Art60eTPEPC1973

Métadonnées

• Nom affiché : Art60eTPEPC1973
• Numéro d'article : 60
• Dossier / langue : English
• Tag langue : #English
• PDF original : Articles/English/Articles 051-075/Article 060 (English version)/Art60eTPEPC1973.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. 60 MPO Recht auf das europäische Patent

Entwurf, der dem nebenstehenden Dokument zugrunde liegt	Art. Nr. im Entwurf/ Dokument	Dokument, in dem der Art. behandelt wird	Fundstelle im Dokument
Vorschl.c.Vors.	17	IV/2767/61	S. 24-26,49
Vorschl.d.Vors.	18	IV/2767/61	S. 24,26,49
√(14 / 2767 / 61249)	17	√()√()√()IV / 3076 / 62	S. 145
√(14 / 2767 / 61249)	18	√()√()IV / 3076 / 62	S. 145
√() VE Mai 1962	15	√() 6551 / IV/62	S. 10
√()√(2) 1962	15	√() 9081 / IV / 63	S. 74-78
√()√(2) 1965	15	√() B R / 7 / 69	Rdn. 30-32
√() B R / 6 / 69	15	√() B R / 12 / 69	Rdn. 88
√()√(2) 1970 (Ue)	15	√() B R / 43 / 70	Rdn. 13
√() B R / 70 / 70	15	√() B R / 94 / 71	Rdn. 80
√()√(2) 1971 (Ue)	15	√() B R / 144 / 71	Rdn. 30-45
√()√(2) 1971 (Ue)	15	√() B R / 144 / 71	Rdn. 53-55
√() B R / 88 / 71	15	√() B R / 125 / 71	Rdn. 19
√() B R / 139 / 71	15	√() B R / 168 / 72	Rdn. 43-45
√() B R / 139 / 71	15	√() B R / 169 / 72	Rdn. 25
√() B R / 139 / 71	15	√() B R / 177 / 72	Rdn. 17

Dokumente der MDK

√() E 1972	58	M / 11	S. 66
"	58	√()M / 12	S. 74
"	58	√()M / 13	S. 80
"	58	√()M / 17	S. 146
"	58	√()M / 19	S. 170
"	58	√()M / 22	S. 264

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING

UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM

FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS (Munich, 10 September to 5 October, 1973)

Article 58 (60) - Right to a European patent

84. The problems connected with identification of the inventor are dealt with under Article 79 (points 227 et seq.). 85. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the division of paragraph 1 into two separate paragraphs (M/11, point 22). 86. At a subsequent meeting the Main Committee discussed, on the basis of a text submitted by the Drafting Committee, whether reference had to be made in the new paragraph 3 (previously paragraph 2) not only to paragraph 1 (previously paragraph 1, first and second sentences) but to paragraph 2 (previously paragraph 1, third sentence) as well. 87. The Swiss delegation considered it appropriate to refer to paragraph 2 (new) as well. 88. In the opinion of the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany reference definitely had to be made to paragraph 2 (new), since under paragraph 3 (new) the European Patent Office was meant to be freed from the task of verifying entitlement even where there were several applicants. 89. The Netherlands delegation, however, had doubts about the fictitious case mentioned in paragraph 3 (new), but was prepared to refer the matter to the Drafting Committee. 90. The Main Committee accordingly referred the question to the Drafting Committee for examination and for a decision.

Article 59 (61) - European patent applications by persons not entitled to apply

91. The problems connected with the mention of the inventor are dealt with under Article 79 (points 227 et seq.). 92. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a proposal from the Netherlands delegation concerning an amendment to the title of Article 59 (M/32, point 10) and a drafting proposal from the Member States of the European Communities concerning paragraph 1 (M/14, point 3). It also referred to it an oral drafting proposal from the Swiss delegation concerning the French text of the title, the introduction to paragraph 1 and paragraph 1 (b). 93. The Swiss delegation, seconded by the Austrian delegation, requested that in Article 59 (61), paragraph 2, reference should also be made to the first paragraph of Article 74 (76) (M/54/I/II/III, page 12). It primarily wanted to ensure that there could be no room for doubt that the person entitled to a European patent could designate only those States which had also been designated in the initial application by the person not entitled to apply. Secondly, it wanted to ensure that the new divisional application could be filed only in respect of subject-matter contained in the earlier application. Finally, the divisional application should also be filed directly with the European Patent Office and not be made through a national office. 94. After the United Kingdom and Netherlands delegations had pointed out with regard to the main problem that it was already laid down in Article 59, paragraph 1, that no Contracting States could be designated other than those originally designated, the Swiss delegation withdrew its request. It reserved the right to return to its other requests when Article 74 (76), paragraph 2, was discussed (see points 200 et seq.).

Article 61 (63) - Term of the European patent

95. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the United Kingdom delegation concerning paragraph 2 (M/40, point 13).

Article 62 (64) - Rights conferred by a European patent

96. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany withdrew a proposed addition to Article 62 (M/11, point 23). 97. The Main Committee adopted this Article in the version resulting from the discussion of Article 67 (69), paragraphs 3 and 4 (see below, points 121 et seq., 138 et seq.).

Article 63 (65) - Translation of the European patent specification

98. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee two drafting proposals from the United Kingdom delegation concerning paragraphs 1 and 3 (M/40, points 14 and 15).

Article 65 (67) - Rights conferred by a European patent application after publication

99. At the Irish delegation's request paragraph 3(b) was referred to the Drafting Committee for examination whether the words "the person" should be substituted for "any person" in the English text.

Article 67 (69) - Extent of protection

100. The Swedish delegation, seconded by the Finnish delegation, requested that the note to Article 67 (69) be drafted in such a way that the patentee should on no account be able to profit from any ambiguity in the patent claims (M/53/I/II, point 5 ; see also M / 13, point 7 ). The present version of the proposed declaration was not quite satisfactory in this respect. It also wished to point out that great importance had been attached to the wording in this respect when drawing up a Scandinavian patent law. 101. The Netherlands delegation opposed the request. In its opinion this addition would not improve the text. It wished, however, to point out above all that the declaration had been very carefully drafted after lengthy discussions. 102. In the considered opinion of the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany the present text of the statement was very well-balanced. If the Swedish request were granted, a lack of balance, which nobody sought, might be created. It could therefore not support the proposed addition. 103. The United Kingdom delegation considered that the Swedish proposal might well be suitable for most cases of obscure claims but not for all. It was therefore not advisable to become committed to an interpretation of obscure claims in the way proposed. Furthermore, the delegation referred to the lengthy discussions there had been on this very declaration. It was therefore better to retain the present text. 104. The Swiss delegation said that it would be sorry if the present, very well-balanced text were amended. 105. The FICPI delegation stated that it was understandable that the Swedish delegation wanted, with its proposed addition, to afford the greatest possible certainty for competitors of the proprietor of the patent. However, the applicant could simply not be expected to foresee, in drawing up his claims, all the possibilities of infringement. If he did not foresee them, it would be to his disadvantage under the Swedish proposal. Considered in this way, the proposal was even likely to detract to a large extent from the European patent's appeal. 106. The delegation of the International Chamber of Commerce concurred in the statements of the Government delegations. In addition, it considered that the additional

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING

FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

(Munich, 10 September to 5 October, 1973)

Right to a European patent

(1) The right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title. If the inventor is an employee the right to the European patent shall be determined in accordance with the law of the State in which the employee is mainly employed; if the State in which the employee is mainly employed cannot be determined, the law to be applied shall be that of the State in which the employer has his place of business to which the employee is attached. (2) If two or more persons have made an invention independently of each other, the right to the European patent shall belong to the person whose European patent application has the earliest date of filing; however, this provision shall apply only if this first application has been published under Article 93. and shall only have effect in respect of the Contracting States designated in that application as published. (3) For the purposes of proceedings before the European Patent Office. the applicant shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right to the European patent.

Page 7

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Munich, 30 September 1973 M/146/R 3 Original: English/French/German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: General Drafting Committee

Subject: Convention: Articles 55 to 83

Page 8

- 1 -

This page replaces page 1 of document M/109/I/R 5

Article 58

Right to a European patent

(1) The right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title. If the inventor is an employee the right to the European patent shall be determined in accordance with the law of the State in which the employee is mainly employed; if the State in which the employee is mainly employed cannot be determined, the law to be applied shall be that of the State in which the employer has his place of business to which the employee is attached.

(1a) If two or more persons have made an invention independently of each other, the right to the European patent shall belong to the person whose European patent application has the earliest date of filing; however, this provision shall apply only if this first application has been published under Article 92 and shall only have effect in respect of the Contracting States designated in that application as published.

(2) For the purposes of proceedings before the European Patent Office, the applicant shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right to the European patent.

M/143/I/R 14 hbb

Page 9

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 27 September 1973

M/143/I/R 14

Original: English/French/German

TEXTS DRAWN UP BY THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE OF MAIN COMMITTEE I AT THE MEETING ON 27 SEPTEMBER 1973

Articles of the Convention:

Articles 58 98 133

Rules of the Implementing Regulations:

Rules 13 14 16 28

Article 58

Right to a European patent (1) The right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title. If the inventor is an employee the right to the European patent shall be determined in accordance with the law of the State in which the employee is mainly employed; if the State in which the employee is mainly employed cannot be determined, the law to be applied shall be that of the State in which the employer has his place of business to which the employee is attached. (1a) If two or more persons have made an invention independently of each other, the right to the European patent shall belong to the person whose European patent application has the earliest date of filing; however, this provision shall apply only if this first application has been published under Article 52 and shall only have effect in respect of the Contracting States designated in that application as published. (2) For the purposes of proceedings before the European Paten: Office, the applicant shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right referred to in paragraph 1.

Page 11

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Munich, 19 September 1973 M/ 109/I/R 5 Original: English/French/German

TEXTS DRAWN UP BY THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE OF MAIN COMMITTEE I AT THE MEETING ON 18 SEPTEMBER 1973

Articles of the Convention:

Articles 58 . 62 . 68 . 71 . 87 . 95 . 102 . 105 . 106 . 107 . 109 . 123

Rules of the Implementing Regulations:

Rules 13 . 16 . 34 . 59

Page 12

Article 58 Right to a European patent (1) The right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title. If the inventor is an employee the right to the European patent shall be determined in accordance with the law of the State in which the employee is mainly employed; if the State in which the employee is mainly employed cannot be determined, the law to be applied shall be that of the State in which the employer has his place of business to which the employee is attached. (2) If two or more persons have made an invention independently of each other, the right to the European patent shall belong to the person whose European patent application has the earliest date of filing; however, this provision shall apply only if this first application was published under Article 92 and shall only have effect in respect of the Contracting States designated in that application as published. (3) For the purposes of proceedings before the European Patent Office, the applicant shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right referred to in paragraph 1.

Page 13

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Munich, 14 September 1973 M/80/2/R 2 Original: English/Frunch/seren

TEXTS DRAIN UP BY THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE OF MAIN COMMITTEE I AT THE MEETING ON 13 SEPTEMBER 1973

Articles of the Convention:

Articles 53 86 58 87 59 62 62 66 71 68 72 66 73 101 74 102 84 104 85 148

Rules of the Implementing Regulations:

Rules 13 16 52 59

Page 14

Article 58 Right to a European patent

(1) The right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title. If the inventor is an employee the right to the European patent shall be determined in accordance with the law of the State in which the employee is mainly employed; if the State in which the employee is mainly employed cannot be determined, the law to be applied shall be that of the State in which the employer has his place of business to which the employee is attached.

(2) If two or more persons have made an invention independently of each other, the right to the European patent shall belong to the non-English, European patent application has the earliest date of filing, however, this provision shall apply only if this first application was published under Article 92 and shall only have effect in respect of the Contracting States designated in that application as published.

(3) For the purposes of proceedings before the European Patent Office, the applicant shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right referred to in paragraph S.7.1 and 2.7.

Page 15

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 13 September 1973

M/ 74/I/R 1

Original: English/French/German

TEXTS DRAN UP BY THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE OF MAIN COMMITTEE I AT THE MEETING ON 12 SEPTEMBER 1973

Articles of the Convention:

Article 14 Article 50 Article 52 Article 53 Article 58 Article 59 Article 63 Article 65 Article 68 Article 87

Rules of the Implementing Regulations:

Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 13 Rule 16

Page 16

Alternative (B) in the proposed provision will be used very seldom, as the applicant almost always, in practice, produces an assignment. In the seldom occurring cases when alternative (B) will be used, the applicant shall together with his statement about ownership, file an extra copy of the application, thus causing no delay for the European Patent Office. The European Patent Office should send this copy to the inventor and give him the opportunity within a prescribed time to controvert the statement of the applicant. If the inventor does not make use of this opportunity the statement of the applicant will be accepted as an assignment. If, on the other hand, the inventor controverts the statement, the European Patent Office should request the applicant to procure a decision on his alleged ownership from a proper legal authority. If the decision by this authority goes in favour of the applicant, it should be accepted as an assignment, and, if not, the application should be transferred to the inventor.

Article 58, paragraph 2 is even verbally contradictory to the fundamental principle of the right to the invention according to Article 58, paragraph 1. This contradiction will be still more evident if the right to the invention is, in practice, implemented by including the inventor identification and the verification of the title to the invention. Article 58, paragraph 2, should therefore be deleted.

Article 90

As a consequence of the proposed amendment of Article 78, Article 90, paragraph 1(f), should be amended to refer to Article 78, with the above-mentioned provisions concerning the identification of the inventor and the verification of the title to the invention.

Implenentation of the inventor's right

Article 58, paragrapn 1, expressly recognises the fundermental principle of almost all European patent systems, viz. "The right to a European patent shall belore to the inventor or his successor in title."

To implement this principle in the proceedings before the Eurorean Patent Office the following provision should be introduced:

If the amilicant is not the inventor, the amplication shall ienify the inventor and contain (i) a cocument proving the transference of the right to the invention from the inventor to the applicant giving him the right to the Eurorean patent application and the resulting European patent or, (i) if the applicant bases his title to the invention on other grounds then an assignment, a document stating the facts supporting the assertion of ownership of the invention.

Article 78

The proper place for the proposed provision seems to be Article 78 rather than Article 76, as Article 76 only refers to the technical scope of the invention in question. Article 78 (c) on the other hand already includes information for identification of the amolicant, and the above sugeested provisions could nreferahly be introduced as new sub-sections after (c).

Page 18

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 12 September 1973

M/70/I

Original: English

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Dream un by: IFIA

Subject: Proposals for amending Articles 58, 78 and 90 of the Convention and Rule 26 of the Implementing Regulations

Page 19

has been assigned to the applicant, i.e. in the case of noncompliance the application shall be deemed to have been withdrawn in regard to any designated State requiring such proof in respect of national applications.

The following amendments should then be made:

Article 58

The following should be added to paragraph 2: "subject to the provisions of Article 79".

Article 79

Article 79 should be worded as follows: "The European patent application shall identify the inventor and, if the applicant is not the inventor, contain a deed of assignment executed by the inventor or another document establishing the applicant's right to the invention where the national law of at least one of the designated Contracting States requires such identification and documentation to be supplied for national patent applications".

Article 90

Paragraph 1(f) should be amended in the following way: "(f) the inventor has been identified and the application contains a deed of assignment or another document establishing the applicant's right to the invention pursuant to Article 79."

Page 20

Experience has shown that these conditions, once established, are easily complied with - also by applicants from outside the Nordic area.

The Draft Convention contains in Article 58, paragraph 2, a provision to the effect that, for the purposes of proceedings before the European Patent Office, the applicant shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right to a European patent. There is no requirement of any kind to establish the right of the applicant to the patent in the case he is not the inventor. In the view of the Nordic delegations the lack of any such requirement is logically contradictory to the fundamental principle laid down in Article 58, paragraph 1, and in fact aimed at weakening the attractiveness of the European system for the grant of patents in a serious way.

In order to cope adequately with this problem the Nordic delegations make the following proposals:

Article 58, paragraph 2

The following should be added: "provided that the applicant, if he is not the inventor, has submitted a deed or assignment executed by the inventor or another document establishing the applicant's right to the invention."

Article 76

To paragraph 1 should be added: "(f) the identification of the inventor; (g) if the applicant is not the inventor, a deed of assignment executed by the inventor or another document establishing the applicant's right to the invention."

Page 21

Article 58, paragraph 1, of the Draft Convention recognises the fundamental principle that the right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title.

There can be no question about the central position of the inventor in the patent system. If his rights are not properly protected, the incentive for producing inventions and thereby contributing to the progress of the useful arts, which the patent system is designed to further, will obviously be reduced. It has been strongly emphasised, especially by employees' and inventors' organisations but also by other interested circles, that, particularly as regards inventions by, employees, the identification of the inventor and the legal relations between him and the employer/applicant should be resolved at an early stage. The employee/inventor will be placed at a disadvantage if, on his own initiative, he has to establish his case at a later stage. It is of particular importance that the inventor is aware of patent applications made in regard to his invention.

The modern Nordic patent laws, which were promulgated after very extensive consultations with interested circles, require, as a consequence of this basic view, that the inventor shall be named at the time of application and that the applicant, if he is not the inventor, at the same time shall establish his right to the invention. In practice the latter requirement is normally met by the presentation of a deed of assignment executed by the inventor. However, it is in principle conceivable to establish the right to an invention by the presentation of another kind of document, e.g. a testamentary instrument or a deed of estate distribution.

Page 22

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Munich, 11 September 1973 M/69/I Original: English

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Dravn up by: The delegations of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden

Subject: Proposals for amending Articles 58, 76, 79 and 90

- 11 -

Article 58

Proposal: Article 58 should be supplemented by a new paragraph 3 as follows: "(3) A Contracting State may lay down that persons who have their residence or place of business on its territory must file their European patent applications at its central industrial property office or other competent authority for the purpose of examining the documents in respect of the applicant's right to the grant of a European patent."

Reason:

Various States consider it to be of great importance that European patent applications should be filed only by persons entitled to do so. We sympathise with this wish, but in our opinion it would be too much to hand over the examination of this right or even the formal examination of the appropriate declarations to the European Patent Office. However, we do not object to Contracting States binding their members to file European patent applications with the competent authority in their country in order that the entitlement to apply for the grant of a European patent may be examined by the competent authority of that country in accordance with the national law and, if necessary, the forwarding of the application to the European Patent Office may be avoided.

We consider it a matter of course that the forwarding of the application to the European Patent Office may be avoided, if the national authority is of the opinion that the applicant does not have the right to the patent in accordance with the national law. In addition, we do not think it necessary to state that Article 73, paragraph 1(b), second sentence, should apply mutatis mutandis.

Page 24

EPR 7002/73

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 10 September 1973

M/54/I/II/III

Original: German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: The Swiss delegation

Subject: Proposals for amendments to the draft texts

Page 25

patents acts, which contain provisions entirely similar to Art. 52 (3), there is no provision similar to Art. 58 (1), second sentence, and nobody misses it. Moreover, if it is believed that Art. 58, (1), second sentence, could in any situation go beyond Art. 52 (3) and Art. 54, it should in fact also be taken up in the grounds for opposition and revocation.

Page 26

to do with depriving the other party of his rights under Art. 59.

For most purposes the exact time of withdrawal is not of decisive importance, but there are at least two situations where this is the case, viz.

a) where the applicant wishes to withdraw before publication in order to avoid self-collision under the whole contents principle in respect of a later application filed or to be filed by him,

b) where the applicant wishes to obtain a new priority date valid under the Paris Convention.

Experience in countries where the whole contents principle is the law to-day shows that point (1) above is a very important consideration. Now, if the applicant is prevented by proceedings under Art. 59 from avoiding publication by withdrawal, he may win the case under Art. 59, but the damage done by publication is irreparable.

It is submitted for consideration whether the two situations mentioned above could be taken care of by the following amendments:

Rule 14, lines 5-6, cancel "the European patent application may not be withdrawn" and substitute "withdrawal of the European patent application shall not become effective, except in respect of Rule 49. If such withdrawal later becomes effective it shall be considered as having been made on the date when a legally committed declaration of irrevocable abandonment has been received by the European Patent Office."

In the penultimate line of Rule 14 after "the application" insert "with immediate effect".

A further point of interest in connection with Art. 58 shall be mentioned here, though not related to withdrawal. The UNICE in N/19, point 5, pages 17o-1, the CIFE in N/22, point 4o, pages 264-5, and the CEEP in N/3o, point 5, page 2 (not included in the printed volume), propose that the second sentence of Art. 58 (1) should be divided out into a second paragraph because it deals with a question entirely different from that of the first sentence.

This proposal seems in itself to be reasonable, but the question is raised whether the second sentence is necessary at all in view of the whole contents principle of Art. 52 (3) and Art. 54. The fact is that the whole contents principle gives an applicant a much stronger protection against a later applicant, than does the second sentence of Art. 58. In fact, Art. 58 (1), second sentence, lays down the prior claim principle as far as third party collision is concerned, while Art. 52 (3) and Art. 54 lay down the whole contents principle for the same situations. This may give rise to confusion and it is submitted for consideration whether it would not be preferable to cancel Art. 58 (1), second sentence. It is pointed out that in the Nordic

Page 27

FICPI/7308-05 page 1 Memo D FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DES CONSEILS EN PROPRIETE INDUSTRIELLE Date: August 20, 1973.

re: Munich Diplomatic Conference September 10 to October 6, 1973.

MEMORANDUM D on withdrawal of the European patent application, Rule 49, Rule 14, Art. 58.

1. The CIFE in M/22, point 18, pages 256-7, and the FEMPI in M/23, point 25, pages 294-5, suggest that it should be confirmed by a clause preferably in the Convention • that the applicant has the right to withdraw his application at any time (which right can at present only be derived indirectly from the terms of Rule 49 (2)).

2. The FICPI supports this proposal and suggests that the right place to express the right to withdraw the application would be in Art. 58, e.g. in a new paragraph (1 bis) to be inserted between paragraphs 1 and 2.

