Art129eTPEPC1973

Métadonnées

• Nom affiché : Art129eTPEPC1973
• Numéro d'article : 129
• Dossier / langue : English
• Tag langue : #English
• PDF original : Articles/English/Articles 126-150/Article 129 (English version)/Art129eTPEPC1973.pdf

Comment:

The collection represents purely an internal research tool for the purpose of Directorate Patent Law of the European Patent Office. No guarantee can be given for its completeness or correctness. The documents produced before 1969 cannot be provided in English as this was not an official language in the period before that date. These documents therefore are provided in French and German.

Page 2

Art. 129 MPU RegelmäBig erscheinende Veröffentlichungen

Entwurf, der dem nebenstehenden Dokument zugrunde liegt	Art. Nr. im Entwurf/ Dokument	Dokument, in dem der Art. behandelt wird	Fundstelle im Dokument
Vorschl.d.Vors.	60	IV/215/62	S. 58-61
Vorschl.d.Vors.	61 Nr .1	4344/IV/63	S. 76,77
VE 1962 (Ue)	206	BR/49/70	Rdn. 79
VE Mai 1962	61	6551/IV/62	S. 19
VE 1965 (Ue)	61	BR/10/69	Rdn. 23
BR/11/69	88a	BR/12/69	Rdn. 10-12
VE 1970 (Ue) missing	188b	BR/49/70	Rdn. 116-119
VE 1970 (Ue)	89	BR/87/71	Rdn. 69
BR/48/70	160	BR/87/71	Rdn. 41
BR/70/70	159	BR/94/71	Rdn. 80
VE 1971 (Ue)	160	BR/135/71	Rdn. 120,
125 / 126
VE 1971 (Ue)	886) ?	BR/135/71	Rdn. 120,122
125 / 126
VE 1971 (Ue)	160	BR/168/72	Rdn. 118119
BR/88/71	60	BR/125/71	Rdn. 36a
BR/88/71	159	BR/125/71	Rdn. 86-89
BR/88/71	160	BR/125/71	Rdn. 90
BR/139/71	88a	BR/168/72	Rdn. 116119
BR/139/71	88a	BR/169/72	Rdn. 101/102
BR/199/72	129	BR/218/72	Rdn. 10-12
Dokumente der MDK
E 1972	129	M/146/R 5	Art. 129
"	129	M/PR/G	S. 203

FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

(Munich, 10 September to 5 October, 1973)

Page 4

Article 129

Periodical publications

The European Patent Office shall periodically publish:

(a) a European Patent Bulletin containing entries made in the Register of European Patents, as well as other particulars the publication of which is prescribed by this Convention;

(b) an Official Journal of the European Patent Office, containing notices and information of a general character issued by the President of the European Patent Office, as well as any other information relevant to this Convention or its implementation.

Page 5

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Munich, 30 September 1973

M/ 146/R 5

Original: English/French/German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: General Drafting Committee

Subject: Convention: Articles 112 to 139

Page 6

(4) Nach der Veröffentlichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung wird vorbehaltlich der in der Ausführungsordnung vorgeschriebenen Ausnahmen auf Antrag Einsicht in die Akten der europäischen Patentanmeldung und des darauf erteilten europäischen Patents gewährt. (5) Das Europäische Patentamt kann bereits vor der Veröffentlichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung Dritten gegenüber folgende Angaben machen und diese veröffentlichen: a) Nummer der europäischen Patentanmeldung; b) Anmeldetag der europäischen Patentanmeldung; c) Name des Anmelders; d) Bezeichnung der Erfindung; e) die benannten Vertragsstaaten.

[^0]Artikel 129 Regelmäßig erscheinende Veröffentlichungen Das Europäische Patentamt gibt regelmäßig folgende Veröffentlichungen heraus: a) ein Europäisches Patentblatt, das die Eintragungen in das europäische Patentregister wiedergibt sowie sonstige Angaben enthält, deren Veröffentlichung in diesem Übereinkommen vorgeschrieben ist; b) ein Amtsblatt des Europäischen Patentamts, das allgemeine Bekanntmachungen und Mitteilungen des Präsidenten des Europäischen Patentamts sowie sonstige dieses Übereinkommen und seine Anwendung betreffende Veröffentlichungen enthält.

Vgl. Regeln 19 (Berichtigung oder Widerruf der Erfindernennung) und 106 (Beschränkungen der Prüfung)

Artikel 130

Gegenseitige Auskunftserteilung (1) Das Europäische Patentamt und vorbehaltlich der Anwendung der in Artikel 73 Absatz 2 genannten Rechts- und Verwaltungsvorschriften die Zentralbehörden für den gewerblichen Rechtsschutz der Vertragsstaaten übermitteln einander auf Ersuchen sachdienliche Angaben über die Einreichung europäischer oder nationaler Patentanmeldungen und über Verfahren, die diese Anmeldungen und die darauf erteilten Patente betreffen. (4) Subsequent to the publication of the European patent application, the files relating to such application and the resulting European patent may be inspected on request, subject to the exceptions provided for in the Implementing Regulations. (5) Even prior to the publication of the European patent application, the European Patent Office may communicate the following bibliographic data to third parties or publish them: (a) the number of the European patent application; (b) the date of filing of the European patent application; (c) the name of the applicant; (d) the title of the invention; (e) the Contracting States designated.

Cf. Rules 71 (Form of communications from the European Patent Office), 94 (Parts of the file not for inspection), 95 (Procedures for the inspection of files), 96 (Communication of information contained in the files), 97 (Additional publications by the European Patent Office) and 99 (Inspection of files by or via courts or authorities of the Contracting States)

Article 129

Periodical publications The European Patent Office shall periodically publish: (a) a European Patent Bulletin containing entries made in the Register of European Patents, as well as other particulars the publication of which is prescribed by this Convention; (b) an Official Journal of the European Patent Office, containing notices and information of a general character issued by the President of the European Patent Office, as well as any other information relevant to this Convention or its implementation.

[^1]

Exchanges of information

(1) The European Patent Office and, subject to the application of the legislative or regulatory provisions referred to in Article 73, paragraph 2, the central industrial property office of any Contracting State shall, on request, communicate to each other any useful information regarding the filing of European or national patent applications and regarding any proceedings concerning such applications and the resulting patents.

[^0]: Vgl. Regeln 19 (Berichtigung oder Widerruf der Erfindernennung) und 106 (Beschränkungen der Prüfung)

[^1]: Cf. Rules 19 (Rectification or cancellation of the designation of an inventor) and 106 (Restrictions affecting examination)

ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS 1973

(München, 10. September bis 6. Oktober 1973)

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS, 1973 (Munich, 10 September to 6 October 1973)

CONFERENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

POUR L'INSTITUTION D'UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS (1973) (Munich, 10 septembre - 6 octobre 1973)

VORBEREITENDE DOKUMENTE

ausgearbeitet von der Regierungskonferenz über die Einführung eines europäischen Patenterteilungsverfahrens herausgegeben von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

PREPARATORY DOCUMENTS

drawn up by the Inter-Governmental Conference for the setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents and published by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

DOCUMENTS PRÉPARATOIRES

élaborés par la Conférence intergouvernementale pour l'institution d'un système européen de délivrance de brevets et publiés par le Gouvernement de la République fédérale d'Allemagne

Page 8

12. The Committee then went on to examine the French delegation's proposal (cf. Working Document No. 21) that it be made clear in Rule 25, paragraph 1(a), that a divisional application may be filed at any time after the applicant has been informed that the earlier European patent application has been received by the European Patent Office. The French delegation pointed out the disadvantage there might be in an applicant filing a divisional application without having received this information, as it was possible that the earlier application was in fact still being examined for secrecy by the national authorities and that certain elements of interest to national defence could thus inadvertently come to the European Patent Office in the divisional application.

The Committee did not adopt this proposal on the grounds that Rule 24, paragraphs 2 and 4, made sufficient provision for informing the applicant.

The French delegation maintained a reservation in respect of Rule 25, paragraph 1(a).

Article 163

13. The Committee examined the joint statement by the Spanish, Portuguese and Yugoslav delegations (cf. Working Document No. 16).

After a wide-ranging discussion it was agreed that the Committee would suggest to the Conference that it take note of this statement, as the delegations concerned had not submitted a proposal to amend the text of Article 163 during the present Conference. It was understood that each delegation represented in the Committee would be free to submit more detailed declarations of intent with a view to finding solutions to the questions raised in the joint statement.

Page 9

In conclusion, the Committee adopted by a majority a solution which amended the second sentence of Article 74, paragraph 1, to the effect that divisional applications may be filed only in respect of subject-matter contained in the earlier application. On the other hand the Committee did not adopt the French delegation's proposal to amend Article 74, paragraph 2.

The Committee then examined the French delegation's proposal regarding Article 129 (cf. Working Document No. 21). The purpose of this proposal was to ensure that national provisions relating to secrecy in the interests of national defence should still be applied in the case of information to be communicated by the central industrial property offices to the European Patent Office.

The United Kingdom delegation suggested that this proposal be adopted and be extended to cover all cases in which national laws safeguarded the confidential nature of certain information.

In conclusion the Committee adopted an amendment to Article 129, paragraph 1, along the lines of the French proposal. With regard to the suggestion made by the United Kingdom delegation, the Committee considered that the scope of Article 129, paragraph 1, was not such as to compel central industrial property offices to communicate to the European Patent Office information which was confidential or related to trade secrets.

Page 10

On the other hand, the Committee was unanimous in considering that it would be justified to authorise States to lay down that a third party who in good faith had begun to use or had made effective and serious preparations for using an invention could continue such use. However, the Committee decided by a majority vote that such continuation should not be without payment, but against payment of reasonable compensation, fixed according to the circumstances.

Articles 74 and 129 and Rule 25

The Committee examined a proposal by the French delegation (cf. Working Document No. 21) to make the filing of divisional applications directly with the European Patent Office subject to the condition that such applications contain no elements which were not contained in the earlier application. The purpose of this proposal was to safeguard secrecy in the interests of national defence.

Certain delegations pointed out that such a proposal could cause lengthy delays in proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Examining Division might request the applicant to divide his initial application; if the divisional application could be filed only via the national industrial property office, which had to examine it again in the light of the provisions relating to secrecy in the interests of national defence, the grant procedure could be seriously delayed. Moreover, the danger of elements relating to national defence being contained in a divisional application was purely theoretical.

Page 11

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 26 September 1972 BR / 218 / 72

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the

3rd meeting of the Co-ordinating Committee (Luxembourg, 23, 24 and 27 June 1972)

1. During the 6th Meeting of the Inter-Governmental Conference the Co-ordinating Committee met several times under the Chairmanship of Dr. K. HAERTEL to prepare the Conference's discussions of the proposals submitted to it by various delegations.

BR/218 e/72 lor/PA/prk

Page 12

Article 129 (62, paragraphs 1, 1a, 3 and 4) Exchanges of information (1) The European Patent Office and the central industrial property office of my Contracting State shall, on request, communicate to each other any useful information regarding the filing of European or national patent applications and regarding any proceedings concerning such applications and the resulting patents. (2) The European Patent Office may communicate any useful information concerning European patent applications and the resulting European patents to the central industrial property office of any State which is not a party to this Convention, where the exchange of such information is provided for by working agreements. (3) The communications by the European Patent Office under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not be subject to the restrictions laid down in Article 127.

Page 13

| INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE | Brussels, 25 May 1972 | |————————————–|—————-| | FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM | BR/199/72 | | - Secretariat - | |

Deutsches Patentamt

Eing. 31. MAI 1972

DRAFT CONVENTION

ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM

FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

(Stage reached on 20 May 1972)

BR/199 e/72

Page 14

provision if it were definitely established that it would only apply as an exception and for determined areas of technology posing special difficulties within the European Patent Office.

The ICC also opposed paragraph 1(b), claiming that such a decision should be the responsibility not of the Administrative Council but of a Conference. This position was supported by the organisations mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and also by UNICE. FICPI proposed laying down that the period for making the request for examination could not, under paragraph 1(b) be extended beyond twelve months. CNIPA put forward the same proposal as a subsidiary proposal for adoption in the event of that paragraph having to be retained. 102. In conjunction with Article 88a, the organisations dealt with Article 157. Some organisations (CEIF, ICC, and IFIA) considered that this provision constituted a useful means of avoiding possible teething troubles at the European Patent Office: However, CEIF proposed setting a maximum period beyond which this Article could no longer be applied. EIRMA on the other hand was not in favour of Article 157 as it stood, claiming that the rules laid down therein would constitute discrimination between applications relating to the various areas of technology and that in addition these rules would be of very limited practical use to the European Patent Office.

CEIF was not opposed to the principle of the progressive extension of the field of activity of the European Patent Office but proposed that a maximum period for such extension be laid down.

Page 15

Article 88a (Amendment of the period within which a request for examination may be made) and Article 157 (Progressive expansion of the field of activity of the European Patent Office) 101. COPRICE stated that it was satisfied with Article 88a, which introduced the necessary flexibility and which, moreover, taking into account the voting rules laid down for the Administrative Council, should not arouse any anxieties with regard to a possible re-introduction of a lengthy long-term deferred examination. In addition, if the Administrative Council were to decide, under Article - 88a, paragraph 2, that third parties should be entitled to make requests for examination, the fee for the request should be paid by the third party, without excluding the possibility of the fee being shared afterwards.

Two organisations (CNIPA and FICPI) proposed that if Article 88a were retained, it should at least be provided that the extension of the period laid down in Article 88a could not exceed six months.

Most of the other organisations requested the deletion of Article 88a, since it was implicit in that provision that a system of deferred examination, to which they were in principle opposed, could be reintroduced.

The deletion of paragraph 1(a) was requested by the ICC, EIRMA, IAPIP, CNIPA, IFIA, UNEPA and also CEIF, which nevertheless stated that its Italian section was of the contrary opinion. It was noted that the matter depended essentially on the size of the funds which would be placed at the disposal of the European Patent Office to enable its full operation, rather than on technical problems. CEIF indicated that it might agree to this

Page 16

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 15 March 1972 BR/169/72

- Secretariat -

MINUTES of the

5th Meeting of the Inter-Governmental Conference for the Setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents

Part II

Hearing of the non-governmental international organisations on the Second Preliminary Draft of a Convention establishing a European System for the Grant of Patents

(Luxembourg, 26 January to 1 February 1972)

BR/169 e/72 ley/KM/prk

Page 17

113. In addition, the Conference adopted the other provisions of Article 88a and decided to delete Article 160 . 114. With regard to Article 157, the Conference found that it could not make provision in the Convention for the applicability of this Article to be subjected to a time limit. However it expressed the desire that the progressive expansion of the field of activity of the European Patent Office should be concluded within five years. It was noted that a declaration to this effect should also be planned for the Diplomatic Conference.

Article 97 (Grant of the European patent) 120. This provision was examined taking particular account of the comments of CEIF. The suggestion to extend the period provided for in paragraph 1 by one month was not adopted, since the Conference was of the opinion that at this stage the most important factor was not to delay the proceedings. 121. With regard to the minimum period provided for in paragraph 4, the usefulness of which had been questioned, it was stressed that this provision was intended to put nationals of the different Contracting States on an equal footing, particularly as regards the opposition proceedings. In fact, this minimum period corresponds to the maximum period provided for in Article 107a for the submission of translations which may be required for the patent to be valid in certain Contracting States. 122. The suggestion that the patent should come into force automatically when the fees due are paid was not adopted as it was pointed out that such a system would give rise to the problem of informing third parties. BR / 168 e/72 nan/KM/prk

Page 18

Article 88a (Amendment to the period within which a request for examination should be made) Article 157 (Progressive expansion of the field of activity of the European Patent Office) and Article 160 (Period within which a request for examination may be made during a transitional period) 116. With regard to Article 88a, paragraph 1(a), it was pointed out that if Article 160 were to be deleted, the former provision, the scope of which is in any case limited, in view of paragraph 5 , would constitute the sole means of coping with a flood of applications to the European Patent Office. If paragraph 1(a) of Article 88a were to be deleted also, a decision to extend the period of time laid down in Article 88, paragraph 2, could only in fact be taken in the framework of a revision of the Convention.

Two delegations considered that even if the European Patent Office were inundated with applications, an extension of the period in question - albeit on a temporary basis - was not justified.

