tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post9112791339712867213..comments2024-03-29T06:53:23.405+00:00Comments on The IPKat: EPO bows to EU Commission on patentability of products of essentially biological processesVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-25858611618380133242016-12-23T10:04:03.403+00:002016-12-23T10:04:03.403+00:00@Leo:
Why should a European patent not be granted...@Leo:<br /><br />Why should a European patent not be granted in a dozen of non-EU member states because of EU law?I'm a robotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4710987243321867402016-12-23T05:32:25.144+00:002016-12-23T05:32:25.144+00:00Well said Proof of the Pudding. But think of the e...Well said Proof of the Pudding. But think of the efficiencies which may be gained for the purposes of government. A court gives a view which the government does not or its "friends" do not like. All the government now has to do is to issue a "correcting" note, problem solved. Why limit it to the government; the police, local government, interested bodies, anybody. Indeed why bother with courts at all? I seem to remember when at law school something about the rule of law. If ever I understood it then I certainly do not understand it now.<br /><br />AshleyAshley Roughtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11867564640201688641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3670474295685197272016-12-22T00:54:16.842+00:002016-12-22T00:54:16.842+00:00There may be some serious Treaty impacts to deny p...There may be some serious Treaty impacts to deny patents in this field of technology ("reproducible" or not)THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45326051388058407122016-12-21T21:03:57.364+00:002016-12-21T21:03:57.364+00:00Shouldn't it be Art 52(3) EPC (patentability) ...Shouldn't it be Art 5<b>2</b>(3) EPC (patentability) instead of Art 5<b>4</b>(3) EPC (novelty)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30128528630855235622016-12-21T18:33:09.271+00:002016-12-21T18:33:09.271+00:00So, let me get this right.
Step 1: some "con...So, let me get this right.<br /><br />Step 1: some "concerned" groups with political clout apply pressure upon the European Commission.<br /><br />Step 2: the Commission bows to that pressure and issues a note (based upon questionable legal analysis) interpreting certain legislation.<br /><br />Step 3: solely upon the basis of the Commission's note, one of the bodies tasked with "enforcing" that legislation stops following a ruling from the judiciary upon the very point covered by the Commission's note.<br /><br />Forgive me, but would I be right in thinking that whoever at the EPO took this action clearly never heard about the concept of separation of powers?<br /><br />Of course, this is also another instance in which a decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal is effectively ignored by the EPO management. How long can this continue? And what will the judges in Karlsruhe make of it?Proof of the puddinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14209291532431506713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74372993017350367302016-12-21T12:44:29.531+00:002016-12-21T12:44:29.531+00:00Why bother about separation of powers? It started ...Why bother about separation of powers? It started with the house-ban of a member of the BA by the president of the EPO a while ago.<br /><br />It continued. As the EBA did not abide by the wishes of the AC (and of the president) in this matter, it was relocated to Haar. <br /><br />As long as the AC has not amended the Rules, there is no objective reason to stay any proceeding. <br /><br />By staying the proceedings, the BA are also touched. Another good way to retaliate.Look with your eyesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-22979925949720171242016-12-21T10:19:35.108+00:002016-12-21T10:19:35.108+00:00The EPO chose to bring itself under the jurisdicti...The EPO chose to bring itself under the jurisdiction of the EU when it brought the Biotech Directive into the EPC rules. Now it has to stay proceedings to sort this all out. There is no point granting/maintaining patents which are not valid according the Biotech Directive. It's clear that in the long term the Enlarged Board cannot remain independent of the EU, particularly once the UPC is up and running and presumably the CJEU will then be looking at patent cases at lot more regularly as the final appeal court for the UPC.<br /><br />We clearly cannot have 2 final patent courts in Europe and this is a good opportunity to start the process of allowing the CJEU to take over the responsibilities of the Enlarged Board.<br />Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45299041137558190802016-12-21T10:02:17.530+00:002016-12-21T10:02:17.530+00:00The decision by the President of the EPO to stay a...The decision by the President of the EPO to stay all the concerned proceedings cannot be appealed before the Boards. One more example of the fundamental lack of accountability of the executive in the European patent system.Nolimitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-28386879703479835792016-12-20T21:03:40.633+00:002016-12-20T21:03:40.633+00:00Sadly, the problem is not with Tomatoes II but wit...Sadly, the problem is not with Tomatoes II but with the EBoA's craven reaction to the Biotech Directive in G-1/98. Correctly decided then, the problem would not have arisen nowAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08551173287150111626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32396361217747374942016-12-20T18:05:19.348+00:002016-12-20T18:05:19.348+00:00It would be very interesting to read or watch an i...It would be very interesting to read or watch an interview with the Administrative Council members <br />presenting their vision(s) on the implementation of rule of law at the European Patent Office.<br /><br />In particular, how the cornerstones of rule of law are seen by the Administrative Council:<br /><br /><i>Legality</i>, i.e. legislative powers belonging to a representative body;<br /><br /><i>Balance/separation of powers</i>, i.e. balance of legislative, executive, and judicial powers;<br /><br /><i> Independent judiciary</i>, i.e. review of decisions and interpretation of law by an independent body.<br /><br />The European Patent Office is in charge of taking generally binding decisions for the territory of 38 European countries, which implies adherence to rule of law as a fundamental principle of governance.<br /> The Cat that Walks by Himslefnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-13750738940581431542016-12-20T16:52:05.372+00:002016-12-20T16:52:05.372+00:00the evidence, moral argument or even legal basis f...the evidence, moral argument or even legal basis for "Patent protection is not appropriate for such procedures and their products" appears nowhere. Wish I could say that this surprised me.<br /><br />AshleyAshley Roughtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11867564640201688641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74914153287416327922016-12-20T16:28:23.251+00:002016-12-20T16:28:23.251+00:00Jurisprudence is not highly esteemed in the EPO Th...Jurisprudence is not highly esteemed in the EPO These days. The EU-Commission, responsible for the BioT Directive, the model for Rule 26 EPC, can dictate how Article 53b and Rule 26 EPC are to be applied. Separation of Powers?The Convention Watchdognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-25084026276089266652016-12-20T14:47:02.562+00:002016-12-20T14:47:02.562+00:00I can understand the EPO carrying on with searches...I can understand the EPO carrying on with searches for first applications and PCT filings but for other EP application, it does not make sense. If the EU guidance finds its way into the EPC, applicants might wish to withdraw their application and the search fee will only be refunded if the search has not yet started. Further, with publication of the search report, the applicant would be required to respond to the objections raised, for which they would not have the benefit of knowing how the rules were to be changed.Kantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-34603074576110109122016-12-20T14:44:41.205+00:002016-12-20T14:44:41.205+00:00It is outrageous that the EPO is staying proceedin...It is outrageous that the EPO is staying proceedings, whilst presumably still collecting renewal fees. I would love to know the legal basis for doing this.<br /><br />The staying of opposition proceedings is perhaps even more absurd. This will simply mean that opposed patents will remain valid and enforceable unless and until a national court decides on their validity. If the EPO thinks the patents aren't valid the indefinitely staying opposition proceedings is achieving the exact opposite as it has completely removed an Opponent's opportunity to invalidate a granted European Patent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88822967973993676272016-12-20T14:18:49.667+00:002016-12-20T14:18:49.667+00:00One could argue that there is no provision in the ...One could argue that there is no provision in the EPC to deny applicants the patent they are entitled to by staying the proceedings and that the EPO is therefore acting "contra legem".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com