Source: http://www.opusip.co.uk/2019/04/17/where-is-haar-and-how-did-it-get-there-html/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:51:43
Document Index: 537901563

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 31', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 7', '§1', 'Art. 15']

Where is Haar and how did it get there? Observations on Geography while Waiting for G2/19 OPUS IP Patent Agents/Attorneys Manchester Stockport North-west UK
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/04/where-is-haar-and-how-did-it-get-there.html
What does “Munich” mean?
With regard to the first question, the Board of Appeal suggests in the referral decision that “Munich” may refer not to the city, but to the administrative region (“Landkreis”) of the same name, located to the east of the city and which contains the municipality of Haar. This argument is certainly creative, but it is unclear whether it withstands the interpretation of the EPC under Art. 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (which the Boards of Appeal regularly refer to when interpreting the EPC). It seems an uphill battle to argue that “Munich”, understood “in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose”, actually designates the Landkreis and not the city of this name. [Merpel observes that the same creative argument could solve the conundrum around the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPCA) in spite of Brexit: Art. 7(2) UPCA provides that one section of the Court’s central division shall be in “London” – setting up a Central Division in London, France rather than London, UK may formally solve the problem, but it would unlikely be compliant with what the drafters had originally in mind.]
Art. 31(3)(b) of the Vienna Convention requires taking into consideration “[a]ny subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation”. One relevant “subsequent practice” under the EPC is likely the Hague branch itself, located in the municipality of Rijswijk, outside of the boundaries of the city of The Hague. Is one single case a “subsequent practice”? The lack of any challenge over a period of several decades to the location of this branch may in any event be interpreted as a sign that the locations mentioned in Art. 6 can be understood to be broader than just the municipal boundaries.
Art. 7 EPC grants the power to the Administrative Council to create other “sub-offices […] for the purpose of information and liaison”. The EPO actually operates sub-offices in Berlin, Vienna and Brussels. However, the Boards of Appeal are far more than a “sub-office” and they do not serve the purpose of “information and liaison”. As a result, the powers of the Administrative Council to move the Boards to Haar could hardly be derived from this provision.
Treaties between other parties and statutes of other jurisdictions do not constitute means of interpretation under the Vienna Convention. Still, it is interesting to note that other jurisdictions have chosen to use broader definitions of geographical places, when necessary. The USPTO, located in Alexandria, VA, is bound by statute to be in the “metropolitan Washington, DC, area” (35 U.S.C. §1(b)) and the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland sits “in or near the City of Dublin” (Art. 15 of the Constitution of Ireland). Does it matter that the drafters of the EPC have refrained from using such broader terminology? The EBA, whose members currently work in Haar and who therefore may have skin in the game, will soon decide.
▼GLOBAL IP NEWS (21789)
►PATENT CONTENT (2410)