tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4193298928693636825..comments2024-03-29T06:53:23.405+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The EU patent package: a dangerous precedent? A call for sanityVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62370015359034469642015-04-22T15:39:30.398+01:002015-04-22T15:39:30.398+01:00A late comment, but one of the signatories of this...A late comment, but one of the signatories of this letter is Manuel Desantes, who was Vice President 5 of the EPO for a number of years. He was in charge of all the lawyers of the EPO (except those in DG3, that is).<br />Just to balance the previous comment...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29103443077113392015-03-16T17:43:10.716+00:002015-03-16T17:43:10.716+00:00I only know two of the signors of the letter: both...I only know two of the signors of the letter: both of them are linked to major IP firms the main business of which is validations. May this have influenced their positions?Magnusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-6403545812576295312015-03-16T08:14:30.283+00:002015-03-16T08:14:30.283+00:00I am afraid that most of the arguments in this pet...I am afraid that most of the arguments in this petition are just incorrect. I have posted detailed comments on the EPLAW Patent Blog<br /><br />Wouter Pors<br />Bird & BirdWouter Porshttp://www.twobirds.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30254526242645958712015-03-15T14:59:48.973+00:002015-03-15T14:59:48.973+00:00I do agree with George Brock-Nannestad and Meldrew...I do agree with George Brock-Nannestad and Meldrew that the current UPC agreement and the basis on which it is founded do appear to be the best possible considering the political circumastances. Criticismis easy and in many cases suffers from a fear for the new situation. I would be tempted to say that in the filed of patents, which by nature deal with novelties and innovations, it would be fundamental to be pro (legal) changes.<br />The drawback of the present times, however, as George rightfully mentions is the haste that is applied to the process of legislation. Again, this is mostly due to political reasons and for this it is only to be applauded that the current further drafting of e.g. the rules of procedure are left to (a representation from) the users of the system.<br />Lastly, I am very confident that the UP and UPC will have a major boost in the harmonisation of the European patent law, even beyond the European Union only. Millipedenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30555800892466701452015-03-14T09:00:25.894+00:002015-03-14T09:00:25.894+00:00Ipkat observer said:
Here is an article worth read...Ipkat observer said:<br />Here is an article worth reading<br /><br />http://www.bundesverband-patentanwaelte.de/eu-einheitspatent/bdpa-setzt-auf-offenen-dialog/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-38798370069830106102015-03-13T21:52:46.675+00:002015-03-13T21:52:46.675+00:00I am concerned about the way in which European law...I am concerned about the way in which European laws and institutions are built nowadays. The UP and its UPC is quite a dreadful example, and now we see the same approach in the reform of the Boards of appeal of the EPO. Extremly short preparation, lack of transparency, design by non-specialists driven by ignorant politicians and wihout real consultation of those who are expected to make the system live, ... Have we completely lost our minds? Why all the hurry? As a friend once told me: it takes a hundred years to make an oak, in 24 hours you can only have a cucumber.Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-59833848756194181282015-03-13T21:51:30.235+00:002015-03-13T21:51:30.235+00:00I am so tired. The debate might be summarised:-
W...I am so tired. The debate might be summarised:-<br /><br />What is new is different - therefore I am against it.<br />What is new is not the best I could hope for - therefore I am against it.<br />I cannot get to heaven - therefore I will go to hell.<br />Nobody asked me.<br />The world is mad except for you and me - and sometimes I wonder about you.<br />I am the only sane person in the world. <br />Leave me alone.Meldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-18181974496482418642015-03-13T19:56:33.635+00:002015-03-13T19:56:33.635+00:00I think that the EU member states as any other sta...I think that the EU member states as any other states are proud of their own jurisprudence in patent matters, and the erection of the EPC-system was the maximum that a group of states could agree on might be delegated out. The EPC is deficient in one aspect: that of the right of the slighted applicant to have an independent judicial review of the granting process to the highest court, as is the case for national patent applications. It is a fundamental right.<br /><br />The only logical approach to uniform EU patent protection is obviously to have a EU-wide patent system, but the negative attitude by the states to real federation is very well displayed by their negative attitude to scrapping their national jurisprudence and abandoning their more or less harmonised patent laws. The time is not yet ripe, and as we know, many years have passed since the first attempts. Commisioner Michel Barnier wanted fame and pressed for the best solution obtainable: that a subset of the EU might go further and create the Agreement for this select group. The EU as such was a willing supplier of Regulations (and certain legal sneakinesses for those single states who were really opposed) that all have to adhere to, but which will only take effect when the UPC has been ratified by sufficient states. Obviously this creates a break in the EU, and it has not solved the fundamental problem of the slighted applicant. It is shoddy work, performed with a final haste that can only come about through pressure from the outside. I cannot believe that Barnier is to be faulted, although it was his dream.