Epoline

Last updated

epoline [1] is a set of web-based computer programs and services enabling applicants, patentees and their representatives to file patent applications online before the European Patent Office (EPO), as well as to monitor the status of patent applications during their prosecution and patents during an opposition. The epoline products and services have been implemented and are maintained by the EPO, according to the Decision of the President of the EPO dated 29 October 2002.

Contents

Products and services

Besides being available for filing European patent applications with the EPO, the epoline online filing software (also called "Online Filing", "OLF", "eOLF" or "epoline Online Filing") can also be used since December 3, 2003 for filing any official document during patent prosecution. The use of on-line filing passed the 50% level of patent application filings in January 2008. [2] The epoline online filing software also allows to file patent applications online with the national patent offices that support it.

Until March 4, 2009, the epoline online filing software could not be used for filing oppositions or appeal. This had been confirmed by a Board of Appeal decision in T 514/05 of September 8, 2005, according to which "[a]n appeal filed via epoline [could not] have any legal effect absent explicit permission of the President of the EPO." [3] The explicit permission of the President of the EPO has since been provided. Since March 5, 2009 indeed, documents in all proceedings under the EPC, including opposition, appeal, revocation, limitation and review proceedings, [4] may be filed with the EPO in electronic form, i.e. with the epoline software [5] or, subject to prior approval by the EPO, with other software. [6] Priority documents however cannot be filed electronically, "unless they have been digitally signed by the issuing authority and the signature is accepted by the European Patent Office." [7]

WebRegMT is a monitoring tool for monitoring data from the online European Patent Register. The tool sends e-mail alerts when a change occurs in the status of a selected patent application or patent. [8]

See also

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Patent Office</span> One of the two organs of the European Patent Organisation

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Patent Convention</span> International patent treaty

The European Patent Convention (EPC), also known as the Convention on the Grant of European Patents of 5 October 1973, is a multilateral treaty instituting the European Patent Organisation and providing an autonomous legal system according to which European patents are granted. The term European patent is used to refer to patents granted under the European Patent Convention. However, a European patent is not a unitary right, but a group of essentially independent nationally enforceable, nationally revocable patents, subject to central revocation or narrowing as a group pursuant to two types of unified, post-grant procedures: a time-limited opposition procedure, which can be initiated by any person except the patent proprietor, and limitation and revocation procedures, which can be initiated by the patent proprietor only.

The EPC 2000 or European Patent Convention 2000 is the version of the European Patent Convention (EPC) as revised by the Act Revising the Convention on the Grant of European Patents signed in Munich on November 29, 2000. On June 28, 2001, the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation adopted the final new text of the EPC 2000. The EPC 2000 entered into force on December 13, 2007.

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 opposition procedure before the European Patent Office (EPO) is a post-grant, contentious, inter partes, administrative procedure intended to allow any European patent to be centrally opposed. European patents granted by the EPO under the European Patent Convention (EPC) may be opposed by any person from the public. This happens often when some prior art was not found during the grant procedure, but was only known by third parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">London Agreement (2000)</span>

The London Agreement, formally the Agreement on the application of Article 65 of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents and sometimes referred to as the London Protocol, is a patent law agreement concluded in London on 17 October 2000 and aimed at reducing the translation costs of European patents granted under the European Patent Convention (EPC). The London Agreement is an agreement between some member states of the European Patent Organisation, and has not altered other language requirements applying to European patent applications prior to grant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Representation before the European Patent Office</span>

The European Patent Convention (EPC), the multilateral treaty providing the legal system according to which European patents are granted, contains provisions regarding whether a natural or juristic person needs to be represented in proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO).

This is a list of legal terms relating to patents. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or his successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grant procedure before the European Patent Office</span>

The grant procedure before the European Patent Office (EPO) is an ex parte, administrative procedure, which includes the filing of a European patent application, the examination of formalities, the establishment of a search report, the publication of the application, its substantive examination, and the grant of a patent, or the refusal of the application, in accordance with the legal provisions of the European Patent Convention (EPC). The grant procedure is carried out by the EPO under the supervision of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation. The patents granted in accordance with the EPC are called European patents.

