Date post: | 08-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | briseyda1985 |
View: | 224 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 12
8/7/2019 AWA ipReview_1_2011
1/12
Contents:
Peiion for Review by he EPO Enarged Board of Appea jus for eing off seam? 2
Sofware invenions: How o draf one appicaion for boh Japan and Europe 4
Amendmen of paen caims in preiminary injuncion proceedings under Swedish aw 6
Skied person in Danish uiiy modes 8
Seecion invenions: Is a paricuar echnica effec required under he EPC? 9
Divisiona appicaions: Some commens on he new regime under Rue 36(1)(a) EPC 10
New Rue 141 EPC revisied: Duy of discosure in Europe 12
Page
1
EDItORIAl BOARD:NiklasMattsson,PeterKenamets,MattiasPierrou,TorbenRavnRasmussenandMagnusHallin
AWA IP ReviewcontainscommentsandanalysesrelatingtotheverylatestdevelopmentsinIPlaw.Allthearticlesarewritten by IP specialists at Awapatent who have extensive experience in a number of key elds. To become a subscriber,
visitwww.awapatent.comorsimplye-mailyournameande-mailaddresstonewseditor@awapatent.com.
8/7/2019 AWA ipReview_1_2011
2/12
REPORTS ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW #1 2011
| Bellevuevgen 46, P.O. Box 5117, SE-200 71 Malm, Sweden | Phone +46 40 98 51 00 | www.awapatent.com
the number of Peiions for Review by he Enar-ged Board of Appea under Arice 112a EPC
reached he 50 mark ae as year, suggesing i
is ime o have a ook a he use of he sysem so
far.
Withasteadyaverageof17petitionsperyearsincetheEPC2000cameintoforceon13December2007,areasonablebalancebetweenthelegalrightsofthepartiestoBoardofAppeal(BOA)proceedingsandtheworkloadontheEnlargedBoardofAppeal(EBA)hasbeenobtained.
Of the 56 petitions led at the time of writing this,14werestillpending.Oftheremaining42,mostwereturneddownbytheEBA,9forbeinginadmis-sibleand26forbeingunallowable.Only1petitio-nerwassuccessfulandhadtheBOAproceedingsre-opened.
Inthecasere-opened,aletterinformingoneofthepartiestotheappealproceedingsofthegroundsforappealandhencethetermforreplyhadneverbeen
Peiion for Review by he EPO Enarged Board of Appea Jus for eing off seam?
2
8/7/2019 AWA ipReview_1_2011
3/12
REPORTS ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW #1 2011
| Bellevuevgen 46, P.O. Box 5117, SE-200 71 Malm, Sweden | Phone +46 40 98 51 00 | www.awapatent.com
sent. This is clearly in conict with Article 113 EPC,andanexampleofthetypeofsituationforwhichthereviewsystemwasintended.
Ofthepetitionsdeemedinadmissible,threefellonformalities, such as being led too late, but the
majoritywasfoundtonotcomplywithRule106EPC.Inotherwords,itcouldnotbeproventhattheBOAhadbeenmadeawareoftheproceduraldefect,whichwasallegedtohaveoccurredduringtheappealproceedings,andhadchosentodismissit.Fromthedecisionshandeddownsofar,itcanbeconcluded that it is not sufcient to state during
oralproceedingsthatonedoesnotsharetheboardsviewonaparticularsubject.AseparateobjectionisrequiredinordertogivetheBOAanopportunitytorevisetheallegedproceduralde-fect.1Tobeonthesafeside,anexplicitrequestshouldbemadethatitisnotedintheminutesoftheoralproceedingsthatacertainquestionhasnotbeenconsidered.Keepinginmindthatoralprocee-dingsareoftenaratherintenseprocessandcer-tainlydemandingonthepersonmakingtheargu-ments,itisnotsurprisingthatsuchrequestsarenotalwaystimelysubmitted,andafearofoffendingtheboardmightevencauseareluctancetomakesuch
requests.
Seenfromtheperspectiveofanon-petitioner,itisworthnoticingthattheproceedingsare,infact,atwo-stage procedure. In a rst stage, which is
conductedasexparteproceedingsbeforeathreememberboard,itisdecidedwhetherthepetitionisadmissibleandallowable.Onlyifthisisthecasethesecondstageinititates,whichisconductedasinterpartesproceedings before a ve member board.2
The rst stage was intended to be a quick screening
processinordertorejectpetitionsthatclearly
cannotsucceed.Intheory,theprocedureshouldfavourrespondentsbynotrequiringthemtotakeanystepsinresponsetoapetitionuntiltheEnlargedBoard had been satised that it is not to be rejected
asclearlyinadmissibleorunallowable.Inpractice,however,thenon-petitionermayfeelthathisrighttobeheardhasbeenjeopardized.
The rules of the rst stage of the petition for review
areclear,indicatingthattheEnlargedBoardofAppealshalldecidewithouttheinvolvementofotherpartiesandonthebasisofthepetition.Astheminutesusuallyarebriefandthewrittendeci-
sionfocusedonthefactsthatsupporttheviewoftheEnlargedBoardofAppeal,thenon-petitioneris
leftwithdisadvantagesinthesubsequentsecondstage.Theimbalanceofinformationbetweenthepetitionerandtherespondentmay,insubsequentre-openedproceedingsbeforetheBoardofAppeal,be the decisive factor for the nal outcome of the
case.