In conclusion, the Conference decided to adopt paragraph 1(a). 117. Paragraph 1(b) of Article 88a was not however adopted. In fact, while some delegations were in favour of such a provision, - even if the supplementary period were limited to a maximum of six months - the majority of the delegations considered that the reference to the general interest constituted a criterion which was too vague and that, in any case, such a decision did not depend on the Administrative Council but on a Conference for a revision of the Convention.

Page 19

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 15 March 1972 BR / 168 / 72

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

of the 5th Meeting of the Inter-Governmental Conference for the Setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents

Parts 1 and 3

(Luxembourg, 24-25 January and 2-4 February 1972)

Article 88a

Amendment of the period within which a request for examination may be made (1) The Administrative Council may extend the period laid down in irticle 88, paragraph 2, within which a request for examination may be made: (a) if it is established that Furopean patent applications cannot be examined in due time, or (b) if an extension is in the general interest. (2) If the Administrative Council. takes the decision referred to in paragraph 1, it may decide that third parties will be entitled to make a request for examination. In suca cases, it shall determine the appropriate rules in the Implementing Regulations. (3) The decisions referred to in the preceding paragraphs shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Patent Office. (4) Any decision of the Administrative Council pursuant to paragraph 1 shall apply culy in respect of European patent applications filed after the publication of such decision. (5) If the Administrative Council takes a decision referred to in paragraph 1(a) it sust lay down measures with a view to rescoring the period referred to in irticle 38 , paragraph 2 , as soon as possible.

Page 21

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 6 December 1971 B R / 139 / 71

- Secretariat -

DOCUMENT CORRECTING

SECOND PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS and

FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE RULES RELATING TO FEES

- Stage reached on 26 November 1971 -

BR/139 e/71

Page 22

Article 160 (National utility models and utility certificates) 90. For reasons of systematic order, the Conference decided to transfer the text of this Article without amendment to the general provisions, and to renumber it Article 8a.

Article 161 (The European patent application as a prior national right) 91. For reasons of systematic order, the Conference decided to transfer the text of this Article without amendment to Article 76 of the Convention as paragraph 1(a).

Page 23

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 7 July 1971 B R / 125 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES of the 4th Meeting of the Inter-Governmental Conference for the setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents (Luxembourg, 20 to 28 April 1971)

Page 24

PART X FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 160 National utility models and utility certificates

Article 6, Article 61, paragraph 2, Article 76, Articles 124 to 128, Article 134, Article 149 and Article 161 shall apply to utility models and utility certificates and to applications for utility models and utility certificates registered or deposited in the Contracting States whose laws make provision for such models or certificates.

Page 25

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 15th February 1971 BR / 88 / 71

ESTABLISHING

A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Stage reached on 29 January 1971 -

Page 26

88. Several delegations wondered if one solution might be to emend Article 159 in order to give the Administrative Council the power, if circumstances demanded it, to lengthen the period laid down in Article 88, paragraph 2, by a relatively short period of time (the maximum length to be specified in any event by the Convention). A provision like this, which would not amount to an automatic application of the system of deferred exemination from the beginning of the functioning of the Patent Office; would certainly be more flexible than the present one and would give the Administrative Council another instrument; in addition to Article 156, with which to deal with any difficulties which might arise. It would, however, be necessary to go further into the problem of the possibility of applying simultaneously Article 156 and Article 159 thus emended. 89. In conclusion, the Conference considered that Article 159 should be re-examined in depth, particularly from the point of view of practical problems which would arise during the initial period of operation of the European Patent Office. Working Party I was instructed to undertake this examination. A note to this effect was added to Article 159.

Page 27

ary if the forecast of the number of applications submitted in the first few years proved too generous. Even if this were not the case, the provision contained in Article 156 on the progressive expansion of the field of activity of the European Patent Office would provide the Administrative Council with the practical possibility of acting to reduce to manageable proportions any excessive work-load on the European Patent Office. 87. A few delegations considered; however; that Article 159 in its present form was necessary for practical reasons. In the first place, there would certainly be difficulties with the application of Article 156, as shown by the observations already submitted by the interested circles, and in any case, its application would involve greater disadvantages for the applicants than the application of Article 159; since it would provisionally leave whole areas of technology outside the fields of application of the Convention. In addition, the need for the staff of the European Patent Office to obtain working experience would not allow the Office to operate fully at the outset. Finally, the experience of certain national patent offices proved that fears that serious difficulties could arise when changing from the system of deferred examination to that of Article 88 were certainly exaggerated. In any case, the Administrative Council could guard against such difficulties by progressively reducing the period.

Page 28

Other delegations, while accepting the idea of a limited period of validity for a reservation, asked that this period of validity be calculated as from the entry into force of the Convention for the Contracting State which had made a reservation within the meaning of Article 158. This would be in line with what was laid down in Article 12 of the Strasbourg Convention.

Opposing these requests, the majority of the delegations observed that for reasons of legal security, a fixed and uniform date on which these reservations should cease to have effect should be laid down for all States, so that the applicant for a European patent would not be obliged to allow indefinitely for different legal situations in the different Contracting States.

In conclusion, the Conference decided on a period of ten years, calculated as from the entry into force of the Convention within the meaning of Article 166, paragraph 1.

Article 159 (Period within which a request for examination may be made during a transitional period)

The great majority of delegations was in favour of deleting this Article. They considered that it would be illogical to provide that as soon as the European Patent Office began to function, the system of examination with a period of about two years, as laid down in Article 88, be replaced by a system of deferred examination. Such a provision would be dangerous, since it might create difficulties when the time came to change from this system to the system laid down in Article 88. In addition, it might be unnecessary.

Page 29

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 7 July 1971 B R / 125 / 71

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

of the 4th Meeting of the Inter-Governmental Conference for the setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents (Luxembourg, 20 to 28 April 1971)

Page 30

Article 159 Period within which a request for examination may be made during a transitional period (1) During a transitional period, the expiry of which shall be determined by the Administrative Council, the period laid down in Article 88, paragraph 2, within which a request for examination may be made, shall be ... years after the date on which the European Patent Bulletin notifies the publication of the report on the state of the art, pursuant to Article 85, paragraph 5. This latter period may be reduced by a decision of the Administrative Council. (2) The decisions referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Patent Office. (3) Any decision of the Administrative Council pursuant to paragraph 1 shall apply only in respect of European patent applications filed after the publication of such decision.

Page 31

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 15th February 1971 BR / 88 / 71

ESTABLISHING

A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Stage reached on 29 January 1971 -

CHAPTER IV

Register and publications

Article 60 (Publications of the European Patent Office)

36a The Conference decided to add a reference to the publications provided for.in Article 98 (specification of the European patent) in Article 60.

CHAPTER I

Filing and requirements of the application

Article 64 (Filing of the application) 37. Regarding inventions which may be made secret, the Conference approved the text proposed as a compromise for paragraph 2(a)(BR/114/71, page 6).

The new text is relatively flexible as it refers to inventions which, owing to the nature of their subjectmatter, may not be communicated abroad without the prior authorisation of the competent authorities of the State concerned. It was understood that in any eventuality the European Patent Office would be covered by the term "abroad", even for the State on whose territory the European Patent Office is located.

Page 33

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 7 July 1971 B R / 125 / 71

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

of the 4th Meeting of the Inter-Governmental Conference for the setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents (Luxembourg, 20 to 28 April 1971)

Page 34

Article 60 Publications of the European Patent Office

In addition to the requirements as to publication contained in Articles 85 and 107, the European Patent Office shall periodically publish : (a) a European Patent Bulletin containing entries made in the Register of European Patents, as well as all other particulars, the publication of which is prescribed by this Convention; (b) an Official Journal of the European Patent Office, containing notices and information of a general character issued by the President of the European Patent Office, as well as any other information relevant to this Convention or its implementation.

Page 35

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 15th February 1971 BR / 88 / 71

ESTABLISHING

A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Stage reached on 29 January 1971 -

Page 36

113. In addition, the Conference adopted the other provisions of Article 88a and decided to delete Article 160 . 114. With regard to Article 157, the Conference found that it could not make provision in the Convention for the applicability of this Article to be subjected to a time limit. However it expressed the desire that the progressive expansion of the field of activity of the European Patent Office should be concluded within five years. It was noted that a declaration to this effect should also be planned for the Diplomatic Conference.

Article 97 (Grant of the European patent) 120. This provision was examined taking particular account of the comments of CEIF. The suggestion to extend the period provided for in paragraph 1 by one month was not adopted, since the Conference was of the opinion that at this stage the most important factor was not to delay the proceedings. 121. With regard to the minimum period provided for in paragraph 4, the usefulness of which had been questioned, it was stressed that this provision was intended to put nationals of the different Contracting States on an equal footing, particularly as regards the opposition proceedings. In fact, this minimum period corresponds to the maximum period provided for in Article 107a for the submission of translations which may be required for the patent to be valid in certain Contracting States. 122. The suggestion that the patent should come into force automatically when the fees due are paid was not adopted as it was pointed out that such a system would give rise to the problem of informing third parties. BR / 168 e/72 nan/KM/prk

Page 37

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 15 March 1972 BR / 168 / 72

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

of the 5th Meeting of the Inter-Governmental Conference for the Setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents

Parts 1 and 3

(Luxembourg, 24-25 January and 2-4 February 1972)

Vorbehalte

(1) Jeder Vertragsstaat kann sich bei der Unterzeichnung oder bei der Hinterlegung seiner Ratifikations- oder Beitrittsurkunde für eine Übergangszeit von zehn Jahren nach Inkrafttreten dieses Übereinkommens das Recht vorbehalten zu bestimmen, a) daß in Abweichung von Artikel 133 europäische Patente für Nahrungs- und Arzneimittel als solche sowie für landwirtschaftliche oder gartenbauliche Verfahren, auf die nicht bereits Artikel 10 Buchstabe b anwendbar ist, übereinstimmend mit den für nationale Patente geltenden Vorschriften unwirksam sind oder für nichtig erklärt werden können; b) daß in Abweichung von Artikel 20a europäische Patente übereinstimmend mit den für nationale Patente geltenden Vorschriften eine kürzere Laufzeit als zwanzig Jahre haben. (2) Jeder Vertragsstaat, der aufgrund dieses Artikels einen Vorbehalt macht, nimmt ihn zurück, sobald es die Umstände gestatten. Die Zurücknahme des Vorbehalts erfolgt durch eine an . . . gerichtete Notifikation und wird einen Monat nach dem Tag des Eingangs der Notifikation wirksam. (3) Alle Vorbehalte werden mit Ablauf der Übergangszeit nach Absatz 1 unwirksam.

Artikel 160

Frist zur Stellung des Prüfungsantrags während einer Übergangszeit (1) Während einer Übergangszeit, deren Ende der Verwaltungsrat bestimmt, beträgt die in Artikel 88 Absatz 2 genannte Frist zur Stellung des Prüfungsantrags . . . Jahre nach dem Tag, an dem im Europäischen Patentblatt gemäß Artikel 85 Absatz 5 auf die Veröffentlichung des Berichts über den Stand der Technik hingewiesen worden ist. Diese Frist kann vom Verwaltungsrat verkürzt werden. (2) Die Beschlüsse nach Absatz 1 werden im Amtsblatt des Europäischen Patentamts veröffentlicht. (3) Die Beschlüsse des Verwaltungsrats nach Absatz 1 sind nur auf die europäischen Patentanmeldungen anwendbar, die nach der Veröffentlichung des jeweiligen Beschlusses eingereicht werden.

Ärticle 159

Reservations (1) Each Contracting State may, at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratification or accession, reserve, for a period of ten years from the entry into force of this Convention, the right to provide: (a) that, by derogation from Article 133, European patents in respect of food and pharmaceutical products, as such, and agricultural or horticultural processes other than those to which Article 10, sub-paragraph (b), applies, shall, in accordance with the provisions applicable to national patents, be ineffective or revocable; (b) that, by derogation from Article 20a, European patents shall have a term shorter than twenty years, in accordance with the provisions applicable to national patents. (2) Any Contracting State that makes a reservation under this Article shall withdraw this reservation as soon as circumstances permit. Such withdrawal shall be made by notification addressed to ... and shall take effect one month from the date of receipt of such notification. (3) Any reservation shall cease to have effect on expiry of the period laid down in paragraph 1.

Article 160

Period within which a request for examination may be made during a transitional period (1) During a transitional period, the expiry of which shall be determined by the Administrative Council, the period laid down in Article 88, paragraph 2, within which a request for examination may be made, shall be ... years after the date on which the European Patent Bulletin notifies the publication of the report on the state of the art, pursuant to Article 85, paragraph 5. This latter period may be reduced by a decision of the Administrative Council. (2) The decisions referred.to in the preceding paragraph shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Patent Office. (3) Any decision of the Administrative Council pursuant to paragraph 1 shall apply only in respect of European patent applications filed after the publication of such decision.

Page 39

REGIERUNGSKONFERENZ ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS CONFERENCE INTERGOUVERNEMENTALE POUR L'INSTITUTION D'UN SYSTEME EUROPEEN DE DELIVRANCE DE BREVETS

ZWEITER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

sowie ERSTER VORENTWURF EINER AUSFÜHRUNGSORDNUNG ZUM ÜBEREINKOMMEN ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN und ERSTER VORENTWURF EINER GEBÜHRENORDNUNG

SECOND PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS TO THE CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS and FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE RULES RELATING TO FEES

SECOND AVANT-PROJET DE CONVENTION INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS ainsi que PREMIER AVANT-PROJET DE RÈGLEMENT D'EXÉCUTION DE LA CONVENTION INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS et PREMIER AVANT-PROJET DE RÈGLEMENT RELATIF AUX TAXES

Page 40

(c) One delegation suggested that it might is preferable, after an initial period, for the European Patent Office itself to be responsible for training its officials, as in the case of national offices. That would imply, however, that the training role of the CEIPI at Strasbourg would be only temporary and this might give rise to financial problems.

All the delegations expressed great interest in the ideas put forward by the Chairman, who agreed to draw up a document along these lines to be submitted to the Working Party before 1 January 1972. The French delegation also agreed to submit a document by the same date on the present activities of the CEIPI at Strasbourg and on the developments which could be envisaged by the French authorities, particularly in view of the international role which the Centre might be called upon to play. On the basis of these documents, steps should be taken to enable the InterGovernmental Conference of June 1972 to take a decision on the general lines of this plan.

Article 33 (Location and branches for information and liaison) 7. In connection with the discussion on Article 88a and on the problem of the "running-in" of the European Patent Office, the Working Party examined a proposal by the United Kingdon delegation (BR/GT I/113/71) to amend Article 33, paragraph 2, by removing the restriction that branch offices

Page 41

probably be tempted to prefer the latter if it had entered into force by the time the European system came into operation, and the amount of interest in the complete procedure compared with that in the first stage only would be so great that any extrapolation of figures from the one to the other would be extremely hazardous. The reply to these objections was that although any estimates based on the first stage would not be very accurate, this seemed nevertheless the best procedure to adopt as it would be objectively impossible to implement immediately all the stages of the procedure for granting European patents. Even supposing that the PCT had already come into force at the time when the European Convention became operational, it was possible, if not probable, that the PCT would still not have been ratified by all the Contracting States to the European Convention, and this would make it in the interests of a sufficient number of inventors to use the European procedure. (b) It was asked whether, under the plan outlined by the Chairman, candidates for training should preferably be officials from the national patent offices, and what guarantees those trained at the CEIPI would have of being appointed to the European Patent Office. The reply was that the decisions of those empowered to appoint officials of the European Patent Office could not be anticipated (Administrative Council and President of the European Pateut Office), but that it would be reasonable to expect that those who had received the training in question would be given a certain amount of preference.

Page 42

All practical preparations should not of course be postponed until this time. On the contrary, examiners would have to be trained before the European Patent Office began to operate in order to provide a reserve on which the European Patent Office could draw if necessary. This training would have to cover languages and the patent law of the Convention and also, for those from countries which do not have an examination procedure, the problems relating to that procedure. The Chairman suggested that whereas the last item could be the responsibility of those national offices which had experience in this field, training in languages and European patent law might well be entrusted to the International Industrial Property Centre (CEIPI) at Strasbourg. The IIB could also take part in the training programme, which should be financed by the countries of origin of those being trained.