<br /><br />Now a group of eminent patent scholars deplore the present situation, which is due to premature and defective solidification of a system. In an ideal federalistic world, I would agree with them, but there are apects not yet discussed in this thread that prevent me. The reason is that the EPO is engaged as a subsupplier to the UPC, but by means of a system, where an applicant decides post-grant whether in fact he has intended (or now intends) a Unitary Patent. The logical development would have been to designate the EPO to be the examining entity for a proper Unitary Patent Application, because then the slighted applicant might go to the Unified Patent Court.<br /><br />But at present the EPO-system is being dumbed-down (and we are guaranteed this by means of ISO9001), and so it is in my opinion no longer fit to be a subsupplier, irrespective of whether a post-grant conversion is made or as an examining instance under contract for a Unitary Patent Application.<br /><br />For this reason we must be happy that the backup system in the form of the various national patent system has not been completely emasculated, and that we have judges in the various states that are capable of dealing with matters in all walks of life, including patents.<br /><br />The present development points more and more to go a national route. The grafting of new branches has not been successful. After the happy beginnings in the early 1980s we are being bombed back to the good, old Paris Convention.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />George Brock-Nannestad<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-43062397734059271732015-03-13T19:36:02.021+00:002015-03-13T19:36:02.021+00:00"University of South Africa (UNISA) in Pretor..."University of South Africa (UNISA) in Pretoria, Germany"<br /><br />Certainly the most southern university of Germany!Dodo la saumurenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-75165910381840335132015-03-13T18:46:53.459+00:002015-03-13T18:46:53.459+00:00Dear Young Man of UPC
Indeed the letter does appea...Dear Young Man of UPC<br />Indeed the letter does appear to say that is a concern, but that also is odd since every proposal this century for an EU Patent has supposed that the EPO would be the granting body and that the patent would be granted according to the EPC. Including the 2009 proposal that the letter refers to with apparent approval.<br />DarrenDarren Smythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252776942038752516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84492270385954167352015-03-13T18:31:39.599+00:002015-03-13T18:31:39.599+00:00Darren Smyth,
Did the concerns raised in the lette...Darren Smyth,<br />Did the concerns raised in the letter not, at least partly, arise from the fact that the law being applied will be EPC which is determined by a non-EC body which is also non-EU in nature i.e. states outside the EU could have a say in EU law. Young Man of UPCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74737303727236879772015-03-13T17:52:20.515+00:002015-03-13T17:52:20.515+00:00Dear BOJANAP
I did not understand what you meant a...Dear BOJANAP<br />I did not understand what you meant about Article 28, so I have revisited it, and I think that you have misunderstood it. The idea is to allow a prior user right in each country to the same extent as a prior user right would exist if the unitary patent was instead a national patent in that country. So I fear that one of your reasons for being against the unitary patent may have disappeared.<br />Best wishes<br />DarrenDarren Smythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252776942038752516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-251327487864291382015-03-13T17:27:46.207+00:002015-03-13T17:27:46.207+00:00I can be among signatories, then please add my nam...I can be among signatories, then please add my name, I would be delighted! I fully agree with what is said in the motion. In addition, I to draw attention to seldom mentioned Article 28 of UPCA, which is about right of prior use - but which can be eventually recognized only in respect of a granted national patent, and subsequently limited to the territory of the State which granted said national patent. As I understand this Article, no right of prior use is foreseen for the Unitary patent. moreover, if there is a national patent granted, does it mean that it shall not be taken into account in accessing the novelty of the presumably later file unitary patent?<br />Last but not least, the UPCA system is likely to be prohibitively expensive - a fact recognized by quite a number of EU states.<br />I have to admit that I made a public appeal through an article in the leading newspaper to the Government of my country (Slovenia) to adopt at least "wait and see" policy. <br /> BOJANPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-70457714634064086022015-03-13T16:43:08.603+00:002015-03-13T16:43:08.603+00:00I would beg to differ with MaxDrei @ 16:36.