In European patent law, the limitation and revocation procedures before the European Patent Office (EPO) are post-grant, ex parte, administrative procedures allowing any European patent to be centrally limited by an amendment of the claims or revoked, respectively. These two procedures were introduced in the recently revised text of the European Patent Convention (EPC), i.e. the so-called EPC 2000, which entered into force on 13 December 2007.

Article 84 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) specifies that the "matter" for which patent protection is sought in an application - the purported invention - shall be stated ("defined") in the claims. This legal provision also requires that the claims must be clear and concise, and supported by the description. The function, form and content of the claims are defined by Article 84 supplemented by Rule 43 EPC.

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 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.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jesper Kongstad</span>

Jesper Kongstad was Chairman of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation from 2010 to September 2017. Until September 2017, he was also Director General of the Danish Patent and Trademark Office. In 2009, he was candidate for the position of President of the European Patent Office, which was to be filled on 1 July 2010, but, in December 2009, he withdrew his candidacy. Jesper Kongstad had been elected as Chairman of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation on 29 June 2010. He took up office on 1 July 2010 for a period of three years, later extended to six years.

Susanne Birgitta Ås Sivborg is the Director of Lantmäteriet since 1 January 2018. Before that, she was Director General of the Swedish Patent and Registration Office. She was candidate for the position of President of the European Patent Office, which was to be filled on 1 July 2010, but was not elected to the position.

During the grant procedure before the European Patent Office (EPO), divisional applications can be filed under Article 76 EPC out of pending earlier European patent applications. A divisional application, sometimes called European divisional application, is a new patent application which is separate and independent from the earlier application, unless specific provisions in the European Patent Convention (EPC) require something different. A divisional application, which is divided from an earlier application, cannot be broader than the earlier application, neither in terms of subject-matter nor in terms of geographical cover.

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), a petition for review is a request to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) to review a decision of a board of appeal. The procedure was introduced in Article 112a EPC when the EPC was revised in 2000, to form the so-called "EPC 2000". A petition for review can essentially only be based on a fundamental procedural defect. Its purpose is not to obtain a reconsideration of the application of substantive law, such as points relating to patentability. The petition is a restricted form of judicial review, limited to examining serious errors of procedure which might have been committed by the Legal or Technical Boards of Appeal, prejudicing the right to a fair hearing of one or more appellants. Before the entry into force of the EPC 2000 in December 2007, it was not possible for a party who did not have his requests granted in an appeal to challenge the final decision of the Legal or Technical Board of Appeal on any grounds.

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), any third party –i.e., essentially any person– may file observations on the patentability of an invention which is the subject of a European patent application or, after grant, subject of a European patent, especially to draw the attention of the European Patent Office (EPO) to some relevant prior art documents. This is a form of public participation in the examination of patent applications.

References

  1. epoline is a trademark of the European Patent Organisation (see community trade marks No: 000970566 and 001070077 at EUIPO)
  2. R. Burt, Report of the On-line Communications Committee (OCC) [ permanent dead link ], epi Information 2/2008, p. 59.[ dead link ]
  3. European Patent Office, Decision T 0514/05 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.3 of September 8, 2005. See also (in French) Laurent Teyssedre, T765/08 : recours formés par voie électronique, Le blog du droit européen des brevets, April 18, 2009. Consulted on May 1, 2009.
  4. EPO web site, NEW: online filing of requests and other documents in opposition, appeal, revocation, limitation and review proceedings [ permanent dead link ], Updates, March 5, 2009. Consulted on March 7, 2009.[ dead link ]
  5. EPO web site, Decision of the President of the European Patent Office dated 26 February 2009 concerning the electronic filing of documents Archived 9 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine , Notices and decisions of the President, 26 February 2009. Consulted on March 7, 2009.[ dead link ]
  6. Decision of the President of the EPO dated 26 February 2009, Article 5(3).
  7. Decision of the President of the EPO dated 26 February 2009, Article 3.
  8. European Patent Office web site, Guide to the "My.epoline" services WebRegMT, retrieved on August 10, 2006 Archived September 21, 2007, at the Wayback Machine