Art80eTPEPC1973

Métadonnées

• Nom affiché : Art80eTPEPC1973
• Numéro d'article : 80
• Dossier / langue : English
• Tag langue : #English
• PDF original : Articles/English/Articles 076-100/Article 080 (English version)/Art80eTPEPC1973.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. 80 MPO Anmeldetag

Entwurf, der dem nebenstehenden Dokument zugrunde liegt	Art. Nr. im Entwurf/ Dokument	Dokument, in dem der Art. behandelt wird	Fundstelle im Dokument
Vorschl.d.Vors.	63	IV/4860/61	S. 14,17
IV/4860/61	63	IV/3076/62	S. 151
VE Mai 1962	68	6551/IV/62	S. 21
VE 1962	68	2632 / IV/64	S. 20
VE 1965 (Ue)	68 b	BR/10/69	Rdn. 36
VE 1970 (Ue)	68	BR/87/71	Rdn. 82
√() BR/70/70	68	BR/94/71	Rdn. 17,80
VE 1971 (Ue)	68	BR/135/71	Rdn. 26-28
BR/139/71	68	BR/168/72	Rdn. 87
BR/139/71	68	BR/169/72	Rdn. 64
BR/139/71	68	BR/177/72	Rdn. 35

Dokumente der MDK

"	78	M/70/I	S. 1
"	78	M/146/R 3	Art. 80
"	78	M/PR/G	S. 201

Minutes of the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole

1. The Committee of the Whole, which was established by the Plenary of the Conference and comprised all the Government delegations (see Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure)*, was, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Rule 14, chaired by Dr. Kurt Haertel (Federal Republic of Germany), President of the German Patent Office and Chairman of Main Committee I. Mr. François Savignon (France), Director of the French Industrial Property Office and Chairman of Main Committee II, was First Vice-Chairman; Mr. Edward Armitage (United Kingdom), Comptroller-General of the United Kingdom Patent Office and Chairman of Main Committee III was Second Vice-Chairman. 2. In accordance with Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure, the terms of reference of the Committee of the Whole were to take decisions on proposals from the Gernal Drafting Committee on drafts established by Main Committees I, II and III and on proposals submitted to it directly and to forward the drafts approved by it to the Plenary of the Conference for adoption. 3. The Committee of the Whole met under the direction of the Chairman from 1 to 4 October 1973. 4. At the meeting on 1 October 1973, the Committee of the Whole received the reports of Main Committees I and II. Main Committee I's report was approved without debate (see Section I below). 5. At its meeting on 2 October 1973, the Committee of the Whole discussed Main Committee II's report. The discussion and subsequent approval of the report are dealt with below in Section II.

At the same meeting, it heard and approved Main Committee III's report (see Section III below); it also discussed the results of the proceedings of the General Drafting Committee (M/146 R/1 to R/15 and M/151 R/16). These discussions are covered in Section IV below. 6. On 3 October 1973, the Committee of the Whole received and approved the report of the Credentials Committee (see Section V below). The problems of a European School and the European Patent Office building in Munich were then dealt with (see Sections VI and VII). 7. At its last meeting on the morning of 4 October 1973, the Committee of the Whole discussed the organisation and work programme of the Interim Committee. These discussions are presented in Section VIII below. It finally considered a proposal from the Yugoslav delegation for a Resolution on technical assistance (Section IX) and a Recommendation regarding the status and remuneration of certain employees (Section X).

I. Report of the discussions and decisions of Main Committee I

8. The rapporteur of this Main Committee, Mr. Paul Braendli, Vice-Director of the Federal Intellectual Property Office (Switzerland), presented the report on the work of Main Committee I to the Committee of the Whole. The text of this report is given in Annex I.

The report was unanimously adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

II. Report on the work of Main Committee II

9. Subject to a few minor amendments, the Committee of the Whole unanimously approved the report presented by the rapporteur of Main Committee II, Mr. R. Bowen (United Kingdom), Assistant Comptroller of the United Kingdom

• The Rules of Procedure (M/34) had previously been adopted unanimously by the Plenary (see M/PB/K/1, point 10).

Patent Office. The text of the report as adopted by the Committee of the Whole is given in Annex II. The discussions concerning the proposals for amendments to the report are summarised in the following paragraphs. 10. As regards the section of the report concerning the Protocol on Centralisation, the Netherlands delegation, commenting on the first sentence in point 16 , stated that the obligations of the European Patent Office towards the Member States of the International Patent Institute had simply been clarified rather than extended. However, the French and United Kingdom delegations maintained that the obligations had in fact been extended since the original text had only referred to tasks at present incumbent upon the Institute whereas now tasks entrusted to the IIB after the signing of the Protocol were expressly covered. While disagreeing with this view, the Netherlands delegation did not insist on an amendment. 11. The Netherlands delegation proposed, also with regard to point 16 , that the last sentence should state that the EPO would also undertake searches for Member States of the IIB which had not submitted any applications for search before the entry into force of the Convention. This would make provision for those States which, up to the time in question, had submitted no applications for search to the IIB although they were entitled to do so.

The Committee of the Whole agreed to amend the part of the report concerned as follows: "... the Office will also assume this responsibility in respect of a Member State of the Institute which prior to the entry into force of the Convention, has agreed to submit national applications to the Institute for search." 12. The Committee of the Whole adopted a proposal from the Swedish delegation that the idea proposed by the Scandinavian countries at the beginning of point 22 be worded as follows: "Consideration was given to the idea, proposed by the Scandinavian countries, that such work might be entrusted to national offices, possessing the minimum documentation, whether or not they possessed the other qualifications, required of an International Searching Authority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty." It also approved an addition at the end of the third sentence in this point to the effect that national offices would have to "fully" qualify as Searching Authorities. 13. The Austrian delegation suggested that in the English version of point 22 , in the middle of page 14 , the words "some search work" be used so as not to prejudge the question of the amount of such search work, which had deliberately been left open. The text would therefore read: "difficulties resulting from a renunciation under Setion 1.2 , to entrust some search work to national offices whose language is ..."