The discussion which followed the Chairman's remarks mainly concerned the following points: (a) Certain delegations expressed doubts on the relevance of estimates based on the initial period of partial activity of the European Patent Office. The first stage of the processing of the European patent application would correspond to the PCT procedure, with the result that an appreciable number of inventors would

Page 43

Several delegations pointed out that even if present estimates were relatively theoretical, a survey carried out several years before the European Patent Office begins to operate would not give more accurate or reliable figures as the interested circles would not be able to give precise information on their plans for the relatively distant future.

The United Kingdom delegation's proposal was therefore not adopted. 126. During this discussion the Chairman put forward a number of ideas on the ways in which the European Patent Office might begin to operate. In his view, the European Patent Office should, under Article 157, restrict its activities for the first year to the first stage of the procedure (up to the request for examination) and the applications concerned could be further processed as national applications. Limited activity of this nature would not require a large number of European Patent Office examiners and would also make it possible to make estimates of requirements area by area. As a result, the President of the European Patent Office would be able to take on a sufficient number of officials for implementing the subsequent stages of the processing of European patent applications.

Page 44

The Working Party nevertheless decided, by a majority decision, not to adopt this proposal, bearing in mind the psychological advantages of an early submission of a request for examination. The Working Party did not therefore amend Article 88 to this effect. It did however hope that the attention of the interested circles would be drawn to this problem in such a way that the Conference would be able to come to a decision after hearing concrete proposals from the non-governmental international organisations. During the examination of the United Kingdom delegation's proposal, the question had been raised of whether the European Patent Office would be legally entitled, in the case of a flood of requests, to examine applications in the order in which the requests for examination arrived. It was observed in this respect that such a procedure would probably be contrary to Article 2 of the Paris Union Convention.

Practical preparations for the entry into force of the Convention

125. In the context of its discussion of Article 88a, which replaces Article 160, the Working Party considered a proposal from the United Kingdom delegation (BR/GT I/113/71). In this document the United Kingdom delegation had pointed out that it would be useful during 1972 to carry out a survey with a view to getting some clearer idea as to the likely use of the system and particularly its growth rate. It mentioned the possibility of the survey including the interested circles and extending to the United States.

Page 45

extension of the six-month period could, in certain cases, justify recognition of the right of third parties to make a request for examination, the Working Party agreed to ley down in a second paragraph in Article 88a that the Administrative Council could, if it extended the period, decide that third parties would be entitled to make requests for examination. The same provision lays down that in such cases the Administrative Council will determine the appropriate rules in the Implemeating Regulations. 123. The elimination of the right of third parties to request examination involved the amendment of paragraph 2 and the deletion of paragraphs 4 and 6 of Article 88, and the amendment or deletion of a number of other provisions of the Convention and Implementing Regulations (Article 91, paragraph 2, Article 92, paragraph 1, Article 97, paragraphs 1 and 3, Re. Article 88, No. 1, paragraph 2 and Re. Article 88, Nos. 2 and 3).

The United Kingdom delegation proposed that applicants should not be authorised to make a request for examination until after receipt of the report on the state of the art. In support of this proposal, the United Kingdom delegation said that the possibility of making a request before this time, which was allowed by the present wording of Article 88, would be taken up by only a very limited number of those concerned. It would, as a general rule, be reasonable to await the report on the state of the art before making such a request, which must, moreover, be accompanied by a fairly high fee. In addition, the exclusion of the possibility of making the request before receipt of the report on the state of the art would increase the number of applications which would be abandoned during the proceedings, along with all the administrative advantages for the European Patent Office that this would entail.

Page 46

It was pointed out in this connection that a period of six months might possibly, in view of the provisions of Articles 22 and 39 of the PCT which lay down a minimum period of 25 months from the date of filing, involve a difference in treatment between European applicants being treated differently from those taking the PCT route. In reply to this argument it was however suggested that under the second stage of the PCT the difference in treatment would be negligible in practice.

The Working Party considered that this question also closely concerned the interested circles, so it decided to discontinue the debate for the time being and to await their views on the matter, which would be given at the January 1972 Meeting of the Conference. 122. In accordance with its mandate from the Conference (BR/125/71, points 60 and 61), the Working Party then examined the question of whether the right of third parties to file a request for examination should be retained.

Some delegations pointed out that in view of the current provision of the new Article 88a that the Administrative Council may modify the duration of the sixmonth period prescribed in Article 88, paragraph 2, it might be advisable to retain this right for third parties.

The majority of the Working Party nevertheless considered that it would be preferable to eliminate the right of third parties to request examination as provided in Article 88 for the various reasons that had already been put forward at the Fourth Meeting of the InterGovernmental Conference. As, however, even a limited

Page 47

providing in the Convention for a maximum duration such as might possibly be interpreted as an amendment to the examining system currently prescribed in the Convention. As no majority came out in favour of any of the options proposed, ranging from 1 to 5 years, the Working Party decided not to lay down a maximum period.

Regarding the procedure by which the decision in the matter would have to be taken, the Working Party considered that in conformity with the Convention system, a threequarters majority should be required, as for other important decisions, but that the weighting of the votes should not be laid down.

With regard to the position of these provisions in the Convention, the Working Party was of the opinion that, as they no longer formed a transitional measure but, on the contrary, constituted one of the powers of the Administrative Council concerning the time limit laid down in Article 83, a new Article 88a should be inserted to this effect, since the former Article 160 had been deleted. The provision governing the majority required for such a decision was laid down in Article 35a, paragraph 1(b).

Article 88 (Request for examination) 121. After discussing Article 88a, the Working Party dealt with the question, which is mentioned in the first note to Article 88, of whether the period referred to in paragraph 2 should be increased from six to twelve months.

Page 48

Following a discussion in the course of which the delegations noted their proposals on this specific point and on the more general problem of deferred examination, a compromise solution emerged, whereby there would be no transitional period and the time limit prescribed in Article 88, paragraph 2, would apply immediately. But the Administrative Council would have the permanent option of extending the six-month period provided in Article 88. This option would nevertheless be subject to one of the following conditions: either it would have to be established that the European patent applications could not be examined in due time, or an extension would have to be in the general interest. The Working Party agreed that such a decision taken in the first hypothesis would in any case have to be preceded by any measures required to meet the needs of the situation and that the extension of the period could only be applied for a limited time and would have to be accompanied by measures taken with a view to restoring the period provided under Article 88, paragraph 2, as soon as possible. The second hypothesis would materialise in the event of an overwhelming opinion in favour of an irrevocable extension of the six-month period. It was understood that in both hypotheses, the Council would have to discuss the case with the interested circles before taking a decision of this nature. It considered however that it would not be expedient to include an explicit provision to that effect in the Convention.

The Working Party also discussed the usefulness of providing for a maximum extension of the period within which the request for examination may be made, and which the Administrative Council would in no event be able to exceed. Some delegations expressed hesitancy about

Page 49

Article 82 (Amendment of the documents) Article 83 (Amendment of the claims) Article 95a (Amendment of the application) 117. The Working Party agreed to examine at its next meeting the possibility of combining these three provisions to form a single general provision (cf. point 58 above). 118. In cornection with Article 83, the Working Party also decided to defer until its next meeting its examination of the note submitted by the Netherlands delegation (BR/GT I/124/7), on the publication of pending European patent applications and its repercussions for third parties.

Article 85 (Publication of a European patent application) 119. For this Article see the remark contained in point 62 of these minutes.

Article 88a (Former Article 160) (Amendment of the period within which a request for examination may be made) 120. In accordance with the mandate given to it by the Conference, Working Party I examined the problems raised by Article 160. The United Kingdom delegation made a proposal (BR/GT I/113/71) that this Article should be amended so that the Administrative Council may, if necessary, increase the Article 88, paragraph 2, period up to a maximum of two years ard, where appropriate, reduce any such extended period.

Page 50

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 17 November 1971 BR/135/71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the 9th meeting of Working Party I held from 12 to 22 October 1971, in Luxembourg

1. Working Party I held its 9th meeting in Luxembourg from 12 to 22 October 1971, with Dr. Haertel, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair.

Representatives from the IIB and WIPO took part in the meeting as observers. The representatives of the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of Europe sent their apologies for being unable to attend. See Annex I to these minutes for the list of those present at the 9 th meeting. 2. Working Party I adopted the provisional agenda as contained in BR/GT I/120/71 and attached to this document as Annex II. 3. The Drafting Committee of Working Party I met first under the chairmanship of Mr. van BENTHEM, President of the Octrooiraad; and after his departure, that of Mr. LABRY, Embassy Counsellor at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (France). B R / 135 e/71 prk (Unrevised translation)

Page 51

(2) Die in Absatz 1 vorgesehenen Einwendungen werden dem Anmelder mitgeteilt, der dazu Stellung nehmen kann.

Erteilungsverfahren

Artikel 88 Prüfungsantrag (1) Das Europäische Patentamt prüft auf Antrag, ob die europäische Patentanmeldung und die Erfindung, die sie zum Gegenstand hat, den Erfordernissen dieses Übereinkommens genügen. (2) Der Antrag kann vom Anmelder oder von jedem Dritten bis zum Ablauf von sechs Monaten nach dem Tag gestellt werden, an dem im Europäischen Patentblatt gemäß Artikel 85 Absatz 5 auf die Veröffentlichung des Berichts über den Stand der Technik hingewiesen worden ist. Der Antrag gilt erst als gestellt, wenn die in der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Übereinkommen vorgeschriebene Prüfungsgebühr entrichtet worden ist. (3) Stellt der Anmelder den Antrag nach Erhalt des Berichts über den Stand der Technik, so kann er mit dem Antrag zu diesem Bericht und zu den ihm mitgeteilten Einwendungen Stellung nehmen und gegebenenfalls die Beschreibung, die Patentansprüche und die Zeichnungen ändern. (4) Wird der Antrag für die Anmeldung eines europäischen Zusatzpatents gestellt, so fordert die Prüfungsstelle den Anmelder auf, bis zum Ablauf von zwei Monaten nach Zustellung der Aufforderung für die Anmeldung des Hauptpatents einen Antrag nach Absatz 1 zu stellen. Wird der Antrag nicht gestellt, so gilt die Anmeldung des europäischen Zusatzpatents als Anmeldung eines selbständigen europäischen Patents. (5) Der Antrag kann nicht zurückgenommen werden. (6) Ist ein Prüfungsantrag gemäß Absatz 2 eingereicht worden, so gelten spätere Prüfungsanträge als nicht eingegangen. Entrichtete Gebühren werden zurückgezahlt. (7) Wird bis zum Ablauf der in Absatz 2 genannten Frist ein Prüfungsantrag nicht gestellt, so gilt die europäische Patentanmeldung als zurückgenommen.

Artikel 89

- gestrichen - (siehe Artikel 160).

Artikel 90

Übergang des Verfahrens auf die Prüfungsabteilung Sobald ein Antrag auf Prüfung der europäischen Patentanmeldung gestellt ist, geht das Verfahren auf die Prüfungsabteilung über, jedoch nicht vor Eingang des Berichts über den Stand der Technik. (2) The observations referred to in paragraph 1 shall be communicated to the applicant who may comment on them.

Request for examination

(1) The European Patent Office shall examine, on request, whether a European patent application and the invention which forms the subject thereof meet the requirements of this Convention. (2) Such a request may be made by the applicant or by any other person up to the end of six months after the date on which the European Patent Bulletin notifies the publication of the report on the state of the art pursuant to Article 85, paragraph 5. The request shall not be considered to be made until after the examination fee prescribed by the Rules relating to Fees adopted pursuant to the Convention has been paid. (3) If the applicant makes the request after receiving the report on the state of the art, he may comment on this report and on any observations communicated to him and shall where necessary amend the description, claims and drawings. (4) If the request is made in respect of an application for a European patent of addition, the Examining Section shall invite the applicant to make a request in accordance with paragraph 1 in respect of the application for the parent patent before the end of two months after such invitation has been made. If no such request is made, the application for a European patent of addition shall be deemed to be an application for an independent European patent. (5) The request may not be withdrawn. (6) When a request for examination has been made in conformity with paragraph 2, any subsequent requests for examination shall be regarded as void. Any fees paid shall be refunded. (7) If no request for examination has been made by the end of the period referred to in paragraph 2, the European patent application shall be deemed to be withdrawn.

Article 89

- deleted - (Cf. Article 160).

Article 90

Transfer of proceedings to the Examining Division As soon as a request for examination of a European patent application has been made, the proceedings shall be transferred to an Examining Division, but not before the receipt of the report on the state of the art.

Vorbehalte

(1) Jeder Vertragsstaat kann sich bei der Unterzeichnung oder bei der Hinterlegung seiner Ratifikations- oder Beitrittsurkunde für eine Übergangszeit von zehn Jahren nach Inkrafttreten dieses Übereinkommens das Recht vorbehalten zu bestimmen, a) daß in Abweichung von Artikel 133 europäische Patente für Nahrungs- und Arzneimittel als solche sowie für landwirtschaftliche oder gartenbauliche Verfahren, auf die nicht bereits Artikel 10 Buchstabe b anwendbar ist, übereinstimmend mit den für nationale Patente geltenden Vorschriften unwirksam sind oder für nichtig erklärt werden können; b) daß in Abweichung von Artikel 20a europäische Patente übereinstimmend mit den für nationale Patente geltenden Vorschriften eine kürzere Laufzeit als zwanzig Jahre haben. (2) Jeder Vertragsstaat, der aufgrund dieses Artikels einen Vorbehalt macht, nimmt ihn zurück, sobald es die Umstände gestatten. Die Zurücknahme des Vorbehalts erfolgt durch eine an . . . gerichtete Notifikation und wird einen Monat nach dem Tag des Eingangs der Notifikation wirksam. (3) Alle Vorbehalte werden mit Ablauf der Übergangszeit nach Absatz 1 unwirksam.

Artikel 160

Frist zur Stellung des Prüfungsantrags während einer Übergangszeit (1) Während einer Übergangszeit, deren Ende der Verwaltungsrat bestimmt, beträgt die in Artikel 88 Absatz 2 genannte Frist zur Stellung des Prüfungsantrags . . . Jahre nach dem Tag, an dem im Europäischen Patentblatt gemäß Artikel 85 Absatz 5 auf die Veröffentlichung des Berichts über den Stand der Technik hingewiesen worden ist. Diese Frist kann vom Verwaltungsrat verkürzt werden. (2) Die Beschlüsse nach Absatz 1 werden im Amtsblatt des Europäischen Patentamts veröffentlicht. (3) Die Beschlüsse des Verwaltungsrats nach Absatz 1 sind nur auf die europäischen Patentanmeldungen anwendbar, die nach der Veröffentlichung des jeweiligen Beschlusses eingereicht werden.

Reservations

(1) Each Contracting State may, at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratification or accession, reserve, for a period of ten years from the entry into force of this Convention, the right to provide: (a) that, by derogation from Article 133, European patents in respect of food and pharmaceutical products, as such, and agricultural or horticultural processes other than those to which Article 10, sub-paragraph (b), applies, shall, in accordance with the provisions applicable to national patents, be ineffective or revocable; (b) that, by derogation from Article 20a, European patents shall have a term shorter than twenty years, in accordance with the provisions applicable to national patents. (2) Any Contracting State that makes a reservation under this Article shall withdraw this reservation as soon as circumstances permit. Such withdrawal shall be made by notification addressed to ... and shall take effect one month from the date of receipt of such notification. (3) Any reservation shall cease to have effect on expiry of the period laid down in paragraph 1.

Article 160

Period within which a request for examination may be made during a transitional period (1) During a transitional period, the expiry of which shall be determined by the Administrative Council, the period laid down in Article 88, paragraph 2, within which a request for examination may be made, shall be ... years after the date on which the European Patent Bulletin notifies the publication of the report on the state of the art, pursuant to Article 85, paragraph 5. This latter period may be reduced by a decision of the Administrative Council. (2) The decisions referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Patent Office. (3) Any decision of the Administrative Council pursuant to paragraph 1 shall apply only in respect of European patent applications filed after the publication of such decision.

