tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5946297549303791175..comments2024-03-28T09:05:22.006+00:00Comments on The IPKat: G 2/08 (Dosage Regimes) decision is now outVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-13401078062497231492010-02-22T22:46:25.560+00:002010-02-22T22:46:25.560+00:00Just to show that popes *can* be wrong, have a loo...Just to show that popes *can* be wrong, have a look at <a href="http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/39A2BB5F9E52E24BC12575A80049CB02/$File/r5_08_en.pdf" rel="nofollow">decision R 5/08</a> and the corresponding <a href="https://register.epoline.org/espacenet/application?number=EP94102560&tab=doclist" rel="nofollow">file</a>.<br /><br />During the petition procedure, the respondent filed a legal opinion by Prof. Straus (letter of 29.01.2009) in which he argued inter alia that the respondent should have been summoned to oral proceedings held in the preliminary proceedings pursuant to Rule 109(2)(a) EPC. This position is rather surprising (to put it mildly) and indeed the EBA did not at all agree: "In the judgement of the Enlarged Board, the respondent wholly misunderstood the two distinct stages provided by Article 112a and Rule 109 EPC for the treatment of petitions for review."<br /><br />(Actually, the EBA did not admit the late filed legal opinion into the procedure, but it seems pretty clear that it would not have followed this aspect of the opinion anyway. Personally I'm at a loss to understand what the respondent was thinking when it objected to not having been summoned in the R. 109(2)(a) procedure.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-59010039946370201072010-02-22T20:44:41.616+00:002010-02-22T20:44:41.616+00:00Since there are no parties, I don't think ther...Since there are no parties, I don't think there will be oral proceedings for G 3/08.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31761551530592215222010-02-22T13:29:15.381+00:002010-02-22T13:29:15.381+00:00We are also still waiting for G 2/07 and G 1/08 (e...We are also still waiting for G 2/07 and G 1/08 (essentially biological processes) both of which were referred before G 3/08. Also they have yet to have the oral proceedings for G 3/08. It may be some time off yet (admissible or not).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53250873550264246622010-02-22T10:13:38.250+00:002010-02-22T10:13:38.250+00:00Maybe that, if G 3/08 is not held inadmissible, th...Maybe that, if G 3/08 is not held inadmissible, the dissapointment would still be greater?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-58876040503609764162010-02-22T09:10:10.986+00:002010-02-22T09:10:10.986+00:00I would be very curious to know when the G 3/08 de...I would be very curious to know when the G 3/08 decision (on software patents) will be made, now that all other "G x/08" decisions have been made.<br /><br />If "patent pope" Joseph Straus' recommendation is followed, it is simply not admissible, based on a hard rule in the EPC. And why wouldn't professor Straus be right?? Then we have waited a year and a half for a disappointment.<br /><br />Does anybody have indications when to expcet the G 3/08 decision?Reinier Bakelsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-61427240228040702142010-02-20T08:41:15.777+00:002010-02-20T08:41:15.777+00:00my reading is that pending applications (with prio...my reading is that pending applications (with priority date prior to the 3m cut-off from pubn in the OJ, whenever that turns out to be) and already granted patents are not affected - the decision clearly says it shall have no retroactive effect and that the 'relevant date' is the filing/priority date (reasons 7.1.4)<br /><br />this has the consequence that we could still be prosecuting swiss claims for ages after they become 'illegal' - priority applications being filed now can still have them in, and these may not see the light of day in EPO examination for many years...Cosmictrouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14474511806174328323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-78847447354708043582010-02-20T01:21:17.542+00:002010-02-20T01:21:17.542+00:00It's not entirely clear what the 3 month deadl...It's not entirely clear what the 3 month deadline applies to. I'm sure I wasn't the only one confused by this aspect of the decision.<br /><br />The decision makes clear that the EBA is aware that patents with 2nd medical use claims have been granted and many are currently pending, and it is not the intention to mess with these ("... the new law shall...shall therefore have no retroactive effect...").<br /><br />The decision states clearly that the "time limit of three months" is to allow "future applications to comply with this new situation". It doesn't refer to current applications or currently pending applications.<br /><br />Given this, it might be that the EPO will not object to 2nd medical use type claims if they are contained in a pending application, or in an application filed before the 3 months is up. There may be some advantage in doing the latter for some clients and some types of inventions.<br /><br />One would hope that detailed guidance will be published on the EPO website over the next few weeks.Chong-Yee Khoohttp://www.cantab-ip.comnoreply@blogger.com