The Committee of the Whole accepted this suggestion. The German and French texts remained unaltered. 14. With regard to the part of the report dealing with Article 166 (Article 167 of the signed version) of the Convention, the Greek delegation proposed that point 11 be amended at the top of page 7 so as to state, not that Main Committee II had accepted the view as to the effects of a reservation, but that it had considered such a possibility. The rapporteur and the Netherlands delegation stated that this view had been generally accepted in Main Committee II.

The Committee of the Whole accordingly decided not to amend the draft which had been submitted.

III. Report on the results of Main Committee III's proceedings

15. Main Committee III's rapporteur, Mr. Fressonnet, Deputy Director of the National Industrial Property Office

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

(Munich, 10 September to 5 October, 1973)

Page 5

Article 38 80

Date of filing

The date of filing of a European patent application shall be the date on which documents filed by the applicant contain:

(a) an indication that a European patent is sought;

(b) the designation of at least one Contracting State;

(c) information identifying the applicant;

(d) a description and one or more claims in one of the languages referred to in Article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, even though the description and the claims do not comply with the other requirements of this Convention.

Page 6

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 7

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, paragraph 1, expressly recognises the fundementel 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 amplicant is not the inventor, the amplication shall, identify the inventor and contain (:) 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, (2) if the applicant bases his title to the invention on other grounds than 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 applicant, and the above sugested provisions could nreferebl: be introduced as new sub-sections after (c).

Page 9

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 up by: IFIA

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

Page 10

b) die Benennung mindestens eines Vertragsstaats; c) Angaben, die es erlauben, die Identität des Anmelders festzustellen; d) in einer der in Artikel 14 Absätze 1 und 2 vorgesehenen Sprachen eine Beschreibung und einen oder mehrere Patentansprüche, selbst wenn die Beschreibung und die Patentansprüche nicht den übrigen Vorschriften dieses Übereinkommens entsprechen.

Erfindernennung

In der europäischen Patentanmeldung ist der Erfinder zu nennen, wenn das nationale Recht zumindest eines der benannten Vertragsstaaten die Erfindernennung für nationale Patentanmeldungen vorschreibt.

Vgl. Regeln 17 (Einreichung der Erfindernennung), 18 (Bekanntmachung der Erfindernennung) und 19 (Berichtigung oder widerruf der Erfindernennung)

Einheitlichkeit der Erfindung

Die europäische Patentanmeldung darf nur eine einzige Erfindung enthalten oder eine Gruppe von Erfindungen, die untereinander in der Weise verbunden sind, daß sie eine einzige allgemeine erfinderische Idee verwirklichen.

Vgl. Regeln 29 (Form und Inhalt der Patentansprüche) und 30 (Patentansprüche verschiedener Kategorien)

Artikel 81

Offenbarung der Erfindung Die Erfindung ist in der europäischen Patentanmeldung so deutlich und vollständig zu offenbaren, daß ein Fachmann sie ausführen kann.

Vgl. Regel 28 (Erfordernisse europäischer Patentanmeldungen betreffend Mikroorganismen)

Artikel 82

Patentansprüche Die Patentansprüche müssen den Gegenstand angeben, für den Schutz begehrt wird. Sie müssen deutlich, knapp gefaßt und von der Beschreibung gestützt sein.

Vgl. Regel 29 (Form und Inhalt der Patentansprüche) (b) the designation of at least one Contracting State; (c) information identifying the applicant; (d) a description and one or more claims in one of the languages referred to in Article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, even though the description and the claims do not comply with the other requirements of this Convention.

Article 79

Identification of the inventor The European patent application shall identify the inventor where the national law of at least one of the designated Contracting States requires such identification to be supplied for national patent applications.

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)

Article 80

Unity of invention The European patent application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept.

Cf. Rules 29 (Form and content of claims) and 30 (Claims in different categories)

Article 81

Disclosure of the invention A European patent application must disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.

Cf. Rule 28 (Requirements of applications relating to microorganisms)

Article 82

The claims The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description.

Cf. Rule 29 (Form and content of claims)

Page 11

d) die Zeichnungen, auf die sich die Beschreibung oder die Patentansprüche beziehen; e) eine Zusammenfassung. (2) Für die europäische Patentanmeldung sind die Anmeldegebühr und die Recherchengebühr innerhalb eines Monats nach Einreichung der Anmeldung zu entrichten. (3) Die europäische Patentanmeldung muß den Erfordernissen genügen, die in der Ausführungsordnung vorgeschrieben sind.

Vgl. Regeln 26 (Erteilungsantrag), 27 (Inhalt der Beschreibung), 28 (Erfordernisse europäischer Patentanmeldungen betreffend Mikroorganismen), 29 (Form und Inhalt der Patentansprüche), 30 (Patentansprüche verschiedener Kategorien), 31 (Gebührenpflichtige Patentansprüche), 32 (Form der Zeichnungen), 33 (Form und Inhalt der Zusammenfassung), 34 (Unzulässige Angaben), 35 (Allgemeine Bestimmungen über die Form der Anmeldungsunterlagen), 36 (Unterlagen nach Einreichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung) und 89 (Berichtigung von Mängeln in den beim Europäischen Patentamt eingereichten Unterlagen)

Artikel 77

Benennung von Vertragsstaaten (1) Im Antrag auf Erteilung des europäischen Patents sind der Vertragsstaat oder die Vertragsstaaten, in denen für die Erfindung Schutz begehrt wird, zu benennen. (2) Für die Benennung eines Vertragsstaats ist die Benennungsgebühr zu entrichten. Die Benennungsgebühren sind innerhalb von zwölf Monaten nach Einreichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung oder, wenn eine Priorität in Anspruch genommen worden ist, nach dem Prioritätstag zu entrichten; im letztgenannten Fall kann die Zahlung noch bis zum Ablauf der in Artikel 76 Absatz 2 genannten Frist erfolgen, wenn diese Frist später abläuft. (3) Die Benennung eines Vertragsstaats kann bis zur Erteilung des europäischen Patents zurückgenommen werden. Die Zurücknahme der Benennung aller Vertragsstaaten gilt als Zurücknahme der europäischen Patentanmeldung. Die Benennungsgebühren werden nicht zurückgezahlt.

