts of interest; a case where wrong incentives appear. The paper advances essentially two points. First the funding of patent offices as well as how patent examiners are being assessed and rewarded should be disconnected from the number of patents granted. Second, the most cost-efficient and logical manner to do so - agreeing that innovation in the sense of patent law means should mean the same regardless of national borders - would be to implement an international agency responsible for checking the multilaterally agreed, basic requirements for patentability. Research for this paper was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation under a grant to the National Centre of Competence in Research on Trade Regulation, based at the World Trade Institute of the University of Bern, Switzerland. Contents I. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3 II. Patent office’s financing and the structure of patent costs ............................ 6 A. Patent office’s financing ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The IP5 Offices Chapter 2 the IP5 OFFICES
    IP5 Statistics Report 2012 Chapter 2 - The IP5 Offices Chapter 2 THE IP5 OFFICES The IP5 is the name given to the group made of the five largest intellectual property offices in the world (EPO, JPO, KIPO, SIPO and USPTO). The IP5 structure has been established to contribute to improving the efficiency of the examination process for patents worldwide. As the world sees economic barriers between nations fade away, innovators want their intellectual creations to be protected concurrently in multiple major markets. An estimated 250 000 patent applications for the same inventions are filed each year in two or more of the IP5 Offices, contributing to increasing backlogs. To address this issue, the IP5 Offices are working together to reduce, to the maximum extent possible, the duplication of work which takes place at each office for these patent applications. Patents are used to protect inventions, and their counts have been recognised throughout the world as a measure of innovative activity. The following figure shows the prominent role played by the IP5 Offices in terms of the worldwide number of patents in force at the end of 2011. The data are based on the most recent worldwide patent information available from the WIPO Statistics Database9. Fig. 2.1 shows the number of patents in force by bloc in 2011. Fig. 2.1: PATENTS IN FORCE END OF 2011 R. Korea P.R. China 678 005 696 939 Japan 9% 9% 1 542 096 U.S. 20% 2 113 628 26% EPC states Others 2 005 741 852 403 25% 11% At the end of 2011, 89 percent of the 7.9 million patents in force were valid in one of the IP5 Offices jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical and Practical Aspects Related to Patent Quality in the Context of Standard Essential Patents
    TECHNICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS RELATED TO PATENT QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENTS - An exploratory case study for WIPO - Author: Chryssoula Pentheroudakis Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of WIPO or its Member States. The same disclaimer applies to the input provided by lead experts of the patent offices and standard developing organizations for the purposes of the study; albeit authoritative, their views and opinions do not necessarily represent the official position of the respective institutions. TECHNICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS RELATED TO PATENT QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 3 I. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 10 A. INTERFACE OF PATENTS AND STANDARDS ........................................................... 10 B. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................... 12 II. INTERFACE OF PATENT QUALITY AND STANDARDS .................................................. 14 A. PATENT QUALITY AND POLICY INSTRUMENTS FROM A PATENT OFFICE PERSPECTIVE..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FICPI Historic Event 5Th Open Forum Monte Carlo 3-6 November 1999
    FICPI Historic Event 5th Open Forum Monte Carlo 3-6 November 1999 Paper Number Speaker Title Page Number MC/1.1a Jean-Jacques JOLY Unity Of Invention In Europe 3 MC/1.1b Leonard SVENSSON Recent Changes In Practice At The Uspto 9 MC/1.2 Michael FYSH QC, SC of Scope Of Claims 15 the London and Dublin Bars MC/1 H. Sam FROST Are We Content With A Novelty Standard 23 That Creates Two Classes Of Patentable Subject Matter? (Is Anyone Interested In A Sale Bar?) MC/1.6 Peter JAMES Regional Patent Systems In Africa 31 MC/1.6 Vladimir RYBAKOV Eurasian Patent System: An Advantage To 36 Be Employed MC/1.7 Dr. Daniel ALGE, Vienna Opposition Practice At The Epo 42 MC/2.1a Jean-Marie Trade Mark Use On The Internet 52 BOURGOGNON MC/2.1b Tan Tee Jim, S.C., Trade Mark Use On The Internet 57 SINGAPORE MC/2.2a K.L. HENRIKSEN Bad Faith Registration 72 MC/2.2b William HOWIE Bad Faith Trade Mark Registrations 79 MC/2.5 Paul STEINHAUSER, Trademark Litigation In Europe: The 85 Amsterdam Interplay Between National Trademarks And Community Trademarks MC/3.6 Ethan HORWITZ Cost Of Action Vs. Damages In 89 Trademarks Infringement Actions In The United States MC/3.3 Harold C. Wegner Patent Appeals At The U.S. Pto 97 MC/3.3 Knud RAFFNSØE, Appeal Examination System Towards The 110 Denmark 21st Century MC/3.3 Yoshinori Teramoto, JP The Japanese Appeal System 119 MC/3.5 Professor, Jur. Dr. SPARE PARTS And Their PROTECTION 128 Marianne LEVIN, Faculty From A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE of Law, Stockholm University MC/3.6 Keith BERESFORD The State Of The Art In Speech 136 Recognition MC/3.7 Alison DYER, South Africa Indigenous Rights 137 Please note: Only a small selection of the papers presented at the 5th FICPI Open Forum, Monte Carlo 1999 are available in electronic form.
    [Show full text]