"58 (1 bis) The party having the right to apply for a European patent shall also have the right at any time to withdraw the application for that patent."

3. In paragraph 2, the back reference should then be to both paragraphs (1) and (1 bis).

4. As expressed in this manner the right to withdraw would fit in very well with the restriction of the same right expressed in Rule 14.

5. In respect of this restriction, the EG/EC/CE in M/14, point 14, pages 100-1, propose a new version of Rule 14 according to which the applicant is entitled to withdraw the European patent application up to the time when a third party proves to the European Patent Office that he has initiated proceedings concerning entitlement.

6. The FICPI opposes this proposal because it may take some time to obtain proof of the institution of legal proceedings, and in the meantime the applicant, knowing that the other party intends to proceed under Art. 59, may withdraw the application to deprive the other party of his rights under Art. 59. He may prefer withdrawing the application rather than running even the slightest risk of the other party taking over the application.

7. The FICPI therefore gives preference to the official text of Rule 14.

8. The reason given by the EG/EC/CE for the proposed amendment is that the right to withdraw the application is very important to the applicant. This is perfectly true and the applicant may in fact have perfectly legitimate reasons for withdrawal, not in any way having

Page 28

(3) The copy of declaration mentioned in Art. 79 shall be transmitted forthwith by the European Patent Office to the inventor at his latest known address or, if the inventor is dead, where possible to a representative of his legal successors, with indication of the filing date and serial number of the application. The European Patent Office cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions in connection with that transmittal.".

If these amendments are adopted, the inventor, if he is of the opinion that the applicant was not entitled to file, could immediately proceed under Art. 59.

In the above proposals the possibility of obtaining European patents for Contracting States where mentioning of the inventor is not required under the national laws, has been omitted. It is felt that if a "maximum solution" is to be adopted, it must also extend to the fundamental question of the right to the European patent. For such countries applicants who cannot or will not mention the inventor still have the possibility of applying for national patents. Besides, such countries have the faculty of adopting provisions for conversion under Art. 135(1)(b).

Page 29

and, if the applicant is not the inventor, indicating the manner in which the inventor's right has been transferred to the applicant, as well as a copy of the said declaration for transmittal by the European Patent Office to the inventor with indication of the filing date and serial number of the application.".

Rewrite Art. 9o (1) (f) as follows:

"(f) the declaration and copy mentioned in Art. 79 have been filed,".

Rewrite Art. 9o (5) as follows:

"(5) Where, in the case referred to in paragraph 1 (f), the failure to file the declaration and copy mentioned in Art. 79 is not corrected within four (4) months after the date of filing of the European patent application, the application shall be deemed to be withdrawn."

Rewrite Rule 17 as follows:

"Rule 17. Declaration of Inventorship.

The declaration and copy to be filed under Art. 79 must state the family name and given names of the inventor as well as his full address or latest address known to the applicant."

Rewrite Rule 42 as follows:

"42. Examination of declaration of inventorship.

(1) If the examination provided for in Art. 9o, paragraph 1 (f) reveals that the declaration and copy mentioned in Art. 79 have not been filed, the Receiving Section shall inform the applicant that the application will be deemed to be withdrawn unless the said declaration and copy are filed within four (4) months after the date of filing of the European patent application.

(2) In the case of a European divisional application or of a new European patent application filed pursuant to Art. 59, paragraph 1 (b), the time limit for filing the declaration and copy mentioned in Art. 79 may in no case expire before two months after the communication referred to in paragraph 1, which shall state the time limit."

Page 30

caring to answer letters or to comply with tedious formalities. He may be living in a place where it takes a travel of days to appear before an officer who can certify his signature. The situation arising when the inventor dies before the application is filed is sometimes almost hopeless. He may have a lot of heirs spread all over the world.

5. For these reasons the compulsory filing of an express assignment executed by the inventor is at least a too strict requirement, and the fact is that in the Nordic countries also other evidence of assignment is accepted, such as a certified copy of a world-wide assignment, e.g. filed in respect of a U.S. application, or a certified copy of an agreement of employment showing that the right to the employee's inventions belongs to the employer (with or without special renumeration, as the case may be), or, where this follows from national law, just showing that the inventor was an employee of the applicant at the time when the invention can be presumed to have been made.

6. It is also pointed out by the profession in the Nordic countries that too strict requirements in respect of the time limit for the filing of evidence of assignment should not be adopted. In the normal case presentation within a relatively short time limit does not give rise to difficulties, but in special cases of the type referred to above it may take very long time to procure evidence, and it seems to be unreasonable that an application should become abandoned solely for the reason that there are practical difficulties in procuring evidence. In the majority of cases, the inventor would regret this just as much as the applicant. In this connection it should be mentioned that in the Nordic countries the patent authorities are generally very lenient in the matter of granting and extending time limits for the filing of evidence of assignment, much more so than one would believe from their comments on the European Patent Convention.

7. It is pointed out from other quarters within the FICPI that the requirement to file an assignment document is no real guarantee to the inventor because the applicant, if really intent on committing fraud, may indicate another person as the inventor and have him sign an assignment. From these quarters it is also questioned whether the position of the inventor is in fact stronger in the countries where documentation of the transfer of the inventor's right is compulsory, than in countries where this is not the case.

8. The following compromise is presented for consideration:

9. At the end of Art. 58 (1) add the following: "....... provided that he has complied with the requirement of Art. 79".

10. Rewrite Art. 79 as follows:

"The European patent application shall be accompanied by a declaration, signed by the applicant, stating who is the inventor

Page 31

FICPI/7308-03-R page 1 Memo B

FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DES CONSEILS EN PROPRIETE INDUSTRIELLE

Date: August 20, 1973. Revised: August 28, 1973.

re: Munich Diplomatic Conference September 10 to October 6, 1973.

MEMORANDUM B on evidence of transfer of the inventor's right.

Art. 58, 79, 90, Rules 17, 42.

1. It is strongly urged by all the Nordic countries, viz. the Finnish government in M/12, point 5, pages 76-77, the Swedish government in M/13, points 3-5, pages 80-81, the Norwegian government in M/28, points 5-6, pages 344-5, and the Danish government in M/35, points 3-4, pages 2-3 (not included in the printed volume) that where the applicant is not the inventor, he shall be required to prove that the invention has been transferred to him. The Swedish, Finnish and Danish governments would even prescribe the filing of an assignment document as compulsory.

2. In M/17, point 1, pages 146-7, the IFIA expresses the same idea, if possible even more emphatically.

3. Since the filing of evidence of transfer of the inventor's right has been urged by the Nordic governments, the FICPI has first of all requested its Nordic members to report on their experience under the Nordic patent systems where evidence of transfer is compulsory. The experience of the profession in the Nordic countries seems on the whole to be that the system of compulsory evidence of transfer works out satisfactorily, does usually not give rise to serious complications, and is generally of advantage to both the inventor and the applicant because the system forces them to establish their mutual rights at an early date, thereby reducing the danger of conflicts at a later time where it may be much more difficult to settle any differences between the parties.

4. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that once in a while cases occur where the filing of evidence in support of the transfer of the inventor's right does give rise to trouble. E.g., in the case of an employed inventor, he may have left his employ before the application is filed and it may be difficult or impossible to trace him or he may refuse to sign an assignment, even if he has a contractual obligation to do so, either because he has complaints against his previous employer in some respects not necessarily connected with the invention, or because he has been assimilated in an entirely different environment, maybe in a far-off country and has lost all interest in the affaire of his previous employer, and maybe is not the type of man

Page 32

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Munich, 10 Sentember 1973 M/ 48/I Original: English/French/German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drewn un by: FICPI

Subject: Memoranda on:

- representation - evidence of transfer of the inventor's rirht - multiple priorities and partial nriorities - withdrawal of the European natent annlication - extension of periods as related to lanmase problems

Page 33

However, the Danish Government would like to propose the following amendments for acceptance at the Diplomatic Conference: I. 3. Article 58, paragraph 2, should be formulated as follows: "For the purpose of proceedings before the European Patent Office, the applicant shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right referred to in paragraph 1 provided that the applicant when the invention is obtained from the inventor has submitted a deed of assignment executed by the inventor".

If this proposal is accepted, it is to be supplemented by the following amendments:

Article 90 by adding that the deed of assignment is to be examined and that the application shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, if the deed of assignment is not submitted in its correct form despite a warning, and

Article 79 in such a way that the identification of the inventor is to be compulsory without reference to the provisions of the national laws of the countries concluding the Treaty and that the same regulations may be applied as above in respect of the documents making up the application.

Finally some amendments to the Implementing Regulations will be necessary. 4. Explanatory note: The Draft Convention and Protocol concerning the Recognition of Decisions in respect of the Right to the Grant of a European Patent contain various provisions, the main aim of which is to ensure that the inventor does not lose his rights to the invention.

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Brussels, 4 July 1973 M/ 35 Original : German

PREPARATORY DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: Danish Government Subject: Observations on the Draft Convention establishing a European System for the Grant of Patents

Page 35

4. Article 31, paragraph 1(a)

The circumstances in which the Administrative Council may decide to reduce the Examining Division to a single technical examiner should be specified. If the Examining Division were to be so reduced it would be important to retain a composition of three technical examiners for decisions to refuse an application as opposed to decisions to grant a patent.

5. Article 58, paragraph 1

Since this paragraph relates to two basically different questions (inventions by employees and inventions made by a number of persons independently of each other), it would be better if they were dealt with in two separate paragraphs.

6. Article 65, paragraph 2

In the last sentence the phrase "the applicant can claim compensation reasonable in the circumstances from any person who has used, etc ..." should be replaced by "the applicant can demand a settlement reasonable in the circumstances from any nerson who has used, etc ...". A settlement may of course comprise the payment of compensation, as provided for in the present text, but it may also contain many other types of condition and even exclude payment of compensation if an applicant who is deemed to have suffered a loss wishes to forgo compensation and obtain some other form of indemnity. A contractual settlement would be all the more justified since the rights at issue here are based on a European patent application which has been published and not on a patent which has definitively been granted. If the present text were retained, the compensation would presumably have to be repaid if the proprietor of the European patent application did not request the examination proceedings to be opened or where the patent was refused after examination or revoked as a result of opposition proceedings. Since a contractual settlement would not necessarily require the immediate payment of compensation, it would, inter alia, enable the final outcome of the patent application to be taken into

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Brussels, 23 May 1973 M / 30 Original: French

PREPARATORY DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: Centre Européen de l'Entreprise Publique (CFEP)

Subject: Comments relating to the Draft Convention establishing a European System for the Grant of Patents

Page 37

4 Zum Übereinkommensentwurf selbst möchte die norwegische Regierung folgendes bemerken:

5 Die erste Bemerkung betrifft die Interessen des Erfinders. Nach Artikel 58 steht das Recht auf das europäische Patent dem Erfinder oder seinem Rechtsnachfolger zu. Jedoch gilt im Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt der Anmelder als berechtigt, dieses Recht geltend zu machen. Nach Ansicht Norwegens müßte der Anmelder, der nicht selbst der Erfinder ist, verpflichtet sein, sein Recht auf die Erfindung nachzuweisen.

6 Kann dieser Vorschlag nicht angenommen werden, so schlägt die norwegische Regierung als Alternative eine Lösung vor, die dem Erfordernis der Erfindernennung (Artikel 79 und Artikel 90 Absatz 5) entspricht. Das würde bedeuten, daß in einem Fall, in dem der Anmelder sein Recht auf die Erfindung nicht nachgewiesen hat, die Anmeldung für die benannten Staaten, in denen ein solches Erfordernis für nationale Patentanmeldungen besteht, als zurückgenommen gelten würde.

7 Artikel 68 Absatz 4 Buchstabe a des Ubereinkommensentwurfs gestattet dem Anmelder oder Patentinhaber, eine berichtigte Übersetzung einzureichen. Diese berichtigte Übersetzung hat jedoch erst dann rechtliche Wirkung, wenn Artikel 65 Absatz 3 erfüllt ist. Es wird davon ausgegangen, daß von dem Anmelder, wenn die Übersetzung die Patentschrift betrifft, auch verlangt werden kann, die Kosten einer Veröffentlichung der neuen Ubersetzung zu tragen. Das sollte in Artikel 68 Absatz 4 Buchstabe a durch eine Bezugnahme auf Artikel 63 Absatz 2 ausdrücklich klargestellt werden.

8 Die Fortsetzung der Benutzung nach Artikel 68 Absatz 4 Buchstabe b sollte nach Ansicht Norwegens ohne Zahlung einer Entschädigung erlaubt sein. Eine solche Bestimmung läßt sich im wesentlichen auf die gleichen Uberlegungen stützen, die auch Artikel 121 Absatz 6 des Ubereinkommensentwurfs sowie ähnlichen Rechtsvorschriften vieler Staaten über das Vorbenutzungsrecht zugrunde liegen.

9 Artikel 98 Absatz 1 macht einen Einspruch von der Entrichtung einer Einspruchsgebühr abhängig; diese Bestimmung ist im heute geltenden Patentrecht praktisch unbekannt. Nach Auffassung Norwegens sollte ein Einspruch ohne Zahlung einer Gebühr zulässig sein, weil das Einspruchsverfahren als wertvolle Ergänzung der Prüfung durch das Europäische Patentamt angesehen werden sollte.

10 Artikel 100 betreffend die Prüfung des Einspruchs sollte durch einen dritten Absatz ergänzt werden, der Artikel 109 Absatz 3 entspricht, wonach der Artikel 95 Absatz 3 Anwendung findet. Auch während der Prüfung des Einspruchs sollte das

4 With regard to the Draft Convention itself the Norwegian Government would like to make the following observations:

5 The first observation concerns the interests of the inventor. According to Art. 58 the right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title. However, for the purposes of the proceedings before the European Patent Office the applicant shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise this right. In the Norwegian view the applicant, not being the inventor himself, ought to have an obligation to establish his right to the invention.

6 If this proposal cannot be adopted, the Norwegian Government alternatively proposes a solution along the same lines as those governing the requirement to identify the inventor (Art. 79 and Art. 90(5)). This would imply that in a case where the applicant has not established his right to the invention, the application would be deemed to be withdrawn in respect of designated states having such a requirement for national patent applications.

7 Art. 68(4)(a) of the Draft Convention allows the applicant for or proprietor of the patent to supply a corrected translation. This corrected translation shall, however, have no legal effect until the conditions specified in Art. 65(3) have been met. It is assumed that when the translation refers to the patent specification, the applicant may also be required to pay the costs of a publication of the new translation. This ought to be stated expressly in Art. 68(4)(a) by a reference to Art. 63(2).

8 The continuation of use which is made provision for in Art. 68(4)(b) should in the Norwegian opinion be permitted without payment of compensation. Such a rule can be based upon essentially the same considerations as those underlying Art. 121(6) of the Draft Convention as well as similar provisions in many national laws concerning prior users right.

9 Art. 98(1) makes opposition dependent upon payment of an opposition fee, a rule which is virtually unknown in the patent laws in force today. In the Norwegian view, notice of opposition ought to be allowed without payment of a fee, since the opposition procedure should be regarded as a valuable supplement to the examination performed by the European Patent Office.

10 Art. 100 on examination of the opposition should be completed by adding a third paragraph, similar to that of Art. 109, providing for the application of Art. 95(3). Even during the examination of the opposition the European Patent Office should be

Page 38

MUNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ 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)

CONFÉRENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

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

STELLUNGNAHMEN

zu den vorbereitenden Dokumenten herausgegeben von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

COMMENTS

on the preparatory documents published by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

PRISES DE POSITION sur les documents préparatoires publiées par le Gouvernement de la République fédérale d'Allemagne

Page 39

mit PCT-Ursprung handelt, sofern dies der Fall ist.

Artikel 157 - Veröffentlichung der internationalen Anmeldung

38 CIFE möchte, daß im Europaischen Patentblatt auf die Veröffentlichung der europäischen Anmeldung auch dann hingewiesen wird, wenn die entsprechende internationale Anmeldung bereits veröffentlicht worden ist.

Dritter Teil
REDAKTIONELLE BEMERKUNGEN

Artikel 16 - Zuständigkeit der Eingangsstelle 39 Es wäre wünschenswert, zumindest die französische Fassung zu verbessern, um klarer herauszustellen, daß sich die beiden Bedingungen kumulieren und die Eingangsstelle bis zu dem Zeitpunkt zuständig ist, an dem die letzte der beiden Bedingungen erfüllt ist.

Artikel 58 Absatz 1 - Recht auf das europäische Patent

40 Es dürfte zweckmäßiger sein, den derzeitigen Absatz 1 wie folgt in zwei Absätze einzuteilen, wobei der bisherige Absatz 2 zu Absatz 3 würde: ,(1) Das Recht auf das europäische Patent . . ., dem der Arbeitnehmer angehört. (2) Haben mehrere eine Erfindung . . . benannten Vertragsstaaten. (3) Im Verfahren ... in den Absätzen 1 und 2 vorgesehene Recht geltend zu machen."

Artikel 88 Absatz 2 - Eingangsprüfung 41 Eine genauere Formulierung wäre wünschenswert. Anstelle von ,so wird die Anmeldung nicht als europäische Patentanmeldung behandelt" wäre es zweckmäßiger zu sagen: ,so gilt die Anmeldung als nicht eingereicht".

Vierter Teil
VERTRETUNG

Artikel 133, 134 und 162 42 CIFE hält den derzeitigen Wortlaut der Artikel 133 und 134 in sachlicher Hinsicht für zufriedenstellend.

Article 157 - Publication of the international application

38 Notwithstanding publication of a corresponding international application, CEIF would wish mention of the publication of the European application in the European Patent Bulletin.

Part Three EDITORIAL COMMENTS

Article 16 - Competence of the Receiving Section 39 At least in the French text it would be desirable to improve the wording to render more explicit the cumulative character of the two conditions, the Receiving Section remaining responsible up to the date of the later of the two conditions to be fulfilled.

Article 58, paragraph 1 - Right to a European patent

40 It seems preferable to divide the present paragraph 1 into two paragraphs and to renumber paragraph 2 as paragraph 3, as follows: "(1) The right to a European patent . . . to which the employee is attached. (2) If two or more persons... in that application as published. (3) For the purposes of proceedings . . . referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2."

Article 88, paragraph 2 - Examination on filing 41 A more precise wording would be desirable. Rather than saying "the application shall not be dealt with as a European patent application" it seems preferable to say "the application is considered as not having been filed".

Articles 133, 134 and 162

42 The present text of Articles 133 and 134 is considered satisfactory by CEIF as to their substance.

Page 40

MÜNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ 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)

CONFÉRENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH POUR L'INSTITUTION D'UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS (1973)

(Munich, 10 septembre - 6 octobre 1973)

STELLUNGNAHMEN zu den vorbereitenden Dokumenten herausgegeben von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

COMMENTS

on the preparatory documents published by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

PRISES DE POSITION sur les documents préparatoires publiées par le Gouvernement de la République fédérale d'Allemagne

Artikel 16

1 Es besteht Veranlassung, die französische Fassung des Textes zu verbessern, um klar hervortreten zu lassen, daß die Eingangsstelle ihre Befugnis verliert, wenn die beiden in Artikel 16 aufgeführten Elemente vorliegen.

Artikel 18 (2)

2 Der Artikel sieht vor, daß in der Einspruchsabteilung ein Prüfer mitwirken kann, der in dem Verfahren zur Erteilung des europäischen Patents mitgewirkt hat. Es ist wünschenswert zu präzisieren, daß dieser Prüfer in der Einspruchsabteilung weder Präsident noch Berichterstatter sein kann.

Artikel 31 (1) a)

3 Gemäß diesem Artikel kann der Verwaltungsrat entscheiden, daß die Prüfungsabteilungen aus einem einzigen technisch vorgebildeten Prüfer bestehen. Allgemein gesehen wünscht die U.N.I.C.E. eine Besetzung der Prüfungsabteilungen mit drei technisch vorgebildeten Prüfern.

Artikel 52 (5)

4 Die jetzige Fassung könnte dazu führen, daß eine Substanz, die in der Humanmedizin Verwendung gefunden hat, für die Veterinärmedizin nach der Doktrin der ,,ersten Indikation" nicht mehr patentierbar wäre und umgekehrt. Um dieses sicherlich nicht beabsichtigte Ergebnis zu vermeiden, wäre es wünschenswert, Artikel 52 (5) zu präzisieren.

Artikel 58 (1)

5 Die Vorschrift würde an Klarheit gewinnen, wenn die darin behandelten zwei Fragen ihren Platz in zwei getrennten Absaätzen finden würden.

Artikel 67 (2)

6 Wenn diese Bestimmung das Problem des vorläufigen Schutzes im Falle der Einschränkung und der Erweiterung der Ansprüche löst, so scheint es, daß das Problem des vorläufigen Schutzes im Falle einer Verlagerung (shifting) der Ansprüche offen bleibt. In letzterem Fall ist ein vorläufiger Schutz nach den ersten Ansprüchen nicht gerechtfertigt. In dieser Hinsicht scheint eine Präzisierung wünschenswert.

Article 16

1 The French text should be improved in order to make it clear that the Receiving Section will cease to be responsible once the two conditions mentioned in Article 16 are both fulfilled.

Article 18, paragraph 2

2 This Article provides that the Opposition Division may include one examiner who has taken part in the proceedings for grant of the European patent. It should be specified that this examiner may be neither the Chairman nor the rapporteur of the Opposition Division.

Article 31, paragraph 1(a)

3 Under this Article the Administrative Council may decide that any Examining Division may be composed of only one technical examiner. In general UNICE would wish the Examining Divisions to be composed of three technical examiners.

Article 52, paragraph 5

4 The present wording could lead to a substance used in human medicine no longer being patentable for veterinary medicine and vice-versa under the "first disclosure" rule. To avoid this effect, which is certainly not intended, the wording of Article 52, paragraph 5 , should be clarified.

Article 58, paragraph 1

5 This provision would be rendered clearer if the two questions which it covers were dealt with in two separate sub-paragraphs.