[^0]Artikel 78 Anmeldetag Der Anmeldetag einer europäischen Patentanmeldung ist der Tag, an dem die vom Anmelder eingereichten Unterlagen enthalten: a) einen Hinweis, daß ein europäisches Patent beantragt wird; (d) any drawings referred to in the description or the claims; (e) an abstract. (2) A European patent application shall be subject to the payment of the filing fee and the search fee within one month after the filing of the application. (3) A European patent application must satisfy the conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulations.

[^1]

Designation of Contracting States

(1) Requests for the grant of a European patent shall contain the designation of the Contracting State or States in which protection for the invention is desired. (2) The designation of a Contracting State shall be subject to the payment of the designation fee. The designation fees shall be paid within twelve months after filing the European patent application or, if priority has been claimed, after the date of priority; in the latter case, payment may still be made up to the expiry of the period specified in Article 76, paragraph 2, if that period expires later. (3) The designation of a Contracting State may be withdrawn at any time up to the grant of the European patent. Withdrawal of the designation of all the Contracting States shall be deemed to be a withdrawal of the European patent application. Designation fees shall not be refunded.

[^1]: Vgl. Regeln 15 (Einreichung einer neuen europäischen Patent. anmeldung durch den Berechtigten), 25 (Vorschriften für europäische Tellanmeldungen) und 70 (Feststellung eines Rechts. verlusts)

[^2]: L. Rules 15 (Filing of a new European patent application by the person entitled to apply), 25 (Provisions for European divisional applications) and 70 (Noting of loss of rights)

[^3]: L. Rules 15 (Filing of a new European patent application by the

   Article 78
   Date of filing
   The date of filing of a European patent application shall be the date on which documents filed by the applicant contain:
   (a) an indication that a European patent is sought;

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)

CONFERENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

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

VORBEREITENDE DOKUMENTE

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

PREPARATORY DOCUMENTS

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

DOCUMENTS PRÉPARATOIRES

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

Page 13

33. Furthermore, on the same subject, the Working Party agreed that for a divisional application the applicant could designate all the States designated in the initial application or just some of them; what he could not do was to designate other States. The Working Party made the appropriate addition to Article 137a, paragraph 3. 34. The United Kingdom delegation wanted to know whether it would be fairest to reimburse designation fees already paid in the case provided for in Article 124 where an application for a European patent was converted into an application for a national patent. It proposed that the third sentence of Article 67, paragraph 3, be deleted to this end.

The United Kingdom delegation reserved the right to raise this point at the next meeting of the Conference.

Article 68 (Date of filing) 35. The Working Party aligned the drafting of the French text on the German and English texts.

Article 69a (Naming of the inventor) 36. The United Kingdom delegation drew the Working Party's attention to the problems arising from the rules laid down with regard to naming of the inventor in the light of Article 67, paragraph 4. If, for example, naming of the inventor was required in one of the EEC Member States, the result of absence of naming would be, under the terms of Article 69a, Article 77, paragraph 2(g), and Article 78, paragraph 6, that the naming was deemed to be withdrawn

Page 14

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 15

Article 67 (Designation of Contracting States) 62. CNIPA proposed that the period laid down in paragraph 2 for the payment of the designation fee be extended from 12 to 13 months so that the applicant would still have a whole month in which to make the payment in the event of the priority period having expired completely.

In the case of divisional applications which in accordance with Article 137a, paragraph 3, had the date of filing and possibly also the priority date of the earlier application, it would in many cases be impossible to observe the period allowed for payment; a special rule to cover such cases was therefore desirable. 63. In connection with paragraph 3, IFIA proposed that the possibility of the designation fees being refunded be provided for.

Article 68 (Date of filing) 64. FICPI raised the question of whether the "whole day principle", which Article 68 clearly aimed at introducing, was in fact clearly expressed in other provisions of the Convention; in Article 11, paragraph 3, for example, there was a reference to "earlier applications". FICPI suggested that this possible lack of precision should be removed by introducing a new paragraph 2 into Article 68, to the effect that European patent applications with the same date of filing were to be considered to have been filed at the same time.

Page 16

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

Brussels, 15 March 1972 BR/169/72

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the

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

Part II

Hearing of the non-governmental international organisations on the Second Preliminary Draft of a Convention establishing a European System for the Grant of Patents (Luxembourg, 26 January to 1 February 1972)

Page 17

Article 67 - Designation of Contracting States 85. The Conference agreed that the proposals of one organisation regarding paragraph 2, that a period of 13 months instead of 12 months from the date of priority be fixed for the payment of the designation fee, should be examined by Working Party I. 86. The Conference rejected the proposal of one organisation in connection with paragraph 3, that provision be made for the possibility of a repayment of the designation fees

- (cf. BR/169/72, point 63 ), since even the PCT does not provide for a repayment of the designation fees paid to the International Office where a date of filing has been recognised.

Article 68 - Date of filing 87. The Drafting Committee was instructed to examine whether it would not be better to adapt the conditional construction used in the French version of Article 68 (..."si elle comporte" ..... "si elle contient" ...) to the other two versions.