Thisisofcourseparticularlysoincases,wherethemattersdiscussedbeforetheEBArelatetothesubstanceofthecase.Asolutionforthenon-petitionermaythenbetoattendtheoralprocee-dingsasamemberofthepublic.Thoughnotabletospeakattheoralproceedings,thenon-petitioner
canthenatleasthearwhatissaidbythepetitionerandtheEnlargedBoardofAppeal.
OneoftheauthorsofthisarticletriedusingthisapproachbyannouncinghispresenceatoralproceedingsinR08/10,wheretheEBAwastoreviewtheBOAsrefusaltorevertanallegedlynewinventivestepargumenttotheOppositionDivision.Inthiscase,itwasexpectedthattheEBAcouldnottakeadecisionwithouthavingtoconsidertheactualcontentandcircumstancesofthepieceofpriorartinquestion,andthattheEBAcouldthere-forepotentiallyhearorexpressargumentsthat
mightbecomerelevantlateron.Regrettably,thepetitionforreviewwaswithdrawnshortlybeforetheoralproceedings,whichwereconsequentlycancelled.Thepossibilityofappearingasamemberofthepublichasprovedappropriateonseveraloccasions,however,andisevenmentionedasanoptioninR05/08.
1R09/092ElaboratedinR05/08
ReportedbyVibekeWarbergRohdeandTorbenRavnRasmussen,Partnersand
European Patent Attorneys, Copenhagen Ofce.
3
8/7/2019 AWA ipReview_1_2011
4/12
REPORTS ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW #1 2011
| Bellevuevgen 46, P.O. Box 5117, SE-200 71 Malm, Sweden | Phone +46 40 98 51 00 | www.awapatent.com
Sofware invenions:
How o draf one appicaion for boh Japan and Europe
4
las year, he paen communiy was peased osee he ega posiion on compuer-impemened
inventions (CII) claried by two landmark deci-
sions. the Enarged Board of Appea auhoriai-
vely conrmed1 ha he EPOs exising pracice
consiues a consisen approach o examining
CII. A few weeks aer, in Bilski,2 he U.S. Supre-
me Cour gave is opinion regarding he condi-
ions under which a CII can quaify as sauory
subjec-maer. the debae on sofware pa-
tents preceding each of the decisions was erce
a imes and araced a grea dea of pubic
ineres.
Parallelwiththis,althoughinlessspectacularfashion, the Japan Patent Ofce (JPO) has also
developedastableCIIexaminationpractice.TheprinciplesareexplainedinpartVIIoftheJPOExami-nationGuidelines.TheJapanesemarketisalsoawarethatCIIpatentscanbesuccessfullyenforced,asdemonstratedbythefamousrulinginMatsushitav.Justsystem.3
AJapaneseapplicationdraftedinperfectconfor-mitywiththenationallegalframeworkmaynevertheless face difculties before the EPO even if
itissuccessfulinJapan.TheEPOisunlikelytorefuseitforbeingdirectedtosoftwareassuch(anon-inventionunderArticles52(2)and52(3)EPC),butmayconsiderthatthesubject-matteroftheclaimseveninamendedformlacksaninventivestepbyapplyingtheso-calledComvikapproach4.Simi-larly,anapplicationthatgetsfavourablefeedbackinEuropemaybeheldnon-statutoryunderJapa-nesepractice.
TheJapaneseconceptofasauory invenionisacreationoftechnicalideasutilisinglawsofnature5.This succinct denition excludes any technology
designedonlytofollowman-maderulesormakeoptimal use of them, such as pension benet regula-tionsandphonecallcharges.Morehands-on,theGuidelines tell us that this is fullled as soon as
informationprocessingbysoftwareisconcretelyrealisedbyusinghardwareresources6.Eachoftheexamplesdiscussingthisdoctrineendsbysayingthattheinventionisstatutorybecausesoftwareandhardwareresourcesarecooperativelyworking.Basedonthis,acautiousJapaneseattorneywilltendtodraftclaimsthatspecifyallofthefollowing:
aprocessingmeansreceivesdata,
the processing means performs specic opera-tions,
indoingso,itusescertainhardwareresources,and
theprocessingmeansoutputsdata.