Page 53

REGIERUNGSKONFERENZ ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS CONFERENCE INTERGOUVERNEMENTALE POUR L'INSTITUTION D'UN SYSTEME EUROPEEN DE DELIVRANCE DE BREVETS

ZWEITER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

sowie ERSTER VORENTWURF EINER AUSFÜHRUNGSORDNUNG ZUM ÜBEREINKOMMEN ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN und ERSTER VORENTWURF EINER GEBÜHRENORDNUNG

SECOND PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

with FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS TO THE CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS and FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE RULES RELATING TO FEES

SECOND AVANT-PROJET DE CONVENTION INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

ainsi que PREMIER AVANT-PROJET DE RÈGLEMENT D'EXÉCUTION DE LA CONVENTION INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS et PREMIER AVANT-PROJET DE RÈGLEMENT RELATIF AUX TAXES

Page 54

(w) Articles 152 to 154 - Professional representation, compulsory representation and authorisation The question of representation should be discussed later (see point 78 above). (x) Article 159 - Period within which a request for examination may be made during a transitional period Should the Administrative Council's option be maintained of shortening the period for making the request for examination, the length of which still has to be specified for a transitional period? (Article 159, paragraph 1, second sentence7 (CPCCI, FICPI) 81. Item 6 on the agenda: Discussion of procedure for the 4th Meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference from 20 to 30 April 1971

The Working Party discussed the question of how the results of their work and of the work of the Sub-Committees should profitably be dealt with at the next Meeting of the Conference. In this connection it considered that the delegations to the Intergovernmental Conference should be requested to submit is writing any requests for amendments to the texts.

Item 7 on the agenda: Other business

82. The Working Party agreed as follows for its future programme of work:

The reports of the delegations of Working Party I and of the General Rapporteur on amendments to the pæolished First Preliminary Draft of 1970, which were to be submitted to the Conference, should reach the Secretariat by

(t) Article 116 - Decision or opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal on certain points of law

The Working Party considered that the question of which text of paragraph 1(b) was preferable, should be discussed with the government legal experts. (See observations by the ICC and CPCCI) (u) Article 122 - International search report Should the international search report completely replace the report on the state of the art to be drawn up by the IIB? Should the European Patent Office or the IIB decide on the need for a supplementary report on the state of the art? Should the IIB prepare in every case a report on the state of the art and only consider any international report that might be available? (ICC, CNIPA, CEIF, EIRMA, FICPI, UNEPA, UNICE)

Should fees be levied for any necessary additional report drawn up by the IIB? Could a proportion of the fees be refunded to the applicant if necessary? (CNIPA, FICPI) (v) Article 137 - Supplementary report on the state of the art Should a fee be levied for a supplementary report on the state of the art or should it be incorporated into the fee for the main report on the state of the art or even into the filing fee? (FICPI)

Page 56

(p) Article 79 - Obtaining of the report on the state of the art (i) With regard to the question on combining the filing fee with the search fee, see under point (l) on Article 66. (ii) With regard to the question, whether the report on the state of the art should be replaced by the international search report for PCT-applications, see under point (u) on Article 122. (q) Article 80 - Transmission of the report on the state of the art Should the report on the state of the art be transmitted by the IIB to the European Patent Office and to the applicant simultaneously? (CNIPA, IFIA) (r) Article 88 - Request for examination

The Working Party considered that the question of whether a request for examination might in future be lodged by a third party, notwithstanding the new text of Article 88, paragraph 2, or whether this possibility should hold good for a transitional period, was one which should be discussed further with the interested circles. (See observations by the FICPI) (s) Article 111 - Time-limit and form of appeal Should the period within which the grounds for appeal could be set out in greater detail (Article 111, third sentence) be extended? Should it, if necessary, be fixed by the Board of Appeal? (FICPI, IFIA, UNEPA)

Page 57

(m) Articles 66 to 68

Questions on organisation of the procedure: see under (o) on Articles 77 and 78. (n) Article 74 - Effect of priority right

Should there be a reference in Article 74 to Article 21, paragraph 1? See under (g) on Article 21. (o) Article 77 - Examination of the European patent application for formal and obvious deficiencies

Article 78 - Notification and refusal of the application (i) Who should be responsible for carrying out the formal examination provided for in Article 77, paragraph 1: the EPO, the national receiving Office (in the case of Article 64, paragraph 1(b)), or the IIB? Which parts of the formal examination should be undertaken by which authorities if the work is divided up among them? (ICC, CNIPA, CEIF, EIRMA, UNICE) (ii) Should the EPO carry out alone the examination for obvious deficiencies provided for in Article 77, paragraph 2, or should the IIB undertake a share of this examination, e.g. examination of unity of invention?(1) (ICC, CNIPA, CEIF, EIRMA, FICPI, UNICE) (iii) Should not the EPO only enter the proceedings when the IIB has drawn up the search report? (ICC, CNIPA, CEIF, EIRMA, UNICE) (iv) Would it be advisable to organise co-ordination of the EPO departments responsible for the novelty search with the IIB departments, which were preparing the search reports? (UNICE) (1) The majority of the Working Party refused to abandon altogether the examination for obvious deficiencies. BR / 94 e / 71 ·aut / KM / prk

Page 58

of the opinion that it would suffice to insert in Article 74 a reference to Article 21, paragraph 1. (CNIPA, EIRMA, FICPI, UNICE) (h) Article 22 - Unitary character of the European patent application Is it perfectly clear from this provision that a European patent application can be filed jointly by several applicants and that rights limited to certain countries can be assigned to different assignees in proceedings before the European Patent Office? (CEIF)

Apart from this question, the equivalence of the texts in the three languages should be examined. (CEIF) (i) Article 23 - Assignment of a European patent application Should the Convention specify that an entry in the European Patent Register had the same effect at national level as an entry in the national register? (CEIF) (k) Article 28 - Contractual licensing of a European patent application Should protection be granted to the licensee recorded in the European Patent Register against the proprietor of the application? (CEIF) (1) Article 66 - Requirements of the application Should the filing fee be combined with the fee for obtaining the report on the state of the art (Article 79)? (ICC; CNIPA, EIRMA, FICPI)

Page 59

(d) Article 15 - Right to the grant of a European patent If several people had made an invention independently of each other and had filed applications at different times, should the first application be deemed nonexistant if it has been withdrawn or refused before publication? A provision of this nature would (according to EIRMA)-make it possible for the person filing the second application to receive a patent notwithstanding Article 11, paragraph 3.

This would not be achieved (according to EIRMA) by deleting the third sentence of Article 15, paragraph 1. (e) Article 19 - Rights conferred by a European patent application after publication Should there be a provision, corresponding to Article 29-PCT, that a published European patent application should be accorded at least the same provisional protection as national applications? (CNIPA) (f) Article 20 - Extent of the protection conferred by a European patent

There should be an examination of the equivalence of the texts in the three languages concerning the words "Inhalt der Ansprüche", "terms of the claims" and "teneur des revendications" - also with reference to Article 8 of the Strasbourg Convention of 27.11.1963; if necessary, a legal definition might be introduced. (ICC, CNIPA, EIRMA, UNICE). (g) Article 21 - European patents of addition Should the beginning of the period for filing an application for a European patent of addition be based on the date of priority of the application for a national patent of addition? Several organisations were

Page 60

80. Apart from the textual amendments referred to under point 79, the Working Party decided to undertake no immediate amendment to the Preliminary Draft on the basis of the observations made by the international organisations, but to adopt the procedure set out under point 77 (recommendation to the Inter-Governmental Conference). The points on which the Working Party recommends acceptance or rejection of the proposals made by the international organisations can be found in the above-mentioned document BR/100/71. The only problems set out below are those for which the Working Party is to recommend further examination. (a) Article 9 - Patentable inventions

Possible new text for Article 9, paragraph 2, especially sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) (observations by CEIF and UNICE); (b) Article 11, paragraphs 2 and 3 - Novelty

Should the expression "contents of earlier applications for European patents" in Article 11, paragraph 3 be aligned more closely on the Strasbourg Convention of 27.11 .1963 , by being replaced by "contents of applications for European patents, which have earlier filing dates ..."? (FICPI) (c) Article 11, paragraph 3 - Novelty

Should an earlier European application form an obstacle to the grant of a European patent under Article 11, paragraph 3 even where the inventor is the same person in both cases? [So-called Self-collision (FICPI) 7

The Swedish delegation was asked in this connection to establish by the next meeting whether real difficulties had arisen in the Scandinavian countries in this context.

Page 61

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 6th April 1971 BR/94/71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES of the 7th meeting of Working Party I held at Luxembourg from 26 to 29 January 1971

Item 1 on the agenda (1): Opening of the meeting and adoption of the provisional agenda

1. The Working Party held its seventh meeting at Luxembourg from Tuesday 26 to Thursday 28 January 1971 with Dr. HAERTEL, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair.

The meeting was attended by representatives of the Commission of the European Communities, WIPO/OMPI and the International Patent Institute (2). The representative of the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe sent his apologies for being unable to attend.

2. The Drafting Committee, under the Chairmanship of the President of the Netherlands "Octrooirasd", Mr J.V. VAN BENTHEM, held its meetings directly after the deliberations of the Working Party, and also on the morning of 29 January 1971.

(1) For the provisional agenda (BR/GT I/101/71), see Annex I. (2) For the list of those attending the meeting of the Working Party, see Annex II.

BR/94 e/71 son/KM/prk

Page 62

Article 159 (former Article 188b) Period within which a request for examination may be made during a transitional period (1) During a transitional period, the expiry of which shall be determined by the Administrative Council, the period laid down in Article 88, paragraph 2, within which a request for examination may be made, shall be ... years after the date on which the European Patent Bulletin notifies the publication of the report on the state of the art, pursuant to Article 85, paragraph 5. This latter period may be reduced by a decision of the Administrative Council. (2) The decisions referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Patent Office. (3) Any decision of the Administrative Council pursuant to paragraph 1 shall apply only in respect of European patent applications filed after the publication of such decision.

Page 63

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE	Brussels, 21 December 1970
FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM	BR/70/70
FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Secretariat -

FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS (Articles drafted by Working Parties I, II, III and IV)

Page 64

Article 160 (former Article 206) : National utility models and utility certificates

41 The Working Party concluded that, in order to allow for the conversion of European patent applications to applications for national certificates or utility models, it was necessary to mention in the present article, inter alia, Article 76, so as to give European applications a "filing date". (b) Questions requiring further consideration (1) 42. Preamble

Certain amendments of a purely technical nature were made to the note to the Preamble. 43. Article 2 : European patent

The notes to Article 2(2) were deleted in view of the new provisions drawn up for Articles 2, 133, 134, 158 (former Article 188a) in respect of the maximum approach and for Articles 20a and 158 (former Article 188a) as regards the term of the patent. (1) The main purpose of the observations which follow is to set out concisely the amendments made to certain articles as they stood in the First Preliminary Draft Convention (printed text), and the deletion of certain notes contained therein, taking into account Working Party I's approach to certain unresolved problems. Most of the observations which follow refer to questions which Working Party I had left open at previous meetings.

Page 65

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 28 February 1971 BR / 87 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the meeting of Working Party I held at Luxembourg from 30 November to 2 December 1970 and of the meeting held on 3 December 1970 by that Working Party, acting in its capacity as Co-ordinating Committee Item 1 on the agenda (1) : Opening of the meeting and adoption of the provisional egenda

1. The Working Party held its sixth meeting at Luxembourg from Monday, 30 November to Wednesday, 2 December 1970, with Dr. HAERTEL, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair.

Representatives of the Commission of the European Communities, WIPO-BIRPI and the International Patent Institute took part in the meeting (2). The representative of the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe sent his apologies for being unable to attend. 2. The Drafting Committee, under the chairmanship of the President of the Netherlands Octrooiraad (Patent Office), Mr. J. B. van BENTHEM, held its meetings directly after the deliberations of the Working Party. (1) For the provisional agenda (BR/GT I/62/70), see Annex I. (2) For the list of participants, see Annex II.

CHAPTER II

ADMISSION OF PUBLIC, NOTIFICATIONS AND INSPECTION OF FILES Article 160 Admission of public

1965 Draft (1) Hearings before the Examining Sections, the Examining Divisions and the Patent Administration Divisions shall not be public. (2) Oral proceedings, including delivery of the decision, shall be public, as regards the Boards of Appeal, after publication of a provisional European patent and as regards the Revocation Boards, in so far is these Boards do not decide otherwise in cases where admission of the public would have serious disadvantages.

Page 67

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 23 September 1970 BR/48/70

PRELIMINARY DRAFT CONVENTION FOR A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Articles prepared by Working Party I

(7 to 11 September 1970)

BR/48 e/70 eld/RT pb

Page 68

66. Article 74 : Effect of priority right

Working Party I reiterates its recommendation to the Conference to delete the note to this article. 67. Article 79 : Obtaining of report on the state of the art

The note was deleted in view of the provisions of the Rules relating to Fees. 68. Article 85 : Publication of a European patent application

The note was deleted in view of the new text of Article 34 (5). 69. Articles 88 and 89 : Request for examination - Modification of the procedure by the Administrative Council

The notes to these Articles were deleted in view of the new provisions adopted by the Working Party, following the mandates of the Conference, in respect of deferred examination procedure and the transitional provision (Articles 79 (4a), 88 (2) and 159 (former Article 188b)). 70. Article 95 : Notification of the result of the examination

The Working Party added two new paragraphs, (1a) and (1b), to Article 95, so as to specify the position of the applicant in respect of any invitation from the Examining Division to submit his observations. In particular, the Working Party found it necessary to introduce enough flexibility into the procedure to allow for the submission of further observations by the applicant.

Page 69

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 28 February 1971 B R / 87 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the meeting of Working Party I held at Luxembourg from 30 November to 2 December 1970 and of the meeting held on 3 December 1970 by that Working Party, acting in its capacity as Co-ordinating Committee Item 1 on the agenda (1) : Opening of the meeting and adoption of the provisional agenda

1. , The Working Party held its sixth meeting at Luxembourg from Monday, 30 November to Wednesday, 2 December 1970, with Dr. HAERTEL, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair.

Representatives of the Commission of the European Communities, WIPO-BIRPI and the International Patent Institute took part in the meeting (2). The representative of the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe sent his apologies for being unable to attend. 2. The Drafting Committee, under the chairmanship of the President of the Netherlands Octrooiraad (Patent Office), Mr. J. B. van BENTHEM, held its meetings directly after the deliberations of the Working Party. (1) For the provisional agenda (BR/GT I/62/70), see Annex I. (2) For the list of participants, see Annex II.

Page 70

(2) Der Antrag kann vom Anmelder oder von jedem Dritten bis zum Ablauf von zwei, fünf sieben Jahren nach der Einreichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung gestellt werden. Der Antrag gilt erst als gestellt, wenn die in der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Übereinkommen vorgeschriebene Prüfungsgebühr entrichtet worden ist. (3) Wird der Antrag vom Anmelder gestellt, so soll dieser mit dem Antrag zu dem Bericht über den Stand der Technik und zu den ihm mitgeteilten Einwendungen Stellung nehmen und gegebenenfalls die Beschreibung, die Patentansprüche und die Zeichnungen ändern. (4) Wird der Antrag für die Anmeldung eines europäischen Zusatzpatents gestellt, so fordert die Prüfungsstelle den Anmelder auf, bis zum Ablauf von zwei Monaten nach Zustellung der Aufforderung für die Anmeldung des Hauptpatents einen Antrag nach Absatz 1 zu stellen. Wird der Antrag nicht gestellt, so gilt die Anmeldung des europäischen Zusatzpatents als Anmeldung eines selbständigen europäischen Patents. (5) Der Antrag kann nicht zurückgenommen werden. (6) Ist ein Antrag auf Prüfung gemäß Absatz 2 eingereicht worden, so gelten spätere Anträge auf Prüfung als 1)ht eingegangen. Entrichtete Gebühren werden zurückgezahlt. (7) Wird bis zum Ablauf der in Absatz 2 genannten Frist ein Antrag auf Prüfung nicht gestellt, so gilt die europäische Patentanmeldung als zurückgenommen.