Article 69 - Failure to pay the filing fee or to provide a translation 88. The Conference rejected the request by IFIA for an addition to be made to Article 69 (cf. BR/169/72, point 54 ), in conjunction with the request concerning Article 66, which was also rejected, that the naming of the inventor should be a requirement of the application (see point 83 above).

Page 18

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 19

Article 68 Date of filing

The date of filing of a European patent application shall be the date on which it satisfies the following conditions: (a) + (b) + (c) there, are, in one of the languages referred to in Article 34, paragraphs 1 and 2, a description and one or more claims, even though they do not comply with the other requirements of this Convention.

Page 20

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

Page 21

was pointed out, however, that the drawing up of the report on the state of the art would also be affected if the date of filing were to be changed after having been accorded. 27. The only amendment made to Article 68, sub-paragraph (c), was that it was aligned on Article 66, paragraph 1(c), to provide for "one or more claims". 28. It was unanimously agreed that in the event of drawings being filed subsequently, the change of the date of filing would be notified to the applicant in accordance with Re. Article 64, No. 2, paragraph 2, of the Implementing Regulations.

Article 69 - Failure to pay the fees required for the application or to provide a translation 29. The Working Party adapted the title and sub-paragraph (a) of this provision to the decision that the applicant has to pay toth the filing fee and the fee for the report on the state of the art within one month after the filing date (cf. point 9 above).

PART V - Chapter I

30. The Working Party accepted the Chairman's proposal that, in the interests of accelerating the procedure, the European Patent Office should undertake only an "examination of the application on filing" before transmitting the application to the IIB for the purpose of drawing up the report on the state of the art. It therefore laid down in a new Article 76a the points to be examined in the examination on filing, and in a new Article 76b that the documents of the

Page 22

The Working Party noted that this proposal differed from the corresponding provision in the PCT (Article 14, paragraph 2) in that according to the latter the filing date is accorded immediately and only in the event of the drawings being filed subsequently is it changed to the date of filing the drawings.

Several delegations, supported by the representative of WIPO, pointed out that although it was true that both systems would have the same effect as a rule, they could lead to considerable differences in certain circumstances. First and foremost, under the PCT system the filing date is accorded immediately, while under the European procedure it may be delayed for up to fourteen months in the case of a European application being transmitted via a national patent office. It could also be of importance with regard to priority whether the date of filing the application documents or the date of subsequently filing the drawings should be decisive. Anybody withdrawing an application before the drawings have been filed may, under the PCT, at any time refer to the withdrawn application for an application in a different country, whereas under the Chairman's proposal there would be no application at all to refer to. In addition, this proposal could lead to complications in the case of a European application being converted into a national application.

In the light of these objections, the Chairman withdrew his proposal.

The Working Party consequently decided, on the basis of Article 14, paragraph 2, of the PCT, to leave the contents of Article 68, sub-paragraph (c), unchanged. It

Page 23

It was laid down in the new paragraph 4 that a request may be made for a decision by the Opposition Division reviewing the decision of the registry. As a fee was laid down for such a request, Article 2 of the Rules relating to Fees had to be extended accordingly (Article 2, No. 138, of the Rules relating to Fees). 25. The provisions listed below were amended without discussion; the amendment consisted almost exclusively in replacing the term "Examining Section(s)" by the term "Receiving Section". (a) Second Preliminary Draft of the Convention:

Art. 55, para. 1, Art. 56, para. 1, Art. 58, para. 2, Art. 108, para. 1, Art. 113, para. 3, Art. 140, para. 2, Art. 147, para. 1; (b) First Preliminary Draft of the Implementing Regulations:

Re. Art. 53, Nos. 1 and 1a, Re. Art. 54, Nos. 1 and 2. Article 68 - Date of filing 26. The Chairman had proposed the following rule for according a filing date in sub-paragraph (c): where the application mentions drawings which are referred to in the description or the claims and where the drawings are not filed with the application itself, the date of filing would be the date on which the drawings actually reach the European Patent Office; the presence of the drawings would thus be a requirement for awarding a filing date.

Page 24

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

Brussels, 17 November 1971 BR/135/71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

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

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

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

Page 25

(4) Sofern eine Gruppe von Vertragsstaaten von der Ermächtigung in Artikel 8 Gebrauch gemacht hat, kann sie vorschreiben, daß ihre Benennung nur gemeinsam erfolgen kann und daß die Benennung eines Teils der Vertragsstaaten der Gruppe als Benennung aller dieser Vertragsstaaten gilt.

Anmeldetag

Der Anmeldetag einer europäischen Patentanmeldung ist der Tag, an dem folgende Erfordernisse erfüllt sind: a) die Anmeldung muß einen Hinweis enthalten, daß sie eine europäische Patentanmeldung darstellt, und mindestens einen Vertragsstaat gemäß Artikel 67 Absatz 1 benennen; b) die Anmeldung muß Angaben enthalten, die es erlauben, die Identität des Anmelders festzustellen; c) die Anmeldung muß in einer der in Artikel 34 Absätze 1 und 2 vorgesehenen Sprachen eine Beschreibung und Patentansprüche enthalten, selbst wenn diese nicht den anderen Vorschriften dieses Übereinkommens entsprechen.

Artikel 69

Nichtentrichtung der Anmeldegebühr und fehlende Übersetzung Die europäische Patentanmeldung gilt als zurückgenommen, a) wenn die in Artikel 66 Absatz 3 vorgesehene Gebühr nicht innerhalb der vorgeschriebenen Frist entrichtet wird oder b) wenn im Fall des Artikels 34 Absatz 2 die Übersetzung der Patentanmeldung nicht innerhalb der dort genannten Frist vorgelegt worden ist.

Erfindernennung

In der europäischen Patentanmeldung ist der Erfinder zu benennen, wenn das nationale Recht zumindest eines der benannten Vertragsstaaten vorschreibt, daß für eine nationale Anmeldung der Erfinder im Zeitpunkt der nationalen Anmeldung oder zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt zu benennen ist.

