tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7927828449818070345..comments2024-03-28T09:05:22.006+00:00Comments on The IPKat: EPO takes an ‘about turn’ on the patentability of products obtained by essentially biological processesVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-15621995585610669232017-07-27T09:32:05.373+01:002017-07-27T09:32:05.373+01:00I'm knowledgeable neither in biotech nor in in...I'm knowledgeable neither in biotech nor in international law, but what I find especially baffling is that (unless I missed something big) this "about turn" will also have effects in <i>non-</i>EU EPC states, e.g. Turkey, Serbia, Switzerland, and so on. What about the obligations of <i>those</i> states with respect to e.g. TRIPS? Will deep-pocketed patent applicants try to mount challenges before the courts of these member states as well?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-77606835384323258362017-07-26T17:01:51.783+01:002017-07-26T17:01:51.783+01:00If I understand those smart folks at CIPA correctl...If I understand those smart folks at CIPA correctly - its not just odd, but cat-on-hot-tin roof odd!!<br /><br />AnonymouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32177223114449423512017-07-26T16:40:57.386+01:002017-07-26T16:40:57.386+01:00Rule 26 EPC refers to the Biotech Directive, and D...Rule 26 EPC refers to the Biotech Directive, and Directives need to be interpreted via the EU. Therefore there is an argument that the EPO is bound by the interpretation of the EU on any rules that derive from the Biotech Directive. I understood that is what the purpose was of referring to Biotech Directive in the EPC, and so surely the logical thing to do in this situation is to follow the EU line on the issue of products of biological processes. Having a divergent interpretation between the EPO and EU creates too many problems otherwise.<br />___________<br />Rule 26<br />General and definitions <br /><br />For European patent applications and patents concerning biotechnological inventions, the relevant provisions of the Convention shall be applied and interpreted in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998[ 33 ] on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions shall be used as a supplementary means of interpretation.<br /><br />Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51637565883229711682017-07-26T15:30:11.039+01:002017-07-26T15:30:11.039+01:00Nice - do you all want to borrow the concept of st...Nice - do you all want to borrow the concept of stare decisis from us in the US?<br /><br />;-)THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51088825657799144752017-07-26T15:28:30.008+01:002017-07-26T15:28:30.008+01:00The new rule is illegitimate. CIPA have produced a...The new rule is illegitimate. CIPA have produced an excellent position paper on this:<br /><br />http://www.cipa.org.uk/policy-and-news/latest-news/observations-of-cipa-on-proposals-to-exclude-organisms-produced-by-biological-processes-from-patentability/<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-75297693281287525032017-07-26T14:08:38.028+01:002017-07-26T14:08:38.028+01:00In its decision Art 23 1/16 the EBA explicitely st...In its decision Art 23 1/16 the EBA explicitely stated that it felt threatened by the President of the Office, and not protected by the Administrative Council, in a disciplinary case which a few weeks ago culminated in the dismissal by the AC of a member of the boards of appeal, in violation of Art 23 EPC.<br />Can anybody in these circumstances reasonably expect the boards to question the new rule?Patented Potatoenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-137362795475082002017-07-26T13:24:08.731+01:002017-07-26T13:24:08.731+01:00Well, you're NOT thinking too simply about it ...Well, you're NOT thinking too simply about it - in fact, people who think the situation has now been clarified might be the ones thinking too simply about it.<br />The Examining Division and the Opposition Division are probably going to apply the new rule and reject these types of plants, but these decisions will typically be appealable, so appealers gonna appeal. The boards might then consider the new Rule to be inconsistent with the Article and their own case law, and therefore choose to ignore the new Rule. Thus, in appeal the plants might still turn out to be patentable. The future will tell.Albert R. Broccolinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20091312911720805872017-07-26T12:46:46.388+01:002017-07-26T12:46:46.388+01:00Not that I (a non biologist type) followed the rec...Not that I (a non biologist type) followed the recent EBA decisions deeply, but it seems odd that the EBA decision's have been overruled in this way??<br /><br />Perhaps I am thinking about this too simply. <br /><br />Anonymouse<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com