Related Research Articles
The patentability of software, computer programs and computer-implemented inventions under the European Patent Convention (EPC) is the extent to which subject matter in these fields is patentable under the Convention on the Grant of European Patents of October 5, 1973. The subject also includes the question of whether European patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) in these fields (sometimes called "software patents") are regarded as valid by national courts.
The European Patent Office (EPO) is one of the two organs of the European Patent Organisation (EPOrg), the other being the Administrative Council. The EPO acts as executive body for the organisation while the Administrative Council acts as its supervisory body as well as, to a limited extent, its legislative body. The actual legislative power to revise the European Patent Convention lies with the Contracting States themselves when meeting at a Conference of the Contracting States.
The European Patent Organisation is a public international organisation created in 1977 by its contracting states to grant patents in Europe under the European Patent Convention (EPC) of 1973. The European Patent Organisation has its seat at Munich, Germany, and has administrative and financial autonomy. The organisation is independent from the European Union, and has as member states all 27 EU member states along with 12 other European states.
The European Patent Convention (EPC), the multilateral treaty instituting the legal system according to which European patents are granted, contains provisions allowing a party to appeal a decision issued by a first instance department of the European Patent Office (EPO). For instance, a decision of an Examining Division refusing to grant a European patent application may be appealed by the applicant. The appeal procedure before the European Patent Office is under the responsibility of its Boards of Appeal, which are institutionally independent within the EPO.
The Official Journal of the European Patent Office is a monthly trilingual publication of the European Patent Office (EPO). It contains "notices and information of a general character issued by the President of the European Patent Office, as well as any other information relevant to [the European Patent Convention (EPC)] or its implementation". The Official Journal is published in German, English and French, the three official languages of the EPO. The three texts coexist in the same issue of the journal. The journal is published on the last day of the month.
The Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation is one of the two organs of the European Patent Organisation (EPOrg), the other being the European Patent Office (EPO). The Administrative Council acts as the Organisation's supervisory body as well as, to a limited extent, its legislative body. The actual legislative power to revise the European Patent Convention (EPC) lies with the Contracting States themselves when meeting at a Conference of the Contracting States. In contrast, the EPO acts as executive body of the Organisation.
Article 123 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) relates to the amendments under the EPC, i.e. the amendments to a European patent application or patent, and notably the conditions under which they are allowable. In particular, Article 123(2) EPC prohibits adding subject-matter going beyond the content of the application as filed, while Article 123(3) EPC prohibits an extension of the scope of protection by amendment after grant. In addition, Rule 80 EPC limits the types of amendments that can be done during opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO), and Rule 139 EPC relates to the correction of errors in documents filed with the EPO.
Under case number G 3/08, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO issued on May 12, 2010 an opinion in response to questions referred to it by the President of the European Patent Office (EPO), Alison Brimelow, on October 22, 2008. The questions subject of the referral related to the patentability of programs for computers under the European Patent Convention (EPC) and were, according to the President of the EPO, of fundamental importance as they related to the definition of "the limits of patentability in the field of computing." In a 55-page long opinion, the Enlarged Board of Appeal considered the referral to be inadmissible because no divergent decisions had been identified in the referral.
The Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office is a book, published by the European Patent Office (EPO), which summarizes the body of case law on the European Patent Convention (EPC) developed by the Boards of Appeal of the EPO since the EPC entered into force at the end of the 1970s. Its tenth edition was published in 2022. The book is also known as the "White Book", and it was reported to be in 2012 the best-selling publication of the EPO. The White Book is published every three to four years. In the meantime, a special edition of the EPO Official Journal is issued each year summarizing the most recent case law of the boards of appeal.
Wim van der Eijk is a Dutch civil servant, who held the positions of Vice-President of the European Patent Office (EPO), head of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, known as DG3, and Chairman of the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal from December 2011 to November 2016. Previously, he held positions at the Netherlands Patent Office and in the Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Netherlands, he served as an honorary judge at the District Court of The Hague, and he was Principal Director of Patent Law and Multilateral Affairs at the EPO.