Artikel 89 (früher Artikel 88a)

Änderung des Verfahrens durch den Verwaltungsrat (1) Der Verwaltungsrat kann die in Artikel 88 Absatz 2 vorgesehene Frist für die Einreichung eines Antrags auf Prüfung verkürzen oder verlängern. (2) Der Verwaltungsrat kann anordnen, daß für bestimmte Gebiete der Technik auf Aufforderung des Europäischen Patentamts ein Prüfungsantrag vom Anmelder zu stellen ist, sofern ein öffentliches Interesse an einer solchen Regelung besteht. (3) Der Verwaltungsrat kann anordnen, daß für bestimmte Gebiete der Technik auf Aufforderung des Europäischen Patentamts ein Prüfungsantrag vom Anmelder zu stellen ist, wenn die Geschäftslage des Europäischen Patentamts eine sofortige Durchführung der Prüfung für diese Gebiete zuläßt. (4) Ist eine Anordnung nach den Absätzen 2 oder 3 ergangen, so fordert das Europäische Patentamt den Anmelder auf, innerhalb einer Frist von sechs Monaten einen Prüfungsantrag zu stellen und die Prüfungsgebühr zu zahlen. Wird die Gebühr nicht rechtzeitig entrichtet, so gilt die europäische Patentanmeldung als zurückgenommen. (2) Such a request may be made by the applicant or by any other person up to the end of [two] [five] [seven] years from the filing of the European patent application. The request shall not be considered to be made until after the examination fee prescribed by the Rules relating to fees adopted pursuant to this Convention has been paid. (3) If the request is made by the applicant he shall, when making his request, comment on the report on the state of the art and any observations communicated to him and shall where necessary amend the description, claims and drawings. (4) If the request is made in respect of an application for a European patent of addition, the Examining Section shall invite the applicant to make a request in accordance with paragraph 1 in respect of the application for the parent patent before the end of two months after such invitation has been made. If no such request is made, the application for a European patent of addition shall be deemed to be an application for an independent European patent. (5) The request may not be withdrawn. (6) When a request for examination has been made in conformity with paragraph 2, any subsequent requests for examination shall be regarded as void. Any fees paid shall be refunded. (7) If no request for examination has been made by the end of the period referred to in paragraph 2, the European patent application shall be deemed to be withdrawn.

Article 89 (former Article 88a)

Modification of the procedure by the Administrative Council (1) The Administrative Council may reduce or prolong the period laid down in Article 88, paragraph 2, for making a request for examination. (2) In certain areas of technology, the Administrative Council may direct that applicants are to make a request for examination on the invitation of the European Patent Office, where such ruling is in the public interest. (3) In certain areas of technology, the Administrative Council may direct that applicants are to make a request for examination on the invitation of the European Patent Office, when the work load of the European Patent Office permits of immediate examination in this area. (4) Where a direction pursuant to paragraph 2 or 3 is in force, the European Patent Office shall invite the applicant to make a request for examination, and to pay the examination fee, within a period of six months. If the fee is not paid in due time, the European Patent application shall be deemed to be withdrawn.

Page 71

REGIERUNGSKONFERENZ ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

CONFÉRENCE INTERGOUVERNEMENTALE POUR L'INSTITUTION D'UN SYSTEME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

ERSTER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

PREMIER AVANT-PROJET DE CONVENTION INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

Page 72

and in providing for a reduction in accordance with the possibilities open to the Office. It is this solution which seems to satisfy the desire of the interested circles to be able to file applications in all areas of technology from the time the Office opens.

Article 100 (former Article 96c) and Articles 97 and 97a (new)

Translation of specifications (BR/40/70, page 6, No. 21, second paragraph).

120. With the idea of providing for a reduction of the period for the translation of the specification, referred to in Article 100 of the First Preliminary Draft, the Working Party came to the conclusion that it was simpler to recognise that, between the time when the Examining Division is considering the grant of a patent in its final form and the grant itself, there would in fact be a time which could be put to good use for the translation of the text which would constitute the specification.

For this reason the Working Party deemed it preferable to amend the system laid down in Articles 97 and 100 of the First Preliminary Draft, and to provide for the following system:

(i) the fixing of a three-month period starting from the notification referred to in Article 97, paragraph 1, for entering the grant of the patent in the Register of European Patents. This new provision is incorporated in Article 97, paragraph 4;

(ii) special arrangements introduced in Article 97a (new) for the translation of the text referred to in Article 97, if this text is not in an official language of a Contracting State, in which case this State has the right to prescribe the translation within a period of three months from the notification laid down in Article 97, paragraph 1;

(iii) from this point, Article 100 lays down the possible consequences in a Contracting State which has adopted provisions pursuant to Article 97a (new).

BR/49 e/70 oyd/PA/ft

Page 73

Article 88 for the making of the request for examination, it being understood that, during the transitional period, the period fixed could be shortened by the Administrative Council, which would also be entitled to fix the length of the transitional period. 117. In proposing not to fix the length of the transitional period within the Convention itself, the Working Party is of the opinion that it will be possible to assess this limit better when the European Office is actually in operation, taking into account the number of applications which it has received. 118. A proposal was made to give the Administrative Council the possibility of extending the period of Article 88 during a specific time, should it be necessary, when it is possible, following the opening of the Office, to form a sufficiently accurate idea of the desired length of time which it would be necessary to allow for the request for examination, taking into account the applications filed. This proposal, supported by the Swedish Delegation, was not upheld by the Working Party because it did not seem to comply with the Conference's instructions. 119. The German and Netherlands delegations reiterated their reservations in respect of the system adopted for Article 88 in conjunction with the new Article 188b, which in their opinion is not a true system of deferred examination.

The Netherland Delegation nevertheless accepted that, within the terms of Article 88 in its amended form, the only possibility of avoiding overloading of the Office lay in fixing, for an initial stage, a longer period for the request for examinations, as provided for in the new Article 188b,

Page 74

113. As regards the publication of the report on the state of the art laid down in paragraph 1, the question arises of the form which this publication should take, independently of whether it is published at the same time as the application, or subsequently. If it were afterwards decided that a simple reference in the Bulletin, stating that the report is available to the public, seemed sufficient, it would be necessary to adjust the wording of the provision accordingly.

Article 88 : Request for examination (BR/40/70, pages 7 and 8, No. 20)

114. The wording of paragraph 2 takes the date of notification of the publication of the application pursuant to Article 85 paragraph 5 as the beginning of the period for the introduction of the request for examination.

The Working Party was anxious to let the period run in such a way that third parties should have the same opportunities of seeing the report as the applicant.

115. Nevertheless, the Working Party noted that, taking into account the short period in which the request for examination may be introduced, it may be asked whether there is still any justification for making provision for third parties to introduce a request.

Article 188 b (new) : Period within which a request for examination may be made during a transitional period (BR/40/70, page 8, No. 20, second paragraph, sub paragraphs 6 and 7)

116. The Working Party was anxious to keep a wording in line with the Conference's instructions, while leaving it to the Conference to specify the length of the period longer than that laid down in BR/49 e/70 oyd/PA/Et

Page 75

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 26 October 1970 BR / 49 / 70

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the meeting of Working Party I Luxembourg, 7 - 11 September 1970

Agenda item 1 (1): Opening of the meeting and adoption of the provisional agenda

1. The fifth working meeting of Working Party I was held at Luxembourg from Monday 7 to Friday 11 September 1970, with Dr. HAERTEL, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair.

Representatives of the Commission of the European Communities, WIPO-BIRPI and the International Patent Institute took part in the meeting (2). The representative of the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe sent his apologies for being unable to attend. 2. The Drafting Committee, under the Chairmanship of the President of the Netherlands "Octrooiraad", Mr. J.B. van BENTHEM, held its meetings directly after the meetings of the Working Party. (1) See Annex I for provisional agenda (BR/GT 1/51/70) (2) See Annex II for list of those attending the meeting of the Working Party.

BR/49 e/70 eld/PA/bcc

Page 76

The Working Party also considered whether it was necessary to define the concept of "public interest", but decided that it would be preferable to leave the interpretation of this concept to the Administrative Council. 12. The question of the weighting of votes in the Administrative Council when taking the decisions provided for in Article 88a will have to be examined later in the context of the provisions relating to the Administrative Council.

Article 94a - Division of a European Patent Application (1) 13. The Working Party inserted this provision, which was Article 98 in the earlier drafts, between Articles 94 and 95, since it was of the opinion that all the provisions relating to examination procedure should appear before those relating to the grant of the patent, now governed by Article 96. 14. The Working Party thought that applicants should be allowed to divide their applications on their own initiative, without requiring the approval of the Examining Division, as long as examination has not yet begun, whereas in previous drafts applicants cculd only divide their applications, after they had made a request for examination, if the Examinirg Division considered such division justified. (1) Articles 89 to 94 and Article 95, which the Working Party drafted at its October meeting, were not reconsidered at the November meeting. The document containing the results of the November meeting ( B 3 / 11 / 69 ) cnly reproduces these Articles for reasons of convenience.

Page 77

in the case of a third party who has been warned by the applicant. On the other hand, it would not be enough for the third party to be simply the applicant's competitor.

However, the Working Party decided to postpone further discussion of this point until a decision is taken on the time limit for making a request for examination, since such a provision would only appear to be justified if this time limit were relatively long.

Article 88a - Modification of the procedure by the Administrative Council 10. In the Working Party's opinion the retention of paragraph 1 depends on the time limit chosen in Article 88, paragraph 2. It was also pointed out that the Administrative Council must be able to reduce a time limit previously extended by it. The possibility of reducing the time limit could then also be useful in the case of the time limit laid down in Article 88, paragraph 2, being relatively short to begin with. 11. The Working Party agreed that paragraph 2 covers both applications already filed when the Administrative Council takes such a decision, and applications filed thereafter. In both cases, the European Patent Office must, pursuant to paragraph 3, invite the applicant to submit a request for examination.

Page 78

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 18 December 1969 BR / 12 / 69

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the meeting of Working Party I (Luxembourg, 24 to 28 November 1969) I.

1. The third working meeting of Working Party I was held at Luxembourg from Monday 24 to Friday 28 November 1969, with Dr. HAERTEL, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair.

The Commission of the European Communities, BIRPI, the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe and the International Patent Institute took part in the meeting (1). 2. The Working Party agreed to appoint the following as rapporteurs :

- a member of the German delegation for Articles 88 to 96 c (Examination procedure) (2), (1) See Annex for list of those attending the meeting of the Working Party. (2) It was originally agreed at the October meeting that the German delegation should produce a report for Articles 88 to 104 . BR / 12 e / 69 kel / PA / mk

Page 79

Article 88a (new) Modification of the procedure by the Administrative Council

Working Party text (1) The Administrative Council may reduce or prolong the period laid down in Article 88, paragraph 2, for making a request for examination. (2) In certain areas of technology, the Administrative Council may direct that applicants are to make a request for examination on the invitation of the European Patent Office, where such ruling is in the public interest. (3) In certain areas of technology, the Administrative Council may direct that applicants are to make a request for examination on the invitation of the European Patent Office, when the work load of the European Patent Office permits of immediate examination in this area. (4) Where a direction pursuant to paragraphs 2 or 3 is in force, the European Patent Office shall invite the applicant to make a request for examination, and to pay the examination fee, :ithin a period of six months. If the fee is not paid in due time, the European Patent application shall be deemed to be withdrawn.

Note : The Working Party considers that this paragraph should be re-examined after the period laid down in Article 88, paragraph 2, has been fixed.

Page 80

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 5 December 1969 BR / 11 / 69

PRELIMINARY DRAFT CONVENTION FOR A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Articles 88 to 152 prepared by Working Party I (24 to 28 November 1969) compared synoptically with - the 1962 and 1965 versions of the Draft Convention as established by the EEC "Patents" Working Party and - the Draft of an open European Patent Convention drawn up by the Member States of the European Free Trade Association

Page 81

Article 61 - Publications of the European Patent Office 23. The question was put of whether, while adopting Article 60, paragraph 1, as set out in the current draft, the Working Party should not nevertheless provide for the possibility of third parties being informed of certain points relating to the patent application, between the date of filing and the date of its publication. The Working Party agreed that this question can be re-examined in connection with Article 162.

Article 62 - Patent Classification in use by the European Patent Office 24. After examining whether it would be appropriate to retain the provision of the 1965 Draft in the Convention, the Working Party finally considered that it would be more suitable to transfer this provision to the Implementing Regulations, in order to facilitate later adaption, if necessary.

Relations with national authorities

Article 63 - Exchange of publications 25. No comment.

Page 82

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 12 November 1969 BR / 10 / 69

- Secretariat -

E I N U T E S

of the meeting of Working Party I (Luxembourg, 14 - 17 October 1969)

I

1. The second working meeting of Working Party I was held at Luxembourg from Tuesday 14 to Friday 17 October 1969, with Dr. HAERTEL, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair.

The Commission of the European Communities, BIRPI, the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe and the International Patent Institute took part in the meeting (1). 2. The Working Party agreed to appoint the following as rapporteurs :

- a member of the Swiss delegation for Articles 54 to 65 (organisation of the departments - register, publications, classification - relations with national authorities) ; (1) See Annex I for list of participants in the meeting of the Working Party.

BR/10 e/69 kel/PA/mk

Page 83

Article 61 Publications de l'office européen des brevets ^+Outre les publications prévues aux articles 85 et 103, l'office européen des brevets publie périodiquement: a) un Bulletin européen des brevets contenant les inscriptions portées au registre européen des brevets ainsi que toutes les autres indications relatives au brevet européen dont la publication est prescrite par la présente convention, les inscriptions relatives a la demande de brevet européen n'étant publiées qu'au moment de la publication de la délivrance du brevet européen provisoire ou, le cas échéant, de la communication prévue a l'article 86a. b) ^+un Journal officiel de l'office européen des brevets contenant les communications et les informations d'ordre général du Président de l'office européen des brevets, ainsi que toutes les autres informations concernant le droit européen des brevets.

V E 1965

CROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 22 Janvier 1965 2.335/IV/65-F

Confidentiel

Modifications de l'avant-projet de Convention relatif a un droit européen des brevets (articls 1 a 175)

Ce document remplace le document 11.155/IV/64-F du 2 octobre 1964 (articles 1 a 103)

Page 85

Artikel 61 Veröffentlichungen des Europäischen Patentants

• Das Europäische Patentamt gibt neben den in den Artikeln 85 und 103 vorgesehenen Veröffentlichungen rogelmäBig heraus:

a) cin Europäisches Patentblatt, das dio Eintragungen in das europäische Patontrogister wiedorgibt sowie sonstigo Angaben über das europäische Patent enthält, deren Veröffentliclung in diosem Abkommen vorgeschrieben ist, wobei dio Eintragungen, dio sich auf die curopäische Patentanmeldung bozichen, erst mit der Bekanntmachung der Erteilung des vorläufigen europäischen Patonts oder gegebenenfalls mit der Gewährung der in Artikel 86a vorgesehenen Akteneinsicht veröffentlicht werden; b) ^+ein Amtsblatt des Europäischen Patentamts, das allgemeine Bekanntmachungen und Mitteilungen des Präsidenten des Europäischen Patentamts sowie sonstige das curopäische Patentrecht betreffende Veröffentlichungen enthält.

Page 86

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente"

Brüssel, den 22. Januar 1965 2335/IV/65-D

Vertraulich

Inderungen des Vorentwurfs eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

(Artikel 1 bis 175)

Dieses Arbeitsdokument ersetzt das Arbeitsdokument 11.155/IV/64-D vom 2. Oktober 1964 (Artikel 1 bis 103).

Page 87

Article 60 (59) est adopté.

Article 61 (60)

Le groupe décide de supprimer les deux remarques au bas de l'article, étant donné que ce problème doit être réglé par le règlement d'exécution.

Article 62 (211) est adopté.

Article 63 (193) est adopté.

Article 64 (192)

Le Président indique que les règles contenues dans cet article et surtout dans le paragraphe 3 ont un rep port avec le projet de Vienne. Elles vont au-delà de ce qui est prévu au projet de Vienne dans ce sens que l'échange d'informations entre les offices est prévu sans qu'il y ait accord du demandeur intéressé. Cependant ces règles ne s'opposent pas au projet de Vienne. Elles s'expliquent par le fait que les Etats contractants de la Convention européenne sont liés plus étroitement. De plus, il s'agit des informations concernant des demandes de brevets existant sur les mêmes territoires.