Article 67, paragraph 2

6 Although this provision solves the problem of provisional protection in cases of a limitation or extension of the claims, it would appear that the problem of provisional protection in the case of a shifting of claims remains open. In the latter case provisional protection on the basis of the claims first filed would not be justified and this point should therefore be clarified.

Page 42

MÜNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ 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)

CONFÉRENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

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

STELLUNGNAHMEN

zu den vorbereitenden Dokumenten herausgegeben von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

COMMENTS

on the preparatory documents published by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

PRISES DE POSITION sur les documents préparatoires publiées par le Gouvernement de la République fédérale d'Allemagne

Page 43

In Ländern, in denen solche Verträge zulässig sind, ist das wirtschaftliche Interesse am Patent - soweit der Erfinder betroffen ist - verschwunden, und es verbleibt für ihn lediglich das moralische Recht, als Erfinder anerkannt zu werden.

Andere europäische Länder haben besondere Rechtsvorschriften über Arbeitnehmererfindungen geschaffen, in denen die Bedingungen, unter denen sich der Arbeitgeber die Erfindung ganz oder teilweise aneignen darf, geregelt und ihr wirtschaftlicher Wert auf die Parteien aufgeteilt wird. Damit Arbeitnehmererfinder in solchen Ländern in den praktischen Genuß der Rechte gelangen, die ihnen rechtlich zustehen, ist es wichtig, daß sie von Anfang an von der Einreichung der Patentanmeldung unterrichtet sind. Eine solche Unterrichtung wird automatisch und auf geeignete Weise dadurch erreicht, daß eine vom Erfinder unterschriebene Zustimmungserklärung zusammen mit der Anmeldung einzureichen ist. Eine zeitliche Lücke zwischen der Einreichung der Anmeldung und der unterschriebenen Erklärung kann die Stellung des Erfinders, nachteilig beeinflussen. Hat der Arbeitgeber beispielsweise nicht das gesamte Recht an der Erfindung erworben, so muß der Erfinder im Prioritätsjahr genügend Zeit haben, um zu entscheiden, in welchen ausländischen Staaten er seine eigenen Anmeldungen einzureichen wünscht.

In Artikel 79 wird das Recht des Erfinders, in den Fällen genannt zu werden, in denen das nationale Recht eines der benannten Staaten dies vorschreibt, bestätigt. Dabei wird jedoch übersehen, daß die Bestimmungen des nationalen Patentrechts der genannten Staaten, nach denen der Erfinder zu nennen ist, immer an eine Bestimmung geknüpft sind, wonach der Anmelder, falls er nicht der Erfinder ist, sein Recht auf Einreichung der Anmeldung nachzuweisen hat. Die alleinige Nennung des Erfinders gibt diesem nämlich nicht den Rechtsschutz, der mit diesen Bestimmungen in den nationalen Rechtsvorschriften angestrebt wird. Die Verweisung auf das nationale Recht sollte deshalb in der Weise ausgedehnt werden, daß sowohl die Erfindernennung als auch die Prüfung des Rechts auf die Erfindung einbezogen werden.

Zusammenfassend möchte IFIA nachdrücklich darauf drängen, daß der Schutz des grundlegenden Rechts des Erfinders - der in Artikel 58 ausdrücklich wie folgt anerkannt wird: „Das Recht auf das europäische Patent steht dem Erfinder oder seinem Rechtsnachfolger zu" - wie folgt sichergestellt wird: (1) Die europäische Patentanmeldung sollte den Erfinder immer nennen und, falls der Anmelder nicht der Erfinder ist, eine vom Erfinder unterzeichnete Übertragungsurkunde oder Erklärung enthalten, in der zum Ausdruck kommt, daß er der Einreichung der Anmeldung zustimmt.

Durch eine solche Erklärung, in der der Erfinder darin einwilligt, daß eine Anmeldung von einer parties. To enable employee inventors in such countries to enjoy in practice the rights apportioned to them by law, it is essential that they should be informed, ab initio, of the filing of the patent application. Such information is automatically and conveniently achieved if a written declaration of assent signed by the inventor has to be filed together with the application. Any time lag between the filing of the application and of the signed declaration may adversely affect the inventor's position. For instance, if the employer has not acquired the whole right to the invention, the inventor must have ample time within the priority year to decide in which countries he wishes to make his own foreign applications.

Article 79 acknowledges the inventor's right to be named where the national law of one designated country requires it. However, it overlooks the fact that the identification of the inventor in the national patent laws of the countries referred to above is always combined with a stipulation that the applicant, if he is not the inventor, shall establish his right to make the application. In fact, the identification alone of the inventor does not give him the legal protection, which is the purpose of these stipulations in the national laws. The acknowledgment of national law therefore ought to be extended to include both the identification of the inventor and the verification of the right to the invention.

Summing up, IFIA strongly urges that the safeguarding of the inventor's basic right recognised expressly in Art. 58: viz. "The right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title" - should be implemented in the following way. (1) The European patent application should always identify the inventor and, if the applicant is not the inventor, contain an assignment or a declaration signed by the inventor stating that he assents to the making of the application. Such a declaration stating that the inventor assents to an application being made by another person does not thereby abrogate his right to the invention. (2) The time limit for correcting the omission of the identification of the inventor and of the document of assent signed by the inventor must be only a small fraction of the priority year - not more than 3 or 4 months.

The easiest moment, and the one that gives the most reliable result, is usually when the patent agent starts writing the specification, and must turn to the inventor to find the nature of the invention which he has to describe. (3) The basic protection for the inventor's right as given in (1) and (2) above should be stated in Articles and not be subject to any exceptions in the Rules (as for instance in Art. 90 (5)). Exceptions, if necessary, should be included in the Articles themselves.

1 Anwendung des Grundrechts eines Erfinders auf ein europäisches Patent

Artikel 58 des europäischen Patentübereinkommens erkennt ausdrücklich das Grundprinzip an, auf dem nahezu alle Patentsysteme der Welt beruhen und das in der Tat im Patentrecht der meisten Staaten besonders niedergelegt ist. Dieses Prinzip besteht darin, daß ,das Recht auf das Patent dem Erfinder oder seinem Rechtsnachfolger zusteht".

In den meisten Ländern ist das Patent tatsächlich das einzige Mittel, das das Recht zum Schutz der geistigen Schöpfung eines Erfinders bietet. Reicht der Erfinder selbst eine Patentanmeldung ein, so können sich aus der Anwendung dieses Prinzips keine Schwierigkeiten ergeben und hat der Erfinder keine Schwierigkeit, sein Recht zu wahren. Oft jedoch ist eine andere Person oder Einrichtung, z.B. ein Unternehmer, ein Vertragspartner oder eine Gesellschaft, daran interessiert, die Erfindung zu verwerten, und bestrebt, um das Patent nachzusuchen. Dies liegt in der Regel auch im Interesse des Erfinders; in diesem Fall wird es nicht schwierig sein, seine Zustimmung zu der Einreichung einer Anmeldung durch eine andere Person zu erhalten. Artikel 56 des Übereinkommens erkennt klar die Möglichkeit an, daß jedermann eine Patentanmeldung einreichen kann, enthält aber keine Bestimmung, durch die sichergestellt wird, daß der Anmelder hierzu wirklich berechtigt ist. In Ermangelung einer solchen Bestimmung und besonders wegen des geheimen Charakters der Anmeldungen ist es durchaus möglich, daß eine Anmeldung ohne Wissen des Erfinders eingereicht wird, so daß sich der Anmelder in der Tat das Recht des Erfinders auf das Patent widerrechtlich aneignet. Aufgrund dieser Anmeldung, über deren Existenz der Erfinder noch immer völlig in Unkenntnis ist, kann der Anmelder außerdem Verhandlungen aufnehmen, um das Recht am Patent zu verkaufen oder Lizenzen an dem Patent zu erteilen oder um das auf der Grundlage der Erfindung hergestellte Erzeugnis zu vermarkten. Es ist mit dem Grundprinzip des Rechts westlicher zivilisierter Länder schlecht zu vereinbaren, daß jemand die Möglichkeit haben soll, über das Eigentum einer anderen Person ohne deren Wissen und Zustimmung zu verfügen.

Es ist vielleicht überraschend, daß das Patentrecht einiger - doch keineswegs aller - Staaten dem vorgeschlagenen europäischen System insofern entspricht, als sie zwar das Grundrecht des Erfinders auf das Patent anerkennen, doch keine Bestimmungen enthalten, durch die sichergestellt wird, daß ein Anmelder, der nicht Erfinder ist, gebührend legitimiert zu sein hat. Dies ist wahrscheinlich auf die in einigen Ländern geläufige Vorstellung zurückzuführen, daß Erfindungen, die von einem Arbeitnehmer in seinem Arbeitsbereich gemacht werden, automatisch dem Arbeitgeber gehören, ohne daß dieser verpflichtet ist, dem Erfinder neben seinem normalen Gehalt eine besondere Vergütung zu zahlen. Mitunter wird tatsächlich eine entsprechende Klausel in einen Anstellungsvertrag aufgenommen.

1 Implementation of the inventor's basic right to a European patent

Article 58 of the EPC expressly recognises the fundamental principle which lies at the basis of almost all Patent Systems of the world, and which is indeed explicitly stated in most national Patent Laws. This principle is that "the right to a patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title".

The patent is in fact in most countries the only means which the law affords for protection of an inventor's intellectual creation. Where the inventor himself files a patent application, no difficulty can arise in the implementation of this principle, and the inventor has no difficulty in securing his right. Frequently, however, another person or body, e.g. an entrepreneur, contractor or a company is interested in the exploitation of the invention, and is anxious to apply for the patent. This usually is also in the inventor's interest, in which case there will be no difficulty in obtaining his consent to the filing of an application by someone other than himself. Article 56 of the Convention clearly recognises the possibility of a patent application being filed by anyone, but makes no provision for ensuring that the applicant is properly entitled to apply. As a result of this omission, and especially in view of the fact that applications are secret, it is quite possible for an application to be filed without the inventor's knowledge, so that in effect the applicant usurps the inventor's right to the patent. On the basis of this application, of which the inventor is still blissfully ignorant, the applicant may also start negotiations for selling or licensing the patent right or marketing the products of the invention. It ill accords with the basic principle of law in Western civilised countries, that it should be possible for somebody to handle and use another person's property without that person's knowledge and consent.

It is perhaps surprising that some national patent laws, though by no means all, are similar to the proposed European system in recognising the basic right of the inventor to the patent, while having no provisions for ensuring that an applicant other than the inventor is properly authorised. This probably arises from the concept current in some countries that inventions made by an employee within the field of his employment automatically belong to the employer without any duty on the employer's part to pay the inventor anything more than his normal salary. Sometimes a clause to this effect is actually included in an employee's contract. In countries which permit such contracts the economic interest in the patent has disappeared so far as the inventor is concerned, and all that remains for him is the moral right to be acknowledged as inventor.

Other European countries have introduced special laws about employees' inventions, regulating the conditions under which the employer is empowered to take, wholly or in part, the right to the invention, and apportioning its economic value between the

Page 45

MÜNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ 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)

CONFÉRENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH POUR L'INSTITUTION D'UN SYSTEME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS (1973)

(Munich, 10 septembre - 6 octobre 1973)

STELLUNGNAHMEN

zu den vorbereitenden Dokumenten herausgegeben von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

COMMENTS

on the preparatory documents published by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

PRISES DE POSITION sur les documents préparatoires publiées par le Gouvernement de la République fédérale d'Allemagne

Page 46

1 Die schwedische Regierung nimmt mit Befriedigung von den Ergebnissen Kenntnis, welche die Regierungskonferenz über die Einführung eines europäischen Patenterteilungsverfahrens erzielt hat. Der Übereinkommensentwurf und der Ausführungsordnungsentwurf wie auch die Protokollentwürfe und Empfehlungen, welche die Konferenz auf ihrer 6., abschließenden Tagung in Luxemburg im Juni 1972 angenommen hat. stellen nach Ansicht der schwedischen Regierung einen wichtigen Schritt zu einer Rationalisierung der Verfahren und der Verwaltungsarbeit bei der Patenterteilung in Europa dar. Die schwedische Regierung erwartet, daß ein auf dem Übereinkommensentwurf beruhendes europäisches Verfahren auch zur umfassenden Zusammenarbeit beitragen wird, die der Vertrag über die Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet des Patentwesens vorsieht.

2 Die schwedische Regierung stellt fest, daß der Übereinkommensentwurf, soweit es sich um das materielle Patentrecht handelt, im wesentlichen mit der neueren nordischen Patentgesetzgebung in Einklang steht. In verschiedener Hinsicht müßten die im Entwurf gewählten Lösungen jedoch wohl noch einmal durchdacht werden. Die wichtigsten Punkte betreffen die Rolle des Erfinders im Patenterteilungsverfahren und die Bedeutung der Patentansprüche für den Schutzbereich. Die schwedische Regierung möchte sich in ihren Bemerkungen zum materiellen Patentrecht vorerst auf diese Punkte beschränken.

3 Nach den nordischen Patentgesetzen, die nach sehr ausführlicher Konsultation der interessierten Kreise erlassen wurden, muß nicht nur der Erfinder bei der Anmeldung genannt werden, sondern es muß auch ein Anmelder, der nicht selbst der Erfinder ist, zugleich den Nachweis der Abtretung (,,assignment") durch den Erfinder erbringen. Nach Artikel 58 Absatz 2 des Übereinkommensentwurfs dagegen gilt der Anmelder im Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt als berechtigt, das Recht des Erfinders oder seines Rechtsnachfolgers geltend zu machen. Danach braucht also nicht nachgewiesen zu werden, daß der Erfinder sein Recht abgetreten hat.

4 Die zentrale Stellung des Erfinders im Patentwesen steht außer Frage. Werden seine Rechte nicht in geeigneter Weise geschützt, so wird der Anreiz zu Erfindungen und somit der Beitrag zum Fortschritt einer leistungsfähigen Technik, der durch das Patentwesen gefördert werden soll, offensichtlich verringert. Insbesondere Arbeitnehmer- und Erfinderorganisationen, aber auch andere interessierte Kreise, haben eindringlich darauf hingewiesen, daß vor allem hinsichtlich der Erfindungen von Arbeitnehmern die Frage der Nennung des Erfinders und der rechtlichen Beziehungen zwischen ihm und dem Arbeitgeber (Anmelder) zu einem frühen Zeitpunkt geklärt sein müßte. Der Arbeitnehmer (Erfinder) wird nämlich benachteiligt, wenn er sein Recht später nachweisen muß. Es ist besonders wichtig, daß der Erfinder über Patentanmeldungen unterrich-

1 The Swedish Government notes with satisfaction the results achieved by the Inter-Governmental Conference for the setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents. The Draft Convention and the Draft Implementing Regulations as well as the Draft Protocols and Recommendations adopted by the Conference at its 6th and final meeting in Luxembourg in June 1972 signify, in the view of the Swedish Government, an important step forward in the direction of rationalisation of procedures and administration with regard to the grant of patents in Europe. It is the expectation of the Swedish Government that a European system along the lines of the Draft Convention will also contribute to the global co-operation provided for by the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

2 The Swedish Government notes that the Draft Convention is generally in good harmony with the modern Nordic patent legislation as far as substantive patent law is concerned. In some respects, however, the solutions adopted in the Draft would seem to need further consideration. The most important points concern the rôle of the inventor in the patenting procedure and the significance of the patent claims for the scope of protection. The Swedish Government restricts, at this stage, its comments on the substantive patent law to these points.

3 The Nordic patent laws, which were promulgated after very extensive consultations with interested circles, require not only that the inventor shall be named at the time of application but also that an applicant who is not himself the inventor at the same time shall show proof of assignment by the inventor. The Draft Convention, on the other hand, contains in Article 58, paragraph 2, a provision to the effect that for the purposes of proceedings before the European Patent Office the applicant shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right of the inventor or his successor in title. Consequently, proof of assignment by the inventor is not required.

4 There can be no question about the central position of the inventor in the patent system. If his rights are not properly protected, the incentive for producing inventions and thereby contributing to the progress of the useful arts, which the patent system is designed to further, will obviously be reduced. It has been strongly emphasised, especially by employees' and inventors' organisations but also by other interested circles, that, particularly as regards inventions by employees, the identification of the inventor and the legal relations between him and the employer/applicant should be resolved at an early stage. The employee/inventor will be placed at a disadvantage if, on his own initiative, he has to establish his case at a later stage. It is of particular importance that the inventor is aware of patent applications made in regard to his invention. These

Page 47

MUNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ UBER 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)

CONFÉRENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

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

STELLUNGNAHMEN

zu den vorbereitenden Dokumenten herausgegeben von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

COMMENTS

on the preparatory documents published by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

PRISES DE POSITION sur les documents préparatoires publiées par le Gouvernement de la République fédérale d'Allemagne

Page 48

Verbandsübereinkunft bildete bislang ein Hindernis dafür, im nationalen Recht nur einiger weniger Staaten eine hiervon abweichende Regelung vorzusehen. Da nunmehr jedoch nicht weniger als 21 Staaten an der Schaffung der Europäischen Patentorganisation zusammenarbeiten, ist die Situation anders, und es bietet sich die Möglichkeit für eine Revision. Für Erfinder wäre es natürlich von großer Bedeutung, ihre Erfindungen zunächst einmal auf Ausstellungen zur Schau zu stellen, weil sie hierdurch die Möglichkeit erhielten, mit den an Erfindungen interessierten Kreisen in Verbindung zu treten und so aus ihren Erfindungen größeren Nutzen zu ziehen. Wir schlagen deshalb vor, dem Artikel 53 Absatz 1 einen Buchstaben c folgenden Inhalts hinzuzufügen: „Als mit Buchstabe b in Einklang stehend gelten Fälle, in denen die Erfindung auf einer internationalen Ausstellung offenbart worden ist, die von der Regierung des Landes, in dem der Ausstellungsort gelegen ist, zu einer Ausstellung erklärt worden ist, auf die Artikel 53 anzuwenden ist."

5 Finnland möchte ganz besonders die Stellung des Erfinders im europäischen Patentsystem herausstellen. Nach Artikel 58 Absatz 2 des Übereinkommensentwurfs gilt der Anmelder als berechtigt, das in Artikel 58 Absatz 1 vorgesehene Recht des Erfinders oder seines Rechtsnachfolgers geltend zu machen. Er braucht also für sein Recht keinen Nachweis zu erbringen. Dies steht in krassem Gegensatz zu den einschlägigen finnischen (und nordischen) Rechtsvorschriften. Hiernach muß der Anmelder nicht nur den Erfinder in der Anmeldung benennen, sondern auch die rechtmäßige Übertragung des Rechts nachweisen. Finnische Erfinderorganisationen sind nachdrücklich dafür eingetreten, daß die gleiche Regelung auch im europäischen Patentsystem gelten sollte. Wir schlagen deshalb vor, Artikel 58 Absatz 2 wie folgt zu ergänzen: ,sofern der Anmelder, falls ihm der Erfinder die Erfindung übertragen hat, eine vom Erfinder ausgestellte Ab tretungsurkunde vorgelegt hat." Dementsprechend sollte in Artikel 90 vorgesehen werden, daß bei der Formalprüfung der Anmeldung zu prüfen ist, ob eine Abtretungsurkunde vorliegt, und daß die Nichteinreichung einer solchen, möglicherweise fehlenden Urkunde als Rücknahme der Anmeldung gilt.

6 Finnland möchte bei dieser Gelegenheit seine Genugtuung darüber zum Ausdruck bringen, daß die in den Artikeln 63, 65 und 68 enthaltenen Bestimmungen, nach denen ein einzelner Staat den Gebrauch einer Amtssprache vorschreiben kann, in völliger Übereinstimmung mit den Wünschen abgefaßt worden sind, die die finnische Delegation auf der Regierungskonferenz im Juni 1972 geäußert hat. in the national legislation for only a few states. Now, however, not less than 21 states co-operating in the work of realising the European Patent Organisation, the situation is a different one, and it is possible to obtain a revision. Obviously inventors' liberty to demonstrate their inventions in advance at exhibitions would be of great importance as regards their possibilities to establish relations with circles interested in inventions and in that way to obtain increased profits from their inventions. In these circumstances we propose that to Article 53, paragraph 1, is to be added an item (c) containing the following: "co-ordinated with item (b) shall be regarded such a case where the disclosure has taken place at an international exhibition which the government of the country in which the place of the exhibition is situated has declared to be of a kind to which the provisions of Article 53 are applicable."

5 Finland wishes a particular attention to be fixed on the inventor's position within the European patent system. According to Article 58, paragraph 2, of the Draft Convention the applicant is presumed to be entitled to exercise the right of the inventor or his successor according to Article 58, paragraph 1. Hence he is not required to show proof of his right. This is sharply contrary to the principles of the Finnish (and Nordic) legislation in this respect. According to the latter the applicant is obliged to name the inventor in the application as well as show proof of legal transfer of the right. Inventors' organisations in Finland have strongly underlined that the same rules should apply in the European patent system. We suggest, therefore, following addition to Article 58, paragraph 2: "provided that the applicant when the invention is obtained from the inventor has submitted a deed of assignment executed by the inventor". In conformity therewith it should be considered in Article 90 that checking the existence of a deed of assignment shall be part of the formal examination of applications, and that non-performance of filing such a possibly missing deed of assignment will be regarded withdrawal of the application.

6 Finland takes this opportunity to express that it very much appreciates that the stipulations in Articles 63, 65 and 68 regarding the possibility of an individual state to prescribe the use of an official language have been worded in complete harmony with the wishes stated by the Finnish delegation at the Government Conference in June 1972.

Page 49

1 Finnland stellt mit Genugtuung fest, daß der vorliegende Vorschlag für ein europäisches Patenterteilungsverfahren in allen Einzelheiten sehr sorgfältig ausgearbeitet ist. Er stellt ein Vertragswerk von sehr hohem Niveau dar. Ganz allgemein möchte Finnland hervorheben, daß das geplante Patenterteilungsverfahren den Anmelder insofern erheblich besser stellt, als er Patentschutz auf einfachere Art und Weise als bislang zu erhalten vermag, und gleichzeitig die Arbeit der nationalen Patentämter verringert. Auch hoffen wir, daß die europäische Zusammenarbeit im Bereich des Patentwesens in nutzbringender Weise mit dem Verfahren verbunden werden kann, das durch den Vertrag über die internationale Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet des Patentwesens geschaffen worden ist.