This ...I would beg to differ with MaxDrei @ 16:36.<br /><br />This is nothing more than proper claim drafting, a skill every practitioner should have.<br /><br />With all due respect to the meme here, there is no reason at all to limit this to kats.Captain Obviousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67074370921706386702015-03-13T16:36:25.145+00:002015-03-13T16:36:25.145+00:00Perhaps I should enlarge upon the relevance to pat...Perhaps I should enlarge upon the relevance to patent claims of the well-known Angora cat.<br /><br />Imagine such a cat half-drowned. Pretty small, you would say. Now imagine the same cat, bone dry and at a peak of aggression, with all its hair standing on end. Pretty big, you might think.<br /><br />Now draft a claim that can be robustly defended against validity attacks brought against it, in the Federal Patents Court in Munich. Make it seem like the wet cat. Very solid and very small.<br /><br />But take care to make your claim ambiguous enough to afford you the scope to get aggressive in the Landesgericht in Duesseldorf, contending that your claim covers everything the accused infringer is doing.<br /><br />That's bifurcation lads and lasses, and Mario Franzosi's Angora cat. MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30038610113012313962015-03-13T15:52:07.353+00:002015-03-13T15:52:07.353+00:00Angora cats have been around since the 1600s accor...Angora cats have been around since the 1600s according to Wikipedia. Not even a veteran like Mario F can claim to have been around since then. Maybe they invented Mario!catlovernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-59162482551667000852015-03-13T15:38:34.483+00:002015-03-13T15:38:34.483+00:00The names of J. Straus, J. Drexl, R. Hilty, W. Cor...The names of J. Straus, J. Drexl, R. Hilty, W. Cornish, Di Cataldo and Franzosi are very serious, competent and sensible experts. I shall read myself the document and draw my conclusions, but the fact that these experts express doubts has a considerable weight.Kentze nekenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48778424273170012232015-03-13T15:32:12.422+00:002015-03-13T15:32:12.422+00:00And wasn't it also Prof Franzosi who invented ...And wasn't it also Prof Franzosi who invented the Angora Cat Claim? And now this! <br /><br />He's a prolific inventor, it seems!MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-91087220695850815642015-03-13T15:26:49.685+00:002015-03-13T15:26:49.685+00:00The anonymous of 15:03 suggests that all these peo...The anonymous of 15:03 suggests that all these people are academics. That doesn't mean they are not also practitioners. Mario Franzosi is a good example. He signed wearing his academic hat but his real life existence is here: http://www.franzosi.com/en/mario.franzosi.html Mario is also famously the man who invented the Italian torpedoSuper Mario fannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8552437182057095912015-03-13T15:25:50.840+00:002015-03-13T15:25:50.840+00:00On second thoughts, I won't leave it there. T...On second thoughts, I won't leave it there. The Letter criticises that the unitary patent is subject to national law and that the Court is set up by international agreement. Yet the 2009 proposal referred to in the final paragraph has at Recital 4a:<br /><br />To the extent that this Regulation does not provide otherwise the substantive law applicable to the Community patent, for example as regards patentability, the scope of patent protection and the limitation of the effects of the patent, shall be governed by the pertinent provisions of the<br />EPC and national law where this complies with Community law.<br /><br />It then says at Recital 9:<br /><br />The creation of the Community patent by this Regulation is part of a comprehensive patent reform, which also involves changes to the EPC and the establishment of a unified patent litigation system based upon an international agreement to be concluded between the Community, its Member States and certain other Contracting Parties to the EPC.<br /><br />So what is really the problem with the currently-proposed Unitary Patent system? I can see plenty of other things not to like about it, but the matters mentioned in the letter are none of them.Darren Smythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252776942038752516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32815196521351593402015-03-13T15:16:25.708+00:002015-03-13T15:16:25.708+00:00I was struck by the sentence "If, tomorrow, t...I was struck by the sentence "If, tomorrow, the EU wanted to amend the protection afforded by unitary patents, say, by altering or adding an exception, the regulation’s reference to national law (and, hence, the UPC Agreement) will prevent it from doing so." I have no idea what it is trying to say, but what it actually says seems to be nonsense, since the EU has changed the national law on patents several times. Surely they have not forgotten the Biotech Directive?<br /><br />I have other gripes about the letter but I shall leave it at that for now.Darren Smythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252776942038752516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4748960978213490102015-03-13T15:03:43.831+00:002015-03-13T15:03:43.831+00:00Is it unfair to point out that not a single one of...Is it unfair to point out that not a single one of the signatories to this professorially-styled missive appears to be someone who might be PRACTICALLY involved with any of innovation, business, production or even patents at a pan-European level, nor do any of them appear to be people who might be PRACTICALLY involved in prosecution of patents at a European level nor multi-national enforcement thereof?<br /><br />13706/09?! How many languages?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89604466535699778442015-03-13T14:36:35.656+00:002015-03-13T14:36:35.656+00:00Thanks, Wee Free Men -- I've no idea how that ...Thanks, Wee Free Men -- I've no idea how that happened, but it's now corrected!Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-71054777223376995602015-03-13T14:28:05.596+00:002015-03-13T14:28:05.596+00:00Is the first hyperlink correct? It seems to point ...Is the first hyperlink correct? It seems to point at an old EU Council document from 2009.The Wee Free Mennoreply@blogger.com