Articles 52(2),(3) EPC dene certain subject-matter
asnon-inventions.Astheseparagraphshavecometobeinterpretedinthejurisprudence,theysetthebarrelativelylow,sothatsuchaclaimshouldpasswithout difculty. One single technical feature may
beenough.7Evidenceoftechnicalconsiderationsis probably still sufcient too.8
Iftheinventionisconsideredstatutory,theJapanese
examinerdeterminesthegapbetweentheinven-tionandthepriorart.(S)heistheninapositiontojudgewhethertheinventioninvolvesaninvenivesep,namelybyconsideringwhetherapersonofordinary skill would ll in the gap. The Guidelines
give a number of CII-specic examples of certain
types of gap-lling that are never inventive: a
computerisedtoolalreadyinuseinoneapplicationeld (e.g. medical record-keeping) is applied in a
further application eld (e.g. CRM), a commonly
knownmeansisadded,afeatureisreplacedbyanequivalent,aknowneventisreproducedincompu-terisedvirtualspace,orhumantransactionsaresystematised.9
Indetermininginventiveness,thereisnolegalbasisfortreatingtechnicalandnon-technicalfeaturesdifferently,particularlynotifadvantageouseffectshavebeenmentioned.TheJPOmaythereforegrantpatentsforCIIwhosecontributionoverthepriorartisessentiallynon-technical.Forinstance,itisnotapparenttoushowarefusaloftheapplicationconsideredinT258/03(Auctionmethod)couldbesubstantiatedunderJapaneselaw.10
InEurope,ontheotherhand,onlytechnicalfeatu-resaredeemedtocontributetoaninventivestep.Ifthetechnicalfeaturesonlyrelatetoagenericcomputersystem,anEPOexaminerisentitledtodenyinventivestepwithoutcitingapriorartdocu-mentdirectedtoasimilarpurposeandwithoutworkingoutthedetailsofaproblem-solutionreasoningbasedonthatpriorartdocument.11
Ifcarehasbeentakentoincludeadescriptionofaspecictechnicalcontextfortheclaimedmethod,theExaminerprobablycannotrefusetheapplica-tioninasummarymanner,e.g.,bysayingthatthedistinguishingfeaturesarenotoriousincomputertechnology.(S)heshouldinsteadtakethepurpose
8/7/2019 AWA ipReview_1_2011
5/12
REPORTS ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW #1 2011
| Bellevuevgen 46, P.O. Box 5117, SE-200 71 Malm, Sweden | Phone +46 40 98 51 00 | www.awapatent.com
oftheclaimedinventionintoaccountwhensear-chingforpriorart,andtheresultingproblem-solutionreasoningislikelytobemoreinvolved.Whileinvolvedmaynotalwaysmeanfavourabletotheapplicant,suchreasoningismorelikelytocontain aws open to a line of counter-arguments
fromtheapplicant.
Thus,toincreasethechancesofhavingapatentgrantedforaCIIinbothJapanandEurope,itisadvisableto:
Besuretoincludeaconcretelinkbetween
softwareandhardwareintheclaims.Carefullydescribealladvantageouseffectstechnicalandnon-technicaloverthepriorartintheapplication.
Describe a specic and concrete technical
contextfortheinvention,withadetaileddescription of specic technical means used to
implementtheinvention,andinteractionsbetweensuchtechnicalmeans.
ThinktwiceaboutEuropeifyourinventionisjustabusinessmethod.
1
G3/08,publishedinOJEPO2011,1059;reportedinAWAIPReview2/20102Bilskiv.Kappos,561U.S.__(2010);reportedinAWAIPBlogon20May201032005(Ne)10040.Note,however,thatMatsushitaspatentwaslaterdeclaredinvalidbytheIPHighCourt.4T641/00(Twoidentities)5Art.2(1)oftheJapanesePatentLaw6ExaminationGuidelinesforPatentandUtilityinJapan(June2010),partVII,chapter1,2.27Examinationofcomputer-implementedinventionsattheEuropean Patent Ofce with par ticular attention to computer-implementedbusinessmethods,OJEPO2007,5946008T769/92(General-purposemanagementsystem)9op.cit.,partVII,chapter1,2.3.410ForfurtherexampleswhereCIIapplicationsofJapaneseoriginhavebeendeniedinventivestep,seeT367/91
(Electronic document information ling system) reasons 5.5, T10/95(Documentprocessingapparatus)r.4.1,T243/95(Translationsystem)r.4,T824/99(Imagecommunicationmethodandapparatus)r.7,T1567/05(Apparatusforindicatingstrengthofbuildingstructure)r.3.43.9,T1569/05(Methodandapparatusforretrievingdata)r.3.8,T390/06(MRIsystem)r.7,T1029/06(Environmentalimpactestimationmethodandapparatus)r.1516,T581/07(Dynamicimagecontentsearchinformationmanagingapparatus)r.4.2andT156/09(Searchinformationtransmitt-ingapparatus)r.6.16.3.11Examinationofcomputer-implemented(seeabove)
ReportedbyDanielFritsche,PartnerandEuropean Patent Attorney, Gothenburg ofce
andAnders Hansson, Patent Attorney, Stockholm ofce
5
8/7/2019 AWA ipReview_1_2011
6/12
REPORTS ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW #1 2011
| Bellevuevgen 46, P.O. Box 5117, SE-200 71 Malm, Sweden | Phone +46 40 98 51 00 | www.awapatent.com
A decision by he Svea Cour of Appea1
hasseed an ineresing quesion, namey o wha
exen a paenee is enied o imi his paen
caims by inroducing amended caims as auxi-
iary requess during proceedings for a preimi-
nary injuncion. this case wi be discussed
furher beow.
the siuaion before he new decision from he
Svea Cour of Appea
BeforeamendmentsmadetotheSwedishPatentActin2007,therewasnowaybyvirtueoflawto
limitpatentclaimswiththeSwedishPTObeforeinitiating,orduring,patentlitigation.Infact,beforetheamendments,thePatentActdidnotexplicitlymentionanypossibilityatalloflimitingapatentsscopeaftergrantofthepatent.