2 Darüber hinaus begrüßt Finnland, daß das europäische Patentübereinkommen mit dem finnischen Patentrecht weitgehend in Einklang steht; letzteres stimmt seinerseits mit dem entsprechenden Recht der drei anderen nordischen Länder praktisch völlig überein. Finnland möchte jedoch die Änderung einiger Punkte vorschlagen, bei denen es anderslautende Bestimmungen für wichtig hält. Die Standpunkte und Vorschläge Finnlands sind nachstehend dargelegt.

3 In bezug auf Artikel 23 meinen wir, daß für Gutachten, die das Europäische Patentamt nach diesem Artikel zu erstellen hat, keine Gebühren erhoben werden sollten. In Finnland bestehen keine Ausnahmen von der Regel, daß derartige Gutachten gebührenfrei sind, denn es wird davon ausgegangen, daß die Parteien eines Rechtsstreits nicht verpflichtet werden können, die Kosten eines Gutachtens zu tragen, das von einem Gericht von Amts wegen angefordert wird. Auch sollten die Kosten in einem solchen Fall nicht unmittelbar dem Staat angelastet werden.

4 Nach Artikel 53 Absatz 1 Buchstabe b bleibt die Offenbarung einer Erfindung für die Anwendung des Artikels 52 außer Betracht, wenn sie auf einer amtlichen oder amtlich anerkannten Ausstellung im Sinn des am 22. November 1928 in Paris unterzeichneten und am 10. März 1948 sowie am 16. November 1966 revidierten Übereinkommens über internationale Ausstellungen zur Schau gestellt worden ist. Die gleiche Regelung gilt zur Zeit auch in Finnland. Dennoch ist Finnland der Ansicht, daß es zum Schutz des Rechts der Erfinder erforderlich ist, den Kreis der Ausstellungen erheblich zu erweitern, auf denen eine Erfindung zur Schau gestellt werden kann, ohne daß dies während eines bestimmten Zeitraums für eine Patentanmeldung für die genannte Erfindung neuheitsschädlich ist. Die im vorliegenden Übereinkommensentwurf enthaltene enggefaßte Bestimmung, die bisher für das betreffende Verfahren maßgebend ist, ist von den Erfindern als großer Nachteil angesehen worden. Artikel 11 der Pariser

1 Finland notes with satisfaction that the present text of the proposed European system for the grant of patents is very carefully worked out in every detail. It represents legislative work of a very high level. Quite generally speaking, Finland wishes to point out that the planned system for the grant of patents implies a significant improvement of applicants' possibilities to obtain patent protection in an easier way than up to now, simultaneously reducing the work of national patent offices. We also hope the European patent co-operation profitably may be combined with the patent co-operation system represented by the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

2 Finland further wishes to emphasise that it appreciates the prevailing harmony between the European Patent Convention and the Finnish patent legislation, which, in turn, is practically completely uniform with corresponding legislation of the three other Nordic countries. However, Finland wishes to suggest revision of a few points in which it believes different provisions would be important. The points of view and propositions are the following:

3 As regards Article 23 we hold that such opinions should be free of charge, which the European Patent Office is obliged to give in accordance with same Article. In Finland there are no exceptions to the principle that official opinions of this kind are free of charge in consideration of that parties of a litigation cannot be bound to cover the costs of an opinion requested ex officio by a court of law. Nor should the costs in such a case directly be charged to the state.

4 According to Article 53, paragraph 1(b), disclosure of an invention by displaying it at an official, or officially recognised, international exhibition falling within the terms of the Convention on International Exhibitions signed at Paris on 22 November 1928 and amended on 10 May 1948 and 16 November 1966, shall not be taken into consideration for the application of Article 52. This same rule applies at present in Finland also. Nevertheless Finland holds that the right of the inventor necessitates quite a large widening of the circle of exhibitions which are regarded to be of such a kind that display of an invention is not for a stipulated period of time a novelty bar for a patent application regarding said invention. The narrow stipulation included in the present Draft Convention, up to now ruling the procedure in question has been regarded as a serious disadvantage by the inventors. Article 11 of the Paris Convention has up to the present formed a hindrance for a regularisation at variance therewith

Page 50

MUNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ 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)

CONFÉRENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

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

STELLUNGNAHMEN

zu den vorbereitenden Dokumenten herausgegeben von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

COMMENTS

on the preparatory documents published by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

PRISES DE POSITION sur les documents préparatoires publiées par le Gouvernement de la République fédérale d'Allemagne

Page 51

ren zur chirurgischen oder therapeutischen Behandlung des menschlichen oder tierischen Körpers und Diagnostizierverfahren, die am menschlichen oder tierischen Körper vorgenommen werden. Dies gilt nicht für Stoffe oder Stoffgemische, die zur Anwendung in einem der vorstehend bezeichneten Verfahren bestimmt sind."

Artikel 58

22 Aus Gründen der besseren Ubersichtlichkeit wird vorgeschlagen, Absatz 1 Satz 3 zu einem neuen Absatz auszugestalten.

Artikel 62

23 Um das Verhältnis zwischen Artikel 62 und Artikel 67 klarzustellen, wird vorgeschlagen, Artikel 62 wie folgt zu ändern: ,Vorbehaltlich Artikel 67 gewährt das europäische Pâtent seinem Inhaber . . ."

Artikel 74

24 In Absatz 2 des deutschen Textes sollte in der letzten Zeile das Wort "gegebenenfalls" gestrichen werden.

Artikel 92

25 In Regel 50 Absatz 1 Satz 2 der Ausführungsordnung wird davon ausgegangen, daß die Zusammenfassung veröffentlicht wird. Da Artikel 92 die Einzelheiten der Veröffentlichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung regelt, sollte in Absatz 2 die Zusammenfassung aufgenommen werden.

Artikel 99

26 In Anpassung an Artikel 81 sollte im Buchstaben b das Wort ,,danach" gestrichen werden.

Artikel 104

27 Um mögliche Mißverständnisse zu vermeiden, wird vorgeschlagen, die Worte „Antrag auf Beitritt" zu streichen und statt dessen eine Fassung zu wählen, die zum Ausdruck bringt, daß der Beitritt innerhalb der Dreimonatsfrist erklärt werden muß.

Artikel 105

28 In Absatz 2 sollte im deutschen Text das Wort ,,sofortige" durch ,,gesonderte" ersetzt werden, da practised on the human or animal body shall not be regarded as inventions which are susceptible of industrial application within the meaning of paragraph 1. This provision shall not apply to substances or compositions intended for use in any of the above-mentioned methods."

Article 58

22 For the sake of greater clarity it is proposed that the third sentence of paragraph 1 should form a separate paragraph.

Article 62

23 In order to make the relationship between Article 62 and Article 67 clear, it is proposed that Article 62 should be amended as follows: "Subject to Article 67, a European patent shall confer on its proprietor..."

Article 74

24 In the German text the word "gegebenenfalls" should be deleted in the last line of paragraph 2.

Article 92

25 Rule 50, paragraph 1, 2nd sentence, of the Implementing Regulations assumes that the abstract will be published. Since Article 92 lays down the details for the publication of a European patent application, the abstract should be included in paragraph 2.

Article 99

26 In the German text, sub-paragraph (b), the word "danach" should be deleted so that the text corresponds with Article 81.

Article 104

27 In order to avoid possible misunderstandings it is proposed that the words "notice ... of intervention" be deleted and a wording used which makes it clear that the intervention must be filed within the three-month period.

Article 105

28 In the German text of paragraph 2 the word "sofortige" should be replaced by "gesonderte"

Page 52

MUNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ 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)

CONFÉRENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

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

STELLUNGNAHMEN zu den vorbereitenden Dokumenten herausgegeben von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

COMMENTS

on the preparatory documents published by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

PRISES DE POSITION sur les documents préparatoires publiées par le Gouvernement de la République fédérale d'Allemagne

Page 53

(2) Im Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt gilt der Anmelder als berechtigt, das in Absatz 1 vorgesehene Recht geltend zu machen.

Artikel 59

Anmeldung europäischer Patente durch Nichtberechtigte (1) Wird durch rechtskräftige Entscheidung der Anspruch auf Erteilung eines europäischen Patents einer in Artikel 58 Absatz 1 genannten Person, die nicht der Anmelder ist, zugesprochen, so kann diese Person, sofern das europäische Patent noch nicht erteilt worden ist, innerhalb von drei Monaten nach Eintritt der Rechtskraft der Entscheidung in bezug auf die in der europäischen Patentanmeldung benannten Vertragsstaaten, in denen die Entscheidung ergangen oder anerkannt worden ist oder aufgrund des diesem Übereinkommen angefügten Protokolls über die Anerkennung von Entscheidungen über den Anspruch auf Erteilung eines europäischen Patents anzuerkennen ist, a) die europäische Patentanmeldung an Stelle des Anmelders als eigene Anmeldung weiterveriolgen, b) eine neue europäische Patentanmeldung für dieselbe Erfindung einreichen oder c) beantragen, da ϵ die europäische Patentanmeldung zurückgewiesen wird. (2) Auf eine nach Absatz 1 eingereichte neue europäische Patentanmeldung ist Artikel 74 Absatz 2 entsprechend anzuwenden. (3) Das Verfahren zur Durchführung des Absatzes 1, die besonderen Erfordernisse für eine nach Absatz 1 eingereichte neue europäische Patentanmeldung und die Frist zur Zahlung der Anmeldegebühr, der Recherchengebühr und der Benennungsgebühren für die neue Anmeldung sind in der Ausführungsordnung vorgeschrieben.

Vgl. Regeln 13 (Aussetzung des Verfahrens), 14 (Beschrankung der Zurücknahme der europäischen Patentanmeldung), 15 (Einreichung einer neuen europäischen Patentanmeldung durch den Berechtigten), 16 (Anspruch auf Erteilung eines europäischen Patents für einen Teil des Erfindungsgegenstands), 37 (Fälligkeit) und 42 (Nachholung der Erfindernennung)

Artikel 60

Anspruch auf Erfindernennung Der Erfinder hat gegenüber dem Anmelder oder Inhaber des europäischen Patents das Recht, vor dem Europäischen Patentamt als Erfinder genannt zu werden.

[2 ^0] For the purposes of proceedings before the European Patent Office, the applicant shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right referred to in paragraph 1.

Article 59

European patent applications by persons not entitled to apply (1) If by a final decision it is adjudged that a person referred to in Article 58, paragraph 1, other than the applicant, is entitled to the grant of a European patent, that person may, within a period of three months following the final decision, provided that the European patent has not yet been granted, in respect of those Contracting States designated in the European patent application in which the decision has been taken or recognised, or has to be recognised on the basis of the Protocol on the Recognition of Decisions in respect of the Right to the Grant of a European Patent, annexed to this Convention, (a) prosecute the application as his own application in place of the applicant, (b) file a new European patent application in respect of the same invention, or (c) request that the application be refused. (2) The provisions of Article 74, paragraph 2, shall apply mutatis mutandis to a new application filed under paragraph 1. (3) The procedure to be followed in carrying out the provisions of paragraph 1 , the special conditions applying to a new application filed under paragraph 1 and the time limit for paying the filing, search and designation fees on it are laid down in the Implementing Regulations.

[^1]Article 60 Right of the inventor to be mentioned The inventor shall have the right, vis-à-vis the applicant for or proprietor of a European patent, to be mentioned as such before the European Patent Office.

[^1]: Vgl. Regeln 17 (Einreichung der Erfindernennung), 18 (Bekanntmachung der Erfindernennung) und 19 (Berichtigung oder Widerruf der Erfindernennung)

[^2]: Cf. Rules 17 (Designation of the inventor), 18 (Publication of the mention of the inventor) and 19 (Rectification or cancellation of the designation of an inventor)

Page 54

Gehören zu dem Stand der Technik auch Unterlagen im Sinn des Artikels 52 Absatz 3, so werden diese bei der Beurteilung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit nicht in Betracht gezogen.

Artikel 55

Gewerbliche Anwendbarkeit Eine Erfindung gilt als gewerblich anwendbar, wenn ihr Gegenstand auf irgendeinem gewerblichen Gebiet einschließlich der Landwirtschaft hergestellt oder benutzt werden kann.

Kapitel II

Zur Einreichung und Erlangung des europäischen Patents berechtigte Personen - Erfindernennung

Artikel 56

Recht zur Anmeldung europäischer Patente Jede natürliche oder juristische Person und jede einer juristischen Person nach dem für sie maßgebenden Recht gleichgestellte Gesellschaft kann die Erteilung eines europäischen Patents beantragen.

Artikel 57

Mehrere Anmelder Die europäische Patentanmeldung kann auch von gemeinsamen Anmeldern oder von mehreren Anmeldern, die verschiedene Vertragsstaaten benennen, eingereicht werden.

[^0]art, also includes documents within the meaning of Article 52, paragraph 3, these documents are not to be considered in deciding whether there has been an inventive step.

Article 55

Industrial application An invention shall be considered as susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture.

Chapter II

Persons entitled to apply for and obtain European patents - Mention of the inventor

Article 56

Entitlement to file a European patent application A European patent application may be filed by any natural or legal person, or any body equivalent to a legal person by virtue of the law governing it.

Article 57

Multiple applicants A European patent application may also be filed either by joint applicants or by two or more applicants designating different Contracting States.

[^1] [^0]: Vgl. Regeln 26 (Erteilungsantrag) und 101 (Bestellung eines gemeinsamen Vertreters)

[^1]: Cf. Rules 26 (Request for grant) and 101 (Appointment of a common representative)

[^1]: 26

   (1) Das Recht auf das europäische Patent steht dem Erfinder oder seinem Rechtsnachfolger zu. Ist der Erfinder ein Arbeitnehmer, so bestimmt sich das Recht auf das europäische Patent nach dem Recht des Staats, in dem der Arbeitnehmer überwiegend beschäftigt ist; ist nicht festzustellen, in welchem Staat der Arbeitnehmer überwiegend beschäftigt ist, so ist das Recht des Staats anzuwenden, in dem der Arbeitgeber den Betrieb unterhält, dem der Arbeitnehmer angehört. Haben mehrere eine Erfindung unabhängig voneinander gemacht, so steht das Recht auf das europäische Patent demjenigen zu, dessen europäische Patentanmeldung den früheren Anmeldetag hat; dies gilt jedoch nur, wenn diese frühere Anmeldung nach Artikel 92 veröffentlicht worden ist und nur mit Wirkung für die in der veröffentlichten früheren Anmeldung benannten Vertragsstaaten.

[^1]: Article 58

   Right to a European patent
   (1) The right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title. If the inventor is an employee the right to the European patent shall be determined in accordance with the law of the State in which the employee is mainly employed; if the State in which the employee is mainly employed cannot be determined, the law to be applied shall be that of the State in which the employer has his place of business to which the employee is attached. If two or more persons have made an invention independently of each other, the right to the European patent shall belong to the person whose European patent application has the earliest date of filing; however, this provision shall apply only if this first application was published under Article 92 and shall only have effect in respect of the Contracting States designated in that application as published.

Page 55

MUNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ 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 PREPARATOIRES

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 56

The United Kingdom delegation proposed that this sentence be deleted because it ran counter to the "whole day" principle and because it was rendered redundant by Article 11.

Other delegations favoured retention of the sentence in question. The national judge needed this provision when called upon to make the decision referred to in Article 16 concerning the person entitled to the European patent. On the other hand, the principle inherent in Article 11, paragraph 3, would not apply to the case of entitlement to the European patent.

The Swiss delegation drew the Working Party's attention to the difficulties which would arise if the sentence in question were retained as such. Since there was no mention of designation of the States contrary to Article 11, paragraph 4, it could happen that an application for a European patent, filed for a State not designated in an earlier European application and in respect of which, pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 4, the contents of the earlier application were not considered as comprised in the state of the art, might be refused on the grounds of the last sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 15. This was why this delegation had come down in favour of deleting this sentence.

Finally, the Working Party decided to retain the present text and to add the following to the end of paragraph 1 of Article 15: "However, this provision shall only have effect in respect of the Contracting States designated in this first application and provided that this application is published".

Page 57

Nordic legislation, no concrete example has been given where application of the whole contents approach would have led to unacceptable results.

In conclusion, the Working Party did not adopt the French delegation's proposal and decided to retain the approach of Article 11 in its present form. 16. The Working Party had been instructed to consider the drafting proposals made by the interested circles (ICC and COPRICE; cf. BR/169/72, point 21). While one delegation was in favour of abolishing the fiction that the content of hitherto unpublished European patent applications was considered as forming part of the state of the art, other delegations pointed out that the adoption of the proposals in question would only lead to the substitution of one fiction for another, and would also require a very considerable number of textual amendments to the Preliminary Draft Convention. In conclusion, the Working Party did not adopt these proposals.

Article 15 (Right to the grant of a European patent) 17. The Working Party examined the question of whether the last sentence of paragraph 1 should be retained or deleted; this stipulates that if several persons have made an invention independently of each other the right to the European patent shall belong to the first person to file the application (cf. BR/168/72, point 43).

Page 58

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

Brussels, 13 April 1972 BR/177/72

- Secretariat -

R E P O R T

on the 11th meeting of Working Party I held in Luxembourg from 28 February to 3 March 1972 1. Working Party I held its 11th meeting in Luxembourg from 28 February to 3 March 1972 with Dr Haertel, President of the Deutsches Patentamt in the Chair.

Representatives of the Commission of the European Communities, the IIB and WIPO attended the meeting as observers. The Representatives of the Council of Europe sent apologies for absence. Those present at the 11th meeting are listed in Annex I to this report. 2. Working Party I acopted the provisional agenda as contained in BR/GT I/143/72; it was agreed that Articles 153 and 154 would be dealt with by the Co-ordinating Committee at its next meeting scheduled for 15 to 19 May 1972. The provisional agenda is contained in Annex II to this report. 3. The Drafting Committee of Working Party I was chaired by Mr van Benthem, President of the Octrooiraad.

The results of the Drafting Committee's work were circulated under reference BR/176/72.

Page 59

to apply only to the parts of the disclosure made in the previous application which tallied with the disclosure made in the application on which priority was based.

Article 13 (Inventive step) 24. Three organisations (CNIPA, FICPI and UNEPA) proposed that Article 13 should be supplemented by a provision corresponding to the second sentence of Rule 65.1 of the PCT Regulations.

The ICC requested the deletion of the last sentence of Article 13, as a corollary to its drafting proposal for Article 11 (cf. BR/162/72, page 4). The same request was made by COFRICE.

Article 15 (Right to the grant of a European patent) 25. EIRMA had doubts about the scope of the last sentence in paragraph 1. In its view, if this provision were retained, it would be necessary to lay down that the application filed first should have been published. It would indeed be possible for such an application to be withdrawn before publication and still opposed to a new application at a later date. However, having regard to Article 11, paragraph 3, EIRMA wondered about the usefulness of this sentence.

Article 16 (Patent applications by persons not entitled to apply) 26. Certain organisations (ICC, EIRMA and UNICE) expressed their agreement to the text of Article 16 as contained in the 1971 Preliminary Draft. As regards the text proposed by Working Party I, contained in BR/139/71, these

BR/169 e/72 ett/AV/prk

Page 60

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

Brussels, 15 March 1972 BR/169/72

- 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

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)

Page 61

45. The German delegation reserved the right to return to this Article at a later date.

Article 16 (Patent applications by persons not entitled to apply) 46. The Conference agreed that it was impossible to lay down, as was the case in the text of article 16 as published in 1971, that a final decision in a Contracting State recognising that a person other than the applicant was entitled to the grant of a European patent should be automatically recognised in all the Contracting States designated in the application. Existing bilateral and multilateral agreements betreen States participating in the Conference concerning the recognition of decisions did not allow such a general formula to be adopted. For that reason the Conference accepted the limitation contained in the text of paragraph 1 as proposed by Working Party I. Under the terms of that text, the effect of the final decision is limited to the designated Contracting States in which a decision has been taken or recognised or is to be recognised pursuant to a special Protocol.

The Conference also took note of the setting up of a Sub-Committee under Working Party I for the purpose of preparing a draft of that Protocol, which will be submitted to the Working Party at its next meeting. 47. With regard to the three possibilities open, under. the new paragraph 1, to a person recognised as entitled to the grant of a European patent, the Conference noted that the organisations, while not coming out against this

Page 62

Article 13 (Inventive step) 42. The Conference decided to reject the proposal made by certain organisations (cf. BR/169/72, point 24 ) to include an interpretation of what should be considered as obvious to a person skilled in the art, taken from Rule 65.1 of the Regulations under the PCT. Such interpretation is unnecessary in a system under which jurisprudence will be developed by a single authority, the European Patent Office.

Article 15 (Right to the grant of a European patent) 43. One delegation proposed that the last sentence of paragraph 1 should be deleted. This provision does not, in fact, seem to be properly placed in Article 15, which governs a dispute among several persons claiming the right to the grant of a European patent. The earlier date of filing of the application is, on the contrary, a criterion of the validity of the latter, and it is self-evident in the present system that a subsequent application cannot result in the grant of a patent if its content has already been the subject of another application, even if the latter has not yet been published (Article 11).

Before taking a decision on this proposal, the Conference thought it preferable to instruct Working Party I to re-examine the problem. 44. The Swedish delegation expressed a reservation with regard to paragraph 2, pointing out that, in its opinion, the person making the patent application can be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right to the grant of a European patent only if he is expressly authorised by the inventor.

