sou · GRB366d1 · 2004-01-01 00:00:00 — Denna nyordning står i direkt strid med nu gällande bestämmelser i 8 § PL och förutsätter ändring av paragrafen. Vi föreslår att sökanden fortsättningsvis endast skall behöva uppge grunden för sin rätt till uppfinningen. skall godta uppgiften om det inte finns särskild anledning att ifrågasätta dess riktighet. PRV skall enligt vårt förslag skicka underrättelse om patentansökan till den uppgivne uppfinnaren, om det inte är uppenbart obehövligt. En ytterligare ändring, i 31 § PL, föranleds av nya PCT- bestämmelser om förlängd tidsfrist för fullföljd av en internationell patentansökan. Vi föreslår att fullföljdsfristen förlängs och detta oavsett om sökanden har begärt internationell patenterbarhetsbedömning från prioritetsdatum eller inte. Förstärkt skydd för patentombuds tystnadsplikt (avsnitt 7) I får advokater inte höras som vittnen i rättegång om uppgifter som anförtrotts dem i samband med ett uppdrag annat än om det är medgivet i lag eller om den, till vars förmån tystnads- plikten gäller, samtycker till det. Detsamma gäller skyldigheten att lämna ut handlingar i anledning av ett editionsföreläggande. För patentombud och andra immaterialrättsliga rådgivare – som inte också är advokater – gäller ett mer begränsat undantag från vittnes- och editionsplikten. Undantaget kan här åberopas bara för sådan förtrolig information som lämnats då patentombudet uppträtt som rättegångsombud eller rättegångsbiträde, således inte för uppgifter som kan ha anförtrotts patentombudet innan en rättslig tvist uppstått. Annorlunda förhåller det sig på andra håll i världen. För amerikanska patentombud gäller oftast att de – oavsett anställnings- eller verksamhetsform – omfattas av s.k. attorney- client privilege. En förutsättning för att även utländska ombud skall slippa röja information i amerikanska domstolar är i princip att en motsvarande sekretess gäller enligt lagen i ombudets hemland. Eftersom detta inte är fallet i kan följden bli att svenska företag, via ett svenskt ombud, tvingas att i ekonomiskt betydelsefulla patentmål röja information av ett slag som den amerikanska motparten tillåts hålla inne med. De olikformiga sekretessbestämmelserna skulle därmed kunna vara till skada för svenska näringslivsintressen. Frågan har uppmärksammats när ändringar av EPC aktualiserats. Resultatet har blivit att det i artikel 134a och regel 101a EPC 2000 tagits in bestämmelser om rätt för patentombud att vägra yppa förtrolig information i förfaranden hos EPO. Bestämmelserna syftar ytterst till att ge epi-ombuden samma skydd för sin tystnadsplikt i rättstvister i som gäller för där verksamma attorneys. När vi diskuterat vilka skäl som kunde finnas för att förstärka sekretessskyddet för svenska patenträttsrådgivare har vi kommit att ifrågasätta om den ändring som vidtagits i EPC är tillräcklig för att ge epi-ombuden det åsyftade skyddet i . Det finns ingenting som säger att det nya sekretesskydd som enligt regel 101 a gäller i förfaranden hos EPO skulle respekteras i EPC- staternas nationella domstolar. För detta skulle sannolikt krävas att den nationella lagstiftningen ger likvärdigt skydd för tystnads- plikten. För oss har det framstått som angeläget att den ordning som EPC-staterna enats om i fråga om sekretesskydd för patentombud får fullt genomslag i nationell rätt, så att det skapas grund för att ombudssekretessen vinner respekt hos amerikanska domstolar. Detta skäl har för oss varit tillräckligt för ett förslag om utvidgat sekretessskydd för patenträttsrådgivare i . Ett sådant skydd, som bör komma till uttryck genom en komplettering av 36 kap. 5 § , bör då rimligen inte vara förbehållet svenska epi-ombud utan stå till förfogande för alla som i viss ordning meriterat sig för det. Ett utvidgat sekretesskydd bör kunna komma i fråga för dem som i sin yrkesmässiga verksamhet tillhandahåller rådgivning i patenträttsliga angelägenheter, såväl anställda som fristående råd- givare. En grundförutsättning för ett utvidgat sekretesskydd är enligt vår mening att den grupp som skall kunna komma i fråga för ett sådant skydd går att avgränsa på ett enkelt och tydligt sätt. Eftersom det också måste vara av grundläggande betydelse att de som kan komma i fråga för vittnesundantag kvalificerat sig för ett sådant förtroende, har vi bedömt det ofrånkomligt att en särskild, frivillig, auktorisationsordning införs. Det har legat utanför vårt uppdrag att närmare ta ställning till hur en sådan ordning bör vara beskaffad. Vi föreslår att frågan blir föremål för ytterligare överväganden men har ändå till ledning för en sådan utredning skissat på ett förslag till en särskild lag om auktorisation av patentombud. Vi menar att det som minimivillkor för auktorisation bör gälla att patentombudet uppfyller vissa kunskapskrav samt att han eller hon förbundit sig att tillvarata sina klienters bästa och att iaktta tystnadsplikt. Ett åsidosättande bör kunna leda till disciplin- åtgärd. Registreringen av och tillsynen över patentombuden bör handhas av ett särskilt offentligrättsligt organ. Vårt utkast till lag om auktoriserade patentombud bifogas detta betänkande som bilaga 11. Några särskilda frågor (avsnitt 8) Vi har haft att ta ställning till en framställning från PRV om att en särskild invändningsavgift skall införas. Vi har dock inte funnit tillräckliga skäl för att lägga fram något förslag i denna del. Vi föreslår att bestämmelserna i 14 § PL om löpdagsförskjutning utmönstras ur lagen, liksom skett i övriga nordiska länder. I vårt uppdrag har ingått att överväga frågan om patentlagens normgivningsbemyndigande. Vi har här inte funnit något skäl att gå ifrån det förslag som lämnat om en annorlunda utformning av 77 § första stycket PL. Our principal task has been not only to produce a basis for a decision as to whether should accede to the revised version of Patent Convention (EPC 2000), the Agreement on the application of Article 65 of the EPC (the Agree- ment) and the (PLT), but also to suggest proposals for changes in legislation that would be necessary for accession, as well as any changes that would be appropriate in the context. The commission also includes submitting proposed changes in legislation in the light of amendments that have been made in the (PCT). Finally we have been instruc- ted to consider the issue of enhanced protection of confidentiality for intellectual property advisers, as well as a few specific issues concerning the administration of patent applications. EPC (Section 3) Ratification of EPC 2000 One of the objectives of a revision of the EPC has been to make the framework more flexible. This has been achieved, inter alia, by transferring a large number of provisions from the articles to the implementing regulations. A particular empowering provision authorizes the of to take decisions on new or amended implementing regulations, without having to convene a diplomatic conference. This also applies to amendments of certain articles, insofar as the purpose is to bring them into line with an international treaty relating to patents or European Community legislation in the field of patents. This open-ended arrangement has obvious advantages, but will also make an overview of the future developments of the framework more difficult. In spite of these reservations, we con- sider that non-ratification by would be inconceivable, since would then have to withdraw from European patent co- operation, which in its turn would have serious consequences for Swedish industry. In this context we have expressed doubts whether it is even possible for a of the EU not to participate in the EPC cooperation. We therefore propose that should ratify EPC 2000. Changes in the Swedish Patent Act as a result of EPC 2000 Petition for review under 112a EPC 2000 The current text of the EPC (EPC 1973) includes no proviso for setting aside a decision taken by a within Patent Office (EPO). By means of a new Article 112a, a procedure has been introduced, allowing to set aside and remit a decision under extraordinary cir- cumstances. The presumption is that grave procedural defects have occurred in the appeal proceedings, or that a criminal act of a certain gravity may have had an impact on the decision. In a particular provision it states that any person who has, in the period between the decision of of the decision of on the petition for review, in good faith used or made effective and serious preparations for using an invention, may continue such use. We propose that a correspon- ding provision be incorporated into section 92 of the Swedish Patent Act (PL). Administrative procedure for limitation and revocation of patents The Patent Litigation Commission of 1999 has in its report (SOU 2001:33) submitted proposals for a Swedish procedure on patent limitation. That proposal is based primarily on new provisions in Articles 105a – 105c EPC 2000 concerning patent limitation by means of a decision taken by the EPO. The proposal referred to, which for all intents and purposes forms the basis of what we now propose, entails the following: The holder of a patent shall be solely entitled to request limitation. Such a request shall be exa- mined on formal grounds only and on the premise that claims as amended constitute limitation of the original (or previously limited) claims. A decision on limitation shall apply retroactively as from the filing date of the application (ex tunc). A request for limitation shall be rejected where opposition proceedings or invalidity pro- ceedings are pending. Moreover a procedure for limitation pending with the EPO shall have precedence over a national procedure in the sense that the latter procedure should be stayed pending a decision by the EPO, irrespective of which procedure was first initiated. According to the proposal, the holder of a patent would in infringement or invalidity cases be obliged to inform the court of any administrative limitation procedures pending. According to Article 138(3) EPC 2000 the patent holder shall in court proceedings relating to invalidity have the right to limit the patent by amending the claims. It is proposed that a corresponding provision be included in section 52 PL. In addition to the recommendations of the Patent Litigation Commission, we propose that the holder of a patent, in line with Article 105a EPC 2000, should be entitled to request that a patent should be revoked in its entirety, with retroactive effect as from the filing date of the application. We have not found any reasons to do away with the current possibility for abstaining from a patent under section 54 PL, with effect for the future (ex nunc). Con- sequently the patent holder will be able to opt for any one of these procedures, given the circumstances in a particular case. However, we propose that a voluntary abstention in accordance with section 54 PL should only apply to the patent in its entirety. This should be expressly stated in the provision. We also propose certain amendments of Chapter 11 of the Swedish Patent Act for the purpose of extending the necessary legal effect in from an EPO decision on limitation or revo- cation of a patent. Methods for treatment by surgery or therapy etc. According to Article 52(4) EPC 1973 certain methods for treat- ment by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods shall not be regarded as inventions, due to which provision such methods have been once and for all excluded from patentability. Section 1 sub- section 3 PL contains a corresponding provision. In EPC 2000 the fiction that these methods are not to be regarded as inventions has been abandoned. Nonetheless, according to Article 53(c) EPC 2000, patents shall not be granted in respect of such methods. This systematic change does not entail any inherent change with respect to patentability exemption, and amendments of Swedish legislation are not indispensable. We have nevertheless considered it appro- priate to harmonise the national provisions with those of EPC 2000. This calls for a change in section 1 PL. Patentability for new specific use of known products According to Article 54(5) EPC 1973 a specific novelty exemption is to apply with regard to substances and compositions, intended for use in methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body. The purport has been that already known sub- stances or compositions are patentable only where the use thereof was not comprised in the state of the art. Thus the inventor of a certain use of a known substance or composition could obtain a patent. However, according to the wording of the pro- vision there was no scope for patenting a known substance for a subsequently discovered use. In EPC 2000 a new paragraph has been added to Article 54, allowing a patent to be granted for known products also when the use relates to other indications than those for which a patent has already been granted. The fourth sub-section of current section 2 PL entails the same restriction, concerning patents for new use, as those provided for in Article 54(5) EPC 1973. As this limitation has now been discarded in EPC 2000, there is in our opinion no reason to retain section 2 sub-section 4 PL. We propose that Swedish legisla- tion be harmonised by deleting the current provision in the Swedish Patent Act. The right for a patent attorney to refuse to reveal confidential information In article 134a and Rule 101a EPC 2000 provisions have been in- cluded, according to which members of before the EPO (epi) shall not be obliged to reveal confidential professional information in proceedings before the EPO. These provisions do not necessitate any changes in Swedish legislation, but are directly linked to the particular issue of patent attorney confidentiality which we are to consider in accordance with our terms of reference. We deal with this matter in Section 7. EPC 2000 amendments resulting from PLT A number of changes have been made in EPC 2000 in order to ensure conformity between the convention and the provisions of the PLT. These amendments relate, inter alia, to the prerequisites for granting a patent application a filing date, the right to extension of time limits and the reinstatement of priority rights. As far as the extension of time limits is concerned, the provisions of Article 121 EPC 2000 go further than the PLT requires. We have chosen to deal with this matter in Section 5 since this concerns bringing into line with the . The Agreement (Section 4) Ratification of the Agreement The purpose of the Agreement is to reduce the costs that result from requirements that a European patent must be translated if it is to be valid in the designated states. The Agreement is not mandatory and may be acceded to by those EPC states that wish to do so. The Agreement has been construed in order to ensure that exemptions from the translation requirement can be implemented at the same time in a certain number of states. By accession to the Agreement, each state undertakes to abandon translation require- ments entirely or in part. In practice this means that those states whose official languages are one of the EPO official languages, completely abstain from requiring a translation of the patent. Other member states, that do not have English, French or German as their official languages, are to choose one of the EPO official languages and dispense from requiring translation of the patent description if the patent has been granted in or translated into the language designated. Even when the patent specification is in that language, these states shall still have the right to require translation of the claims into one of their national languages. According to our assessment, it can not be ruled out that a Swedish ratification of the Agreement might have a certain negative impact, primarily on the patent attorney profession but also, to some extent, on third parties. On the other hand we found no grounds for expecting any but marginal consequences for the maintenance and development of the Swedish language. fears that conditions would deteriorate as far as the development of Swedish terminology is concerned has been contradicted by informa- tion from (), indicating that translated patent documents have been ever used in terminology work. It is also relevant to note that translations are often produced a long time after an invention has been made public. There is very demand for those translations kept at the Swedish Patent and Registration Office, and this in itself makes the texts less suitable for the introduction of new terminology and the dissemination of technology. We have therefore concluded that there are compelling argu- ments for to ratify the Agreement, especially in view of the stimulus to the patent system which a reduction of the patenting costs should result in. should choose English as the language from which additional translations of patent descrip- tions shall not be required. However, the opportunity should be used to require mandatory translation of claims into Swedish. Changes in national legislation as a result of the The ratification of the Agreement calls for amendments of section 82 PL, where the new translation requirements must be incorporated. The Agreement contains an express reminder that member states have the right to require a full translation of patent when a dispute relating to the patent has arisen. In order to facilitate matters for the courts, we are of the opinion that this should be regulated in a new section 68 a of the Swedish Patent Act. PLT (Section 5) Ratification of the PLT The PLT entails undertakings to provide for deregulation and a certain harmonization of provisions concerning formalities to be observed on filing patent applications. The treaty primarily contains minimum requirements. Only to a very limited extent are the pro- visions binding on the contracting states, namely the issue of establishing a filing date and, in certain cases, matters concerning the form and content of applications. Both the EPC and the PCT have been revised in order to bring them into line with the PLT. Our understanding is that it would it be unthinkable for to chose not to participate in this worldwide patent cooperation. We therefore propose that should ratify the PLT. Changes in national legislation as a result of the PLT As far as is concerned there is relatively need for changes in legislation in order to enable ratification of the treaty. The administrative practice employed by the Swedish Patent and Registration Office is, to all intents and purposes, in agreement with the provisions on filing date in Article 5 PLT. In spite of this conformity, we consider it justified to propose two new provisions, sections 8 b and 8 c, in which the obligatory PLT provisions are reproduced. Our examination of Article 11 PLT on relief in respect of time limits has led us to conclude that amendments of the Swedish Patent Act are not indispensable for the purpose of implemen- tation. The reason for this is that those time limits that might be relevant under the Article either are already subject to the right of further processing (cf. in particular section 15 PL), or may be exempted from application of the Article, due to the fact that the periods are fixed by law. We have therefore deemed it neither necessary nor justified to adjust Swedish legislation to the more farreaching regime for extension of time limits applicable under Article 121 EPC 2000. In contrast we consider amendments of section 72 PL necessary for implementation of Articles 12 and 13 PLT, which relate to the reinstatement of expired time limits in extraordinary cases. PLT requires that the current special provision with respect to the payment of annual fees should be covered by the generally appli- cable provision of section 72 PL and that the time should be computed from the expiry of the extended time limit referred to in section 41 sub-section 3 PL. A significant novelty is that under certain circumstances it shall be possible to have the priority right restored during a short period following the expiry of the priority year. This PLT provision should also be expressed in section 72 PL. We also propose changes in section 6 a PL, as a consequence of Article 13 PLT. The purport would then be that the applicant will be granted the opportunity to make a priority claim at a later time than is presently allowed, normally within 16 months from the priority date. The applicant will also be entitled to provide for the correction or addition of a priority claim within the same period of time. In practice, a completely new priority claim can be made. It is proposed that the same shall apply to international applications, only that the entering into force of the amendment in this respect must await a planned corresponding amendment to Rule 26bis PCT. PCT (Section 6) In recent years several changes have been made to the PCT and its implementing regulations. One of these changes is intended to simplify the formality requirements applied when a person other than the inventor is applying for a patent. The purport is that there should no longer be a routine requirement that the applicant must produce evidence for his right to the invention. In principle a unilateral declaration of the transfer should be sufficient. This new procedure directly contradicts section 8 PL and requires an amend- ment of that provision. We propose that the applicant shall merely be required to state the grounds for his right to the invention. The Patent Office shall accept this information except where it may reasonably doubt the veracity of the indication presented. Accor- ding to our proposal the Patent Office shall send a notification concerning the patent application to the stated inventor, unless it is obviously unnecessary to do so. An additional change, in section 31 PL, is caused by new PCT provisions on extended time limit for entering into the national phase of an international application. We propose that the time limit be extended to 31 months, whether or not the applicant has requested international preliminary examination within 19 months from the priority date. Enhanced protection for patent attorneys professional secrecy (Section 7) In , attorneys, being members of the bar (advokat), may not be heard as witnesses in court proceedings, concerning infor- mation which has been entrusted to them in connection with an assignment, other than to the extent permitted by law or with the consent by the person benefiting from the confidentiality. This also applies to the obligation to produce documents when a court order to that effect has been issued. A patent attorney, and any other adviser in matters of intellectual property who is not an advokat, has a more limited exemption from the duty to testify or produce documents. The exemption then applies only with respect to confidential information obtained during the time when the patent attorney was acting as a representative or counsel in court proceedings, and can not be invoked for information given to the patent attorney before a case has been brought before the court. The legal situation is different elsewhere in the world. US patent attorneys, regardless of what form their employment may take, normally benefit from an attorney-client privilege. In contrast, foreign patent attorneys involved in US litigation may only invoke the privilege not to reveal information where a corresponding degree of confidentiality applies in the patent attorneys homeland. Since this is not the case in , the consequence might be that Swedish companies, involved in patent cases of economic significance, could be obliged to reveal information, via a Swedish representative, that an American counterpart is permitted to keep confidential. The difference in secrecy legislation may thus prove damaging to Swedish commercial interests.