However,therewereafewbriefstatementsinthepreparatoryworkstothePatentActthatdiddiscussthepossibilitytolimitpatentsaftergrant.ThesepreparatoryworksthereforeformedthelegalbasisforafewdecisionsfromtheDistrictCourtofStock-holm (the only court of rst instance that tries
patentlitigationcasesinSweden)andtheSvea
CourtofAppeal,whichstatedthatsection52ofthePatentActcouldbeconstruedinsuchawaythatitallowedapatenteetolimittheclaimsiffacedwithaninvalidityaction.Thispossibilitywas,however,onlyavailableinsimplecases,andthecourtswereveryrestrictiveinapplyingit.
However,theabovedidnotdealwithlimitationsduringatrialofarequestforapreliminaryinjunc-tion.Infactinacasefrom2006theSveaCourtofAppealexplicitlystatedthat,whentryingarequestforapreliminaryinjunction,thetrialhastobebasedontheregisteredpatentclaims.
Amendmens o he Paen Ac inroducing
imiaion of paens afer gran
Forsometime,theSwedishgovernmentandparlia-menthaverealizedtheneedfortheSwedishPatentActtobeharmonizedwithinteraliatheEPC.
InorderfortheSwedishPatentActtobebroughtmoreinlinewiththelawsinmanyotherEuropeancountriesandwiththeEPC2000,theSwedishParliamentdecidedtoallowadministrativeamend-mentsofpatentsbeforetheSwedishPTO.Thus,today,newsection40aoftheSwedishPatentAct
enablesapatenteetolimitapatentbeforetheSwedishPTO.Thisoption,however,isonlyopentothepatentee.
Furthermore,section52ofthePatentActtodayexplicitlyallowsacompetentcourttolimitapa-tent,ifitisfoundtobeonlypartiallyinvalid.
However,evenwiththeamendmentsofthePatentActabove,thedecisionintheSveaCourtofAppealcasefrom2006wasstillvalid.
ThishasnowchangedsinceadecisionfromtheSveaCourtofAppeallastspringtakesthepossibilitytolimitthescopeofapatentevenfurther.
the reevan decision of he Svea Cour of Appea
Thebackgroundtothecasewasthattwocompa-nies(McNeilABandNiconovumAB)werebothmarketingproductsthathelppeoplequitsmoking.
Theplaintiff,McNeil,(patentee)initiatedinfring-ementproceedingsbeforetheDistrictCourtofStockholmandsoughtapreliminaryinjunction(interpartes)toprohibitthedefendantfrominteraliamanufacturingandsellingtheallegedlyinfring-ingproduct.
Thedefendant,Niconovum,contestedMcNeilscase,aswellasthepreliminaryinjunction,allegingboththattheirproductdidnotfallunderthescopeofthepatentandthatthepatentwasinvalid(inSweden,theinvalidityofapatentcanonlyberaisedasagroundifaninvalidityactionisinitiated).
TheDistrictCourtgrantedapreliminaryinjunction.ThisdecisionwasappealedbyNiconovum,whobythenhadinitiatedlitigationinordertoinvalidatethepatentduetolackofnoveltyandinventivestep.
TheSveaCourtofAppealfoundtheappealadmis-
sibleandorderedthatthepreliminaryinjunctionwasunenforceableforthetimebeing.
Duringtheappealcourtproceedings,Niconovumpresentedareportofanewinvestigationperfor-medbytheUniversityofCopenhagenregardingthemouthsprayQuit(earlierinvestigationsregardingQuithadbeendismissedasinadequatebyMcNeil),whichtheyclaimeddestroyedthenoveltyofthepatent.McNeilmaintaineditsargumentsfromtheDistrictCourt,butalsoputforwardarewordingoftheclaimsofthepatentasanauxiliaryrequestintheinvaliditycase.
Amendmen of paen caims in preiminary injuncion proceedings under Swedish aw
6
8/7/2019 AWA ipReview_1_2011
7/12
REPORTS ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW #1 2011
| Bellevuevgen 46, P.O. Box 5117, SE-200 71 Malm, Sweden | Phone +46 40 98 51 00 | www.awapatent.com
Niconovumopposedtheamendedclaimsoftheauxiliaryrequest,andarguedthattheyshouldnotbetakenintoconsiderationwhendecidingonthepreliminaryinjunction.Niconovumcontinuedbyclaimingthateveniftheauxiliaryrequestwasconsidered,thepatentwasstillinvalidforlackofnoveltyand/orinventivestep.
Initsdecision,theAppealCourtcommencedbystatingthatitsharedtheDistrictCourtsopinionthatNiconovumsproductinfringedthepatentifthepatentwasindeedvalid.
TheAppealCourtcontinuedbystatingthat,when
decidingonarequestforapreliminaryinjunction,itisimportanttodetermineatthisearlystagethelike-lihoodthatthepatentwillbeheldinvalid.Accor-dingtotheAppealCourt,thisfactisdecisiveforthequestionofwhetherMcNeilsauxiliaryrequestscouldbeconsideredatthisstage.