Artikel 70

Einheitlichkeit der Erfindung Die europäische Patentanmeldung darf nur eine einzige Erfindung enthalten oder eine Gruppe von Erfindungen, die untereinander in der Weise verbunden sind, daß sie eine einzige allgemeine erfinderische Idee verwirklichen. (4) In so far as any group of Contracting States has availed itself of the authorisation given in Article 8, this group may provide that these States may only be designated jointly, and that the designation of one or some only of such States shall be deemed to constitute the designation of all the States of the group.

Date of filing

The date of filing of a European patent application shall be the date on which it satisfies the following conditions: (a) an indication is given that the application is for a European patent, and at least one Contracting State is designated in accordance with Article 67, paragraph 1; (b) information has been given identifying the applicant; (c) there are, in one of the languages referred to in Article 34, paragraphs 1 and 2, a description and claims, even though they do not comply with the other requirements of this Convention.

Article 69

Failure to pay the filing fee or to provide a translation An application for a European patent shall be deemed to be withdrawn: (a) if the fee provided for in Article 66, paragraph 3, has not been paid within the prescribed time limit, or (b) if the translation of the application, in the case provided for in Article 34, paragraph 2, has not been produced within the time limit referred to in that Article.

Article 69a

Naming of the inventor The application for a European patent shall identify the inventor where the national law of at least one of the designated Contracting States requires such identification to be supplied at the time of filing a national application or at any time thereafter.

Article 70

Unity of invention The application for a European patent shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept.

Page 26

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

ZWEITER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

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

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

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

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

Page 27

(w) Articles 152 to 154 - Professional representation, compulsory representation and suthorisation 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 pæolished First Preliminary Draft of 1970, which were to be submitted to the Conference, should reach the Secretariat by

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

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

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

Page 29

(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. (a) 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 30

(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 31

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 32

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

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

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

Page 33

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 34

The majority decision of the Working Party was to settle the problem of the drawings missing from the initial application in a way corresponding to PCT Article 14, paragraph 2. It stipulated that upon examination for obvious deficiencies there would also be an examination of whether drawings had been filed (new sub-paragraph(h) of Article 77, paragraph 2) and it stated the legal consequences in the new paragraph 7 of Article 78 of the drawings not being filed with the application. (e) Chairman's proposal for Article 156 (former Article 186), paragraph 3 (conversion of a European patent application into national patent applications where, in view of the stage reached in the progressive expansion of the European Patent Office, the European patent application cannot be dealt with further BR/GT I/99/71) 18. The Working Party accepted the Chairman's proposal contained in BR/GT I/99/71. It was made clear in paragraph 3, that the period for making the request for conversion would begin with the notification by the European Patent Office that the application could not be further processed. It would last for three months in accordance with Article 124, paragraph 2. 19. The question already discussed at the previous meeting concerning whether appeals would be granted against the deemed withdrawal of the application (cf. BR/87/71, points 35 to 37 ) was raised again. It was considered in this connection that the applicant should have a possibility of appeal in such a case. The notification by the European

Page 35

15. A proposal by the French delegation, to extend from 4 to 5 months the period mentioned in paragraph 3(a) was not supported by the majority of the Working Party. 16. The Working Party considered the outstanding questions relating to Article 65 now settled and decided to delete the square brackets in paragraph 2,3 and 5 . (d) Proposal by the Swiss delegation concerning Article 68(c) (the drawing as a necessary requirement - BR/GT I/97/71) 17. The Swiss delegation stated that in its opinion in the case where the application referred to drawings, an addition should be made to Article 68 sub-paragraph (c) to the effect that drawings were a necessary requirement for filing an application. If the drawings were not filed at the same time as the application, the application would have to be refused in accordance with Article 77, paragraph 1, and Article 78, paragraph 1, on the grounds of not being filed in the proper manner.

On the other hand, several delegations objected that this solution could prove too harsh in the case of drawings which were not absolutely indispensable for understanding the invention; in this case it ought to be possible for the applicant to abandon the drawings, as was also provided for in Article 14, paragraph 2, of the PCT. It should also be considered that a proportion of applications would come to the European Patent Office via the PCT-routs; it would not be advisable to provide a different procedure for these applications from that for purely European applications.

BR/94 e/71 aut/KM/prk

Page 36

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 "Octrooiraad", 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 37

Article 68 (former Article 68b) Date of the application

An application for a European patent shall be deemed to be filed on the date on which the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) an indication is given that the application is for a European patent, and at least one Contracting State is designated in accordance with Article 67, paragraph 1,

(b) information has been given identifying the applicant,

(c) the application contains a description and claims, even though they do not comply with the requirements of this Convention.

BR/70 e/70 fm.

Page 38

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 39

79. Article 138 : Notification of the grounds

The adoption of this new provision, which deals with prior notification of the grounds on which a decision of the Office is to be based, enabled the Working Party to delete Articles 78, paragraph 5, 96, paragraph 2, 105, paragraph 4, 115, paragraph 5 80. Article 139 : Oral proceedings

The adoption of this provision, concerning oral proceedings before the European Patent Office, enabled the Working Party to delete Articles 84, 106 and 114. 81. Article 35a, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph E : Powers of decision of the Administrative Council

Following a previous decision, the Working Party decided to add a sub-paragraph E, authorising the Administrative Council to amend the time limits laid down in the Convention independently of any revision under Article 162 and subject to the provisions of Article 159. The Working Party reserved the right to study whether other time limits in the Convention should be excluded from the simplified procedure for amendment contained in sub-paragraph E. 82. Article 68, paragraph (c) : Date of the application

At the request of the Swiss delegation, the Working Party agreed to examine at one of its next meetings a note in which the Swiss delegation will explain the reasons which in its opinion justify mentioning drawings, as well as description and claims, in paragraph (c).

