tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5457782329160593969..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Assigned or not assigned? - the tricky issue of priority right transfer (T 0725/14)Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-19603230508492417052019-05-05T10:56:51.251+01:002019-05-05T10:56:51.251+01:00You write that the Boards are showing no sign of &...You write that the Boards are showing no sign of "leniency" on priority. Leniency is not the right word.<br /><br /> Let us distinguish between the Paris Convention notion of "same invention" and Paris's "successor in title". No leniency on "same invention" please. The Gold Standard is correct.<br /><br />Now, as to the "successor in title" issue, EPO insiders contend that it is the EPO's duty to police the issue with full rigor but that strikes me as misconceived and out of line with its attitude on ownership issues between Applicant and named inventor, in cases where there is no priority issue in play. <br /><br />The EPC has provisions to adjudicate cases of ownership disputes between two rivals for the status of owner. I do not see why the EPO cannot treat the "successor in title" priority issue consistently with all other non-priority ownership issues that have arisen over the last 40 years. It's a matter between the rival owners. Letting soup-stirring, mischief-making, cost-leveraging 3rd party Opponents make hay with the issue degrades the underlying principles of the EPC and, as the article suggests, imposes disproportionate penalties on deserving inventors and Applicants.<br /><br />Normally, I'm in favour of standards that foster more professional work by patent attorneys. The law should favour those who invest in top class patent drafting skills. But insisting that when ownership rights are transferred, and there is no dispute about ownership, every i be dotted and every t be crossed before filing PCT strikes me as excessively pernickety, anti-patent, unworldly, disproportionate and unreasonable.Max Dreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03338443708960801180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-2790765179682229472019-05-03T10:49:51.032+01:002019-05-03T10:49:51.032+01:00There was an interesting argument during the heari...There was an interesting argument during the hearing about the relevent law which should apply for substantive matters (eg interpretation of the document under the "Haviltex" principle, and the rules of evidence. Thus, both parties accepted that Dutch law should govern the interpretation of the assignment agreement. There was a dispute about how "Haviltex" should apply, but both parties took the view that Dutch law was determinative on whether/how Haviltex should apply, and filed evidence from Dutch attorneys. HOWEVER, the Opponent also argued that EVEN IF under Dutch law the intention of the parties was determinative, such intention needs to be properly evidenced, and the EPO rules for adducing and evaluation evidence should apply. Thus, when a tribunal applies foreign law, it nevertheless always uses its own rules of evidence to determine the facts so that it can apply the law. The EPO rules of evidence say that when all relevant information is under the control of one party (as was the case here) that party must prove its case "up to the hilt". That was the approach the Board seemed to follow, deciding in the end that the did not need to worry about the correct interpretation of Haviltex under Dutch law, on the basis that even if the Patentee was right on that legal point, it should still lose due to the lack of evidence to show the intentino of the parties.<br /><br />A really interesting case.Ravi Srinivasanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14853879316115366580noreply@blogger.com