TheAppealCourtstatedthatthepatentmostlikelylackednovelty.Thereafter,theAppealCourtpoin-tedoutthattherenowexistsastatutorypossibilitytolimitapatentsscopeduringinvalidityprocee-dings.NosimilarpossibilityduringproceedingsforapreliminaryinjunctionisexplicitlystatedinthePatentAct.TheAppealCourt,however,heldthatsincethevalidityofthepatentisevaluatedduringproceedingsforapreliminaryinjunction,nothingshouldpreventthecourtfromalsotakingintoconsiderationaproposedlimitationofthepatent.
RegardlessoftheAppealCourtspositiononthisissue,however,thelimitationsdidnothelpMcNeil,astheAppealCourtcametotheconclusionthat,evenwiththelimitations,thepatentmostlikelylackedbothnoveltyandinventivestep.
Concusions and remarks
ThedecisionbytheAppealCourt(whichhasbe-come nal and legally binding) opens up new
possibilitiesforpatentees.
Theestablishedcaselawmakesitpossibleforpatenteeswithweakorshakypatentstoinitiateaninfringementcaseandaskforapreliminaryinjunction,sincethereisstillapossibilitytolimitthepatent claims without rst having to request limita-tionofthepatentbeforethePTO.Thiscouldofcoursebeofgreatimportancetoapatenteeinurgentcircumstances,whichisnormallythecaseifapreliminaryinjunctionissought.Insuchcases,
timecanbesavedbyskippingtheadministrative
optionforlimitationofapatent,providedthatthepatentee has already identied which claims couldbeputforwardasauxiliaryrequestsduringprocee-dingsforapreliminaryinjunction,shouldthedefen-dantinitiateinvalidityproceedings.
ReportedbyMartinTranlv,PartnerandAttorneyatLaw,
andPeterHermansson,
Attorney at Law, Gothenburg ofce
7
1Caseno.9316-09NiconovumABv.McNeilAB(deliveredon3March2010)2Caseno.1674-06Arrowv.Merck
8/7/2019 AWA ipReview_1_2011
8/12
REPORTS ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW #1 2011
| Bellevuevgen 46, P.O. Box 5117, SE-200 71 Malm, Sweden | Phone +46 40 98 51 00 | www.awapatent.com
8
A judgemen1
(Powder Sow A/S v Board ofAppea) of he Danish Mariime and Commercia
Court (DMCC) conrms utility model protec-
ion in Denmark as a vauabe oo ha is usefu
boh as a suppemen and as an aernaive o
paen proecion. Compared o a paen, he
cour decided ha a ower invenive sep is
required for a uiiy mode.
WhereaspatentprotectionisavailableinallstatespartytotheParisconvention,utilitymodelprotec-tionisanoptioninonlyasmallnumberofthosestates.Whileinternationaleffortsaremadetostandardizethepracticeofpatentprotection,utilitymodelsmaintaintobetreateddifferentlyindiffe-rentstates,forexampleinregardtothequestionsofnoveltyandinventivestep.
TheDanishUtilityModelActenteredintoforcein1992andwasinspiredbythemucholderGermanutilitymodelsystem.IncontrasttoGermany,globalnoveltywasrequiredforDanishutilitymodelsaswellasforpatents,buttherequiredlevelofinven-tivestepwasintendedbythelegislatortobelowerforutilitymodelsthanforpatents.
IntherelevantDanishactsthisisexpressedinthewordingofthelaw.WhereastheDanishPatentActrequiresaninventiontodiffersubsaniayfromthepriorarttobepatentable,theDanishUtilityModelActrequiresaninventiononlytodifferceary from the prior art to be qualied for registra -tionasavalidutilitymodel.
InGermanytheSupremeCourt(Bundesgerichtshof)hasadoptedthepracticethatinventivestepisevaluatedequallyforpatentsandutilitymodels,with the exception that prior art is dened diffe-rentlyforpatentsandutilitymodelsinrespectofnon-writtendisclosure.2Conversely,thejudgmentof10November2010bytheDMCCdecidedthe
levelofinventivenessrequiredforautilitymodeltobelowerthanwhatisrequiredforapatent.
In its judgement regarding fullment of the clearly
different-requirementofautilitymodel,theDMCCappliedtheproblem-and-solutionapproachasdevelopedbytheEPO3,butconsideredthetechni-calareaknowntotheskilledpersontobenarrowerthanitwouldbeinthecaseofapatent.
Theactualcaserelatedtoaconveyorforloadingand unloading luggage in an airplane under con-nedworkingconditions.
TheBoardofAppealoftheDanishPatentandTrademarkAuthorityhadinapreviousdecisionof7
January20084
statedasanimplicationofthelowerlevelofinventivestep:,apersonskilledintheartinrelationtoaUtilityModelmus be a person wiha narrower knowedge of prior ar han a person
skied in he ar of a paen [emphasisadded].Inthepresentcaseitfollowsthattheknowledgeoftheskilledpersonislimitedtoapparatusesrelatedtoloadingandunloadingluggageinairplanesunderconned working conditions.