Page 40

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

Brussels, 28 February 1971 B R / 87 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

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

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

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

Page 41

(3) Die Benennung eines Vertragsstaats kann bis zur Erteilung des europäischen Patents zurückgenommen werden. Die Zurücknahme der Benennung aller Vertragsstaaten gilt als Zurücknahme der europäischen Patentanmeldung. Entrichtete Benennungsgebühren werden nicht zurückgezahlt. (4) Sofern eine Gruppe von Vertragsstaaten von der Ermächtigung in Artikel 8 Gebrauch gemacht hat, kann sie vorschreiben, daß ihre Benennung nur gemeinsam erfolgen kann und daß die Benennung eines Teils der Vertragsstaaten der Gruppe als Benennung aller dieser Vertragsstaaten gilt.

Zeitpunkt der Anmeldung

(1) Die europäische Patentanmeldung gilt als zu dem Zeitpunkt eingereicht, zu dem folgende Erfordernisse erfüllt sind: a) die Anmeldung muß einen Hinweis enthalten, daß sie eine europäische Patentanmeldung darstellt, und mindestens einen Vertragsstaat gemäß Artikel 67 Absatz 1 benennen; b) die Anmeldung muß Angaben enthalten, die es erlauben, die Identität des Anmelders festzustellen; c) die Anmeldung muß eine Beschreibung und Ansprüche enthalten, selbst wenn diese nicht den Vorschriften dieses Übereinkommens entsprechen.

Artikel 69 (früher Artikel 68c)

Nichtentrichtung der Anmeldegebühr und fehlende Übersetzung Die Patentanmeldung gilt als zurückgenommen, a) wenn die in Artikel 66 Absatz 3 vorgesehene Gebühr nicht innerhalb der vorgeschriebenen Frist entrichtet wird oder b) wenn im Fall des Artikels 34 Absatz 2 die Übersetzung der Patentanmeldung nicht innerhalb der dort genannten Frist vorgelegt worden ist.

Artikel 70 (früher Artikel 69)

Einheitlichkeit der Erfindung Die europäische Patentanmeldung darf nur eine einzige Erfindung enthalten oder eine Gruppe von Erfindungen, die untereinander in der Weise verbunden sind, daß sie eine einzige allgemeine erfinderische Idee verwirklichen. (3) The designation of a Contracting State may be withdrawn at any time up to the grant of the European patent. Withdrawal of the designation of all the Contracting States shall be deemed to be a withdrawal of the application for a European patent. Designation fees paid shall not be repaid. (4) In so far as any group of Contracting States has availed itself of the authorisation given in Article 8, this group may provide that these States may only be designated jointly, and that the designation of one or some only of such States shall be deemed to constitute the designation of all the States of the group.

Article 68 (former Article 68b)

Date of the application An application for a European patent shall be deemed to be filed on the date on which the following conditions are satisfied: (a) an indication is given that the application is for a European patent, and at least one Contracting State is designated in accordance with Article 67, paragraph 1, (b) information has been given identifying the applicant, (c) the application contains a description and claims, even though they do not comply with the requirements of this Convention.

Article 69 (former Article 68c)

Failure to pay the filing fee or to provide a translation An application for a European patent shall be deemed to be withdrawn: (a) if the fee provided for in Article 66, paragraph 3, has not been paid within the prescribed time limit, or (b) if the translation of the application, in the case provided for in Article 34, paragraph 2, has not been produced within the time limit referred to in that Article.

Unity of invention

The application for a European patent shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept.

Page 42

REGIERUNGSKONFERENZ ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS

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

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

ERSTER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

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

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

Page 43

34. As regards the consequences of failure to pay designation fees, the Working Party adopted a system similar to that laid down in Article 68 (see point 31 above). 35. The Working Party examined the question of whether the European patent could be requested for one Contracting State only (see also article 2a, doc. BR/6/69). It concluded that it was advisable, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, to allow the designation of a single State, since it would be easy for an applicant to get round any prohibition of the designation of a single Contracting State. What is more, the same principle has been adopted in the PCT plan.

Article 68b - Date of the application 36. This provision incorporates the gist of Article 68, paragraph 3, of the 1965 Draft. In addition, in order to incorporate a similar provision of the PCT plan, it specifies that the application must contain information identifying the applicant.

Article 68c (new) - Failure to pay the filing fee or to provide a translation 37. Cf. 31 above.

Article 69 - Unity of invention 38. The wording of this provision is analogous to that of the corresponding rule of the PCT plan.

Article 70 - Disclosure of the invention 39. The Working Party agreed that the Implementing Regulations could lay down certain details concerning the formulation of applications and, in particular, of the description and the claims similar to those laid down in the texts which have been drafted for revising the Strasbourg Convention on the unification of certain points of Substantive Law relating to Patents for Invention.

Article 71 - Requirements of the Implementing Regulations 40. No comment. BI / 10 e / 69 kel / PA / mk^-

Page 44

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

Brussels, 12 November 1969 BR / 10 / 69

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

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

I

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

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

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

BR/10 e/69 kel/PA/mk

Article 68

Conditions de la demande (1) La demande de brevet européen doit contenir : a) ^+une requête en délivrance d'un brevet européen ; b) une description de l'invention ; c) une ou plusieurs revendications définissant la protection demandée ; d) le cas échéant, les dessins auxquels se réfèrent la description et les revendications. La demande doit être rédigée dans l'une des langues prévues à l'article 34, paragraphes 1 et 2. (2) ^+La demande de brevet européen donne lieu au paiement de la taxe de dépôt prévue au règlement relatif aux taxes pris en exécution de la présente convention. (3) La demande de brevet européen est considérée comme déposée à la date à laquelle les conditions requises au paragraphe 1 sont remplies, sous réserve que la taxe de dépôt soit acquittée dans un délai d'un mois après cette date. (4) ^+Si le paiement de la taxe do dépôt est effectué après l'expiration du délai prévu au paragraphe 3, la demande est considérée comme déposée à la date du paiement, sous réserve que celui-ci intervienne deux mois au plus tard après une injonction de l'Office européen des brevets.

