Related Research Articles
Van Eyck or Van Eijk is a Dutch toponymic surname. Eijck, Eyck, Eyk and Eijk are all archaic spellings of modern Dutch eik ("oak") and the surname literally translates as "from/of oak". However, in most cases, the family name refers to an origin in Maaseik. This city on the Meuse, now in Belgium on the border with the Netherlands, was originally simply known as Eike and from the 13th century as Old Eyck and New Eyck. Names with a particle, like Van der Eijk are more likely to refer directly to the tree. People with this surname include:
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 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 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.
In law, a reformatio in peius occurs when, as the result of an appeal, the appellant is put in a worse position than if they had not appealed. For example, an appellant in a criminal case might receive a more severe sentence on appeal than in their original trial.
Peter Messerli was Vice-President of the European Patent Office (EPO) and head of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO known as DG3 from 1996 until his retirement at the end of November 2011.
In patent law, a disclaimer are words identifying, in a claim, subject-matter that is not claimed or another writing disclaiming rights ostensibly protected by the patent. By extension, a disclaimer may also mean the amendment consisting in introducing a negative limitation in an existing claim, i.e. "an amendment to a claim resulting in the incorporation therein of a 'negative' technical feature, typically excluding from a general feature specific embodiments or areas". The allowability of disclaimers is subject to particular conditions, which may vary widely from one jurisdiction to another.
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.
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.
The Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office are general instructions, for the examiners working at the European Patent Office (EPO) as well as for the parties interacting with the EPO, on the practice and procedure at the EPO in the various aspects of the prosecution of European patent applications and European patents. The Guidelines have been adopted, effective as at 1 June 1978, by the President of the EPO in accordance with Article 10(2)(a) EPC.
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 developed by the Boards of Appeal of the EPO since the EPC entered into force at the end of the 1970s. Its ninth edition was published in September 2019. The book is also known as the "White Book", and it is 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.
The Bishops' Conference of the Netherlands is a permanent body within the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands which determines policies and directs the apostolic mission within the Netherlands. It is governed by bishops from around the country.
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.
G 2/12 and G 2/13 are two decisions by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), which issued on 25 March 2015. The cases were consolidated and are contentwise identical. The cases concern the patentability of biological products through the description of the procedure for achieving that product. The Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled that such products were patentable and not in conflict with Article 53(b) EPC, which does not allow patents for "essentially biological" processes.
Carl Josefsson is a former Swedish Judge at the Svea Court of Appeal in Stockholm, and currently President of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), a new position created within the EPO. He took up his new position on 1 March 2017 for a period of five years. As President of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, Josefsson also acts as President of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
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.
References
- ↑ "Case Law 2011, EPO Board of Appeal Case Law" (PDF). Official Journal of the European Patent Office. European Patent Office. 2012 (Special edition 1): 1. 2012. ISSN 0170-9291 . Retrieved July 24, 2012.
- ↑ "Wim Van der Eijk appointed Vice-President of the EPO". European Patent Office. 9 November 2011. Retrieved 17 November 2011.
- ↑ "EPO names new appeals head". Managing Intellectual Property. 9 November 2011. Retrieved 17 November 2011.
- ↑ "Wim van der Eijk benoemd tot Vice-President Europees Octrooibureau" (in Dutch). Nieuwsbank. 9 November 2011. Retrieved 17 November 2011.
| Positions in intergovernmental organisations | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by Peter Messerli | Vice-President of the European Patent Office, head of the DG 3 (Appeals) December 1, 2011–November 2016 | Succeeded by Gunnar Eliasson (acting) |
  | This article about a person from the Netherlands is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |