Source: http://www.visaepatentes.com/2010/08/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:09:25
Document Index: 205935326

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 117', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', '§ 101', 'Art. 92', 'Art. 93', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 353', 'Art. 14']

Visae Patentes: August 2010
Now, within the more profane context of European patent politics, the Statement of Position by the Advocates General regarding the request of the EU Council for an opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the planned European Patent and the European and EU Patent Court (EEUPC) has made publicly available. While the Statement says that it has been presented already on 2 July 2010, the general public had to be patient until 19 August 2010 when the eagerly awaited Advocates General’s Statement has finally been found and published on the EPLAW blog (see Opinion 01/09, Statement of Position, originally in French or informal English translation).
It is amazing how such important documents of EU authorities are “published” in a hide-and-seek way so that it takes another six weeks to find them on some EU internet servers. I have to agree with a related remark on the IPJur blog, according to which these are “childish games played by interested circles inside of and close to the EU Council in a futile attempt to withhold such important documents from the eyes of the general public”.
However, Ms Kokott’s Statement also emphasised that an international body outside the institutional scope of the EU would, however, not per se be incompatible with EU treaties and especially points to the fact that for achieving compatibility an effective judicial control has to be ensured by an independent court observing EU law and being authorised to, if appropriate, refer a preliminary question to the CJEU.
Linguistic System: Among the above-identified critical points, the “linguistic system” appears to be the most political issue (see earlier postings here and here) and thus may require extensive and complicated negotiations to be solved, especially since Spain rather vigorously fights for consideration of the Spanish language by the system (see § 117 of the Statement):
116. Finally, the linguistic system faced by the PC deserves to be examined from the point of view of the rights of defence whose respect is a fundamental principle of Union law. […]
121. The [linguistic] situation is clearly more delicate, however, when the country where a company must be assigned does not participate in any local or regional division of the PC Court of First Instance. In such a case, the dispute would be brought before the central division of the PC Court of First Instance, and the language of the proceedings would be that of the patent, namely German, English or French. Consequently, a company may be summoned in law in a language in whose choice neither its country of origin nor the country where it carries out its commercial activities has participated. [...] [T]his linguistic system appears to be unacceptable with regard to observance of the rights of defence.
Judical Control: Another important, though more structural, issue is the current EPC appeal system, which does not provide any remedies on decisions of the Boards of Appeal or the Enlarged Board of Appeal, which, apparently, is not acceptable for the European Union if the EPO should grant EU patents. The Statement of Position thus requires a further EU instance above the EPO in granting matters, perhaps the CJEU or the future EEUPC:
73. These requirements can certainly be satisfied in different ways. A possible extension of the competences of the future PC to include administrative proceedings against decisions of the EPO is just one of the options […]. Another option […] is the creation of an administrative patent court which should be authorized, unequivocally, to refer to the European Court of Justice for a ruling on a preliminary question. […]
74. However, […] administrative proceedings against decisions of the EPO […] do not appear to play a role either in the draft agreement setting up the EC or within the scope of the European Union’s accession to the EPC.
Comments: With respect to the future developments of this matter, the Kluwer patent blog takes the rather pessimistic position that, if the Court follows the Advocates General’s Statement of Position, a unified patent litigation system including a EU patent could possibly not be achieved in the near future, due to the requirement to involve the CJEU in any EU patent litigation system and the inability of the system to limit the number of working languages. The IPJur blog adds to the discussion that, in view of the many objections by the Advocates General, it presently is the most realistic scenario that the CJEU’s final decision closely resembles the Advocates General’s Statement, in which case a re-drafting of the proposal of the EU Council would be most painful with regard to the language issue and the requirement that the EPO Boards of Appeal “do not any longer see the blue sky over their heads”.
posted by Unknown on 8/28/2010 0 Comments
Labels: Advocates General, CJEU, EEUPC, EPC, EPO, EU Council, EU Patent, EU Patent Court, Hearing of ECJ, IP politics, Language Regime
posted by Unknown on 8/17/2010 0 Comments
(b) determining [...],
(c) periodically determining [...],
(d) monitoring [...]; and
(e) periodically paying the scheduled payment to the owner for the period of benefit payments, even if the account value is exhausted before all payments have been made.
The district court construed step (e) of Claim 35 to mean:
At the regular intervals required by the plan, paying the scheduled payment to the owner for the period of benefit payments, even if the account value is less than the scheduled payment amount or zero before the payments guaranteed under the plan have been made. [Further, step (e)] does not require actual exhaustion of the account value, but is merely a circumstance in which the guaranteed payment must still be made.
That is, the district court believed that the annuity account value did not have to be exhausted, but the method had to ensure that when the annuity account was exhausted, the computer method still issued an annuity payment.
On appeal, Transamerica explained that it did not implement "a computer system that will make a payment in the event an account becomes exhausted" since its payment system issues a manual check when the account was exhausted.
The Federal Circuit took the position that a method claim is directly infringed only if each step of the claimed method is performed, while Transamerica’s payment system does not make automatic payments once a policy owner’s account value is exhausted. Rather, a different department produces a manual check and sends it to the policy owner.
The patent in suit was granted on August 8, 2006. According to my understanding of current US case law, independent claim 35 would nowadays not any more be found to represent eligible subject matter pursuant 35 U.S.C. § 101. This claim, in fact, appears to be a great example for a claim both encompassing an abstract idea according to the Bilski opinion of the US Supreme Court and not meeting the requirements of the machine-or-transformation test of the Federal Circuit.
posted by Unknown on 8/15/2010
Labels: Bilski, CAFC, CII in the US, computerised method, infringement
The OAMI Users' Group sees itself in the important role of encouraging regular consultation and feedback between users and OHIM with regard to all aspects of the Community trade mark and design systems. Members of the Users' Group are international non-governmental organisations that represent interested parties from the sector, such as AIPPI, BusinessEurope, FICPI, GRUR, INTA, LES, MARQUES, to name just a few.
Currently, according to Art. 92 (2) CTMR, natural or legal persons not having either their domicile or their principal place of business or a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the Community must appoint a qualified representative pusuant Art. 93 (1) CTMR to act for them in all proceedings except the filing of an application for a CTM.
For the latest OAMI Users' Group meeting on 15 March 2010 at the OHIM in Alicante, OHIM proposed a significant change regarding the professional representation of non-EU applicants to reduce their costs:
There is little objective justification for insisting on representation when there is no need for exchanges between the Office and the applicant. The rationale behind requiring professional representation relies on two principal ideas. Firstly, non-EU entities should have advice available from EU professionals in dealing with their applications. There is no requirement for representation at the point of application. If there are no deficiencies there is no need for advice. [...]
In the light of this the Office proposes to change its practice and will no longer insist on professional representation of non-EU entities where an application for a CTM or RCD has no deficiencies. [...] The Office will continue to insist on representation where there is a deficiency or where inter partes proceedings (e.g. an application for invalidity) are launched.
On behalf of MARQUES, the meeting was attended by Mr David Stone, Mr Jochen Höhfeld, and Ms Paola Tessarolo. According to their memo for the meeting, this change would apply to two third of all CTM applications. While a number of Users' Group members asked for more time to comment, others were able to articulate their view:
FICPI submitted a formal position paper, according to which such change is not a change in practice but that this would constitute a change in law, there being no basis in the law for the changed practice.
INTA mentioned that such change could be an advantage for the users, however, that this could create problems when one wants to contact e.g. a Chinese applicant to negotiate before filing an opposition.
APRAM found it desirable if their was reciprocity between the different countries that will take advantage of this new practice, while OHIM pointed to the fact that there was reciprocity e.g. already in the Madrid System. It was agreed that this is a highly political issue.
While OHIM anounced a draft on this issue from the European Commission, we now learn from the IPKat about an interesting communication regarding this delicate issue, according to which
[...] on sharing this point of view with user associations, [OHIM] found there were strong objections from some of them. In order to allow these objections to be fully considered, we have decided not to introduce this change of practice. Instead, we will be asking the European Commission to consider the question as part of the ongoing review of the functioning of the trade mark system in Europe [...].
As the IPKat assumes that this change of mind may be due to the fact that "users' associations" in fact consist of "people who get paid by clients to represent them in matters concerning Community trade marks" (which is a bit exaggerated, since many of above NGO's equally represent trademark owners), Gareth Dickson, a commercial IP litigator, adds that applicants should be required to appoint a foreign representative, since he "can't imagine the turmoil applicants would have to endure if they were given the option of appointing a properly qualified representative whose place of business is physically located outside the EU".
In fact, the matter will now be reviewed within the much broader context of the "Study on the trade mark system in Europe" initiated by the European Commission and conducted by the Munich-based IP thinktank of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, which provides a platform for input and observations and to inform stakeholders and the interested public about the course of the Study.
However, after a number of activities (e.g. reviewing statements, holding workshops, preparing surveys on a questionnaire, visiting and interviewing National Trademark Offices), the Max Planck Institute is now already in the process of preparing the final report of the Study. Nevertheless, statements of relevance and further contributions are still welcome by e-mail.
UPDATE:In a reply to the IPKat's suggestion that professional bodies object to the removal of the restriction because it denies them work, Filemot of the SOLO blog counter argerued that
[t]he difficulty [...] is that the European entrepreneur does not have a similar privilege to do the same in the rest of the world. If WIPO thinks its worth taking up, then compulsory representation for out-of-territory applicants could become a thing of the past but, until then, I do not see why OHIM should go unilateral.
and offers "to represent an out of state applicant who needs a representative for free". The concrete terms of this invitation to treat can be studied here.
Labels: IP politics, MARQUES, Max Planck Institute, non-EU applicants, OHIM, representation, Study on Trademark Sysem in Europe, trademarks
In 2007, the European Commission presented different options regarding the creation of a unified patent litigation system in Europe [COM (2007) 165 final]. The following discussion in the
Council Working Party on Intellectual Property based on various working documents presented by the Portuguese, Slovenian, French and Czech Presidencies, resulted in a first, preliminary Draft Agreement prepared by the Slovenian Presidency in May 2008 [Doc. 9124/08], which was then further elaborated and revised to yield the latest version of the Draft Agreement as proposed by the Czech Presidency on 23 March 2009 [Doc. 7928/09].
In the course of the discussions on creating a unified patent litigation system and due to requests by various delegations (and the French Presidency), an opinion by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was requested on the compatibility of the envisaged Agreement with the EU Treaty [Doc 9076/09].
The related Oral Hearing of the ECJ took place on May 18, 2010 and showed that there exist doubts whether a number of essential issues of the Draft Agreement are compatible with the EU Treaty and related EU law, as already reported by eminent IP bloggers Jeremy Phillips (here) and Axel Horns (here).
For the sake of completeness and in completion of my earlier posting on the controvercy between lawyers and patent attorneys regarding the entitlement for representation before the future European and EU Patent Court (EEUPC), I briefly summarise the issues discussed at this important hearing below.
Apparently, the representation arrangement pursuant Art. 28 (2) Draft Agreement, according to which "parties may alternatively be represented by European Patent Attorneys [...] pursuant Article 134 EPC and who have appropriate qualifications such as a European Union Patent Litigation Certificate", has not been discussed or objected at the hearing. This fact may be interpreted in such a way that neither the ECJ Judges nor the EU member states (appear to) have any concerns about certified EU/European Patent Attorneys representing cases before the future EEUPC on their own.
The actually discussed issues were:
The admissibility of the request for an opinion according to Art. 28 (11) TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or, more common, Lisbon Treaty);
The compatibility of the Draft Agreement with the Lisbon Treaty under consideration of whether or not treaties with third party states are required for the functioning of the internal market. Some EU member states completely negated the compatibility of the Draft Agreement, while others saw compatibility in view of Art. 353 TFEU;
If and under which conditions may European patents according to the EPC be integrated with EU patents in a conjoint agreement;
The Draft Agreement does not stipulate the possibility of an appeal on decisions of the EPO to the European Court of Justice. This issue has been especially emphasised by the Court and was controversally discussed. The Advocate General asked a number of questions regarding legal remidies to decision of the EPO issued in an examination proceedings for a EU patent.
The crucial translation arrangement has been excluded from the Draft Agreement and could thus not be covered in the hearing. However, based on the language regime of the European Patent Convention (Art. 14 EPC), a proposal for a translation arrangement of the European Commission has been published on June 30, 2010 (see earlier posting).
For further reading, please refer to the official report for the hearing or the private notes of Mr Jochen Pagenberg, current President of EPLAW.
The opinion of the ECJ is not expected before the end of this year.
posted by Unknown on 8/12/2010
Labels: Draft Agreement, EEUPC, European Court of Justice, European Patent Attorney, Hearing of ECJ, IP politics, representation
posted by Unknown on 8/10/2010 0 Comments