tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4781657465810619770..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Past interpretation no guarantee of future performanceVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-14934194521942550812008-06-17T11:04:00.000+01:002008-06-17T11:04:00.000+01:00Strange. Apparently, then an earlier EPO Board of...Strange. Apparently, then an earlier EPO Board of Appeal interpretation has a higher weight than one of a UK Court - see Monsanto v Cargill [2007] EWHC 2257 (Pat) <BR/>"...I think one needs a good reason to depart from an interpretation placed on a claim by a TBA in contested proceedings and which forms part of one of the grounds of decision."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-12236888815612509392008-06-12T13:16:00.000+01:002008-06-12T13:16:00.000+01:00I see you think that the trade-off between fair pr...I see you think that the trade-off between fair protection for the inventor and reasonable legal certainty for the public is still "usual", a "given". Comforting, in that case, that the EPC expressly provides it, in Art 69 and the Protocol, but sad that no other patent Statute in the world does that. One thinks back wistfully to the time when IPR wasn't sexy, and when patent law specialists could craft a European Convention of irreducible minimum fundamental universal patent law, beautiful in its simplicity, without the tiresome interference of the ignorant but self-important politicians and pressure groups. Only one thing for it, lads and lasses, the specialists have to get lobbying, lest those who know nothing about the subject carry the day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com