tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2984991210068459001..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The KatChat (or was it a PatChat?): Christopher Rennie-Smith and Darren Smyth discuss EPO proceedingsVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-16974565500218744742014-10-22T09:22:04.587+01:002014-10-22T09:22:04.587+01:00Is it strange that ipkat is not reporting on presi...Is it strange that ipkat is not reporting on president Battistelli marching Mr Schroeder off the building "by mutual agreement"?<br />Or will replace the secretary to the administration council by his own secretary?<br />Or that president does not approve the appeal board independance and tries to put pressure by not appointing new members or reappointing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84384955870166592172014-10-12T22:32:20.199+01:002014-10-12T22:32:20.199+01:00Is true that president Batistelli has sacked head ...Is true that president Batistelli has sacked head of oeb communication?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-27569403884933485722014-10-03T11:25:12.091+01:002014-10-03T11:25:12.091+01:00"As for the First Instance, there aren't ..."As for the First Instance, there aren't actually any procedural rules."<br />Good to know. We can't make any procedural errors then?? I think not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62363648346482254672014-09-24T14:08:24.567+01:002014-09-24T14:08:24.567+01:00What else could CRS say, when performing to a Lond...What else could CRS say, when performing to a London audience? Come on guys, where's your sense of humour?<br /><br />And if I happen to think that the blunt, direct and business-oriented Dutch are the best (taking as they do the best of both the German and the English advocacy skills) then almost certainly.......I'm a Dutchman, aren't I?<br /><br />Don't believe me? Then look at the Dutch caselaw, and how it unashamedly and cold-bloodedly picks the best out of both the English and the German.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-80541081607703010762014-09-24T10:43:46.368+01:002014-09-24T10:43:46.368+01:00Quote: There is however a clear difference in appr...Quote: There is however a clear difference in approach between advocates of different nationalities. "There are some good ones elsewhere, but the British -- even the solicitors -- are the best <br /><br />Oh whow - my experience is entirely different. The Germans are the best.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67719142786256321202014-09-19T13:02:44.584+01:002014-09-19T13:02:44.584+01:00I think it a stretch to take those two Decisions a...I think it a stretch to take those two Decisions as proof of increasing "leniency" on Art 123(2).<br /><br />What do they say? Only that i) verbatim text in the appln as filed is not the test and that ii) the notional reader is a techie not a philologist.<br /><br />But that we knew already. Oder?<br /><br />That said, I do hope that DG1 will gradually relent from ist "verbatim or nothing" stance. For DG 1 though, it has to be made clearer in The Guidelines. My hunch is that it will be, in forthcoming Editions.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60081373764090001642014-09-19T01:54:43.933+01:002014-09-19T01:54:43.933+01:00@Anonymous 18 September 2014 13:25:00 BST :
Could...@Anonymous 18 September 2014 13:25:00 BST :<br /><br />Could you please explain how those two cases that where decided on specific technical considerations could support your sweeping statement that "the EPO is becoming more lenient on added matter".<br /><br />On the contrary, to appreciate the "established case law" it is really much more relevant that the Enlarged Board of Appeal in G02/10 has clearly endorsed the prohibition of "intermediate generalisations not specifically mentioned nor implicitly disclosed in the application as filed".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-90171075273720787962014-09-18T16:29:34.813+01:002014-09-18T16:29:34.813+01:00Regarding BoA members serving as judges, there is ...Regarding BoA members serving as judges, there is a provision that expressly seems to allow it, Art. 149a(2)(a) PEC.PJZZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53438190855536323442014-09-18T13:25:35.282+01:002014-09-18T13:25:35.282+01:00I think recent decisions T667/08 and T2619/11 show...I think recent decisions T667/08 and T2619/11 show the EPO is becoming more lenient on added matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67005377318381353952014-09-18T12:51:08.440+01:002014-09-18T12:51:08.440+01:00A new word "Eponglish" for me to cherish...A new word "Eponglish" for me to cherish. I suspect it is a language that is easier to learn for those who have already left behind Oxbridge High Table English and switched to IBM Globish. An overwhelming proportion of the EPO's work is in English but don't forget though that an overwhelming proportion of the litigation on EPO patents is in places where English is a foreign language. Keep it simple. Otherwise, CIPA members, on the mainland you risk your client's patent being not understood at all or, worse, misunderstood!<br /><br />I have a question. Does anybody else use the argument I use, when explaining Art 123(2) EPC to US clients, that it is not unlike their own 35 USC 112 requirement for a "written description". As I understand it, that also sets a high "novelty" bar test (rather than a lower "obvious" bar test) to what's there in the originally filed specification or (as we call it over here) written description.<br /><br />That might take the top off the American outrage about things at the EPO being "bewildering" or "incomprehensible" mightn't it?<br /><br />Fulsome thanks to Christopher, Jeremy and Collyer-Bristow, for putting on this helpful event. <br /><br />MaxDreinoreply@blogger.com