La question de savoir si le projet de Vienne garde son intérêt et s'il faut l'adopter aux dispositions de la Convention européenne ne peut pas être résolue actuellement. Le Président pense que même les autres Etats siégeant à Strasbourg ne peuvent prendre position à l'égard de ce projet qu'après la publication du projet européen.

Page 88

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 31 juillet 1962 Confidentiel

Fsultats de la sizième session

du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Munich du 13 au 23 juin 1962

Page 89

Artikel 60 (59) Der Artikel wurde angenommen.

Artikel 61 (60) Die Gruppe beschloß, die beiden Bemorkungen am ande des Artikels zu streichen, da diese Frage in der Ausführungsverordnung geregelt werden soll.

Artikel 62 (211) Der. Artikel wurde angenommen.

Artikel 63 (193) Der Artikel wurde ebenfalls angenommen.

Artikel 64 (192) Der Vorsitzende wios darauf hin, daß der Inhalt dieses Artikels, insbesondere dessen Absatz 3, mit dem Wiener Entwurf im Zusammenhang stehe. Er gehe insofern über den Wiener Entwurf hinaus, als er die gegenseitige Unterrichtung der Änter ohne Zustimmung des Antragstellers vorsehe. Trotzdem stehe diese Bestimmung nicht im Widerspruch zum Wiener Entwurf. Sie erkläre sich vielmehr daraus, daß die vertragschlieBenden Staaten des Europäischen Abkommens enger miteinander verbunden seien. AuBerdem handele es sich um Auskünfte über Patentanmeldungen, welche dieselben Hoheitsgebiote betreffen.

Die Frage, ob der Wiener Entwurf weiterhin von Interesse sei und ob man ihn den Bestimmungen des Europäischen Abkommens anpassen solle, könne zur Zeit nicht entechieden werden. Der Vorsitzende war der Ansicht, daß auch die anderen in Straßburg tagenden Staaten erst nach Veröffentlichung des europäischen Entwurfs hierzu Stellung nehmen könnten.

Page 90

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 31. Juli 1962 Vertraulich

Ergebnisse der sechsten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 13. bis 23. Juni 1962 in Mïnchen

Page 91

Article 61 (60) Publications de l'Office européen des brevets

Outre les publications prévues aux articles 85 et 103, l'Office européen des brevets publie périodiquement: a) un Bulletin européen des brevets contenant les inscriptions portées au Registre européen des brevets, ainsi que toutes les autres indications relatives au brevet européen dont la publication est prescrite par la présente Convention ou son Règelement d'exécution; b) un Journal officiel de l'Office européen des brevets contenant les communications et les informations d'ordre général du président de l'Office européen des brevets, ainsi que toutes les autres informations concernant le droit européen des brevets.

Remarques:

1) Il conviendra de réexaminer ultérieurement la question de la simultanéité de la publication du fascicule imprimé et de celle de la délivrance au Bulletin officiel, prévue par les articles 85 et 103. 2) Pourra également être réexaminée la question de la publication dans le Bulletin d'extraits des brevets sous la forme d'abrégés ou sous celle des revendications.

Page 92

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL "BREVETS" COMITE DE REDACTION STRICTEMENT CONFIDENTIEL

AVANT-PROJET DE CONVENTION RELATIF A UN DROIT EUROPEEN DES BREVETS

= VE Mai 1962

Page 93

Artikel 61 (60) Veröffentlichungen des Europäischen Patentamts

Das Europäische Patentamt gibt neben den in den Artikeln 85 und 103 vorgesehenen Veröffentlichungen regel mäßig heraus: a) ein Europäisches Patentblatt, das die Eintragungen i das Europäische Patentregister wiedergibt sowie sonstige Angaben über das europäische Patent enthält, d Veröffentlichung in diesem Abkommen oder in der Ausführungsordnung zu diesem Abkommen vorgeschrieben is b) ein Amtsblatt des Europäischen Patentamts, das allge meine Bekanntmachungen und Mitteilungen des Fräsidanten des Europäischen Patentamts sowie sonstige das europäische Patentrecht betreffende Veröffentlichung enthält.

Bemerkungen:

1. Die Frage der Gleichzeitigkeit der Herausgabe der Patentschrift und der Veröffentlichung der Erteilung im Europäischen Patentblatt, wie sie in den Artikeln 85 und 103 vorgeschrieben ist, soll später erneut überprüft werden. 2. Ebenso kann später erneut die Frage geprüft werden, 0 im Europäischen Patentblatt Auszüge aus den Patenten in der Form von Kurzfassungen oder mittels einer Wiedergabe der Patentansprüche veröffentlicht werden sollen.

Page 94

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" Brüssel, den 26. Mai 1962 Redaktionsausschuss

STRENG VERTRAULICH

Voreht w u f eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Page 95

Article 133 : Prior national filing 76. The Working Party decided against adopting this provision of the 1962 Draft.

Chapter II : Joint filing for the grant of national patents Articles 189 to 193 77. The Working Party decided against adopting the corresponding provisions of the 1962 Draft, which were later abolished, in view of the possibility of a European application being corrected into a national application.

Chapter III : Simultaneous protection given by European and national patents 78. Articles 194 to 205

In accordance with what had been agreed by the Conference concerning Article 6 of the First Preliminary Draft, no ruling is envisaged on simultaneous protection, which continues to fall under the national legislations.

PART XII

Final Provisions Article 206 : Application to national utility models 79. The Chairman stated that he would further examine this provision and, if appropriate, submit a new proposal to the Working Party.

Page 96

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 26 October 1970 BR / 49 / 70

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the meeting of Working Party I Luxembourg, 7 - 11 September 1970

Agenda item 1 (1): Opening of the meeting and adoption of the provisional agenda

1. The fifth working meeting of Working Party I was held at Luxembourg from Monday 7 to Friday 11 September 1970, with Dr. HAERTEL, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair.

Representatives of the Commission of the European Communities, WIPO-BIRPI and the International Patent Institute took part in the meeting (2). The representative of the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe sent his apologies for being unable to attend. 2. The Drafting Committee, under the Chairmanship of the President of the Netherlands "Octrooiraad", Mr. J.B. van BENTHEM, held its meetings directly after the meetings of the Working Party. (1) See Annex I for provisional agenda (BR/GT 1/51/70) (2) See Annex II for list of those attending the meeting of the Working Party.

BR/49 e/70 eld/PA/bcc

Article 206. Application to national utility models

The provisions of this Convention which relate to applications for patents filed or to national patents granted in the Contracting States, shall equally apply to applications for utility models or to utility models deposited or registered in those States.

Article 207. Adaptation of national law to the European Patent Law

(1) A European patent published on or after the priority date of an application for a national patent, but having an earlier priority date, shall be deemed in each of the Contracting States, in regard to such application or to the national patent granted in respect thereof, to be the equivalent of a national patent based on an earlier filing.

(2) If the law of a Contracting State provides for the grant of compulsory licenses on earlier patents in favour of subsequent dependent patents, those provisions shall also apply in favour of European patents.

Article 208. Disputes between Contracting States

(1) Any dispute between two or more Contracting States which concerns an obligation of Contracting States arising from this Convention shall, at the request of one of the States concerned, be submitted to the [Administrative Council] which shall endeavour to bring about agreement between the said States.

(2) If agreement is not reached within six months from the day of the dispute being referred to the [Administrative Council], each of the Contracting States may appeal to an [International Court].

(3) If the [International Court] finds that a Contracting State has failed to fulfil one of the obligations incumbent upon it by virtue of this Convention, that State shall take such steps as are necessary to carry out the judgment of the [International Court].

Article 209. Territorial application of the Convention

This Convention shall apply to those territories of the Contracting States which the latter designate on signing the Convention or on depositing their instruments of ratification or accession. A declaration made to that end may be amended at any time by notification to the Government [with which the instruments of ratification are deposited]. Such notification shall take effect thirty days after its receipt by the aforementioned Government.

Article 210. Revision

(1) This Convention may be revised, particularly with a view to the introduction therein of improvements of a nature designed to perfect the European Patent Law. Revision conferences shall be convened on the initiative of a majority of Contracting States.

(2) The preparation of revision conferences shall be the responsibility of the [Administrative Council].

Page 98

BOARD OF TRADE

Translation of a Draft Convention relating to a European Patent Law

LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE FIVE SHILLINGS NET

Page 99

Le registre européen des brevets étant ouvert à la consultation publique, le fait du dépôt d'une demande de brevet par un certain demandeur peut donc parvenir à la connaissance de chacun. Il n'y aurait donc pas d'objection à publier au bulletin européen des brevets les inscriptions concernant la demande de brevet. Mais le nombre demandes de brevet étant estimé à 30.000 par an, une telle publication entraînerait un travail et des frais considérables. Etant donné que cette publication ne serait pas absolument nécessaire, il est proposé de renoncer à publier au bulletin européen des brevets les indications concernant la demande de brevet.

On peut réserver au moment de la rédaction du texte final l'examen de la question de savoir si le règlement doit prescrire que le bulletin ne doit pas publier les inscriptions concernant la demande ou s'il est préférable d'apporter une restriction en ce sens à l'article 61 de la convention.

Le groupe se déclare d'accord avec cette proposition, notamment en vue du fait qu'environ 15 % des demandes n'amènent pas à la délivrance d'un brevet provisoire. La publication après la délivrance permet donc une économie assez considérable.

Le Comité de rédaction modifiera l'article 61, litt. a en y insérant "sous réserve des dispositions du règlement d'exécution".

Mesures d'exécution relatives à l'article 64

Ad. 64 numéro 1

Le Président explique que des autorités nationales ne peuvent normalement communiquer avec les autorités d'un autre Etat que par l'intermédiaire du ministère des Affaires étrangères. Seus les offices de brevets jouissent de certaines exceptions.

Le paragraphe 1 prévoit la possibilité pour l'Office européen et pour les offices nationaux des brevets d'entretenir des relations directes.

Le paragraphe 2 envisage les contacts entre l'Office européen et d'autres autorités nationales, par exemple les autorités judiciaires, et prévoit l'obligation pour les offices nationaux de la propriété industrielle d'assurer de telles relations si l'Office européen ou les autorités nationales le souhaitent.

Remarque préliminaire

Le Président estime que cette remarque préliminaire part d'une fausse hypothèse. En effet, le président de l'Office n'a pas le pouvoir de déterminer ce qui doit être publié dans le bulletin de l'Office européen.

Quant au problème de savoir si un tel pouvoir devrait lui être attribué, le Président propose d'insérer dans le règlement d'exécution un nouveau numéro 1 ad. article 61 qui correspond, pour la publication, à la disposition du paragraphe 3 du numéro 1 ad. article 60 . M. Pressonnet lui fait remarquer que l'article 61, litt. s)indique clairement ce qui doit être publié dans le bullitin et qu'il ne voit aucune nécessité d'aller au-delà de cette disposition.

Le Président retire sa proposition et soumettra, après un nouvel examen de la question, un texte au groupe de travail lors de la session de Munich.

Ad. 61 numéro 1

Le Président rappelle que lors de la rédaction de l'article 61, le groupe ne savait pas encore si une demande de brevet européen devait être inscrite dans un registre, ni si un tel enregistrement devait se faire dans le registre des brevets ou dans un registre spécial. Entre-temps, il a été décidé que tout ce qui concerne une demande de brevet européen doit être inscrit dans le registre des brevets.

Après avoir expliqué la présentation d'un tel registre, le Président constate que seulez les demandes devraient être numérotées consécutivement. Les brevets provisoires et les brevots définitifs porteront le même numéro que la demande sur laquelle ils so foment. On aura ainsi une seule numérotation identicue pour la de an's, le brevet provisciro et le brevet définitif. Ce nu iéro corremendra au nuaéro de l'anregistrement.

CROUPE DE TRAVAIL
" Brevets "
Bruxelles, le 15 juin 1963
Confidentiel

Résultats de la huitième session du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 22 avril au 3 mai 1963

COMPTES RENDUS

Page 102

Da das curopäische Patentregister öffentlich rusliege, könne die zinsreichung ciner Patentanmeldung durch cinen bestimmten Anmeldor daher jodon zur Kenntnis kornon. Es gebe sonit keinen Einwand dagegen, in curcpäischen Patentblatt die Eintragungen über die Patentanmeldung zu voröffentlichen. Dt dio Zahl der Patontanmeldungen jodoch auf etwa 30.000 pro Jakr geschätzt worde, bringe cine solche Bokanntmachung beträchtliche Ar beit und Kooten mit sich. Da diese Bokanntmachung nicht unbedingt nötig soi, worde vorgeschlagen, auf cine Voröfentlichung der Angaben über cino Patontanmeldung in curopäischen Patentblatt zu versiohten.

Nan könne die Bohenclung dor Frage, ob in der Ausführungsordnung vorgeschricben wordon sallg, daB des Patontblatt die Eintragungen über die Anmoldung nicht voröffentlichen müsse oder cb es besser wäre, in Artikel 61 des Abkommens cine ontsprochende Beschränkung nufzunehmen, bis zur Formulicrung des endgültigen Textes zurückstollen.

Die Arboitsgruppe ist mit dioson Vorschlag einverstanden, ver allom angesichts der Tatsache, daB etwa 15 v.H. der Anmoldungen nicht zur Erteilung eines vorläufigen Patents führen. Bine Voröfentlichung nach der Erteilung ormögliche somit pine beträchtliche Ersparnis.

Der RedaktionsausschuB wird Artikel 61 Buchstabe a) ändern und hinzufügen: "vorbehaltlich der Bestimmungen der Ausführungsordnung".

Ausführungsbestimmungen zu Artikel 64

Zu Artikel 64 Fummer 1

Der Vorsitzende orklärt, daß dic nationalen Bohörden normalerweise mit den Bohörden eines anderen Staates nur über das AuBenministerium verkehren dürften. Nur die Patentänter würden hier gewisse Ausnahmerochto genieBen.

In Absatz 1 sei vorgescton, daB das Europäische Patentamt und die nationalen Patentänter direkte Verbindung miteinander unterhalten können.

Absatz 2 behandle die Kontakto zwischen dem Europäisehen Patentamt und anderen nationalen Bohörden, wie zum Beispiel den Gerichten, 'und sehe für die nationalen Bohörden für den gewerblichen Rechtsschutz die Vorpflichtung vor, für derartige Verbindungen Sorge zu tragen, wenn es das Europäische Patentamt oder die nationalen Bohörden wünschten.

Page 103

Ausführungsbestimmungen zu Artikel 61

Vorbemerkung

Der Vorsitzende ist der Ansicht, daß diese Vorbemerkung von einer falschen Voraussetzung ausgeho. Tatsächlich habe der Präsident vom Patent amts nicht das Recht zu bestimmon, was im europäischen Potentblatt veröffentlicht werden solle.

Hinsichtlich der Frage, ob ihm ein solches Recht erteilt werden solle, schlug der Vorsitzende vor, in der Ausführungsordnung eine neue Nummer 1 zu Artikel 61 aufzunehmen, die für die Veröffentlichen der Bestimmung von Absatz 3 der Nummer 1 zu Artikel 60 entspricht.

Herr Fressonnet weist darauf hin, daß Artikel 61 Buchstabe a) klar sage, was im Patontblatt veröffentlicht worden solle, und daß or daher keine Notwendigkeit sehe, über diese Bestimmung hinauszugehen.

Der Vorsitzende zieht seinen Vorschlag zurück. Er werde nach noch maliger Prüfung dieser Frage dor Arbeitsgruppo auf dor Tagung in Münchou einen neuen Text vorlogen.

Zu Artikel 61 Bummer 1

Der Vorsitzende erinnert daran, daß bei der Redaktion von Artikel 61 die Arbeitsgruppe noch nicht gewust habo, ob eine europäische Patentanmeldung in ein Register eingetragen worden solle, noch ob diese Eintragung im Patentregister oder in einem besonderen Register geschehen solle. Inzwischen sei beschlossen worden, daß alles, was mit einer europäischen Patentanmeldung zu tun habe, in das Patentregister eingetragen worden solle.