Page 63

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)

Page 64

Article 15 Right to the grant of a European patent (1) The right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title. If the inventor is an employee the right to the European patent shall be determined in accordance with the law of the State in which the employee is mainly employed; if the State in which the employee is mainly employed cannot be determined, the law to be applied shall be that of the State in which the employer has his place of business to which the employee is attached. If several persons have made an invention independently of each other, the right to the European patent shall belong to the first person to file a patent application with the European Patent Office. (2) + (3) A European patent application may be filed either by joint applicants or by two or more applicants entitled in respect of one or several of the designated States. In any case, however, the unity of the application in proceedings before the European Patent Office shall not be affected. The applicants entitled in respect of the different States shall be regarded as joint applicants for the purpose of these proceedings.

Page 65

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

Brussels, 6 December 1971 BR/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

CHAPTER II

Right to the patent

Article 15 (Right to the grant of a European patent) 19. The Conference retained the text of this Article. It nevertheless asked Working Party I to re-examine the last sentence of paragraph 1, particularly from the points of view of its connection with Article 11 and the wording.

The Swedish delegation maintained its reservation regarding paragraph 2. It considered that the requirement that the inventor be named, as laid down in Article 17, was not sufficient. It should be laid down in Article 15 that the patent application must include a document proving that the applicant is authorised by the inventor to apply for a European patent.

Article 16 (Patent applications by persons not entitled to apply) 20. The Conference decided that this Article would be re-examined by Working Party I with the government legal experts. The same applied to the corresponding provisions of the Implementing Regulations. The main point studied would be the advisability of extending the provisions of Article 16 to cover opposition proceedings.

Page 67

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

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 7 July 1971 B R / 125 / 71

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)

CHAPTER II

Right to the patent Article 15 Right to the grant of a European patent (1) The right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title. If the inventor is an employed person and if the national law governing a relationship between the employee and the employer grants the right to the patent to the employer, the right to the European patent shall belong to the latter or his successor in title. If several persons have made an invention independently of each other, the right to the European patent shall belong to the first person to file a patent application with the European Patent Office. (2) For the purposes of proceedings before the European Patent Office, the person making the patent application shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right referred to in paragraph 1.

Page 69

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

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 15th February 1971 B R / 88 / 71

ESTABLISHING

A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Stage reached on 29 January 1971 -

Page 70

the employee is mainly employed, but if this place cannot be determined, the law is to be that governing the seat of the business of the employer. 54. The deletion of the third sentence in Article 15, paragraph 1, was proposed by the United Kingdom delegation. It advanced that as the whole system of the First Convention was based on the principle of "first to file", which was moreover evidenced by Article 11, this third sentence was quite superfluous. On the cher hand, some delegations considered that it was desirable to maintain the third sentence for optical reasons. The Working Party decided to maintain the provision. The Working Party may reflect on this proposal. 55. In accordance with a proposal of the French delegation (BR/GT I/115/71) the group decided to provide under a third paragraph for the case that two or more persons having sole rights in respect of one or several of the States designated could together file one European patent application. It was established however that procedure before the EPO should retain its unitary character and that therefore the interested parties should be regarded as joint applicants.

In view of the fact that this same rule now applies to the situations covered by both Article 15 and Article 22, the Working Party decided to insert a provision to this effect in Article 15, paragraph 3, and to refer Article 22 to this provision.

Page 71

misappropriated the whole of the invention, but only part of it.

The Working Party held that in accordance with the general system adopted, this special problem should be dealt with along the following lines.

The application should be split up, the assignant being entitled to a part of the original application, and the original applicant being restricted to the subject matter left. However, in case the national judgment in question should not be recognised in all countries designated in the original application, this split of the application would apply only to those countries, in which the judgment would be directly applicable or recognised. With regard to the other designated countries the original applicant would remain entitled to the whole application.

53. Article 15

Both the United Kingdom and the German delegations had proposed amendments to this provision in order to render it more precise with regard to the law applicable to employer-employee relations (BR/GT I/112/71 and BR/GT I/114/71 respectively). Discussion showed that distinction between the two proposals was very slight and the United Kingdom delegation having withdrawn its proposal in favour of the German amendment, the latter was adopted, with an addition proposed by the Netherlands delegation. Under the provision thus amended the law to be applied in the case of a dispute between employer and employee with regard to the right to a patent application is the law of the place where

Page 72

Convention - which thus would be rather limited in scope a special Protocol would be drawn up, according to which a national judgment with regard to property of patent applications which would correspond with eone rules -of-reference laid down in the Protocol, would be recognised for the purpose of proceedings before the EPO, with effect to all States parties to the Protonol, designated in the application concerned.

Though of course it would be of great advantage if all Member States of the EPO would also agree to this Protocol, they would not be under any obligation to do so. Thus it would perhaps prove possible to obtain more or less the same results as would follow from the tird solution, but in a more flexible way. Moreover this solution would avoid including a necessarily very elaborate set of rules of reference in the Convention itself which perhaps might complicate its ratification and on the other hand the Protocol could possibly be.revised independently from the Convention. Finally it was mentioned that this Protocol might also determine the conditions under which judgments passed in certain states non-parties to tho Protocol or even to the Convention, should be recognised. 45. The Yorling Party decided to entrust a sub-group of legal experts, where each delegation of Working Party I should be represented, with the drafting of such a protocol. The German delegation undertook to submit Proposals to this sub-group.

Page 73

42. In theory, this solution would appear to be straightforward and to preclude any interference in the Contracting States' legislation.

However, certain practical difficulties were pointed out: (1) it might prove difficult to follow a unitary grant procedure with two applicants who have just been opposed in a dispute; (11) similar difficulties might arise if the second applicant were recognised as having a right limited to a part of the subject matter of the previous application. 43. As for the possibility of applying this solution to judgments rendered by courts in countries which are not parties to the Convention, it was observed that it would suffice for the interested party obtain recognition in a designated Contracting State, before being able to invoke this recognition in that State and the other designated States which recognise its judgments. Such a procedure could be less complicated than it might seem, for, at least as far as all the EEC Member States are concerned, bounl as they are by a Convention providing for mutual recognition of civil judgments, it would probably suffice to secure recognition of the judgment in any one of them. 44. Finally, the Working Party opted in favour of the fourth solution as being the most realistic of the possibilities envisaged. However it was decided at the same time that in addition to the provisions of Article 16 of the

Page 74

(iv) if the dispute concerns a transfer, contractual or otherwise, of the right to obtain a patent, the courts of the State whose legislation is applicable to the transfer; (v) in all other cases, the courts of the State where the European Patent Office is located. 40. Finally it was observed that this solution could equally well be applied to non-contracting countries if the envisaged rules provided for the application of the legislation of a non-contracting country or recognised the

competence of a court in such a country.

(d) Fourth solution 41. A fourth solution provides that if a person can invoke a final decision which recognises his right to a European patent, he can submit a new application in respect of the same invention, and be entitled to the same date of filing or the same priority as in the case of the previous application, for the State designated in the previous application in which the judgment has effect, as well as for the other States designated in which the judgment is recognised.

The application filed previously would be deemed to be withdrawn as from the date of filing the new application, in respect of all the States designated in which the judgment has effect or is recognised. For the other States, the previous application could be maintained by the initial applicant and the grant proceedings continued.

Page 75

38. It was observed, in the first instance; that this solution would not entail untoward interference in national rights. At the stage of patent grant proceedings before the Office, such a judgment given by a court in a Contracting State would have only a limited effect vis-à-vis all the States designated in the application. Thus there would be no question of providing for a contractual system for the automatic recognition of such judgments between the Contracting States to the Convention.

Nevertheless, it appeared that, for this solution to he adopted, it would be necessary to go as far as possible towards laying down rules in the Convention to determine who actually is entitled to the invention; and at all events towards laying down very specific rules in the Convention to determine the law applicable and the competent court, thus making inroads into the field of private international law and the recognition of foreign judgments. 39. As to the criteria which might be envisaged to determine the country whose courts would be competent in each case, one delegation suggested the following: (i) if the parties in dispute reside in the same State, the courts of that State; (ii) if the dispute concerns an employment contract, the courts of the State whose legislation is applicable to the contract under the terms of Article 15; (11i) if the dispute concerns misappropriation the courts of the State where the misappropriation is alleged to have taken place;

Page 76

to determine which national laws would be applicable in each case. The European Patent Office would then have the task of applying twenty or so different national laws according to each individual case; this would be practically impossible if it is desired to retain the nature and structure hitherto envisaged for the European Patent Office.

Apart from this practical objection some delegations made the objection of principle to the idea that disputes traditionally falling within the sphere of property law should be cealt with by authorities other than national civil-courts.

For these reasons the Working Party considered that the second solution should not be adopted. (c) Third solution 37. The third solution would be to the effect that if a person can invoke, before the European Patent Office, a national final decision, acknowledging his entitlement to a European patent, such person would be called upon to replace the initial applicant in the grant proceedings before the European Patent Office, with effect for all the councries designated in the application.

This solution would leave open the possibility, for all. interested parties, of claiming the right to a European patent, after it has been granted, before the competent national courts in the States designated, other than the State where the final judgmentthas been rendered or other States where this judgment is recognised.

Page 77

Only the applicant would be considered entitled to the grant of a patent in proceedings for grant before the European Patent Office. Anyone wishing to claim ownership of the invention could take the appropriate steps before the national courts, but the establishment of his right could not have effect until after the grant of the patent. 34. The Working Party considered that it could hardly advocate this solution, particularly in view of the following two objections: (i) anyone whose right to the patent was established by a national judge would have to wait until the end of the proceedings fur grant in order to exercise this right, (ii) he would have to institute as many actions before the national courts as there were States designated in the granted patent. (b) Second solution 35. A second solution might be to invest the European Patent Office with the central authority to decide who is entitled to the patent. 36. Since it seems impossible to standardise the laws on ownership of inventions for all the European States which may become Contracting Parties to the Convention, rules would have to-be laid down in Article 15 of the Convention

RULES TO BE LAID DOWN IN THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHT TO THE GRANT OF A EUROPEAN PATENT

30. The Working Party adopted the following method of approach: It started with Article 16 and discussed the principles involved in the four different possibilities that presented themselves and decided which solution should be definitely adopted. It then decided on the provisions necessary for implementation of this solution. Only after Article 16 had been settled did the Working Party proceed to the examination of Article 15.

31. By way of introduction the Chairman warned against exagerating of the practical implications of the problem considered. In this regard he cited the example of the German Patent Office, where on a total of 300,000 applications and 125,000 patents pending in 1970 only one was assigned by virtue of a legal judgement.

32. As to the solution of the problem four basic possibilities have been envisaged by the Working Party:

(a) First solution

33. The first solution would be the deletion of Article 15, paragraph 1, the definition of the right to the grant of a European patent being left entirely to national laws.

Page 79

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

Brussels, 16 December 1971 B R / 144 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the 10th meeting of Working Party I, held in Luxembourg from 22 to 26 November 1971

1. Working Party I held its 10th meeting in Luxembourg from 22 to 26 November 1971, with Dr. HAERTZL, President of the Deutsches Pateutant, in the Chair.

Representatives from the Commission of the European Communities, the IIB and WIPO attended the meeting as observers. The Council of Europe representatives sent their apologies for being unable to attend. For the list of those present at the 10th meeting see Annex I to these minutes. 2. Working Party I adopted the provisional agenda as contained in BR/GT I/133/71 on the understanding that item 3 would also cover the examination of a number of problems including those referred to in BR/GT I/138/71. The provisional agenda is given in Annex II to these minutes. 3. The Working Party I Drafting Committee met first under the chairmanship of Mr. van BENTHEM, President of the Octrooiraad, and, following his departure, under that of Mr. LABRY, Embassy Counsellor at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (France).

KAPITEL II

Recht auf das Patent Artikel 15 Recht auf Erlangung des europäischen Patents (1) Das Recht auf das europäische Patent steht dem Erfinder oder seinem Rechtsnachfolger zu. Ist der Erfinder ein Arbeitnehmer und gewährt das auf das Beschäftigungsverhältnis anwendbare nationale Recht das Recht auf das Patent dem Arbeitgeber, so steht das Recht auf das europäische Patent dem Arbeitgeber oder seinem Rechtsnachfolger zu. Haben mehrere eine Erfindung unabhängig voneinander gemacht, so steht das Recht auf das europäische Patent demjenigen zu, der zuerst eine Patentanmeldung beim Europäischen Patentamt eingereicht hat. (2) Im Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt gilt der Patentanmelder als berechtigt, das in Absatz 1 vorgesehene Recht geltend zu machen.

Artikel 16

Patentanmeldung durch Nichtberechtigte

Ist durch eine rechtskräftige Entscheidung festgestellt worden, daß das Recht auf das europäische Patent einer in Artikel 15 Absatz 1 bezeichneten Person zusteht, die nicht der Anmelder ist, so kann diese Person, sofern das europäische Patent noch nicht erteilt worden ist, innerhalb einer Frist von drei Monaten nach Eintritt der Rechtskraft der Entscheidung eine neue Patentanmeldung für dieselbe Erfindung einreichen. Die neue Patentanmeldung gilt als an dem Tag der früheren Anmeldung eingereicht und genießt gegebenenfalls deren Prioritätsrecht, soweit der Gegenstand der neuen Anmeldung nicht über das hinausgeht, was in der früheren Anmeldung beschrieben worden ist. Die frühere europäische Patentanmeldung gilt als zurückgenommen, wenn die neue Anmeldung eingereicht worden ist.

Artikel 17

Anspruch auf Erfindernennung Der Erfinder hat gegenüber dem Anmelder oder Inhaber des europäischen Patents das Recht, vor dem Europäischen Patentamt als Erfinder genannt zu werden.

Artikel 18

Rechte aus dem europäischen Patent Das europäische Patent gewährt seinem Inhaber von dem Tag der Bekanntmachung seiner Erteilung an in jedem Vertragsstaat, für den es erteilt ist, dieselben Rechte, die ihm ein in diesem Staat erteiltes nationales Patent gewähren würde. Eine Verletzung des europäischen Patents wird nach dem nationalen Recht dieses Vertragsstaats beurteilt.

Article 15

Right to the grant of a European patent (1) The right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title. If the inventor is an employed person and if the national law governing a relationship between the employee and the employer grants the right to the patent to the employer, the right to the European patent shall belong to the latter or his successor in title. If several persons have made an invention independently of each other, the right to the European patent shall belong to the first person to file a patent application with the European Patent Office. (2) For the purposes of proceedings before the European Patent Office, the person making the patent application shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right referred to in paragraph 1.

Article 16

Patent applications by persons not entitled to apply

If a final decision has been given which recognises that a person referred to in Article 15, paragraph 1, other than the applicant, is entitled to the European patent, that person may, provided that the European patent has not yet been granted, file a new application in respect of the same invention within a period of three months following the final decision. In so far as the sub-ject-matter of the new application does not go beyond the description given in the original application, the new patent application shall be deemed to have been filed on the date of the earlier application and shall enjoy the right of priority where applicable. The original application for a European patent shall be deemed to be withdrawn once the new application has been filed.

Article 17

Right of the inventor to be mentioned as such The inventor shall have the right, vis-à-vis the applicant for or proprietor of a European patent, to be mentioned as such before the European Patent Office.

Article 18

Rights conferred by a European patent A European patent shall confer on its proprietor from the date of publication of its grant, in each Contracting State in respect of which it is granted, the same rights as would be conferred by a national patent granted in that State. Any infringement of a European patent shall be dealt with under the laws of that State.

Page 81

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

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 82

(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 in 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 published 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 84

(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 85

(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 86

of the opinion that it would suffice to insert in Article 74 a reference to Article 21, paragraph 1. (CNIPA, EIRMA, FICPI, UNICE) (b) 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 87

(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

BR/94 e/71 aut/KM/prk

Page 88

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 89

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 90

CHAPTER II Right to the patent Article 15 Right to the grant of a European patent (1) The right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title. If the inventor is an employed person and if the national law governing a relationship between the employee and the employer grants the right to the patent to the employer, the right to the European patent shall belong to the latter or his successor in title. If several persons have made an invention independently of each other, the right to the European patent shall belong to the first person to file a patent application with the European Patent Office. (2) For the purposes of proceedings before the European Patent Office, the person making the patent application shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right referred to in paragraph 1.

Page 91

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

Brussels, 21 December 1970 BR / 70 / 70

- 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 92

Re. Article 15 - Suspension of the proceedings for grant 13. The Swiss delegation regretted the absence of implementing measures in respect of joint inventions, whose numbers continue to increase. The Sub-Committee decided to examine this problem within the framework of Article 22, which deals with joint applicants.

Re. Article 16, No. 1 - Suspension of proceedings for grant 14. While studying the provision in question, the Sub-Committee discussed the contents of Article 16 of the First Preliminary Draft, dealing with patent applications by persons not entitled to apply. In the opinion of the Sub-Committee, this Article appeared incomplete. It only deals with the case of a final decision by a national authority recognising that a person other than the applicant is entitled to a European patent application, but does not govern the case of such a decision stating that the application must be transferred to that other person. The Sub-Committee was further of the opinion that, under the terms of Article 16, the person in whose favour the decision had been given should file a new application, otherwise the European patent might still be granted to the initial applicant, who was no longer entitled thereto. This latter effect appeared somewhat dangerous. Finally, the Sub-Committee wondered whether Article 16 should not allow the person entitled to the patent application to be able to choose between either taking over the original application or filing a new application, provided that the decision by the national judge allowed him to do so.

Page 93

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

Brussels, 14 July 1970 BR / 43 / 70

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the meeting of Working Party I sub-Committee on "Implementing Regulations" (Luxembourg, 24-26 June 1970)

I

1. The first working meeting of the sub-Committee instructed by Working Party I to draw up draft Implementing Regulations to the Convention (cf. BR/GT I/41/70, page 26, point 50) was held at Luxembourg on 24 to 26 June 1970. In accordance with the decision taken by the sub-Committee at its inaugural meeting held at Luxembourg on 2 April 1970, the Chair was taken by Mr. FRESSONNET, Deputy Director, French Industrial Property Institute (cf. BR/GT I/40/70). In addition to the national delegations represented in Working Party I, the meeting was attended by the IIB (The Hague) (1). (1) Annex I gives the provisional agenda for the meeting and Annex II contains the list of those taking part in the meeting.

Gewerbliche Anwendbarkeit

Eine Erfindung gilt als gewerblich anwendbar, wenn ihr Gegenstand auf irgendeinem gewerblichen Gebiet einschließlich der Landwirtschaft hergestellt oder benutzt werden kann.

Recht auf Erlangung des europäischen Patents

(1) Das Recht auf das europäische Patent steht dem Erfinder oder seinem Rechtsnachfolger zu. Ist der Erfinder ein Arbeitnehmer und gewährt das auf das Beschäftigungsverhältnis anwendbare nationale Recht auf das Patent dem Arbeitgeber, so steht das Recht auf das Recht auf das Patent dem Arbeitgeber, so steht das Recht auf das europäische Patent dem Arbeitgeber oder seinem Rechtsnachfolger zu. Haben mehrere eine Erfindung unabhängig voneinander gemacht, so steht das Recht auf das europäische Patent demjenigen zu, der zuerst eine Patentanmeldung beim Europäischen Patentamt eingereicht hat. (2) Im Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt gilt der Patentanmelder als berechtigt. das in Absatz 1 vorgesehene Recht geitend zu machen.

Artikel 16

Patentanmeldung durch Nichtberechtigte Ist durch eine rechtskräftige Entscheidung festgestellt worden, daß das Recht auf das europäische Patent einer in Artikel 15 Absatz 1 bezeichneten Person zusteht, die nicht der Anmelder ist, so kann diese Person, sofern das europäische Patent noch nicht erteilt worden ist, innerhalb einer Frist von drei Monaten nach Eintritt der Rechtskraft der Entscheidung eine neue Patentanmeldung für dieselbe Erfindung einreichen. Die neue Patentanmeldung gilt als zu dem Zeitpunkt der früheren Anmeldung eingereicht und genießt gegebenenfalls deren Prioritätsrecht, soweit der Gegenstand der neuen Anmeldung nicht über das hinausgeht, was in der früheren Anmeldung beschrieben worden ist. Die frühere europäische Patentanmeldung gilt als zurückgenommen, wenn die neue Anmeldung eingereicht worden ist.

Article 14

Industrial application An invention shall be considered as susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture.

Article 15

Right to the grant of a European patent (1) The right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title. If the inventor is an employed person and if the national law governing a relationship between the employee and the employer grants the right to the patent to the employer, the right to the European patent shall belong to the latter or his successor in title. If several persons have made an invention independently of each other, the right to the European patent shall belong to the first person to file a patent application with the European Patent Office. (2) For the purposes of proceedings before the European Patent Office. the person making the patent application shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right referred to in paragraph 1.

Article 16

Patent applications by persons not entitled to apply If a final decision has been given which recognises that a person referred to in Article 15, paragraph 1, other than the applicant, is entitled to the European patent, that person may, provided that the European patent has not yet bein granted, file a new application in respect of the same invention within a period of three months following the final decision. In so far as the subject matter of the new application does not go beyond the description given in the original application, the new patent application shall be deemed to have been filed on the date of the earlier application and shall enjoy the right of priority where applicable. The original application for a European patent shall be deemed to be withdrawn once the new application has been filed.

Article 17

Right of the inventor to be mentioned as such The inventor shall have the right, vis-à-vis the applicant for a European patent, to be mentioned as such before the European Patent Office.

Page 95

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 SYSTĖME 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 SYSTĖME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

Page 96

the person entitled to the grant of a European patent. The second sentence nevertheless lays down special provisions governing the case where the inventor is an employee and where the national law governing the relationship between employer and employee grants the right to the patent to the employer. The Working Party chose the term "a relationship" between employer and employee, to cover not only contractual relations but also other situations, such as those of civil servants, military personnel, and collective agreements.

Article 16 - Patent applications by persons not entitled to apply 89. Paragraph 3 has been amended to take the new drafting of Article 15 into account.

The Working Party believed that retention of paragraph 4 could create the impression that, after the grant of the patent, the person entitled to the grant of the European patent could be determined a posteriori by a national law, whereas the new drafting of Article 15 itself determines the rules which are to apply. The Working Party therefore decided to delete this paragraph.