Confidontiel

Modifícations 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)

Page 47

Artikel 68 Erfordernisse der Anmeldung (1) Dio Europäische Patentanmeldung muß enthalten a) ^+einen Antrag auf Erteilung des europaischen Patents, b) eine Beschreibung der Erfindung, c) einen oder mehrere Patentansprüche, die dofinieren, wofür Schutz begehrt wird; d) gegebenenfalls die Zeichnungen, auf dio sich dio Boschroibung und dio Patentansprüche beziohen.

Die Anmoldung muß in einer der in Artikel 34 Absätze 1 und 2 vorgesehenen Sprachen abgefaßt sein. (2) ^+Für die europäische Patentanmeldung ist die Anmeldegebühr zu entrichten, die in der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Jbkommen vorgeschrieben ist. (3) Die europäische Patentanmeldung gilt als zu dem Zeitpunkt oingeroicht, zu dem die Erfordernisso dos Absatzos 1 orfullt sind, sofern dio Anmeldogobühr innerhalb oinor Frist von oinem Monat nach diosem Zeitpunkt ontrichter wird. (4) ^+Wird dio Anmoldogobühr nach Ablauf dor in Absatz 3 vorgosehenon Frist entrichtet, so gilt die Anmoldung als zu dem Zeitpunkt der Zahlung oingeroicht, sofern dioso Zahlung spätestons zwei Monate nach oinor Zahlungsaufforderung dos Europäischen Patentamts oingeht.

Page 48

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente"

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

Vertraulich

VE 1965 ( U_e )

Anderunzen 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 49

Article 67, paragraphe 2 La dernière phrase de ce paragraphe prévoit que les demandes de brevet européen intéressent la défense nationale doivent, en principe, être transmises à l'Office dans les quatre mois du dépôt.

A la suite d'une demande de M. Fressonnot, le Président, approuvé par le groupe, confirme que ce délai n'est pas impératif mais seulement indicatif.

Article 68 Revenant, à propos de cet article, sur la question du dépôt national préalable, M. Fressonnet fait observer que cette question est liée au problème de l'accessibilité. Cette solution dépendra donc de la réponse que donneront les gouvernements au rapport présenté par les Secrétaires d'Etat à ce sujet.

Article 69 Au sujet du paragraphe 1, M. van Benthem fait savoir que les milieux néerlandais intéressés ne sont pas satisfaits de la rédaction actuelle. Ceux-ci préféreraient que ce paragraphe prescrive que la demande ne peut conduire à un brevet définitif que pour une invention plutôt que de fixer l'exigence de l'unité d'invention..

Cette question semble à M. van Benthem une question rédactionnelle. Le Président décide de revoir cette question et lève la séance à 18.00 h .

Page 50

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

2632/IV/64-F-déf. Bruxelles, le 15 avril 1964 Confidentiel

Résultats de la douzième session du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 26 février au 6 mars 1964

COMPTES RENDUS

Page 51

Artikel 67 Absatz 2 Der letzte Satz dieses Absatzes bestimmt, daß Patentanmeldungon, die die nationale Vertoidigung betreffen, grundsätzlich dem Patentamt binnen einer Frist von vier Monaten von der Anmeldung an gerechnet vorliegen müssen.

Auf eine Frage von Horm Fressonnet bestätigt der Vorsitzende mit Zustimmung der Gruppe, daß diese Frist nicht zwingend ist, sondern lediglich als Beispiel gewählt wurde.

Artikel 68 Herr Fressonnet kommt im Zusammenhang mit diesem Artikel auf die Frage der vorherigen nationalen Anmeldung zurück und bemerkt, daß diese mit dem Problem der Akzessibilität verbunden sei. Die Lösung würde deshalb von der Antwort abhängen, die die Regierungen auf den von den Staatssekretären hierüber vorgelegten Bericht geben werden.

Artikel 69 Zu Absatz 1 bemerkt Herr van Bentham, daß die interessierten niederländischen Kreise mit der derzeitigen Fassung nicht einverstanden sind. Sie würden es vorziehen, wenn dieser Absatz vorschriebe, daß die Anmeldung nur für eine Erfindung zu einem endgültigen Patent führen kann, statt das Erfordernis der Einheitlichkeit der Erfindung aufzustellen.

Nach Ansicht von Herrn van Benthem handelt es sich um eine redaktionelle Frage.

Der Vorsitzende beschließt, die Frage später aufzugreifen und schließt die Sitzung um 18.00 Uhr.

ARBEITSGRUPPE

Brüssel, den 15. April 1964 "Patente" VERTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der 12. Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 26. Februar bis 6. März 1964 in Brüssel

SITZUNOSBERICHT

Page 53

The application shall be written in one of the languages referred to in Article 3 paragraphs 1 and 2. (2) The application for a European patent shall be subject to the payment the filing fee prescribed in the Rules relating to fees made under this Convention. (3) The application for a European patent shall be deemed to be filed on the date on which the conditions required under paragraph 1 of this Article has been met, provided that the filing fee be paid within one month following the date. (4) If payment of the filing fee is made after the expiry of the period provided for in paragraph 3. the application shall be deemed to be filed on the date of payment, provided that the date in question is not later than two months afint a demand for payment has been made by the Euruean Patent Office.

Article 69. Unity of invention

An application for a European patent may relate to only one invention. Note: The requirement of this Article does not exclude the grant of a European patent in respect of a process, the resulting product and a method of application, at long as there is unity of invention.

Article 70. Contents of the specification

(1) The specification must disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clea and complete for it to be carried out by a person, killed in the art. (2) The specification shall conclude with one or more claims defining the protection applied for.