Nachdem der Vorsitzende die Form eines solchen Registers crläuter hat, stellt or fest, daß nur die Anmeldungen numeriert werden sollten. Die vorläufigen Patente und die endgültigen Patente sollten dann die gleiche Nummer wie die betroffende Anmeldung tragen. Auf diese Weise habe man eine einzige, einheitliche Numerierung für die Anmeldung, das vorläufige Patent und das endgültige Patent, die zugleich der Zin-tragungsnummer entsproche.

Page 104

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Brüssel, den 21. Juni 1963 Vertraulich

Ergebnisse der 8. Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 22. April bis 3. Mai 1963 in Brüssel

SITZUNGSBERICHTE

Page 105

Le numéro 1 du règlement d'exécution de l'article 60 est donc fondé sur ce fait.

Le registre européen des brevets étant ouvert à consultation publique, le fait du dépôt d'une demanče de brevet par un certain demandeur peut donc parvenir à la connaissance de chacun. Il n'y aurait donc pas d'objection à publier au bulletin européen des brevets les inscriptions concernant une demande de brevet. D'autre part, le nombre des demandes de brevet étant estimé à 30.000 par an, une telle publication entraînerait un travail et des frais considérables, sans qu'apparaisse la nécessité de cette publication. En conséquence, il est proposé de renoncer à publier au bulletin européen des brevets les indications concernant la demande de brevet.

On peut réserver au texte final la question de savoir si cette exclusion de la publication doit être prescrite dans le règlement d'exécution ou s'il est préférable d'apporter une restriction correspondante à l'article 61 de la convention.

Page 106

Ad article 61 Numéro 1

Non-publication au bulletin européen des brevets

Les inscriptions au registre européen des brevets qui concernent des demandes de brevet européen ne sont pas publiées au bulletin européen des brevets.

Remarque :

Il est proposé au numéro 1 du règlement d'exécution de l'article 60 de la convention de ne pas prévoir de registre spécial des demandes à l'Office européen des brevets, mais de porter au registre européen des brevets également les indications concernant la demande de brevet. L'article 61 a) de la convention stipule que toutes les inscriptions effectuées dans le registre européen des brevets doivent être publiées au bulletin européen des brevets. Lors de l'adoption de l'article 61 par le groupe de travail, on ne savait pas encore s'il fallait créer pour l'Office européen des brevets, un registre unique des brevets ou deux registres, à savoir un registre des brevets et un registre des demandes ou s'il fallait renoncer purement et simplement à porter dans un registre les demandes de brevet.

Le groupe de travail ayant décidé à sa septième réunion, en adoptant le nouvel article 28 a) de la convention, que certaines indications concernant la demande de brevet devaient être portées dans un registre, la conséquence nécessaire de cette décision est que le dépôt de la demande de brevet doit déjà être portée dans un registre.

Projet

de rè glement d'exécution de la convention relative à un droit européen des brevets

Propositions pour l'exécution des articles 31 à 65 (sauf article 34 ) de la convention

Page 108

der Patentanmeldung in ein Register eingetragen wird. Davon geht auch die Nummer 1 der Ausführungsordnung zu Artikel 60 aus.

Da das europäische Patentregister von jedermann eingesehen werden kann, wird die Tatsache der Einreichung einer Patentanmeldung durch einen bestimmten Anmelder damit für jedermann zugänglich. Es bestünden daher keine Bedenken, die eine Patentanmeldung betreffenden Eintragungen im Europäischen Patentblatt zu veröffentlichen. Andererseits würde eine derartige Veröffentlichung bei der angenommenen Zahl von 30000 Patentanmeldungen jährlich einen erheblichen Aufwand von Arbeit und Kosten zur Folge haben, ohne daß eine Notwendigkeit für diese Veröffentlichung bestehen dürfte. Aus diesem Grund wird vorgeschlagen, von einer Veröffentlichung der die Patentanmeldung betreffenden Angaben im Europäischen Patentblatt abzusehen.

Ob dieser Ausschluß von der Veröffentlichung in der Ausführungsordnung vorgeschrieben oder ob zweckmäßigerweise der Artikel 61 des Abkommens entsprechend eingeschränkt wird, kann der Schlußredaktion vorbehalten bleiben.

Zu Artikel 61

Nummer 1

Unterbleiben der Veröffentlichung im Europäischen Patentblatt

Eintragungen in das europäische Patentregister, die europäische Patentanmeldungen betreffen, werden im Europäischen Patentblatt nicht bekanntgemacht. n un m" und " J" sly s'

Bemerkung: In Nummer 1 der Ausführungsordnung zu Artikel 60 des Abkommens ist vorgeschlagen, kein besonderes Anmelderegister beim Europäischen Patentamt einzurichten, sondern auch die die Patentanmeldung betreffenden Angaben in das europäische Patentregister aufzunehmen. In Artikel 61 Buchstabe a) des Abkommens ist vorgeschrieben, daß alle Eintragungen, die im europäischen Patentregister vorgenommen werden, im Europäischen Patentblatt zu veröffentlichen sind. Bei der Annahme des Artikels 61 durch die Arbeitsgruppe stand noch nicht fest, ob für das Europäische Patentamt nur ein einheitliches Patentregister oder zwei Register, nämlich ein Patentregister und ein Anmelderegister, geschaffen werden sollen oder von der Eintragung der Patentanmeldungen in ein Register überhaupt Abstand genommen werden sollte.

Nachdem die Arbeitsgruppe auf der 7.Sitzung durch die Annahme des neuen Artikels 28a des Abkommens entschieden hat, daß gewisse, die Patentanmeldung betreffende Angaben in ein Register eingetragen werden sollen, ist die notwendige Konsequenz dieser Entscheidung, daß bereits die Einreichung

Arbeitsentwurf

zu einer

Ausführungsordnung zum Abkommen über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Vorschläge zur Ausführung der

Artikel 31 bis 65 (ohne Artikel 34 ) des Abkommens

Page 111

aurait pour effet de surchèrger considérablement l'Office. Il ajouto qu'il no faut pas oublier que la délivrance du brevet provisoire prendra beaucoup plus de temps que la délivrance d'un brevet sans examen préalable ( 18 mois environ). Il lui paraít peu important de prolonger ce délai d'un terme d'environ 4 semaines nécessité par l'impression du brevet établi.

Le Président propose de reporter la décision sur cette question qui d'ailleurs s'insère plutôt dans le cadre des articles 77 et 90 b) et d'en discuter lors de la prochaine session afin de permettre aux délégués de réfléchir à ce problème.

A une question de M. Gajac, le Président répond que les inscriptions portées sur le registre prévu au paragraphe b) mentionnoront seulement le nom des intéressés, la date de l'acte, etc. mais qu'elles ne repreduiront pas le texte intégral des contrats passés entre les parties. Cette question sera d'ailleurs mise au point par le Règlement d'cxécution. L'article 60 est transmis au Comité de rédaction.

Discussion de l'article 75^∘ de l'avant-projot. Le Président explique que cette disposition ne vise que des cas très exceptionnels, notamment celui du décès du demandeur et celui de l'impossibilité de découvrir ses héritiers. In l'absence de textes, la solution de ces cas n'est guère possible.

Cette disposition offre un intérêt uniquement avant la délivrance du brevet provisoire étant donné qu'après cette délivrance le non-paiement des annuités entraîne automatiquement la déchéance du brevet. De plus, le cas du demandeur ayant un représentant dont le mandat ne s'étoint pas avec la mort du mandant no présente pas de difficultés. Le problème que cet article veut résoudre est celui qui se poscrait a l'office au cas où le demandeur étant décédé et les héritiers introuvables, il ne peut mettre fin à la procédure déclenchée faute de partenaires. Aussi, la disposition

Page 112

imprimés et voncus dans chacune des langues des Etats contractants. La Président fait remarquer que l'article 77 prévoit que l'Office curopéen publie un fascicule imprimé contenant la description de l'invention en même temps qu'il publie la délivrance du brevet européen provisoire. Dès lors le public a la possibilité de prendre connaissance du brevet au moment de sa délivrance. L'impression du fascicule prévu à l'article 77 nécessite évidemment un certain temps, ce qui implique un certain retard dans la délivrance. W. Fressonnet appuyé par M. De Rouse romarque que tout retard dans la délivrance entraine un retard dans le commencement de la protection du brevet provisoire. Ils proposent que la délivrance soit publiée sans attendre l'impression et de donner au public la possibilité d'obtenir des copies et photocopies du brevet auprès de l'Office européen.

Le Président constate l'unanimité sur les principes que la publication dans. le Journial, européen des brevets ne devrait intervenir qu'au moment où quiconque a la possibilité d'obtenir le texte du brevet.

Los délégations allomando et néerlandaiso so prononcent en faveur de la solution proposée par le Président étant donné que pratiquement il serait très difficile de délivrer des copies ou des photocopies du brevet qui constitue très souvent un document plein de modifications, de ratures, de mentions manuscrites et même de collages. W. Pressonnet leur fait remarquer que cet argument vaut principalement pour le brevet définitif mais non pour le brevet provisoire puisque dans ce cas l'examen n'a pas encore ou lieu. Il est important de publier le plus rapidement possible le brevet provisoire étant donné que los antériorités ne commoncont a courir qu'au moment de sa publication.

Le Président lui fait observer que le brevet provisoire comprend aussi un avis de nouveauté dont le contenu est très important pour les concurrents. De ce fait, l'Office européen dovrait donner des copies cu des photocopies non seulement du brevet mais encore de l'avis, co qui

Page 113

Au. littera c) le mot "régulièrement" sera biffé. Lo groupe prend cette décision afin de permettre au Président de l'Office de publier un numéro spécial dans les cas où il faut faire connaître d'urgence une décision ou un avis. Normalement, ce journal paraîtra mensuellement, tandis que le journal prévu sous b) paraîtra hebdomadairement.

M. Pressonnet et Roscioni déclarent que leurs législations nationales prévoient la publication d'un résumé do l'invention en même temps que la publication de la délivrance en vue, d'une part, d'aider le progrès et, d'autre part, de faciliter la connaissance des droits existants aux concurrents. Ils proposent d'insérer une disposition semblable dans la Convention curopéenne.

Le Président leur fait romarquer que si une telle disposition est possible dans le cadre do procéduros sans examen préalable, ello se heurto à des difficultés dans la procédure européenne. En offet, dans la Convention, on ne pourrait pas prévoir la réduction d'un résumé par le demandeur même. Il serait indisporisable d'on charger les examinateurs. Une telle mesure alourdirait consicérablement les charges de l'Office et comporterait de grands frais.

A la suite de la suggestion de M. Frossonet d'insérer simplement les revenúications du brovet européen, le Président expose qu'une telle solution comporte également dos inconvénients étant donné que certains brevets comprennent une trentaine de revendications. La publication totale des revendications aurait pour effet le ronchérissement de la publication. De plus, elles ne fournissent pas tous los renseignements nécessaires étant donné que la description peut également entrer en ligne de compte pour l'interprétation du brevet. Le Président propose de reporter la décision au sujet de cette question a une séance ultérieure afin de permettre aux délégations de consulter les milieux intéressés et de savoir si ceux-ci seraient prêts à supportor les charges financières qui résulteraient d'une telle procédure. Il se demande si cos publications ne seraient pas superfluos étant donné que les brevets seront

Page 114

semblent être utiles on vue de l'intérêt du public. Une telle disposition cevrait cependant figurer dans le Règlement d'exécution. En ce qui concerne l'effet juridique de l'inscription au Registre européen, M. Fressonnet et Rosciomi font remarquer que solon leurs législations nationales, la cession ou l'octroi d'uno licence sont valables seulement entre les parties contractantes tant qu'elles ne sont pas inscrites au registre. Ce n'est qu'a ce moment qu'elles produisent un effet "erga omnes". Le groups estime qu'une telle solution devrait être retenue pour la Convention européenne. Toutefois, elle ne devrait pas figurer à l'article 59 mais plutôt dans les articles concernant la cession et l'octroi des licences.

Muni de ces remarques, l'article 59 est transmis au Comité de rédaction.

Discussion de l'article 60 de l'avant-projet.

Après une discussion prolongée, le groupe décide en ce qui concerne le littera a) de l'article 60 , que le Comité de rédaction tranchera la question de savoir si cette disposition sera retenue ou non et, dans l'hypothèse où elle le serait, de la rendre plus.cencise. En effet, cette disposition fait double emploi avec les articles 77 et 90 b).

Le Président avait repris ce littera dans son avant-projet dans le seul souci d'énoncer en: un seul article toutes les publications que l'Office européen est habilité a effectuer.

En outre, le groupe décide de ne pas fusionner les journaux prévus au littera b) et c). En effet, ceux-ci s'adressent a des milieux tout différents. De plus, le coût de l'abonnement au Journal européen des brevets sera beaucoup plus élevé que celui du Journal officiel de l'Office européen des brevets. L'abonnement au premier journal ne sera souscrit que par los industriels qui désirent être tenus au courant de la délivrance des brevets.

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL

Bruxelles, le 1 février 1962 " Brevets "

Confidentiel

Résultats de la quatriàne session du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 8 au 19 janvier 1962

Page 116

hoblichen Mehrbolastung des Patentamts führen würde. AuBcrdom dürfe man nicht vorgosson, daB dio Ertoilung dos vorläufigon Patontos viol länger dauoro als dio Ertoilung dos Patontos ohne vorhorgohondo Prüfung (otwa 18 Monate). Hiorboi fallo oino Vorzögerung um otwa 4 Wochen, dio für don Druck dos ausgestollton Patontos orfordorlich soion, kaum ins Gewicht.

Um don Dologiorton dio Möglichkeit zu gobon, über dicsos Problom nachzudonkon, schlägt dor Prăsidont vor, die Entscheidung über diese Frage, die übrigens eher in den Rahmen dor Artikel 77 und 90 b) fällt, zurückzustellon und sio in dor näohston Sitzung zu orörtorn.

Auf oino Frage von Horrn Gajac antwortot dor Präsident, daB dio Eintragungon in das in Absatz b) vorgosohono Registor nur don Namon dor botroffondon Porsonon, don Zoitpunkt dor Rochtshandlung usw., dagegen nicht don vollständigon Wortlaut dor zwischen don Partoion goschlossonon Vorträge wiodorgobon. Diosc Frage soll übrigons in dor Ausführungsvorordnung gorogolt wordon. Artikol 60 wird an don RodaktionsausschuB überwioson.

Erörtorungon zu Artikol 75 b dos Vorontwurfa

Dor Präsident orläutort, daB dioso Bestimmung nur für ganz auBorgowöhnliche Fälle gedacht ist, insbosondoro für don Fall, daß dor Anmolder vorstirbt und daß soino Erbon nicht ormittolt worden können. Ohno oino ausdrückliche Bestimmung sci dio Lösung diosor Fälle kaum möglich.

Diosc Bestimmung ist lediglich bis zur Ertoilung dos vorläufigon Patontos von Bodoutung, da nach dor Ertoilung dio Nichtontrichtung dor Jahresgebühron automatisch zum Erlöschen dos Patontos führt. Dor Fall, daB dor Anmolder oinon Vortrotor hat, dosson Vollmacht mit dom Tode dos Vollmachtgobors nicht orlischt, boroitot obonsowonig Schwiorigkoiton. Das Problom, das durch dioson Artikol golöst wordon soll, orgibt sich für das Patentamt dann, wenn os bei Vorstorbon dos Anmoldors und Unauffindbarkoit dor Erbon das cingoloitoto Vorfabron wogon Fohlons oinos Partnors nicht boondon kann. Dio vorgo-

Page 117

daß die Patente in der Sprache aller Vertragsstaaten gedruckt und verban t werden, nicht überflüssig sind. Er weist darauf hin, daß das Europaischo Patentamt nach Artikel 77 gleichzeitig mit dor Bokanntmachung dor Ertoilung dos vorläufigon ouropäischen Patonts oino godruckto Patontschrift horausgibt, wolcho dio Boschroibung dor Erfindung onthält. Dio Offentlichkoit können da. hor vom Patent im Zoitpunkt soinor Ertoilung Konntnis-erlangon. Dor Druck dor in Artikel 77 vorgoschenon Patontschrift orfordoro natürlich oino bostimmto Zoit, wodurch dio Ertoilung otwas vorzögort wordo.