Article 24a - Unitary character of the European patent application 90. As a result of the discussions on Articles 25 to 30 held at the July meeting (cf. BR/7/59, pages 21 et seq., point 50), the Working Party believed it would be appropriate to offer the applicant the possibility of assigning his application to others in respect of some only of the States designated in that application, subject

Page 97

Article 5 - Persons entitled to apply for a European patent 87. At the meeting of Working Party I held on 8 to 11 July 1969, the French delegation reserved the right to put forward new suggestions for the wording of this article (BR/7/69, point 15, page 7).

The Working Party agreed to a new Article 5 proposed by the French delegation which, in its paragraph 1 (a), aims at a clearer definition of what is understood by reciprocity. To this end, it is provided that a country's legislation must not make the grant of a patent subject to conditions which can only be met in the territory of a given State.

Article 15 - Right to the grant of a European patent 88. At the meeting held from 8 to 11 July 1969, the Netherlands delegation had expressed a reservation with regard to the fact that the Convention itself does not prescribe to whom the right to a patent belongs. In addition, it stated that reference to a national law was not a satisfactory solution, since there could be doubts as to which national law should apply (cf. BR/7/69, page 14, point 30).

Further proposals were therefore put forward by the Netherlands delegation.

The text produced by the Working Party lays down, in the first sentence of paragraph 1, a basic rule as regards

Page 98

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

Brussels, 18 December 1969 BR / 12 / 69

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

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

RIGHT TO THE PATENT

Article 15 Right to the grant of a European patent

1965 Draft	Working Party text	EFTA Draft
(1) Subject to any provisions to the contrary in the national law relating to inventions by persons employed by a business enterprise, an institution or a public authority, the right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his assignee. If several persons have made an invention independently of each other, the right to the European patent shall belong to the first person to file a patent application with the European Patent Office.	(1) The right to ∠ a European patent ∠ the grant of a European patent ∠ shall be determined by the national law governing the invention which is the subject of the European patent application. Note : It will be examined later whether the relevant national law should be defined in a clearer way.	(1)+
(2) * For the purposes of proceedings before the European Patent Office, the person making the patent application shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right referred to in paragraph 1.	(2) For the purposes of proceedings before the European Patent Office, the person making the patent application shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right referred to in paragraph 1.	(2)+

Page 100

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

Brussels, 25 July 1969 BR/6/69

- Secretariat -

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

Articles 1 to 41

prepared by Working Party I (8 to 11 July 1969)

compared synoptically with

- the 1965 version 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

BR/6 e/69 mk

Page 101

The Working Party agreed to try to find such a rule of conflict which would be included in Article 15, paragraph 1.

Nevertheless, the discussions on the determination of the rule to be laid down have not yet led to a definite result. In the Working Party's opinion, the provision to be laid down should not constitute an innovation as compared with the rules now existing in the various States as regards international private law. It would be more appropriate to work out, starting for example from an existing rule, a standard which could be included in the Convention. The Netherlands delegation suggested that it might carry out some research and formulate further suggestions on this subject. 31. The Working Party could not reach a definite decision on the correct enunciation of the right to the grant of a patent; this is why there is an alternative version in the first paragraph. 32. No particular comments were made on paragraph 2 of this article.

Article 16 - Patent applications by persons not entitled to apply 33. Taking into account the position which the Working Party adopted on Article 15, consisting in referring to the national law for the basic provisions, it agreed to delete the first and second paragraphs of the 1965 Draft.

Article 15 - Right to the grant of a patent

30. The Working Party wondered if it was possible to formulate a basic rule, to be written into the Convention which would determine - independently of the provisions of the national legislations relating to the right to the national patent - the person entitled to the grant of a European patent. Such was, in principle, the objective of the 1965 Draft (with a reservation for relations between the employee and his employer).

The Working Party ruled out this solution. It considered, in effect, that it was not necessary to create a new rule, but that it would be better to refer, as far as possible, to the national law in order to determine which persons are entitled to the grant of a European patent. Such persons would be considered to be so entitled because they would be entitled to apply for a national patent pursuant to the legislation of a particular country. It was objected that in the absence of a European rule, the reference to national law is ambiguous since rules relating to the conflict of laws may be applicable, which differ from one country to another. To determine which persons are entitled to the grant of a European patent, it is at least desirable that the same rule of conflict should be made applicable.

Brussels, 29 July 1969

FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM BR/7/69 FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

of the meeting of Working Party I (Luxembourg, 8 - 11 July 1969)

I

1. The first working meeting of Working Party I, set up by the Conference, was held at Luxembourg from Tuesday 8 to Friday 11 July 1969.

In accordance with the decision taken by the iorking Party at its inaugural meeting held at Brussels on 21 liay 1969, the Chair was taken by Dr. HAERTEL, President of the German Patent Office.

In addition to the Commission of the European Communities, the following inter-governmental organisations, which had been invited to take part in the work of the Working Party, were represented: BIRPI, the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe and the International Patent Institute (1). (1) See annexed list of participants in the meeting of the Working Party.

CHAPITR' II

DROIT LU BREVET

Article 15

Droit d'obtenir un brevet européen (1) Sauf dispositions contraires du droit national applicable aux inventions des personnes employées dans une entreprise, un établissement ou un service public, le droit au brevet européen apyartient à l'inventeur ou à son ayantcauée. Si plusieurs persounes ont réalisé l'invention iudépendanment l'une de l'autre, le droit au brevet européen apyartient à celle qui, la première, a déposé une demande de brevet auprès de l'Office européen des brevets. (2) ^+Dans la procédure devant l'Office européen des brevets, le titulaire de la demande de brevet est présumé autorisé à exercer le droit prévu au paragraphe 1.

Confidentiel

Modifiactions 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 & 103)

RECHT AUF DAS PATENT

Artikel 15 Recht auf Erlangung des europaeischen Patents (1) Sofern das nationale Recht ueber Erfindungen von Personen, die in einem Unternehmen, einer Einrichtung oder einer Behoerde beschaeftigt sind, nichts anderes bestimmt, steht das Recht auf das europaeische Patent dem Erfinder oder seinem Rechtsnachfolger zu. Haben mehrere eine Erfindung unabhaengig voneinander gemacht, so steht das Recht auf das europaeische Patent demjenigen zu, der zuerst eine Patentanmeldung beim Europaeischen Patentamt eingereicht hat. (2) ^+Im Verfahren vor dem Europaeischen Patentamt gilt der Patentanmelder als berechtigt, das in Absatz 1 vorgesehene Recht geltend zu machen.

Page 107

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente"

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

Vertraulich

Inderunzen 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 108

i. Froschacier domno lecture d'une proposition de l'URION qui désiro amender ce paragraphe pour couper court aur difficultés que l'on rencontre dans la procéáure d'interférence selon le droit américain oi l'inventeur peut faire remonter ses droits à la date de la conception de l'invention.

Le Président fai tomarguer que la rédaction actuelle du par. 2 tient déjè compte de ce désir. Il est donc inutile de l'amonder. Ce paragraphe est transuis au Comité de rédaction.

Article 16

i. Froschacier domno lecture des avis des associations internationales ot notament colui de l'wice qui propece de remplacer les *deux premiers paragrapies de cet article par les textes ci-dessous :

1. "Si le dê̂̂t de la émanio de brevet a été efí octué par le demandeur sans qu'il ait le droit do le faire, la personne lésée do ce fait pourrq obtenir que la demande ou le brevet lui soit transféré". 2. "Le droit visé au paragraphe 1 peut être exercé pendant toute la durée du brevet et entrâ̂nera l'interdiction de l'exploitation du brevet usurpé; sauf si l'action de ravendication de propriété est intentée après un délai d'uno année à comptor de la date de publication du brevet provisoire à l'égard de l'usurpateur de bonne foi et ses licenciés. Si l'exploitation n'est pas interdite, elle pourra être exercée par cet usurpateur do bonne foi et ses licenciés moyennant paiement d'une redevance adéquate à fixer par le juge, au cas où les parties intéressées ne s'arrangeraient pas à l'amiable".

L'UNION estime que la compétence en matière d'usurpation devrait relover des tribunaux nationaux du pays du premier dépôt et jugée confurément aux dispositions du droit oumur de ce pays.

Le Royaume-Uni a formulé trois remarques.

1. Il n'est pas clairement dit où l'action doit être intentée. Il peut être dit dans l'article 3 que ce n'est pas devant l'Office européen. Si l'action oppese des ressortissants d'un même pays, on propose le tribunal national, dans les autres cas, la Cour européenne. 9081 / I V / 63-7

Page 109

- 77 -

2061/IV/63-F

la personne physique qui a fait l'invention. En outre, il constate que les législations nationales ne rejoignent pas toujours principe; dans certains cas, par exemple, l'État qui est désigné comme l'inventeur. Il est donc nécessaire de prévoir une réserve en faveur des législations nationales.

Toutefois, cette réserve doit être la plus stricte possible. Elle devrait se limiter aux inventions des salariés.

L'Ersosonnet voudrait que le nom d'inventeur dans le sens du droit européen ne vise pas seulement toute personne physique mais également toute personne morale. De plus, la réserve ne devrait pas viser uniquement les législations nationales mais plutôt le droit national. En effet, en France, en matière d'inventions d'entreprise, c'est l'entreprise elle-même qui est considérée comme inventeur et cela à la suite d'une intervention jurisprudentielle.

L'Roscioni préférerait voir figurer à l'article 15 une réserve générale en faveur des législations nationales. L'Ifanner lui répond qu'une telle réserve devrait être écartée car elle permettrait aux législations nationales de dire que le brevet européen n'appartient jamais à l'inventeur.

En conclusion, le groupe décide d'ajouter au par. 1, une phrase restrictive comme suit : "Pour autant que le droit national en ce qui concerne les inventions de salariés et les inventions d'entreprises ne prévoit pas de disposition contraire". Le Comité de rédaction se chargera de rédiger cette phrase et veillera tout spécialement à ce que de la désignation d'inventions de salariés entre également les inventions faites par des fonctionnaires, des militaires, des prêtres, etc...

En outre, le Comité de rédaction est chargé de rédiger une phrase qui prendra place dans le par. 1 également et qui dira que "si une invention est faite par plusieurs inventeurs indépendamment les uns des autres, le droit appartient au premier déposant."

Enfin, le groupe décide d'examiner plus tard la question de savoir si la notion d'ayant cause couvrit ou non les héritiers.

2061/IV/63-F

Coupte rendu

de la séance du 25 septembre 1953

Le Président curre la séance à 9.30 h. et demande au groupe de poursuivre la discussion sur le point de savoir s'il est nécessaire de prévoir : l'article 15, par. 1, une réserve on f.veur des législations nationales pour les inventions des salariés. Il estime que la convention doit prévoir une disposition à ce sujet. Il y a deux façons de résoudre la question.

1. Ce paragraphe pourrait prévoir que le droit au brevet européen appartient à l'inventeur dans la mesure où il est également considéré comme tel par la législation nationale. 2. Ce paragraphe pourrait prévoir que le droit européen appartient à l'inventeur dans la mesure où la législation nationale n'exprime rien de contraire au sujet des inventions des salariés.

Le Président se prononce en faveur de cette deuxième possibilité. à la suite d'une question posée par i. van Benthem, le Président précise que dans l'article 15 le not "inventeur" doit être pris dans un sens européen et non pas national. Dans ce cas, il est nécessaire de prévoir une clause de réserve on faveur des législations nationales.

La clause de réserve on faveur des législations nationales devrait viser, pour être complète, non seulement les inventions de salariés mais également les inventions d'entreprises. En effet, dans ces deux cas, les législations nationales sont différentes.

Après un nouvel échange de vues, le Président tient à souligner qu'il est nécessaire de maintenir à l'article 15, par. 1, le principe de base, à savoir que le droit au brevet européen appartient à l'inventeur ou à son ayant cause. De plus, le terme "inventeur" au sens européen signifie 9061 / I V / 63-F

Page 111

appartient a l'inventcur promicr déposant (devant l'Office uropéen). Le groupe marque son accord au sujot do cutt: proposition qui est transmise au Comite do rédaction.

Le Président ajoute qu'il existe ancora un autre problèmo, selui do plusicurs inventours qui font un. d'me invention mais ensamblo. A son avis, c. problèmo doit Ctre résolu par los législations. nationalis ou par le droit international privé. Le groupe marque son accord à ce sujot.

A la suite d'un. intarvention de i. van uxter au sujet des inventions des salaries, le groupe a un lon: échange do vus. in conclusion de la discussion, le Président constate quo le groupe cst unanime sur le fait que la convention (article 15) no doit pas modifie les legislations nationales sur les inventions des salaries. Le problème est do savoir si co but peut être atteint avec le texto actuol de l'articlo 15, par. 1.

Le texto actuol laissura-t-il les legislations nationales i inchangés ou bien faut-il provoir une clause do réservo en favour do ces legislations nationales.

Le Président déclare qu'il hésite à prévoir une talle clause parce qu'elle constituerait un précédent dangereux. In off t, dans tous les articles où c. tte clause ne figurcrait pas on pourrait raisonnar a contrario et tirer des conclusions que le groupe ne désire

La question sera examinés à nouveau au cours de la prochaine séance.

Le Président lève la séance à 18.30 h .

Page 112

9081/IV/63-F

- 74 -

internationales. Le groupe discute surtout la question de la notion d'évidence. Il marque sa préférence pour le mot allemand "maholiegend". Les versions française, italienne et néerlandaise de la convention s'offriront de traduire ce terme le plus exactement possible. L'article est transmis au Comité de rédaction qui tiendra compte du texte du projet de Strasbourg.

Article 14

Après la lecture de l'avis des associations internationales, le groupe discute de la marque d'ordre rédactionnel de l'U.N.I., au sujet de l'expression "dans tout genre d'industrie y compris l'agriculture".

1. Frissonnet souligne le sens très large de l'expression "industriel".

2. Pfanner ajoute que ce terme implique même l'armée et les professions libérales. En conclusion, le Président estime que le texte doit rester inchangé afin de ne pas s'éloigner du projet de Strasbourg. L'article est transmis au Comité de rédaction.

Article 15

Après la lecture des avis des associations internationales, M. Proschmaier signale que le Royaume-Uni propose de modifier le début du premier paragraphe en ce sens : le droit d'obtenir un brevet européen...

3. Pfanner fait remarquer que le critique présentée par l'U.N.I. ne tient pas compte que le premier paragraphe règle le droit matériel et le second la procédure. La proposition de l'UNICE ne se rapporte qu'à la seule procédure.

4. Frissonnet se demande si la proposition de l'U.N.I. ne se rapporte pas au problème de la multiplicité des inventeurs.

Après la lecture détaillée de l'avis de l'U.N.I., il ne semble pas que cette association ait vu ce problème.

5. Pfanner propose alors d'ajouter au pur. 1 une deuxième phrase prévoyant que si plusieurs inventeurs font le même invention indépendamment les uns des autres le droit au brevet européen.

./.

9081/IV/63-F

Page 113

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le ler décembre 1963 confidentiel

Résultats de la dixième session du groupe de travall " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 16 au 27 septembre 1963.

COIPTES REIJUS

Page 114

Herr Froschmaier verliest einen Vorschlas der UNION, die diesen Absatz verbessern möchte, um die Schwierigkeiten auszuschalten, denen man sich im arierikanischer Interferenzverfahren gegenüber sieht, wo der Erfinder seine Rechte vom Zeitpunkt der Konzeption der Erfindung ab herleiten kann.

Der Vorsitzende weist darauf hin, daß die vorliegende Fassung von Absatz 2 diesem Wunsch bereits Rechnung trage. Eine Änderung sei deshalb nicht von Nutzen. Dieser Absatz wird an den Redaktionsausschuß weitergeleitet.

Artikel 16

Herr Froschmaier verliest die Stellungnahmen der internationalen Vereinigungen, insbesondere die Stellungnahme der UNICE. Diese schlägt vor, die beiden ersten Absätze dieses Artikels durch folgende Vorschriften zu ersetzen:

1. "Ist die Patentanzeldung vom iumèlder bewirt worden, ohne hierzu berechtigt zu sein, so kann der dadurch Verletzte verlangen, daß die Anmeldung oder das Patent auf ihn übertragen wird." 2. "Das Recht nach Absatz 1 kann während der ganzen Geltungsdauer des Patents geltenä gemacht werden und umfaßt das Verbot der. Benutzung des widerrechtlich entnommenen Patents, außer wenn erst nach Ablauf eines Jahres vom Tag der Veröffentlichung des vorläufigen Patents an Herausgabeklage gegen den gutgläubigen widerrechtlichen Entnehmer oder dessen Lizenznehmer erhoben worden ist. Ist die Benutzung nicht verboten worden, so kann sie von der gutgläubigen widerrechtlichen Entnehmer oder dessen Lizenznehmer gegen Zahlung einer angemessenen vom Richter festzusetzenden Gebühr fortgesetzt werden, falls keine gütliche Zinigung der Beteiligten erfolgt."

Die UNIOI ist der Ansicht, daß bei der widerrechtlichen Entnahme die nationalen Gerichte des Landes der ersten Anmeldung zustärdig sein sollen und daß sie nach den allgemeinen Rechtsvorschriften dieses Landes zu beurteilen ist.

Großbritannien hat in drei Punkten Stellung genommen:

1. Es sei nicht klar gesagt, wo geklagt werden müsse. In Absatz 3 könne gesagt werden, daß dies nicht vor dem Europäischen Patentamt geschieht. Wenn sich die Klage gegen Staatsangehörige des gleichen Landes richte, werde die Klage vor dem nationalen Gericht vorgeschlagen; in allen anderen Fällen die Klage vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof.

Page 115

einer natürlichen Person gemacht worden sei. Darüber hinaus stellt or fest, daß die nationalen Gesetzgobungen nicht immer mit diesem Grundsatz übereinstimmen; in bestimmten Fällen werde z.B. der Staat als Erfinder bezeichnet. Deshalb müsse eine Vorbehaltsklausel zugunsten der nationalen Gesetzgebung vorgesehen werden.

Dieser Vorbehalt müsse jedoch so eng wie möglich sein. Er solle sich auf die. Arbeitnehmererfindungen beschränken.

Herr Fressonnet möchte, daß der Begriff des Erfinders im Sinne des europäischen Rechts sich nicht nur auf jede natürliche, sondern auch auf jede juristische Person bezieht. AuBerdem dürfe sich der Vorbehalt nicht lediglich auf die nationale Gesetzgebung, sondern auch auf die nationale Rechtsprechung erstrecken. In Frankreich werde nämlich bei der Betriebserfindung das Unternehmen selbst als Erfinder angesehen und dies als Folge der Entwicklung der Rechtsprechung.

Herr Roscioni würde in Artikel 15 einem allgemeinen Vorbehalt zugunsten der nationalen Gesetzgebung den Vorzug geben. Herr Pfanner erwidert ihm, daß ein solcher Vorbehalt nicht in Betracht kommen könne; denn dann könnte die nationale Gesetzgebung sagen, daß das europäische Patent niemals dem Erfinder zustehe. So beschließt die Gruppe, in Absatz 1 folgende Einschränkung einzufügen: "Soweit nicht das nationale Recht über die Arbeitnehmer- und Betriebserfindungen eine gegenteilige Regelung vorsieht." Der Redaktionsausschuß wird mit der Ausarbeitung dieses Satzes beauftragt und soll besonders darauf achten, daß die Bezeichnung der Arbeitnehmererfindungen auch die Erfindungen der Beamten, Soldaten, Geistlichen usw. umfaßt.

Außerdem soll der Redaktionsausschuß einen weiteren Satz ausarbeiten, der ebenfalls in Absatz 1 aufgenommen werden und besagen soll, daß "wenn eine Erfindung unabhängig voneinander von mehreren Erfindern gemacht worden ist, das Recht dem ersten Anmelder zusteht."

Dann beschließt die Arbeitsgruppe, später die Frage zu erörtern, ob der Begriff des Rechtsnachfolgers auch die Erben umfaßt.

Page 116

Sitzung vom 16. bis 27. September 1963 Bericht über die Sitzung vom 25. September 1963

Der Vorsitzende eröffaet die Sitzung um 9.30 Uhr und bittet die Gruppe um Fortsetzung der Diskussion über die Frage, ob in Artikel 15 Absatz 1 ein Vorbehalt zugunsten der nationalen Gesetzgebung über die Arbeitnehmererfindungen vorgesehen werden müsse. Er ist der Ansicht, daß das Abkommen hierzu eine Regelung treffen müsse. Die Frage lasse sich auf zweifache Art lösen:

1. Dieser Absatz könne bestimmen, daß das Recht auf das europäische Patent

- dem Erfinder insoweit zusteht, wie er von der nationalen Gesetzgebung als solcher angesehen wird.

2. Dieser Absatz könne bestimmen, caß das Recht auf das europäische Patent dem Erfinder in dem Maße zusteht, wie die nationale Gesetzgebung über die Arbeitnehmererfindungen nichts Gegenteiliges besagt.

Der Vorsitzende spricht sich für die zweite Möglichkeit aus. Auf eine Frage von Horrn van Benthem stellt der Vorsitzende klar, daß in Artikel 15 das Wort "Erfinder" im europäischen und nicht im nationalen Sinne aufzufassen sei. In diesem Fall sei es notwendig, eine Vorbehaltsklausel zugunsten ier nationalen Gesetzgebung vorzusehen.

Die Vorbehaltsklausel zugunsten der nationalen Gesetzgebung müsse, um vollständig zu sein, nicht nur die Arbeitnehmererfindungen, sondern auch die Betriebserfindungen umfassen. In diesen beiden Fällen seien die nationalen Rechtsorínungen nämlich unterschiedlich.