Art. 23 1/15, Art. 23 2/15 and Art. 23 1/16 are three related cases decided by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office concerning the removal from office of Patrick Corcoran, a member of the Boards of Appeal, who had been previously suspended by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation. According to Article 23(1) EPC, members of the Boards of Appeal may only be removed from office by the Administrative Council on a proposal from the Enlarged Board of Appeal. Two cases were successively initiated by the Administrative Council, but the Enlarged Board eventually dismissed both of them. In the third case initiated by the Administrative Council, the Enlarged Board decided not to propose the removal from office of Corcoran.
In case G 1/15, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) affirmed the concept of partial priority. That is, a patent claim in a European patent application or European patent may partially benefit from the priority of an earlier application.
R 19/12 is a decision issued on April 25, 2014 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), in which the Enlarged Board allowed an objection of suspicion of partiality against its Chairman, the Vice-President of Directorate General 3 (DG3), and ordered that he be replaced, because he was also acting as member of the Management Committee of the EPO. In 2014, the effects of the decision were said to be potentially far-reaching.
G 1/19 is a decision issued by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) on 10 March 2021, which deals with the patentability of computer-implemented simulations.
G 2/19 is a decision issued by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) on 16 July 2019, which deals with three legal questions, the third relating to whether oral proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal may be held in Haar in the Munich district rather than in Munich per se, when a party objects to the oral proceedings being held in Haar. In July 2019, the Enlarged Board of Appeal decided that oral proceedings before the Boards of Appeal may be held in Haar without infringing Article 113(1) EPC and Article 116(1) EPC.
G 1/21 is a decision issued on 16 July 2021 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) regarding the legality of holding oral proceedings at the EPO by videoconference without the consent of the parties. Namely, the Enlarged Board of Appeal held that "[d]uring a general emergency impairing the parties' possibilities to attend in-person oral proceedings at the EPO premises, the conduct of oral proceedings before the boards of appeal in the form of a videoconference is compatible with the EPC even if not all of the parties to the proceedings have given their consent to the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference." The reasoning in the written decision further indicates that, if a party so requests, oral proceedings must be held in person at the EPO premises, except in absolutely exceptional cases.
G 1/11 is a decision issued on 19 March 2014 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that a Technical Board of Appeal rather than the Legal Board of Appeal is competent for an appeal against a decision of an Examining Division refusing a request for refund of a search fee under Rule 64(2) EPC, which has not been taken together with a decision granting a European patent or refusing a European patent application. In other words, the decision deals with the delimitation of competence between the EPO's Legal Board of Appeal and its Technical Boards of Appeal.
G 1/12 is a decision issued on 30 April 2014 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that an appellant's identity in a notice of appeal can be corrected under Rule 101(2) EPC, provided the requirements of Rule 101(1) EPC are met. The Enlarged Board of Appeal also held that an appellant's identity can be corrected under Rule 139 EPC, first sentence, under the conditions established by the case law of the Boards of Appeal.
G 1/09 is a decision issued on 27 September 2010 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that, following refusal of a European patent application, the application remains pending until the expiry of the time limit for filing a notice of appeal, so that a divisional application under Article 76 EPC may be filed even after the refusal of an application. More specifically, the divisional application may be filed until expiry of the time limit of two months for filing a notice of appeal under Article 108 EPC.
References
- 1 2 Schulze, Christina (26 July 2019). ""We have a challenge with the case backlog at the Boards of Appeal"". JUVE. Retrieved 10 August 2019.
- 1 2 Klos, Mathieu (15 December 2016). "Europäisches Patentamt: Präsident der Beschwerdekammern steht fest" [European Patent Office: The President of the Boards of Appeal has been named]. JUVE (in German). Retrieved 16 December 2016.
- 1 2 "Carl Josefsson appointed President of the EPO's Boards of Appeal". European Patent Office. 16 December 2016. Retrieved 16 December 2016.
- 1 2 "First Boards of Appeal President takes up his post". European Patent Office. 1 March 2017. Retrieved 3 March 2017.
- 1 2 Wahlberg, Stefan (16 December 2016). "Svenskt hovrättsråd blir president för den europeiska "besvärskammaren" för patent" [Swedish appeal judge becomes president of the European "Boards of Appeal" for patents]. Dagens Juridik (in Swedish). Retrieved 16 December 2016.
