tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4760714930684965524..comments2024-03-28T08:10:18.991+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Presentation of information: Is the EPO stretching the line for patentable subject-matter, again?Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-71549034017558802472018-01-25T21:22:06.502+00:002018-01-25T21:22:06.502+00:00Oh come on, Ron. You cannot be serious. First, def...Oh come on, Ron. You cannot be serious. First, define what you mean by "the EPO". Is it DG1, for which The Guidelines are holy writ, binding? Or is it DG3, for which G Decisions are in practice "binding"? For every T Decision that helps you, the other side can find one that helps them. It never ceases to amaze me when judges in English patent cases cite a single T Decision as representing some sort of precedent binding at the EPO. Recall Robin Jacob, saying that the EPO's White Book of Established Caselaw is one of the most important reference books on his desk.<br /><br />Flexibility cuts both ways. It helps the EPO get to a just result, but it helps you too, in putting forward your best case. maxdreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-73387598585139828302018-01-25T18:31:55.669+00:002018-01-25T18:31:55.669+00:00Indeed. I have read numerous decisions where the (...Indeed. I have read numerous decisions where the (usually British) attorney has, when arguing on the basis of EPO case law, been reminded that, unlike Anglo-Saxon legal systems, the instances of the EPO are not precedent-driven, but are only constrained by the legal code of the EPC and its rules. Not that this stops the EPO from treating case law as binding when it suits them: Heads we win, Tails you lose!Ronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31781903787310572732018-01-22T17:56:41.678+00:002018-01-22T17:56:41.678+00:00I fully support Max Drei's view.
By the way,...I fully support Max Drei's view. <br /><br />By the way, decisions of the BA are only binding to the examining and opposition divisions if they are clearly named as such in the Guidelines. <br /><br />Should you wish to quote in first instance a decision which is not in the Guidelines, you will have to convince it that it applies, by analogy, to your case. Otherwise it will be acknowledged but ignored.<br /><br />Before a BA, bringing in case law from other BA is rarely successful. They are not interested, as case law, unless from the EBA is also not binding. How many BA even refused to refer a case to the EBA, although it could have been done in view of diverging decisions. Attentive observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-24529797223747011522018-01-21T18:28:16.773+00:002018-01-21T18:28:16.773+00:00Good comment, that last one. Does it help, I wonde...Good comment, that last one. Does it help, I wonder, to keep in mind that i) the Guidelines are distilled out of DG3's leading cases, the Established Caselaw of DG3, no less, ii) the Guidelines are not written by judges, and iii) the Guidelines are for EPO Examiners. The Guidelines are intended as a help to DG1 in its task of examining consistently the applications filed at the EPO. For the Established Caselaw of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, see the White Book.<br /><br />Thus, in argument with DG1, quote the Guidelines. For DG1 it is holy writ. These days, no member of DG1 will have the nerve to push The Guidelines. But, in presenting cases to the EPO's Boards of Appeal, don't make the mistake of shaking a copy of The Guidelines at the Board. Instead, remind them what is their own Established Caselaw, direct from the White Book. <br /><br />If you want to push the legal envelope, you are not going to do it with The Guidelines but only on appeal to DG3, by arguing convincingly that DG3's "established" caselaw is not so established as to be carved in stone.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-43794877290428554072018-01-19T09:12:33.685+00:002018-01-19T09:12:33.685+00:00"...it seems that the new G II 3.7EPO Guideli..."...it seems that the new G II 3.7EPO Guidelines open up new opportunities with regards to the definition of patentable subject-matter". Nope. Just no. The Guidelines do not open up any opportunities. <br /><br />As previous comments have set out above, the Guidelines are simply that, guidelines. The law is the law as set out in the EPC and the case law of the Boards of Appeal. The guidelines do nothing more than attempt to explain that law. If new opportunities are opening up it is because there is case law that has done so. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42142291301323379082018-01-18T11:44:46.025+00:002018-01-18T11:44:46.025+00:00What is a "pure business method?"What is a "pure business method?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52506349429202360082018-01-18T11:43:21.392+00:002018-01-18T11:43:21.392+00:00" An application of the Guidelines would lead..."<i> An application of the Guidelines would lead us to the conclusion that although lean is per se not technical</i>"<br /><br />I do not follow as to why this statement has merit.<br /><br />Given the predicate that lean is <b>directly</b> related to "technical" improvements (however that word may be defined), I would posit that the exact opposite statement would be true: lean IS per se technical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-13832378260841477012018-01-18T11:39:09.363+00:002018-01-18T11:39:09.363+00:00what is the definition of the word "technical...what is the definition of the word "technical" that is so heavily being leaned upon?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23867737726769329302018-01-18T11:35:59.112+00:002018-01-18T11:35:59.112+00:00EPA for UK:
I must confess that I'm slightly ...EPA for UK:<br /><br />I must confess that I'm slightly confused as to how a claim to lean manufacturing would be considered as a presentation of information, unless the claims were very poorly drafted. The link to pure business methods isn't convincing at all, I'm afraid. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89601808381289498082018-01-18T08:50:46.455+00:002018-01-18T08:50:46.455+00:00The 'Guidelines' are guidelines. The law i...The 'Guidelines' are guidelines. The law is as written in the EPC with reference to the case law of the Boards for assistance with interpretation. If the case law supports the guidelines, the guidelines are not stretching the law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56459778214214794792018-01-18T08:16:21.403+00:002018-01-18T08:16:21.403+00:00The post gives the impression that the revised Gui...The post gives the impression that the revised Guidelines suggest a more liberal approach of assessing inventive step for inventions directed to inventions comprising non-technical features. However, this seems not to be the intention of the revision. Rather the Guidelines add examples from the case law in order to assist users how to find the rather difficult boarderline between patentable and non-patentable inventions in the field of computer implemented inventions. In particular, this applies to the soccer game example which is taken from T 0928/03 (Video game/KONAMI) of 2.6.2006, a decision which has been repeatedly referred to in the relevant parts of the Case Law book. Thus, apparently no stretching the line for patentable subject-matter but giving more guidance in a complex field.The Convention watchdognoreply@blogger.com