Nach erreuter Aussprache betont der Vorsitzende, daß das Grundprinzip in Artikel 15 Absatz 1; daß das Recht auf das europäische Patent dem Erfinder oder seinen Rechtsnachfolger zustehe, beibehalten werden müsse. Außerdem bedeute der Begriff "Erfinder" im europäischen Sinne, daß die Erfindung von

Page 117

Erfindung machen, das Recht auf das europäische Patent dem zuerst anmeldenden Erfinder zusteht (beim Europäischen Patentamt). Die Gruppe erklärt sich mit diesem Vorschlag, der an den Redaktionsausschuß überwiesen wird, einverstanden.

Der Vorsitzende weist noch auf ein anderes Problem hin; wenn mehrere Erfinder die gleiche Erfindung, aber gemeinsam machen. Seiner Ansicht nach müsse diese Frage von den nationalen Rechten oder vom internationalen Privatrecht gelöst werden. Dem stimmt die Gruppe zu.

Auf einen Einwand von Herrn van Exter zur Frage der Arbeitnehmererfindungen hat die Gruppe eine lange Aussprache. Der Vorsitzende faßt die Diskussion zusammen und stellt fest, daß die Gruppe darin übereinstimmt, daß das Abkommen (Artikel 15) die nationalen Rechte über die Arbeitnehmererfindung nicht ändern dürfe. Die Frage ist, ob dieses Ziel bereits durch den derzeitigen Wortlaut von Artikel 15 Absatz 1 erreicht wird.

Läßt der derzeitige Text die nationalen Rechte unverändert oder muß zugunsten der nationalen Rechte eine Vorbehaltsklausel vorgesehen werden?

Der Vorsitzende erklärt, er habe Bedenken, eine solche Klausel vorzusehen, denn sie schaffe einen gefährlichen Präzedenzfall. Andernfalls könnte nämlich bei allen Artikeln, wo diese Klausel nicht erscheine, das argumentum e contrario gezogen werden, was zu Schlußfolgerungen führen könne, die die Gruppe nicht beabsichtige.

Die Frage soll noch einmal im Laufe der nächsten Sitzung erörtert werden.

Der Vorsitzende schließt die Sitzung um 18.30 Uhr.

Page 118

Die Gruppe erörtert vor allem die Frage des Begriffs "évidence". Sie zieht das deutsche Wort "naheliegend" vor. Bei der französischen, italienischen und holländischen Fassung des Abkommens soll eine möglichst genaue Übersetzung dieses Fortes angestrebt werden. Der Artikel wird an den Redaktionsausschuß überwiesen, der den Straßburger Entwurf berücksichtigen soll.

Artikel 14

Nach Verlesung der Stellungnahmen der internationalen Vereinigungen bespricht die Gruppe die redaktionelle Bemerkung der UNICE zu den Ausdruck "auf irgendeinem gewerblichen Gebiet einschließlich der Landwirtschaft".

Herr Fressonnet unterstreicht die sehr umfassende Bedeutung des Ausdrucks "gewerbliches Gebiet".

Herr Pfanner fügt hinzu, daß dieser Begriff sogar das Militär und die freien Berufe umfasse. Zusammenfassend äußert der Vorsitzende die Ansicht, daß der Text unverändert beibehalten werden müsse, damit man sich nicht zu sehr vom Straßburger Entwurf entfernt.

Der Artikel wird an den Redaktionsausschuß weitergeleitet.

Artikel 15

Herr Froschmaier verliest die Stellungnahmen der internätibnalen Vereinigungen und berichtet dann vom Vorachlag Großbritanniens, den Anfang des ersten Absatzes in folgendem Sinne zu ändern: das Recht, cin europäisches Patent zu erlangen...

Herr Pfanner erklärt, daß die von Seiten der UNICE vorgebrachte Kritik nicht berücksichtige, daß der erste Absatz das materielle, der zweite Absatz dagegen das formelle Recht regele. Der Vorschlag der UNICE beziehe sich nur auf das Verfahren.

Herr Fressonnet fragt sich, ob der Vorschlag der UNICE sich nicht auch auf das Problem der Mehrheit von Erfindern beziehe.

Nach Verlesung der Stellungnahmen der UNICE im einzelnen scheint es, daß diese Vereinigung dieses Problem nicht im Auge gehabt hat.

Herr Pfanner schlägt daher vor, in Absatz 1 einen zweiten Satz einzufügen, wonach, wenn mehrere Erfinder unabhängig voneinander ein und dieselbe

Page 119

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" Brüssel, den 1. Dezember 1963

Erge bni s s e

der zehnten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 16. bis 27. September 1963 in Brüssel

Sitzungsbericht

Page 120

des expositions officielles ou officiellement reconnues, au sens de la convention relative aux expositions internationales, signée à Paris, le 22 novembre 1928 et révisée le 10 mai 1948.

Remarque

Cet article reprend intégralement une des dispositions figurant dans le projet de convention sur l'unification de certains éléments du droit matériel des brevets d'invention élaboré dans le cadre du Conseil de l'Europe.

Article 13 Activité inventive

Une invention est considérée comme résultant d'une activité inventive si elle ne découle pas d'une manière évidente de l'état de la technique.

Article 14 Application industrielle

Une invention est considérée comme susceptible d'application industrielle si son objet peut être fabriqué ou utilisé dans tout genre d'industrie y compris l'agriculture.

CHAPITRE II
DROIT AU BREVET
Article 15
Droit d'obtenir un brevet européen

(1) Le droit au brevet européen appartient à l'inventeur ou à son ayant cause. (2) Dans la procédure devant l'Office européen des brevets, le titulaire de la demande du brevet est présumé autorisé à exercer le droit prévu au paragraphe 1.

Article 16 Usurpation (1) Si les éléments essentiels d'une demande de brevet ou d'un brevet européen ont été empruntés sans droit à l'invention d'un tiers, la personne lésée du fait de l'usurpation peut obtenir que la demande ou le brevet lui soit transféré. (2) Après un délai de cinq ans à compter de la date de délivrance du brevet européen provisoire, le droit visé au paragraphe 1 ne peut être exercé que si le breveté n'était pas de bonne foi lorsqu'il a obtenu le brevet.

Page 121

anerkannten Ausstellungen im Sinne des am 22. November 1928 in Paris unterzeichneten und am 10. Mai 1948 revidierten Ubereinkommens Uber internationale Ausstellungen zur Schau gestellt hat.

Bemerkung

Dieser Artikel Gbernimmt wörtlioh eine der Vorschriften, die in dem im Rahmen des Europarats ausgearbeiteten Entwurf eines Abkommens über die Vereinheitlichung gewisser Begriffe des materiellen Patentrechts enthalten sind.

Artikel 13 Erfinderische Tätigkeit Eine Erfindung gilt als auf einer erfinderischen Tätigkeit beruhend, wenn sie sich nicht in naheliegender Weise aus dem Stand der Technik ergibt.

Artikel 14 Gewerbliche Verwertbarkeit

Eine Erfindung gilt als gewerblich verwertbar, wenn ihr Gegenstand auf irgendeinem gewerblichen Gebiet einschliesslich der Landwirtschaft hergestellt oder verwendet werden kann.

KAPITEL II
RECHT AUF DAS PATENT

Artikel 15 Recht auf Erlangung des europäischen Patents (1) Das Recht auf das europäische Patent steht dem Erfinder oder seinem Rechtsnachfolger zu. (2) Im Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt gilt der Patentanmelder als berechtigt, das in Absatz 1 vorgesehene Recht geltend zu machen.

Artikel 16 Widerrechtliche Entnahme (1) Ist der wesentliche Inhalt einer europäischen Patentanmeldung oder eines europåischen Patents der Erfindung eines Dritten widerrechtlich entnommen worden, so kann der durch die widerrechtliche Entnahme Verletzte verlangen, dass die Anmeldung oder das Patent auf ihn übertragen wird. (2) Nach Ablauf einer Frist von fünf Jahren nach der Erteilung des vorläufigen eurepäischen Patents kann das Recht nach Absatz 1 nur geltend gemacht werden, wenn der Patentinhaber beim Erwerb des Patents nicht in gutem Glauben war.

Page 122

COIMTE DE COORDINATION EN MATIERE DE PROPRIETE INDUSTRIELLE INSTITUE PAR LES ETATS MEMBRES ET LA COMMISSION DE LA COMMUNAUTE ECONOMIQUE EUROPEENNE

KOORDIN.ERUNGSAUSSCHUSSAUF DEM GEBIET GEWERBLICHEN RECHTSSCHUTZES EIN. ETZT N. DEN MITGLIEDSTAATEN UND KOMMISGION DER EUROPÄISCHEN WIRT. SCHAFTSGEMEINSCHAFT

COMITATC DI COORDINAMENTO IN MATERIA DI PROPRIETA INDUSTRIALE ISTITUITO DAGLI STATI MEMBRI E DALLA COMMISSIONE DELLA COMUNITÀ ECONOMICA EUROPEA

COORDINATIE.COMITE OP MET GEBIED VAN DE INDUSTRIELE EIGENDOM INGESTELD DOOR DE LID-STATEN EN DE COMMISSIE VAN DE EUROPESE ECONOMISCHE GEMEENSCHAP

Textes allemand et français Deutscher und französischer Text

AVANT.PROJET DE CONVENTION

relatif à un droit européen des brevets élaboré par le groupe de travail "brevets"

VORENTWURF EINES ABKOMMENS über ein europäisches Patentrecht ausgearbeitet von der Arbeitsgruppe „Patente"

SCHEMA DI CONVENZIONE sul diritto europeo dei brevetti predisposto dal Gruppo di lavoro "brevetti"

VOORONTWERP VERDRAG

betreffende een Europees octrooirecht opgesteld door de werkgroep "octrooien"

Page 123

- 10 -

Mr. De Muyser was worried that the mention of "agricultural" would give Article 14 a restrictive connotation.

The Chairman thought that the aim of both the Strasbourg Draft and the Brussels text was to have the criterion of industrial application extended as widely as possible. Nonetheless he would hesitate to suggest adopting the Brussels text in Strasbourg. It might reveal differences between the views of the various countries taking part in the Strasbourg negotiations that were concealed by the rather vague wording of the Strasbourg Draft. The position was different regarding the Brussels Draft which, while conforming with the Strasbourg text, had to be more explicit.

After some discussion, the Working Party decided to retain the current wording since, in practice, the various applications could be covered either by "industrial" or by "agricultural" in the wide sense of the terms.

At the instigation of Mr. Singer, the Drafting Committee was instructed to re-examine the German text of Article 14.

Article 15 (17 + 18)

Article 15 was adopted.

Article 16(19)

Mr. van Benthem pointed out that in paragraph 1, the word "reassign" had been replaced by "transfer" as reassignment was only possible if there had been a previous assignment.

The Chairman observed that the problem was one that concerned Mr. Roscioni who was still absent and he asked a member of the Drafting Committee to explain the matter to Mr. Roscioni. If that meeting produced no results, discussions could be reopened within the Working Party.

6551/IV/62-E

Page 124

PATENTS WORKING PARTY

E1 254/52

Section 7

6551/IV/62-E

Orig.: French

Brussels, 31 July 1962

CONFIDENTIAL

Proceedings of the 6th meeting of the Patents Working Party held at Munich from 13 to 23 June 1962

6551/IV/62-E

Orig.: French

Page 125

Chapitre II Droit au brevet

Article 15(17^-+18) Droit d'obtenir un brevet curopéen (1) Le droit au brevet européen appartient à l'inventeur ou à son ayant cause. (2) Dans la procédure devant l'Office curopéen des brevets, le titulaire de la demande du brevet est présumé autorisé pour exercer le droit prévu au paragraphe 1.

STRIC TEMENT CONFIDENTIEL

AVANT-PROJET DE CONVENTION RELATIF A UN DROIT EUROPEEN DES BREVETS =V E Mai 1962

Kapitel II

Recht auf das Patent

   Artikel  15(17+18)

Recht auf Erlangung des europäischen Patents (1) Das Recht auf das europäische Patent steht dem Erfinder oder seinem Rechtsnachfolger zu. (2) Im Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt gilt der Patentanmelder als berechtigt, das in Absatz 1 vorgesehene Recht geltend zu machen.

Page 128

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

STRENG VERTRAULICH

   v ∘ r  e  t w u ṙ f

eines Abkommens uber ein europäisches Patentrecht

Page 129

- 9 -

Articlo 18 Droit à la délivrance du brevet

Dans la procédure devant l'Office européen des brevets, le titulairo de la demande du brovet est réputé qualifié pour exercer le droit prévu à l'article 17.

GRGUPE DE TRAVAIL

"Brevets"

Deuxième Partie : COMPTES-RENDUS

Premier avant-projet de convention relatif à un droit européen des brevets

Articles 11 à 29 - Droit des brevets - Articles 101 à 111 - Licences obligatoires -

Page 131

Artikel 18 Anspruch auf Erteilung des Patents

Im Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt gilt der Patentanmelder als berechtigt, das in Artikel 17 vorgesehene Recht gelterá zu machen.

"Patente"

Brüssel, den 3. Mai 1961

VURTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der ersten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 17. bis 28. April 1961 in Brüssel

Lux Nied E.G.F

Eure E.

IV/2767/・ IV

Page 133

Le groupe marque son accord sur cette proposition non sans que MX. van Benthem et Pfanner regrettent la disparition de l'expression "homme de métier".

Le Président leur répond que la jurisprudence de l'Office tiendra certainement compte de cette notion.

Les remarques sous l'article 16 sont supprimées. Elles apparaîtront dans l'exposé des motifs.

Articlc 17

Le groupe accepte le paragraphe 1 et supprime le paragraphe 2 qui implique une immixtion dans les législations nationales. La remarque est supprimée.

Articlo 18

M. Fressonnet indique quo l'article 15 dos propositions françaises pourrait inspirer quelques modifications rédactionnelles. Le groupe est d'accord.

Article 19

Au sujet du paragraphe 1, M. Roscioni attire l'attention du Comité de rédaction sur le fait qu'il s'agit d'un cas de restitutio ad integrum qui opère avec effet rétroactif (ex tunc).

Le Président remarque qu'au point de vue du droit matériel cette question relèvera des tribunaux nationaux. Toutefois, il importe de préciser quelles devront être les réactions de l'Office à l'égard des décisions des tribunaux nationaux. C'est l'objet des paragraphes suivants.

Au paragraphe 1, le Comitê de rédaction examinera donc le problème posé par les mots entre crochets ainsi qu'au paragraphe 5.

Au paragraphe 3 les crochets sont biffés. On ajoutera qu'il s'agit du brevet provisoire.

Page 134

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 22 mai 1962. Confidentiel

Résultats de la cinquième session du groupe de travail " Brevets" qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 2 au 18 avril 1962

Page 135

Die Arbeitsgruppe ist mit diesem Vorschlag einverstanden. Die Herren van Benthem und Pfanner bedauern jedoch das Wegfallen des Ausdrucks "Fachmann".

Der Vorsitzende erwidert, die Rechtsprechung des Patentamts werde sicher den Begriff berücksichtigen.

Die Anmerkungen zu Art. 16 werden gestrichen. Sie sollen bei der Darlegung der Gründe erwähnt werden.

Artikel 17 Absatz 1 wird genehmigt und Absatz 2 gestrichen, da er einen Eingriff die nationale Gesetzgebung darstellt. Die Anmerkung wird ebenfalls gestrichen.

Artikel 18 Herr Fressonnet meint, Art. 15 des französischen Entwurfs könne die Grundlage für einige zzfaktionelle Änderungen bilden. Die Arbeitsgruppe ist damit einverstanden.

Artikel 19 Herr Roscioni lenkt die Aufmerksamkeit des Redaktionsausschusses auf Abs. 1, der einen Fall der restitutio ad integrum mit ex tunc-Wirkung daraile.

Der Vorsitzende meint, nach materiellem Recht seien die nationalen Gerichte für diese Frage zuständig. Es sei jedoch wichtig, festzulegen, wie sich das Patentamt gegenüber den Entscheidungen der nationalen Gerichte zu verhalten habe. Dies sei Gegenstand der folgenden Absätze.

Der Redaktionsausschuß soll daher die eingeklammerten Worte in Abs. 1 und 5 überprüfen.

Die Klammern in Abs. 3 fallen weg. Es soll hinzugefügt werden, daß es sich um das vorläufige Patent handelt.

Page 136

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Ergebnisse der fünften Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 2. bis 18. April 1962 in Brüssel

Page 137

Article 17 Droit d'obtenir un brevet européen

Le droit d'obtenir un brevet européen appartient à l'inventeur ou à son ayant cause.

[Si une invention a été réalisée en commun par plusieurs personnes, ce droit leur appartient également en commun. 7

Remarque : En promière analyse le Comité de rédaction a estimé qu'il n'était pas opportun de prévoir dans cet article une disposition correspondant à la remarque faite p. 19 chiff. 2 a), deuxième alinéa du Doc. IV/2071/61-F, notamment en raison des dispositions de l'article 14, troisième alinéa du projet de convention.

GRONPE DE TRAVAIL

"Brevets"

Deuxième Partie : COEPTES-RENDUS

Premier avant-projet de convention relatif à un droit européen des brevets

Articles 11 à 29 - Droit des brevets - Articles 101 à 111 - Licences obligatoires -

Page 139

Artikel 17 Recht auf das europäische Patent

Das Recht, ein europäisches Patent zu erlangen, steht dem Erfinder oder seinem Rechtsnachfolger zu. [Raben mehrere gemeinsam eine Erfindung gemacht, so steht ihnen dieses Recht gemeinschaftlich zu. 7

Bemerkung : Bei einer ersten Prüfung war der Redaktionsausschuss der Auffassung, dass es nicht zweckmässig ist, in diesen Artikel eine Vorschrift aufzunehmen, die der Bemerkung auf S. 19 Ziff. 2 a), zweiter Absatz des Dok. IV/2071/61-F entspricht, insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Vorschriften des Artikels 14, dritter Absatz des Entwurfs der Konvention.

Page 140

Brüseal, den 3. Mai 1961

VURTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der ersten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 17. bis 28. April 1961 in Brüssel

Page 141

Article 18

Droit à la délivrance du brevet

Dans la procédure devant l'office européen des brevets, le déposant est réputé qualifié pour demander la délivrance du brevet.

Page 142

Kurt Haertel IV/2071/61-F Orig.: D

Bonn, le 14 mars 1961.

CONFIDENTIEL

Premier avant-projet de convention relatif à un droit européen des brevets

Articles 11 à 29

Page 143

Es dürfte daher zweckmäßig sein, für das europäische Patentrecht von dem gemilderten Erfinderprinzip auszugehen. Dieses Prinzip ist in Artikel 18 wiedergegeben.

Bei Annahme des gemilderten Erfinderprinzips wird es notwendig sein, an einer geeigneten Stelle des Entwurfs eine Verpflichtung des Anmelders vorzusehen, den wahren Erfinder zu benennen.

Zu Artikel 18

Anspruch auf Erteilung des Patents

1. Materialien: a) Studie Haertel, Anhang S. 11 ff. b) Studie Gajac, S. 24 ff. 2. Bemerkungen: a) Für den Anspruch auf Erteilung des Patents, d.h. für den verfahrensrechtlichen Anspruch, gilt in den Staaten des Gemeinsamen Marktes teils das Anmelderprinzip, teils das Erfinderprinzip. In den Staaten mit Erfinderprinzip (Bundesrepublik und Niederlande) ist das Erfinderprinzip aus praktischen Gründen durch eine Vermutung zu Gunsten des Anmelders gemildert.

Für das europäische Patentrecht sind daher die folgenden drei Möglichkeiten zu prüfen: aa) Das Anmelderprinzip. bb) Das reine Erfinderprinzip. cc) Das gemilderte Erfinderprinzip. b) Da es sich bei dem europäischen Patent um ein geprüftes Patent handeln soll, dürfte das Anmelderprinzip ausscheiden.

Das reine Erfinderprinzip, wie es beispielsweise das nordische Patentrecht vorsieht, führt zu einer Erschwerung des patentamtlichen Verfahrens, da bei Annahme dieses Prinzips das Europäische Patentamt in jedem Fall von Amts wegen prüfen müßte, ob der Anmelder auch der wahre Erfinder ist.

Page 145

Die durch Gesetz oder Rechtsprechung in den Staaten des Gemeinsamen Markts getroffene Regelung für die Erfindungen von Arbeitnehmern weichen im einzelnen erheblich voneinander ab. Eine Vereinheitlichung des Rechts der Erfindungen von Arbeitnehmern im Rahmen der Staaten des Gemeinsamen Markts ist bisher nicht beabsichtigt und dürfte auf beträchtliche Schwierigkeiten stoßen.

Die hier allein wesentliche Frage, ob und unter welchen Voraussetzungen die Erfindung eines Arbeitnehmers seinem Arbeitgeber zusteht mit der Folge, daß der Arbeitgeber als Rechtsnachfolger des Arbeitnehmers berechtigt ist, die Erteilung eines europäischen Patents zu verlangen, richtet sich nach dem jeweils maßgebenden nationalen Recht. Nach den Normen des internationalen Arbeitsrechts ist dasjenige nationale Recht maßgebend, das auf das Arbeitsverhältnis, aus dem der Arbeitgeber sein Recht auf die Erfindung herleitet, Anwendung findet. Diesen Grundsatz ausdrücklich im europäischen Patentrecht festzuhalten, dürfte nicht erforderlich sein.

Die vorstehenden Ausführungen dürften sinngemäß auch für das Institut der Betriebserfindung Anwendung finden, soweit das nationale Gesetz eines Vertragsstaats dieses Institut kennt.

Page 146

Artikel 18 Anspruch auf Erteilung des Patents

Im Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt gilt der Anmelder als berechtigt, die Erteilung des Patents zu verlangen.

Kurt Haertel

Bonn, den 14. März 1961

VERTRAULICH !

Erster Arbeitsentwurf eines Abkommens über ein europäisches zatenrecht

Artikel 11 bis 29

Articles 17 et 18

La rédaction de cus deux articles est adoptée.