TheBoardofAppealwassuedbeforetheDMCCwho,however,upheldthedecisionstating:Itfollows[fromthelowerlevelofinventivestep]thatthetechnicalareaknowntotheskilledpersonattheoutsetwillbenarrowerthanthatwhichisrelevantwhenassessingapatent[...]TheCourtagrees[]thattherelevantskilledpersonworkswithloadingandunloadingairplanesandisthusaware of the special and conned working condi-tions []. The Court does not nd [] that the area
oftherelevantskilledpersoncanbeexpanded,suchastoincludetrucks.
Throughitsjudgement,theDMCCprovidesapracticalsolutionfordeterminingalowerinventivestepforautilitymodelrelativetotheinventivestepforapatent.Theskilledpersoninautilitymodel
caseisnotabletoseekpossiblesolutionstoagivenproblem in neighbouring technical elds, which
reducestheamountofpriorartavailableforacompetitorseekingtoinvalidateautilitymodel.Thus,inDenmark,autilitymodelisatoolforobtain-ingprotectioninasituationwhereapatentmightfailduetolackofaninventivestep.
Apart from the regular ling of a utility model
application,aDanishutilitymodelcanbebranchedofffromapendingnationalDanishpatentapplica-tionorapendingEuropeanpatentapplicationdesignating Denmark for 10 years from the ling
dateofthepatentapplication.ThejudgementoftheDMCCwasappealedtotheSupremeCourton24November2010.Wewillmonitortheoutcomeofthisappeal.
1T-6-08,deliveredon10November20102XZB27/05,deliveredon20June20063GuidelinesforexaminationintheEPO,PartC,IV,11.74AN200700003
ReportedbyBjrnBarkerJrgensen,PartnerandEuropean Patent Attorney, Copenhagen Ofce
Skied person in Danish uiiy modes
8/7/2019 AWA ipReview_1_2011
9/12
REPORTS ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW #1 2011
| Bellevuevgen 46, P.O. Box 5117, SE-200 71 Malm, Sweden | Phone +46 40 98 51 00 | www.awapatent.com
9
AfundamentalrequirementoftheEPCisthatEuropeanpatentsshallonlybegrantedforinven-tionsthatarenew,soastopreventthestateoftheartfrombeingpatented.Nevertheless,patentsmayalsobegrantedforsubjectmatterthatconstitutesaselectionfromthepriorart,e.g.asubsetofstructu-rallyandfunctionallydistinctmoleculesfromalargerlibraryoforganicmolecules,oramethodthatisfavourablycarriedoutataparticularsubrangeofalarger,previouslyknownintervalofwavelengths.Thebasisforthispossibilityisthepracticethatapriorartdisclosureofabroadrangedoesnotnecessarilyrepresentadisclosureofasubrange
withinthatrange.Toestablishnovelty,adifferencemerelyinwordingisnotenough.Ithastobedeter-minedonacase-by-casebasiswhetherthestateoftheartrevealstheinventiontotheskilledpersoninatechnicalteaching.1
Asguidanceindeterminingthis,establishedcaselaw2impliesthataselectionofasubrangeofnume-ricalvaluesfromaknownbroaderrangeisconside-rednovelwheneachofthefollowingcriteriaissatised:
Theselectedsubrangeisnarrow
The selected subrange is sufciently far remo -vedfromtheknownrange,asillustratedbymeansofexamples
Theselectedareaisnotanarbitraryspecimenfromthepriorart,i.e.notamereembodimentofthepriordescription,butanotherinvention(inotherwords,itmustresultfromapurposiveselection).
Whereas the rst two criteria may well involve
subjectivereasoninginordertodeterminewhetheraninventioninvolvingasubrangeisdistinguishablefromthepriorartdisclosure,thethirdcriterionmost
frequentlyinvolvesambiguityanduncertainty.Althoughasubrangeisnotconsiderednovelbyvirtueofatechnicaleffectwhichoccursonlywithinit,itisheldthatsuchaneffectpermitstheinferen-cethatwhatisinvolvedisnotanarbitrarilychosenspecimenfromthepriorartbutanotherinvention.3However,caselawalsoholdsthattheexistenceofaparticulartechnicaleffectwithinasubrangeisneitheraprerequisitefornovelty,norcanitassuchconfernovelty.4Isthepresenceofsuchaneffectonly a conrmation of the novelty of the subrange,
canorshouldtheeffectbeignoredwhenassessingnovelty,oristhepresenceofaneffectmandatory
forestablishingnovelty?Aparticularlyproblematicaspectofthethirdcriterionisthatthearguments
i.
ii.
iii.
tendtoresembleinventivestepreasoning,despitenoveltyandinventivestepbeingconsideredasdistinctrequirementsforthepatentabilityofaninvention.