Horr Frossonnot, untorstützt von Horrn Do Rouse, weist darauf hin, daß durch jodo Vorzögorung boi dor Ertoilung dor Boginn dos Schutzos durch das vorläufigo Patent vorzögort wordo. Sio schlagon vor, dio Ertoilung bokanntzugobon, ohno don Druck dor Patontschrift abzuwarton, um dor Offentlichkoit dio Möglichkeit zu vorschaffon, beim Europäischon Patentamt Abschrifton und Fotokopion zu orhalten.

Dor Präsidont stollt fost, daß Einstimmigkoit darüber bostoht, daß dio Voroffentlichung im Europäischon Patontblatt orat dann orfolgon darf, wonn jodormann dio Hëglichkoit hat, don Wortlaut dos Patontos zu orhalten.

Dio doutscho und dio niedorländischo Dologation befürworton dio vom Präsidonton vorgoschlagono Lösung, woil os in dor Praxis schr schwiorig soi, Abschrifton odor Fotokopion dos Patontos, das schr häufig oin Dokument vollor Andorungon, Stroichungon, handschriftlichen Vormorkon und sogar mit angoklobton Ergänzungon soi, zu ortoilen.

Horr Frossonnot macht sio darauf aufmorksam, daß diosos Argumont in orstor Linio für das ondgültigo Patent und nicht für das vorläufigo Patent golto, da in diosom Fall oino Prüfung noch nicht stattgofunden habo. Es soi wichtig, das vorläufigo Patent möglichst schnell bokanntzugobon, weil das Vorbonutzungsrecht orst mit dor Bokanntgabe ontstoho.

Dor Präsident weist ihn darauf hin, daß das vorläufigo Patent auch oinon für dio Konkurrenton schr wichtigen Nouhoitsbericht onthält.

Das Europäischo Patentamt müßto darum Abschrifton odor Fotokopion nicht nur dos Patonts, sondorn auch dos Nouhoitsborichts ortoilon, was zu oinor or

Page 118

Unter Buchstabon c) soll das Wort "rogolmäBig" gostrichon worden. Diosor Boschluß soll dom Prăsidonton dos Patontamtos dio Mögliohkoit oröffnon, cino Sondernummor herauszugobon, wonn dringond cino Entscheidung odor cine Mitteilung bokanntgogobon wordon muß. Normalorwoiso orschoint dioses Blatt monatlioh, während das untor b) vorgosohono Blatt wöchontlioh orschoinon soll.

Horr Frossonnot und Roscioni orklären, daß, nach ihron nationalon Rechtsvorschriften gloichzoitig mit dor. Bokanntgabe dor Patontortcilung oino Zusammenfassung dor Erfindung voröffentlicht wird, und zwar oincrsoits, um don Fortschritt zu fördorn, und andororsoits, um don Konkurrenton dio Konntnis dor bostohondon Roohto zu orloichtorn. Sio schlagon vor, cino ähnlioho Bostimmung in das Europäischo Abkommon aufzunchmon.

Dor Prăsidont weist sio darauf hin, daß, wonn oino solche Bostimmung auch im Rahmon von Vorfahren ohno vorhergohondo Prüfung möglich soi, sio innorhalb dos ouropäischon Vorfahrons jedoch auf Schwiorigkoiton stoßc. Das Abkommon könne nämlich koino Zusammenfassung durch don Anmoldor solbst vorsohon. Damit müßton dio Prüfor boauftragt worden. Bino solche Maßnahme würde dio Bolastung dos Patontamtos orhoblich vorgrößorn und große Koston mit sich bringon.

Auf oino Anrogung von Horrn Frossonnot, lodiglich dio ouropäischon Patontansprüche zu voröffentliohon, orklärt dor Prăsidont, cino solche Lösung bringo obonfalls Nachtoilo mit sich, woil oinigo Patonto otwa 30 Patontansprüche umfasson. Dio Voröffentlichung allor Patontansprüohe würde oino Vortouorung dor Voröffentlichung zur Folgo haben. AuBordom würden aus den Patentansprüchen nicht alle notwendigen Angaben ersichtlich sein, da für die Auslegung des Patontos obenfalls dio Beschroibung von Bodoutung soin könne. Dor Prăsidont schlägt vor, dioso Frago in oinor spätoron Sitzung zu ontschoidon, damit dio Delegationon dio Mögliohkoit haben, sich mit don interessiorton Kroison zu boraton und fostzustollon, ob dicso boroit sind, dio finanziollon Laston cinos solchen Vorfahrons zu übernchmon. Dor Prăsidont wirft dio Frago auf, ob dioso Voröffentliohungon angosiohts dor Tatsache,

Page 119

öffentliche Intorosso nützlich orschoinon. Eino solche Bestimmung müsse in dosson in dio Ausführungsvorordnung aufgonommon worden. Hinsichtlich dor rochtlichon Wirkung der Eintragung in das Europäische Patontrogistor weisen Horr Frossonnot und Horr Roscioni darauf hin, daß dio Abtretung odor dio toilung oinor Lizonz, solange sic nicht im Rogistor cingotragon sind, nach ihron nationalen Rochtsvorschrifton nur zwischen don Vortragspartoion wir sam sind. Erst mit dor Eintragung orlangtón sio oino Wirkung "orga omnos". Dio Gruppo bofürwortot oino solche Lösung für das Europäische Abkommen. Dio so Rogolung sollo jedoch nicht in Artikel 59, sondern in don Artikoln über dio Abtretung und dio Ertoilung von Lizonzon fostgohalton wordon.

Mit dioson Bemerkungen wird artikol 59 an don RodaktionsausschuB übov wioson.

Erörterungon zu Artikol 60 dos Vorontuurfs

Nach oinor ausgodehnten Erörterung beschlioBt dio Gruppo zu Artikol 60 Buchstabe a), daß dor RodaktionsausschuB dio Frago klären soll, ob dioso Bostimmung boibohalton wordon soll odor nicht, und sio für don Fall dor Boibohaltung kürzor zu fasson. Dioso Bestimmung onthalto nämlich überflüssigo Wio dörholungon zu Artikol 77 und 90 b).

Dor Präsident hatte dioson Buchstaben nur doswogon in soinom Vorontwurfs aufgenommen, um allo Voröffentlichungon dos Europäischon Patontamtos in oinom oinzigon artikol zusammenzufasson.

Dio Gruppo boschlioBt auBordom, dio untor don Buchstaben b) und c) goschonon Blätter nicht zusammenzulogon. Dioso würden sich nämlich an völle vorschiodono Kroiso wondon. Ubordios soi oin Abonnomont für das Europäische Patontblatt viol touror als oin abonnomont für das Amtsblatt dos Europäischon Patontamtos. Das orsto Blatt wordo nur von don Goworbotroibondon abonniort, dio sich laufond über dio Patontortoilungon untorrichten wollten.

Page 120

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 1. Februar 1962 VERTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der vierten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 8. bis 19. Januar 1962 in Brüssel

Page 121

Ad article 60. Publications de l'Office européen des brevets.

1.) Documents : a) Loi néerlandaise sur les brevets, article 25 , paragraphe 1 , ainsi que les "Dispositions d'application concernant les brevets", articles 38 et suivants. b) Loi helvétique sur les brevets, article 61, ainsi que le "Règlement d'exécution n^∘ 2^, articles 89 et suivants. 2.) Remarques :

Au sujet de publications de l'Office européen des brevets, il est proposé d'adopter des dispositions constituant le dernier article de la troisième section intitulée "L'Office européen des brevets" (articles 41 à 60 ).

L'article 60 contient une énumération des publications officielles et régulières de l'Office européen des brevets, précise leurs dénominations officielles et décrit leur contenu dans la mesure où le renvoi aux articles 77 et 90 b s'avère à cet égard insuffisant. Le Journal européen des brevets contient tous les avis concernant les brevets eux-mêmes. Le Journal officiel de l'Office européen des brevets contient tous les avis de caractère général. Il pourra en outre contenir des textes tels que par exemple les arrêts des tribunaux, les lois nationales sur les brevets et les conventions internationales concernant le droit européen des brevets.

Les détails concernant la forme des publications de l'Office européen des brevets pourront être déterminés dans le cadre du règlement d'exécution et des directives du président de l'Office européen des brevets.

Page 122

Article 60. Publications de I'Office européen des brevets. L'Office européen des brevets : a) délivre; conformément aux articles 77 et 90 b , des expéditions des brevets européens provisoires et des brevets européens définitifs; b) publie régulièrement un journal des brevets (Journal européen des brevets) qui contient les inscriptions portées dans le registre européen des brevets, ainsi que toutes les autres informations relatives au brevet européen prescrites par les dispositions de la présente convention ou par celles arrêtées en vue de son application; c) publie régulièrement un journal officiel (Journal officiel de l'Office européen des brevets) qui contient les informations et les communications d'ordre général du président de l'Office européen des brevets, ainsi que toutes les autres publications concernant le droit européen des brevets.

IV/8926/61-F

Orig. : D

Kurt Haertel Bonn, le 8 décembre 1961 CONFIDENTIAL

Promicr projet de convention relative a un droit européen des brevets

Articlos 41 a 60 [irticlos 41 a 49 s]

Page 124

Zu Artikel 60 Veröffentlichungen des Europäischen Patentamts

1.) Materialien: a) Niederländisches Patentgesetz, Artikel 25 Abs. 1, i.V.m.den "Ausführungsbestimmungen für Patente", Artikel 38 ff; b) Schweizerisches Patentgesetz, Artikel 61,i.V.m."Vollziehungsverordnung II", Artikel 89 ff.

2.) Bemerkungen:

Es wird vorgeschlagen, als letzten Artikel des 3. Abschnitts, "Das Europäische Patentamt" (Artikel 41 bis 60) eine Vorschrift über die Veröffentlichungen des Europäischen Patentamts aufzunehmen.

Artikel 60 zählt die amtlichen und regelmäßigen Veröffentlichungen des Europäischen Patentamts auf, bezeichnet ihre offiziellen Titel und umschreibt ihren Inhalt, soweit sich dies nicht schon durch die Verweisung auf die Artikel 77 und 90b ergibt. Das Europäische Patentblatt enthält demnach alle Bekanntmachungen, die sich auf einzelne Patente beziehen. Das Amtsblatt des Europäischen Patentamts enthält alle Bekanntmachungen allgemeiner Art. Darüber hinaus soll es auch sonstige Veröffentlichungen enthalten können, wie z.B. Gerichtsentscheidungen, nationale Patentgesetze und internationale Abkommen, die das europäische Patentrecht betreffen.

Die Regelung der Einzelheiten über die Gestaltung der

- Veröffentlichungen des Europäischen Patentamts kann der Ausführungsordnung und den Anweisungen des Präsidenten des Europäischen Patentamts vorbehalten bleiben.

Artikel 60

Veröffentlichungen des Europäischen Patentamts Das Europäische Patentamt gibt heraus: a) Patentschriften für vorläufige und endgültige europäische Patente gemäß den Artikeln 77 und 90 b; b) ein regelmäßig erscheinendes Patentblatt (Europäisches Patentblatt), das die Eintragungen in das europäische Patentregister wiedergibt, sowie sonstige Bekanntmachungen über das europäische Patent enthält, die in diesem Abkommen oder in der Ausführungsordnung zu diesem Abkommen vorgeschrieben sind; c) ein regelmäßig erscheinendes Amtsblatt (Amtsblatt des Europäischen Patentamts), das allgemeine Bekanntmachungen und Mitteilungen des Präsidenten des Europäischen Patentamts sowie sonstige das europäische Patentrecht betreffende Veröffentlichungen enthält.

VERTRAULICH!

B e m e r k un g e n zu dem ersten Arbeitsentwurf eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Artikel 41 bis 60 (Artikel 50, 54)

Page 127

that Article 156, paragraph 3, was to be interpreted as an authorisation for the Administrative Council to provide for the levy of a search fee for each and every international patent application, irrespective of whether additional searches within the meaning of this provision should be carried out in the individual cases.

11. Information to the public of official authorities, legal and administrative co-operation (Articles 127-132, Rules 93-100)

Only a few amendments were made to these provisions. The inspection of files under Article 128 was supplemented so as to provide more precise information for the general public; thus, before the publication of the European patent application, not only the date of filing may be made known to third parties, but also the date, State and file number of any application of which the priority is claimed. The provisions of Articles 130/132 were drafted more generally so that the European Patent Office could make agreements concerning exchanges of information and exchanges of publications not only with States which were not a party to the Convention and with international patent granting authorities, such as WIPO, but also with any other organisations, especially documentation centres such as INPADOC. It was also specified at the same time that the substantive content of applications which had not yet been published could not be the subject of such exchanges of information. In addition, the Administrative Council was authorised in Article 130, paragraph 3, to make provisions in respect of exchanges of information with the last-named organisations which derogated from the restrictions on the inspection of files, in so far as the confidential treatment of the information was guaranteed.

While dealing with the provisions of Article 131, the Main Committee discussed a proposal which, in the light of the procedure laid down in the Protocol on Recognition, aimed to supplement the prescribed legal co-operation between the European Patent Office and the Contracting States by an obligation for the Contracting States to provide legal assistance amongst themselves. This interesting idea was rejected generally because the proposed extension was considered to be an intrusion into international legal aid between Contracting States and also an obligation which far exceeded the purpose of the Convention. A further idea to allow the European Patent Office to intervene as an international notification authority in certain proceedings concerning European patents, also found little approval.

12. Representation (Articles 133-134, 162/Rules 101-103, 107)

The provisions of the Convention and the Implementing Regulations concerning representation before the European Patent Office were already discussed with the organisations concerned during the earlier stages of the negotiations and were, as far as possible adapted to their proposals and wishes. Fortunately this situation meant that the principles established by the Inter-Governmental Conference were no longer questioned as to their substance. In particular, the principle that during a transitional period the representatives' status would basically be controlled by the national law of Contracting States and afterwards by European law, remained uncontested. The general principles concerning representation in Article 133 were also unchanged. The Main Committee generally considered that these principles should also be valid for the transitional period. The Committee also specified that legal persons could be represented not only by their employees - as laid down in paragraph 3 of Article 133 - but also by their departments. Such representation by their departments is regarded as a matter of course, is understood from paragraph 1 of Article 133 and does not need to be expressly laid down.

However, material for discussion was provided by the following points: the uninterrupted change from the transitional period to the permanent arrangements, in particular with reference to the continued effects of national requirements, the reasons for the deletion of professional representatives from the list, questions concerning place of business and other individual problems. The following is a report on the main questions:

(a) Conditions of admission

The Main Committee again discussed the question raised in the earlier negotiations concerning possession of the nationality of a Contracting State as a condition of entry on the list of professional representatives. The majority concluded that this condition should be laid down in Article 162 not only in respect of the permanent solution, but also in respect of the transitional period, in order to avoid the improper acquisition of representation rights after the publication of the Convention. The status quo was taken into account in so far that failure to have the nationality of a Contracting State would not prevent entry on the list, if the representative had a place of business or employment and the right of representation in a Contracting State on 5 October 1973, i. e. at the time of the signing of the Convention.

(b) Restrictions on authorisation to represent

The question arose as to whether restrictions on representation arising from national law should also be valid in respect of proceedings before the European Patent Office during the transitional period. The Committee unanimously considered that such restrictions based on specific rules of national law, in particular on the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany, are not justified in respect of European proceedings. The corresponding provisions of Article 162, paragraphs 2 and 6 , were therefore deleted.

(c) Questions concerning place of business

Article 134 provided that the representatives entered on the list were entitled to establish a place of business in the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands for the purpose of practising their profession before the European Patent Office. In view of proceedings before national authorities carrying out duties on behalf of the European Patent Office, as provided for in the Protocol on Centralisation, the Main Committee supplemented Article 134 accordingly. Professional representatives should consequently also be able to establish a place of business in the Contracting States concerned. There was also discussion of a provision which would have expressly granted the right to practise a profession to a professional representative, his associates, employees and colleagues and the right of establishment to these persons including their families. It was said in reply to the advocates of such a provision, who considered it to be a necessary adjunct to the right of residence, that this would be to bring a "foreign body" into the Convention and might possibly conflict with existing agreements in the field of public law. The Committee thereupon rejected the proposed supplement, but noted on the other hand that the stipulated right to a place of business in accordance with Article 134, paragraphs 3 and 4, would be meaningful only if its recognition were dealt with sensibly. A