Article 19, alinéa 1

N. Van Benthem reconait que le comité de rédaction a apporté une modification de fond. Il a omis dans son texte l'allusion aux produits fabriqués et aux prouedés appliqués par une autre personne. Il résulte du nouveau texte que des usurpations peuvent être fondées notamment sur des communications orales.

Le groupe de travail approuve cette modification. A une question de M. De Muyser, le Président examine le cas où une usurpation se serait inspirée d'éléments non essentiels d'une invention. A ce sujet, il distingue deux solutions:

1. si la contribution de l'usurpateur constitue une invention on soi, l'Office des brevets transmettra la domande. Il sera dès lors aisé de restituer à l'inventeur lésé ce qui lui a été emprunté; 2. si la contribution de l'usurpateur ne constitue pas une invention et n'est pas séparable des éléments empruntés, il incombera au juge de trancher la question. En cffet, il n'est pas possible de régler ce cas d'espèce dans la convention.

Sur proposition du Président, le groupe décide la modification suivante à l'alinéa 1, douzième et troisième lignes. Les mots "à une autre personne sans le consentement de celle-ci" sont remplacés par "à l'invention d'un tiers sans son consentement".

Pour éviter des difficultés résultant des divergences entre les législations nationales, le groupe se ralliant à une proposition de M. Roscioni, supprime aux quatrième et cinquième lignes les mots suivants: "pour exiger du déposant ou du breveté" et les remplace par "a le droit d'obtenir". Il est entendu quo cotte formule s'applique aux trois cas ci-dessous : I V / 2767 / 61-F

Page 149

Le groupe décide de reporter la discussion de l'article 17, alinéa 2, lors d'une session ultericure, En attendant, le texte figurera cntre paranthèses.

Luz articles 17 ot 18 sont tranmis au comité de rédaction.

Discussion de l'articso 19 do l'avant-projet

Le groupe approuve, on principe, l'alinéa 1 de l'article 19. Mais il souligne qu'on no peut parler d'usurpation que s'il s'agit d'uno invention nouvelle.

Au sujet de l'alinéa 2 de l'article 19, M. Van Benthum souhaite que l'office auropéen soit égalomont compétent avant la délivrance du brevet pour connaitre des litiges relatifs à l'usurpation. Une telle compétence éviterait de prolonger la procédure de délivrance.

Etant donné que le groupe n'a pas encore élaboré les règles de procédure de l'office curopéen, cotto question est reportée à une date ultérieure.

Le groupe approuve le texto de l'alinéa 3 de l'article 19. Il estime supurflu l'alinéa 4 de cet article et décide de la supprimer.

Au sujot de l'alinéa 5 de l'article 19, M. Fressonnet craint que le fait que les actions on revendication pourront s'exercer devant plusieurs instances nationalus risque de retarder considérablement l'cxamen de la demande d'un brevet curopéen. En effet, aux termes de cet alinéa, l'office devrait surseoir. Il propose qué dans ce cas l'office curopéen continue l'examen et délivre le brevet avec la mention de l'existence d'une action en cours. Il suggère, en outre, que les parties en cause puissent s'adresser sans possibilité de recours au tribunal européen siégeant en tant que cour arbitrale.

Page 150

A ce sujot, il jese deux quistions aux déléguô̂̂:

1. La cunvention curopéenne doit-ulle prévoir une disposition relative à ces inventions ? 2. Existe-t-il dans un des Stats membres uno disposition législative ou une jurisprudenco de laquelle il résulte que le chof d'entreprise doit être automatiquement considéré comme propriétaire originaire de l'invention, de telle sorte qu'il ne peut être considéré ni commo un inventiur ni commo son ayant-droit?

A la première question, le groupe réjond par la négative. En effet, vouloir trouver uno soluti.n à cotte question soulèverait une telio séric d'obstacles, notamment ,olitiques, que la convention curopéenne ello-même risquerait d'en être compromise.

Des réponses faites à la deuxième question, il apparait que ni les législations, ni les jurisprudences nationales ne présentunt de difficultés à ce sujot, sauf aux Pays-Bas où l'on peut espérer que la législation nationelo serait changée au cas où la convention uuropéenne reprendrait le libollé de l'articlo 17, alinéa 1.

Le Président remarque enfin que la notion d'ayant-cause devra être interprétée par les tribunaux nationaux. In offet, l'offico européen ne connaitra que lo déposant.

Lo texto d. l'erticlo 17, alinéa 1, est transmis au comite de rédaction.

La séanco est levée à 13 heures et reprise à 15 heures.

Page 151

Le Président, estiment que la proposition de M. Fressonnet constitue une bonne solution de compromis, charge le comité de rédaction de soumettre au groupe un texte libellé dans ce sens.

Avec X. Lannoy, le Président constate qu'il serait vain de vouloir définir la notion d'activité inventive. Il suffira d'en énoncer les critères.

A une domande de M. Fressonnet, le Président admet que l'expression "activité inventive" ne figure plus dans le titre de l'article 16. Il suggère que le texte de cet article devienne l'alinéa 4 de l'article 14 de l'avant-projet, en commençant par les mots" une invention nouvelle n'est pas brevetable ...".

Discussion de. l'article 17 de l'avant-projet.

Après un échange de vues sur la question du droit au brevet, question posée par l'article 17, alinéa 1, le Président constate à ce sujot l'accord du groupe sur quatre points.

1. P.ur des raisons psychologiques, il im, rte d'affirmer, comme le fait l'alinéa 1 de l'article 17, que le droit au brevet appartient à l'inventeur. 2. Il faut co.pléter le toxtu de l'alinéa 1 de l'article 17 de l'avant-projet en intercalant après le mot "inventeur" les termos suivants :"qui a été le premier à déposer la demande". 3. Les articles 17 et 18 (délivrance du brevet) doivent être réunis en un seul article. En effct, l'article 18 énonce seulement que l'Office européen n'a pas à exaniner si lo déposant est le premier inventeur. 4. L'article 29 (désignation de l'invention) sera rapproché de l'article mentionné au point 3 .

A la suite d'une question de M. Van Bunthem, le Président ouvre un débat concernant le problème des inventions des salariés et employés et les répercussions de ce problème sur l'article 17.

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL

"Brevets"

Deuxième Partie : COMPTES-RENDUS

Premier avant-projet de convention relatif à un droit européen des brevets

Articles 11 à 29 - Droit des brevets - Articles 101 à 111 - Licences obligatoires -

Page 153

Artikel 17 und 18

Die Fassung der beiden Artikel wird angenommen.

Artikel 19, Abs. 1 Herr Van Benthem legt dar, dass der Redaktionsausschuss eine sachliche Änderung vorgenommen hat, indem er aus seinem Text die Errähnung der von Dritten hergestellten Erzeugnisse odor angowendoten Verfahren gestrichen hat. Aus dem neuen Text geht hervor, dass eine widerrechtliche Entnahme auch auf Grund von mündlichen Mitteilungen stattfinden kann.

Die Arbeitsgruppe billigt diese Änderung. Auf eine Frage von Herrn De Muyser hin prüft der Präsident diejenigen Fälle, wo eine widerrechtliche Entnahme nicht wesentliche Elemente einer Erfindung betrifft. Hier können zwei Lösungen unterschieden werden :

1. Stellt der eigene Beitrag des Usurpators eine Erfindung dar, so wird das Patentamt die Anmeldung aufteilen. Es wird dann unschwer möglich sein, dem verletzten Erfinder das ihm Gestohlene zurückzugeben; 2. Stollt der Beitrag des Usurpators keine Erfindung dar und ist er untrennbar von den entnommenen Elementen, so obliegt die Entscheidung dem Richter. Diesen Einzelfall in der Konvention zu regeln erscheint unmöglich.

Auf Vorschlag des Präsidenten beschliesst die Arbeitsgruppe, in Absatz 1 zweite und dritte Zeilo die Worte "einem anderen ohne dessen Zustimmung" durch "der Erfindung eines Dritten ohne dessen Zustimmung", zu ersetzen.

Um Schwierigkeiten wegen der Verschiedenheit der nationalen Gesetze zu vermeiden, folgt die Arbeitsgruppe einem Vorschlag von Herrn Roscioni und ersetzt in der vierten und fünften Zoile von Absatz 1 die Worte "kann vom Anmolder oder Patentinhaber verlangen" durch "hat das Recht zu verlangen". Diese Fassung wird dabei so verstanden, dass sie sich auf folgende drei Fälle bezieht :

Page 154

Die Arbeitsgruppe beschliesst, die Erörterung von Artikel 17, Abs. 2 bis zu einer späteren Sitzung zurückzustellen. Der Absatz wird einstweilen zwischen Klammern gesetzt.

Artikel 17 und 18 werden dem Redaktionsausschuss überwiesen.

Erörterungen zu Artikel 19 des Vorentwurfs

Die Arbeitsgruppe billigt grundsätzliche absatz 1 von Artikel 19. Sie betont, dass von widerrechtlicher Entnahme jedoch nur dann gesprochen werden kann, wenn es sich um eine neue Erfindung handelt.

Hinsichtlich Absatz 2 des Artikels 19 wünscht Herr Van Benthem, dass auch das Europäische Amt vor der Erteilung des Patentes zur Entscheidung von Streitigkeiten über widerrechtliche Entnahme zuständig sein soll. Eine solche Zuständigkeit würde eine Verlängerung des Erteilungsverfahrens vermeiden.

Da die Arbeitsgruppe noch keine Verfahrensvorschriften für das Europäische Amt ausgearbeitet hat, wird diese Frage zunächst zurückgestellt.

Die Arbeitsgruppe billigt den Text von Absatz 3 des Artikels 19. Sie hält Absatz 4 des Artikels für überflüssig und beschliesst, ihn zu streichen.

Hinsichtlich Absatz 5 von Artikel 19 fürchtet Herr Fressonnet, dass die Möglichkeit, Herausgabeklagen vor mehreren nationalen Instanzen durchzuführen, die Gefahr einer beträchtlichen Verlängerung des Prüfungsverfahrens durch das Europäische Patentamt mit sich bringt. Nach den Bestimmungen dieses Absatzes muss das Patentamt das Anmeldeverfahren aussetzen. Herr Fressonnet schlägt vor, dass in diesem Fall das Europäische Amt das Verfahren fortsetzt und das Patent erteilt, jedoch mit einem Vermork über den anhängigen Rechtsstreit. Darüber hinaus regt er an, dass die streitenden Partoien sich unter Verzicht auf Rechtsmittel an das Europäische Gericht wenden können, das in diesem Fall als Schiedsgericht tätig wird.

Page 155

Der Präsident hält den Vorschlag von Herrn Fressonnet für eine gute Kompromisslösung und beauftragt den Redaktionsausschuss der Gruppe einen entsprechend abgefassten Text vorzulegen.

Er gibt Herrn Lannoy recht, dass es unmöglich sein würde, den Begriff der Erfindungshöhe zu definieron. Es genügt, seine Merkmale zu orwähnen.

Auf Frage von Herrn Fressonnet hält es der Präsident für möglich, den Ausdruck "Erfindungshöhe" aus dem Titel von Artikel 16 zu streichen. Er. regt an, dass der Inhalt dieses Artikels als Absatz 4 zu Artikel 14 des Vorentwurfs gesetzt werde, der dann beginnen müsste "eine neue Erfindung ist nicht patentfähig ...".

Erörterungen zu Artikel 17 des Vorentwurfs

Nach einem Meinungsaustausch zur Frage des Rechts auf das Patent, die Artikel 17, Abs. 1 behandelt, stellt der Präsident die Ubereinstimmung der Arbeitsgruppe zu folgenden vier Funtiten fest.

1. Aus psychologischen Gründen ist es wichtig, festzustellen, wie es in Absatz 1 von Artikel 17 geschicht, dass das Recht am Patent dem Erfinder zusteht. 2. Der Text von Absatz 1 des Artikels 17 des Vorentwurfs soll ergänzt werden, indem nach dem Wort Erfinder "der als erster die Anmeldung eingereicht hat" hinzugefügt wird. 3. Artikel 17 und 18 (Erteilung des Patents) sollten in einem einzigen Artikel vercinigt werden. Artikel 18 bestimmt tatsächlich nur, dass das Europäische Amt nicht zu prüfen braucht, ob der Anmelder der erste Erfinder ist. 4. Der Artikel 29 ( Erfindernennung) wird näher an den unter 3. erwähnten Artikel herangerückt.

Auf eine Frage von Herrn Van Benthem hin eröffnet der Präsident einen Meinungsaustausch über die Frage der Angestelltenerfindung und ihre Auswirkungen auf Artikel 17.

Page 156

Brüseal, den 3. Mai 1961

VURTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der ersten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Batente" vom 17. bis 28. April 1961 in Brüssel

Page 157

Article 17

Droit matériel au brevet

Le droit matériel au brevet européen appartient à l'inventeur ou à son ayant cause.

Si une invention a été réalisée en commun par plusieurs personnes, le droit au brevet européen leur appartient également en commun.

Page 158

Kurt Haertel IV/2071/61-F Orig.: D

Bonn, le 14 mars 1961.

CONFIDENTIAL

Premier avant-projet de convention relatif à un droit européen des brevets

Articles 11 à 29

Page 159

Die durch Gesetz oder Rechtsprechung in den Staaten des Gemeinsamen Markts getroffene Regelung für die Erfindungen von Arbeitnehmern weichen im einzelnen erheblich voneinander ab. Eine Vereinheitlichung des Rechts der Erfindungen von Arbeitnehmern im Rahmen der Staaten des Gemeinsamen Markts ist bisher nicht beabsichtigt und dürfte auf beträchtliche Schwierigkeiten stoßen.

Die hier allein wesentliche Frage, ob und unter welchen Voraussetzungen die Erfindung eines Arbeitnehmers seinem Arbeitgeber zusteht mit der Folge, daß der Arbeitgeber als Rechtsnachfolger des Arbeitnehmers berechtigt ist, die Erteilung eines europäischen Patents zu verlangen, richtet sich nach dem jeweils maßgebenden nationalen Recht. Nach den Normen des internationalen Arbeitsrechts ist dasjenige nationale Recht maßgebend, das auf das Arbeitsverhältnis, aus dem der Arbeitgeber sein Recht auf die Erfindung herleitet, Anwendung findet. Diesen Grundsatz ausdrücklich im europäischen Patentrecht festzuhalten, dürfte nicht erforderlich sein.

Die vorstehenden Ausführungen dürften sinngemäß auch für das Institut der Betriebserfindung Anwendung finden, soweit das nationale Gesetz eines Vertragsstaats dieses Institut kennt.

Zu Artikel 17

Recht auf das Patent (droit matériel au brevet)

1. Materialien:

Studie Gajac, S. 23 ff., 30 ff.

2. Bemerkungen:

a) Der Grundsatz, wonach das materielle Recht auf das Patent dem Erfinder oder seinem Rechtsnachfolger zusteht, ist im nationalen Recht der sechs Staaten des Gemeinsamen Markts entweder ausdrücklich oder stillschweigend anerkannt. Es erscheint zweckmäßig, diesen Grundsatz für das europäische Patentrecht ausdrücklich festzulegen.

Zu prüfen wird sein, ob es notwendig ist, in das europäische Patentrecht darüber hinaus noch eine Bestimmung des Inhalts aufzunehmen, daß in dem Falle, daß mehrere Personen dieselbe Erfindung unabhängig voneinander gemacht haben, diejenige Ferson das materielle Recht auf das Patent hat, die die Erfindung zuerst beim Europäischen Patentamt oder bei der zuständigen Behörde eines Vertragsstaats angemeldet hat. b) Im Zusammenhang mit diesem Artikel könnte erörtert werden, ob eine besondere Bestimmung im europäischen Patentrecht erforderlich ist für diejenigen Erfindungen, die von einem Arbeitnehmer gemacht worden sind.

Page 161

Artikel 17 Recht auf das Patent (droit matériel au brevet)

Das Recht auf das europäische Patent steht dem Erfinder oder seinem Rechtsnachfolger zu.

Haben mehrere gemeinsam eine Erfindung gemacht, so steht ihnen das Recht auf das europäische Patent gemeinschaftlich zu.

VERTRAULICH !

Erster Arbeitsentwurf
eines Abkommens

über ein europäisches zatenrecht

Artikel 11 bis 29

Page 163

Art. 60 MPÜ

- 2 -

Entwurf, der dem nebenstehenden Dokument zugrunde liegt	Art. Nr. im Entwurf/ Dokument	Dokument, in dem der Art. behandelt wird	Fundstelle im Dokument
1972	58	M/28	S. 344
"	58	M/30	S. 2
"	58	M/35	S. 2
"	58	M/48/I	S. 1 Memorandum B; S. 1 Memorandum D
"	58	M/54/I/II/III	S. 11
"	58	M/69/I	S. 1,4
"	58	M/70/I	S. 1
"	58	M/74/I/R 1	S. 5
"	58	M/80/I/R 2	S. 2
"	58	M/109/I/R 5	S. 1
"	58	M/143/I/R 14	S. 1
"	58	M/146/R 3	Art. 60
"	58	M/PR/I	S. 31
"	58	M/PR/G	S. 200

Page 164

official languages instead of only the language of the proceedings.

2. Patentability (Articles 50-55)

The provisions of substantive law on patentability were not amended as to substance. The exceptions listed in Article 50, paragraph 2, were confirmed by the Main Committee as basic principles of the Convention. Certain drafting improvements however now make it completely clear that the various types of subject-matter, acts and activities listed are only excluded as such from patentability and that therapeutic and diagnostic methods are not patentable on the grounds that they lack industrial application.

The exception to patentability laid down in Article 51 in respect of inventions the publication of which would be contrary to "ordre public" or morality was reinforced by a duty to examine on the part of the European Patent Office (see Rule 34).

An improved wording of Article 52, paragraph 5, now ensures the patentability of known chemicals for such uses in therapeutic and diagnostic methods as do not form part of the state of the art. In this connection the Main Committee was also of the opinion that only a first use, irrespective of whether it is with regard to humans or animals, fulfils the requirements of this provision.

With respect to non-prejudicial disclosure the Main Committee amended Article 53 to provide that an abusive disclosure in relation to the person entitled shall not be prejudicial if it occurred no earlier than six months before the filing of the application. This amendment means that, taking into account the concept of novelty contained in Article 52, paragraphs 3 and 4, cases of abusive disclosure after the date of filing of the application by the person entitled are dealt with in the same way as a disclosure within six months preceding the date of filing of the European patent application. The Main Committee decided not to extend the definition of the international exhibitions referred to in Article 53 not only because such an amendment would diverge from the Strasbourg Convention but also because exhibition priorities as such are a dangerous instrument for the applicant.

In discussing Article 54 a proposal for supplementing this provision to the effect that any technological advance proven by the applicant should be taken into account in deciding whether there has been an inventive step was rejected, mainly because it was feared that too much weight might be given to this factor.

3. Position of the inventor (Articles 58, 59, 60, 79, 90 and Rules 17, 19, 26, 42)

The Main Committee gave detailed consideration to a proposal to give the inventor a better and stronger legal position in the system set up by the Convention than that afforded by the drafts. The main proposal sought to compel the applicant to designate the inventor at the time of filing the application and at the same time to prove his entitlement to the invention by producing a certificate of transfer drawn up by the inventor or some other conclusive document.

It was not contested that the rights of the inventor should be adequately protected in the Convention. The Main Committee therefore decided unanimously that in respect of all European patent applications, irrespective of which States were designated in them, the filing of a statement identifying the inventor should be a compulsory requirement, with the result that if it were not complied with, the application would be deemed to be withdrawn. However, the Main Committee rejected the proposal to require the production of proof that the applicant was the inventor's successor in title for three main reasons: there would be difficulties in obtaining such a document in individual cases; it could not be produced where the transfer took place in the due course of law; and finally it would put the European Patent Office in the extremely difficult situation of having to apply the national law of the Contracting States in examining such documents. Similarly, an alternative proposal, to require proof of being the inventor's successor in title only where the national law of at least one of the designated Contracting States required such proof in respect of national patent applications, could not be adopted as this would have caused the same difficulties. In order that the rights of the inventor should nevertheless be protected, the Main Committee finally adopted a compromise solution whereby, if the applicant were not the inventor or not the sole inventor, he would be obliged to file a statement, which would be an integral part of the designation of the inventor indicating the legal basis of his acquisition of the invention. In addition, this designation of the inventor by the applicant would be notified to the inventor, thus allowing him where necessary to invoke his rights in due time. Corresponding amendments were made to Articles 79 and 90 and to Rules 17, 19, 26 and 42.

4. Effects of the European patent and the European patent application (Articles 61-68)

The main subject of discussion in this respect was Article 67 which defines the protection conferred by the European patent and the European patent application.

The Main Committee adopted by a majority a provision which also occurs in the Draft of the Second Convention for the Community patent, whereby the protection conferred on a process is extended to the products directly obtained by that process. This provision, which was inserted in Article 62 and which is already known in the laws of several Contracting States, takes account of the fact that in certain branches of industry, such as the plastics industry, it is not always possible to define a material without reference to its means of production. At the same time, a similar majority of the Main Committee rejected a proposal that this extended protection be reinforced in the case of an invention relating to the manufacture of a new product by assuming, to the benefit of the proprietor of the patent, that any product of the same nature would be considered to be obtained by the protected process. This proposal to reverse the burden of proof was countered by the argument that it would constitute too great an inroad into the national law of the Contracting States.

Main Committee I also considered, in respect of Article 67, paragraph 2, that the concept of extending the protection conferred by the European patent application included the case of a shift in the protection as a result of an amendment to the claims. With regard to the interpretative statement proposed by the Inter-Governmental Conference in respect of Article 67, it considered that this should be officially adopted unamended by the Diplomatic Conference and should be annexed to the Convention in the form of a declaration.

As regards the right to continue to use the invention, which a third party who has been operating in good faith may invoke under Article 68, paragraph 4(b), where the proprietor of the patent has corrected the translation of the specification, the Main Committee decided by a majority to depart from the draft by providing that this right could be exercised without payment, by analogy with the comparable situation dealt with in Article 121, paragraph 6.