Itisthereforenotablethattherecent,well-reaso-neddecisiont230/07reinforcesthefactthatdifferentcriteriaapplyfortheassessmentofnoveltyandinventivesteprespectively-alsowithregardtoselectioninventionsinvolvingasubrange.AEuro-peanpriorright,5whichisrelevantonlyforthepurposeofdeterminingnovelty,disclosedamethodinvolvingamolarratioofsilicatoaluminaof>1,i.e. from 1 to innity, whereas the patent under
appealclaimedamethodutilisingthesubrangeof2to12.Basedonthesefacts,thesubrangewasconsiderednarrowandfarremovedfromthebroaderrange>1.Thedecisionemphasisesthatthepresenceorabsenceofatechnicaleffectwithinthissubrangeisnottobetakenintoaccountintheassessmentofnovelty.Rather,theexaminationofthepresenceandrelevanceofaneffectoccurringinthesubrangeistobemadeintheassessmentofinventivestep.
Thus,forestablishingthenoveltyofasubrangeofnumericalvaluesfromabroaderrange,thecriteria
remainthattheselectedsubrangeshouldbenarrowand sufciently far removed from the known broa-derrangeillustratedbymeansofexamples.Howe-ver,decisionT230/07reportedheresuggeststhatthethirdcriterion(purposiveselection)isirrelevantindeterminingnovelty.IfthisturnsouttoindeedmarkachangeinpracticebytheEuropeanPatentOfce, it will be highly relevant for an applicant in
caseswhereaninventivestepcanreadilybeack-nowledgedoncenoveltyhasbeenestablished,e.g.whenthepriorartbelongstoaremotetechnicaleld or is a European or national prior right.
1T198/842T279/893T198/844T666/895 Prior right: An earlier patent application that was led, butnotpublished,priortotheapplicationdate.Theclaimedsubjectmatterinthelaterpatentapplicationmustbenewbutneednotinvolveaninventivestepinrelationtowhatisdisclosedintheearlierapplication.
ReportedbyMikaelHenriksson,European Patent Attorney, Stockholm Ofce
Seecion invenions: Is a paricuar echnica effec required under he EPC?
8/7/2019 AWA ipReview_1_2011
10/12
REPORTS ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW #1 2011
| Bellevuevgen 46, P.O. Box 5117, SE-200 71 Malm, Sweden | Phone +46 40 98 51 00 | www.awapatent.com
As of 1 Apri 2010, he EPC has se a ime imi
for the ling of divisional applications. Previously,
a divisional application could be led from any
European paen appicaion as ong as he
earier appicaion was pending. Rue 36(1) EPC
as amended puts a stop to the ling of divisional
applications later than 24 months from the rst
communicaion issued by he Examining Division.
Rue 36(1)(a) EPC deas wih vounary division,
whereas Rue 36(1)(b) EPC deas wih mandaory
division foowing a non-uniy objecion. the
reguaions regarding vounary division warran
a coser ook.
Today,Rule36(1)(a)EPCreads:Theapplicantmayle a divisional application relating to any pending
earlierEuropeanpatentapplication,providedthatthe divisional application is led before the expiry of
atimelimitoftwenty-fourmonthsfromtheExami-ning Divisions rst communication under Article 94,
paragraph3,andRule71,paragraph1and2,orRule71,paragraph3,inrespectoftheearliestapplicationforwhichacommunicationhasbeenissued.
Theeffectoftheamendedruleisstraightforwardwhen ling the rst divisional application. If no
communicationhasbeenissuedfortheparentapplication,andtheparentapplicationispending,adivisional application may be led. This is also true
in cases where a rst communication was issued for
theparentapplicationnomorethan24monthspreviously,stillprovidedthattheparentapplicationispending.
However,interpretationoftheruleismorecompli-catedwhenitcomestoasequenceofdivisionalapplications. A divisional application may be led
before the expiry of 24 months from the rst com-municationinrespectoftheearliestapplicationforwhichacommunicationhasbeenissued.Which,
then,istheearliestapplicationforwhichacom-municationhasbeenissued?Willthisalwaysbethesameapplication,orcanitchangeovertime?Incases where the rst communication is issued for
the rst application in the sequence, let us say the
grandparent,beforeanycommunicationisissuedforanyofthedivisionalapplications,suchaspa-rentorchild,thereisstillnoprobleminvolvedincalculating the time limit for ling a grandchild. As
longasnomorethan24monthshavepassedsincethe rst communication was issued for the grandpa-rent, a divisional application may be led from the
grandparent,fromtheparentorfromthechild,
providedthattheapplicationbeingdividedisstillpending.Here,thegrandparentwillbetheearliest
Divisiona appicaions: Some commens on he new regime under Rue 36(1)(a) EPC
10
8/7/2019 AWA ipReview_1_2011
11/12
REPORTS ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW #1 2011
| Bellevuevgen 46, P.O. Box 5117, SE-200 71 Malm, Sweden | Phone +46 40 98 51 00 | www.awapatent.com
applicationforwhichacommunicationhasbeenissued.
