tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post166121973901486176..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Internet-hosted prior art and proof of publication: UK not bound by EPO level of proofVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-79090357425933939822009-11-23T12:09:56.845+00:002009-11-23T12:09:56.845+00:00Having successfully defended an opposition in NZ a...Having successfully defended an opposition in NZ and successfully enforced in SG a same 'software patent', in each case involving essentially the same 'evidence' and prior art, I can fully support <b>Aaradhana</b> and <b>Adrian Evans</b> respective comments about SG and NZ. <br /><br />However, on the basis of the AU opposition (still in respect of the same 'software patent', still involving essentially the same 'evidence' and prior art), IP Australia, which also relies upon the balance of probabilities approach, came to adifferent conclusion about the evidence relative to the NZ IPO and the SG High Court (and CA), anecdotally showing that the NZ 'benefit of the doubt' approach appears (as expected) to benefit the patentee somewhat more, and that a sandardised application of the 'balance of probabilities' test offers no guarantees about its outcome in different jurisdictions, given an identical set of circumstances.Stephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03939472170439107513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-25359173460906904722009-11-22T20:31:06.565+00:002009-11-22T20:31:06.565+00:00The New Zealand Commissioner of Patents is require...The New Zealand Commissioner of Patents is required to give the applicant the benefit of any reasonable doubt as to whether something is patentable. <br /><br />The NZ Patents Act 1953 is based on the long-since repealed UK Patents Act 1949 and the NZ courts have approved the ‘benefit of the doubt’ standard applied by the UK courts under the 1949 UK Act. <br /><br />Legislation to replace the Patents Act 1953 is currently being considered by a parliamentary select committee and proposes to replace the benefit of the doubt standard with a balance of probabilities approach.Adrian Evanshttp://www.henryhughes.co.nznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-17444820076585250492009-11-21T00:10:00.888+00:002009-11-21T00:10:00.888+00:00wow, the Patents Act is older than I thought :-)wow, the Patents Act is older than I thought :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-66627417053986541232009-11-20T23:48:07.680+00:002009-11-20T23:48:07.680+00:00@Anon of 12:10PM: what patent. (True, the FFII cou...@Anon of 12:10PM: what patent. (True, the FFII counts published applications as patents.)<br /><br />@Scott Roberts:<br />I agree that the linking issue in the Konami case may indeed be sufficient reason to require further evidence of the publication of the relevant document in that case. However, would it not be possible to argue this while still using "balance of probabilities" as standard of proof?<br /><br />It just seems odd to me that the standard of proof would be determined by the reliability of the evidence. In my view, unreliability should not result in raising the required standard of proof, but (if sufficiently unreliable) in not meeting the same standard of proof as used for (and met by) "reliable" evidence.<br /><br />In T 1134/06 the Board seems to suggest that "balance of probabilities" can only be used for documents like patent documents that evidently meet this standard (as regards publication date). That doesn't make sense to me.<br /><br />@Anon of 7:19PM:<br />The contribution approach indeed. Of course the practical result using the EPO approach should be the same for this case (as in most cases). Actually I'm pretty sure that in cases where the outcome does differ it's not because of the difference in approach, but because of a different view of what is technical. See for example T 49/04 and T 1143/06: comparable facts, same approach, different result.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-63813819069064757262009-11-20T23:02:43.747+00:002009-11-20T23:02:43.747+00:00Standard of proof in Singapore is the same as that...Standard of proof in Singapore is the same as that in UK:<br /><br />It is the "balance of probabilities" for the civil matters<br /><br />"proof beyond reasonable doubt" for the criminal matters.Aaradhananoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32297924643606289252009-11-20T19:19:56.455+00:002009-11-20T19:19:56.455+00:00"An apparatus comprising: a first ANPR camera..."An apparatus comprising: a first ANPR camera, a second ANPR camera, a database and a processor".<br /><br />Doesn't seem like a 'mental act as such' to me. How would one possibly perform the claimed invention in one's head?<br /><br />Just shows how silly the 'contribution' approach is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87028894442747996672009-11-20T15:23:21.243+00:002009-11-20T15:23:21.243+00:00Archive.org really highlights the difference betwe...Archive.org really highlights the difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "balance of probabilities".<br /><br />On balance of probabilities Archive.org is generally reliable since the methodology employed by Archive.org to archive web documents is reasonably consistent and rigorous.<br /><br />However, the analysis of Archive.org conducted in the EPO Konami decision is such as to introduce reasonable doubt that can render it unreliable using the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof. In particular, the fact that links within documents archived on a first date can lead to other documents archived on a second date.<br /><br />All that said, adopting the criminal standard of proof for such things makes no sense - at least not in the UK.Scott Robertsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-85938690103614594592009-11-20T13:49:29.972+00:002009-11-20T13:49:29.972+00:00Since the application has been refused, a software...Since the application has been refused, a software patent, or any other kind of patent for that matter, is precisely what it is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-80378080898844205872009-11-20T13:21:28.163+00:002009-11-20T13:21:28.163+00:00According to the literature I found, it is the &qu...According to the literature I found, it is the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard that applies in the patent grant procedure under German law.<br />That is because the patent grant procedure is basically public administrative law, and not, as the Hearing Officer suggests, a civil matter. The issue is a bit controversial, but rarely discussed.pchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-40389374707679059162009-11-20T12:10:04.601+00:002009-11-20T12:10:04.601+00:00Yet another software patent.Yet another software patent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com