If, instead, the rst communication is issued earlier
fortheparentthanforthegrandparent,theparentwillbetheearliestapplicationforwhichacommu-nicationhasbeenissuedandwillstartthe24-month time limit. But what happens if a rst com-municationislaterissuedforthegrandparent?Willthischangethestatusofearliestapplicationforwhichacommunicationhasbeenissuedandtherebystartanew24-monthtimelimit?Orwilltheearliestapplicationforwhichacommunicationhas
beenissuedstillbetheparent,suchthatthe24-monthtimelimitisstartedonceandonlyonce?ThelanguageofRule36(1)(a)canbeinterpretedeitherway.Supportersoftheoneinterpretationmayarguethattheamendedrulecouldhavebeendrafteddifferentlyiftheintentionhadbeentostipulatetheotherinterpretationandviceversa.Ontheonehand,itmaybesaidthatadivisionalapplicationisgenerally more limited in scope than the rst
applicationandthatthereforeitisreasonablethatanew chance to le divisional applications should be
givenwhentheExaminingDivisionsviewontherst application is revealed later than their view on
anydivisionalapplication.Ontheotherhand,adivisionalapplicationmayverywellbelesslimitedinscopethantheearlierapplicationfromwhichitisdivided,andthenthereshouldbenoreasontogivethe applicant a new go at ling divisional applica-tionsjustbecausetherelevantcommunicationshavenotbeenissuedinthesamechronologicalorder as the applications were led. Unfortunately,
theGuidelinesforExamination1donotprovideanyclearandconvincingevidenceforeitherside.
AmendedRule36(1)enteredintoforceon1April2010,butwasamendedagainalreadyon26October2010inordertoclarifyexactlywhichcommunicationsstartthetimelimit.Sofar,wehavenotseenanyamendmentclarifyingifthetimelimitendsonceandforall,orifanewtimelimitmaystart when a rst communication is later issued for a
grandparent application after a rst communication
hasalreadybeenissuedforaparentapplication.Possiblythequestionwillonlybeansweredwhenthe Boards of Appeal hand down the rst decision
onanoppositionagainstaEuropeanpatentthatwas led as a divisional application less than 24
months from the rst communication for the rst
applicationinasequenceofdivisionalapplications,
but more than 24 months from the rst communi-cationinoneofthedivisionalapplicationsalreadyled.
Until we have a denite answer from the EPO, be it
byaBoardofAppealdecisionorbyafurtheramendmentoftherule,itwouldbeadvisabletofollow the safer interpretation of the rule and le
anyandalldesireddivisionalapplicationsbeforetheexpiry of the rst 24-month time limit. Still , in cases
where24monthshavealreadypassedandaneedto le a divisional application arises, it may be worth
tryingtomakeuseofa24-monthtimelimitstartingfrom a rst communication issued later in the rst
applicationinthesequence.
1
GuidelinesforExaminationAIV,1.1.1.4
ReportedbyNinaMilanov,Partner and European Patent Attorney, Malm ofce
11
8/7/2019 AWA ipReview_1_2011
12/12
REPORTS ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW #1 2011
| Bellevuevgen 46, P.O. Box 5117, SE-200 71 Malm, Sweden | Phone +46 40 98 51 00 | www.awapatent.com
12
Aspreviouslyreported,newRule141EPC,whichrequiresapplicantstosubmitinformationonpriorsearches to the European Patent Ofce (EPO), came
intoforceon1January2011.Sincethen,severalnational patent ofces have chosen to assist appli-cantsandtransmitsearchreportsdirectlytotheEPO.Thisisnodoubtaninitiativethatcontributestoquickerandlesstroublesomehandlingofcasesforallpartiesconcerned.
Atpresent,thisserviceisbeingofferedbythepatent ofces of Japan, the United Kingdom and the
UnitedStatesofAmerica,andmanymoresuppo-sedlypoisedtofollow.Butwhatiskeepingsomenational patent ofces from doing so?
We have contacted the patent ofces of Denmark
andSweden,bothofwhichtraditionallyhavehadaverypositiveapproachtocooperationwiththeEPO,andaskedthemthisquestion.
Theanswerisfairlysimple:Untiltheapplicationhasbeenpublished,nationallawpreventsthenationalauthoritiesfromsharinginformationwithanyone,includingtheEPO,withouttheconsentoftheapplicant.
ThisproblemisnotuniquetoDenmarkandSweden;
itappliestomostEuropeancountries,andtalksarebeing held between ofcials of the different patent
ofces on how to resolve it.
Sowhatcouldbeapossiblesolution?
Onesolutionwouldofcoursebetochangethelaw,ashasbeendoneintheUnitedKingdom,butthismay be a rather complex task and will denitely
taketime.Anotherpossibility,whichseemstobegainingsupportatleastintheScandinaviancountriesistoincludeontheapplicationformacheckbox,whichtheapplicantmayusetogivetherequiredconsent.Thecheckboxmaybepresent
either on the application form used when ling thenationalapplicationoronasubsequentEuropeanapplicationform.Thelatteroptionhastheadvan-tagethatthedecisiononwhethertoallowthetransferofinformationdoesnothavetobemadeuntil the European patent application is led, and of
courseoneoptiondoesnotexcludetheother.
Onlytimecantellwhattheresultwillbe,butthereseemstobeagreatpoliticalwilltoreachanagre-ement,soitishighlylikelythatwewillnothavetowaitverylong.
ReportedbyVibekeWarbergRohdeandEvaCarlsson,PartnersandEuropeanPatent
Attorneys, Copenhagen Ofce
New Rue 141 EPC revisied: Duy of Discosure in Europe