Article 71. Requirements of the Implementing Pegulations

An application for a European patent must satisfy the conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulations to this Convention.

Article 72. Priority right

(1) A person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or his successors in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing an application for a European patent in respect of the same invention, a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application. (2) The day of filing shall not be included in the period. If at the office of the competent authority within the meaning of Article 66, paragraph 1, at which the application for a European patent has been filed, the last day of the period is an official holiday, or a day when the offices of that authority are not open for the filing of applications, the period shall be extended until the first following working day.

Page 54

PART IV-APPLICATION FOR EUROPEAN PATENTS

CHAPTER I—FILING AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICATION

Article 66. Filing of the application

(1) An application for a European patent may be filed:

(a) either at the European Patent Office;

(b) or, if the law of a Contracting State so permits, at the central industrial property office or other competent authority of that State. An application filed in this way shall have the same effect as if it had been simultaneously filed at the European Patent Office.

(2) Any Contracting State may prescribe that a person having his registered place of business or his ordinary residence on its territory may not file an application for a European patent otherwise than as provided for in paragraph 1 (b).

(3) In case of failure to observe any provisions made pursuant to paragraph 2 above, the European Patent Office shall transmit the application for a European patent to the central industrial property office of the Contracting State concerned. The effect of the application for a European patent shall not be affected thereby. The provisions of Article 67 shall apply.

Article 67. Forwarding of applications for European patents

(1) The national central industrial property office shall be obliged to forward to the European Patent Office, in the shortest time compatible with the application of national law concerning the secrecy of inventions in the interests of the State, any applications for European patents which have been filed with that office or with other competent authorities in that State.

(2) The Contracting States shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that applications for European patents, the subject of which is obviously not liable to secrecy by virtue of the law referred to in paragraph 1, shall be forwarded to the European Patent Office within a period not exceeding six weeks from the date of filing. Other applications for European patents must, as a rule, be forwarded to the European Patent Office within four months of the date of filing.

(3) An application for a European patent the subject of which has been made secret, shall not be forwarded to the European Patent Office and shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. It may be converted into an application for a national patent in conformity with Article 118 in the Contracting State in which it has been filed. The application fee paid under Article 68 shall be refunded.

Article 68. Requirements of the application

(1) The application for a European patent shall contain:

(a) a request for the grant of a European patent;

(b) a description of the invention together with any drawings referred to therein.

Page 55

BOARD OF TRADE

Translation of a Draft Convention relating to a European Patent Law

LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE FIVE SHILLINGS NET

Page 56

d'autre part, un délai de quatre mois pour toute autre demande; cependant cette règle ne pose qu'un principe et chacun des Etats contractants a le droit de le prolonger. M. Briganti fait remarquer que, selon la législation italierne, toute demande de brevet doit être à la disposition de l'Admi:istration de la Défense nationale pendant un délai de 40 jours après le dépôt de la domande. C'est pourquoi il seroit très difficile pour l'Italie d'accepter le dclai d'un mois.

Le Frégiert pense cue le groupe ce travail aurait continué de suivre le principe de ne pas prévoir de disposition contraire au droit national en matière de la Défense. C'est pourquoi il propose de remplacer le délai d'un mois par un délai de 6 semaines. La décision de cette question dépendra de la délégation italienne qui fera connaitre sa position dès l'arrivée de M. Roscioni.

Article 68 (63) est adopté.

Article 69 (65) est adopté.

Article 70 (64)

Au sujet de cet article, le Comité de rédaction a formulé une remarque qui tiont compte d'une proposition française. La discussion de l'article est donc reportée jusqu'à l'arrivée de la délégation française.

Article 71 (66) est adoyté.

Page 57

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 31 juillet 1962 Confidentiel

Fsaultats de la sixieme session

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

Page 58

Anträge; doch handele es sich um eine grundsätzliche Regelung und jeder der Vertragsstaaten habe das Recht, die Frist zu verlängern.

Herr Briganti machte darauf aufmerksam, daß nach den italienischen Vorschriften jede Patentanmeldung der Landesverteidigungsbehörde nach der Einreichun; des Antrags 40 Tage lang zur Verfügung stehen müsse. Daher könne Italien nur schwer einer einmonatigen Frist zustimmen.

Der Vorsitzende war der Ansicht, die Arbeitsgruppe werde auch weiterhin den Grundsatz befolien, daß keine Bestinmung vorgeschlagen wird, die zu nationalen Vorschriften über die Landesverteidigung im Widerspruch steht. Er schlägt daher vor, die einmonatige Frist durch eine Frist von sechs wochen zu ersetzen. Die Entscheidung über diese Frage hängt von der italienischen Delegation ab, die sogleich nach Ankunft von Herrn Roscioni dazu Stellung zu nehmen verspricht.

Artikel 68 (63) Der Artikel wurde angenomen.

Artikel 69 (65) Der Artikel wurde angenommen. Artikel 70 (64) Diesem Artikel hat der Redaktionsausschuß eine Bemerkung angefügt, die auf einem französischen Vorschlag beruht. Die Aussprache über diesen Artikel wird daher bis zur Ankunft der französischen Delegation zurückgestellt.

Artikel 71 (66) Der Artikel wurde angenommen.

Page 59

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 31. Juli 1962 Vertraulich

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

Page 60

Article 68 (63) Conditions de la demande (1) La demande de brevet européen doit contenir: a) une requête en délivrance d'un brevet européen; b) une description de l'invention avec, le cas échéant, les dessins auxquels elle se réfère.

La demande doit être rédigée dans l'une des langues prévues à l'article 34 paragraphes 1 et 2 . (2) La demande de brevet européen donne lieu au paiement de la taxe de dépôt prévue au Règlement relatif aux taxes pris en exécution de la présente Convention. (3) La demande de brevet européen est considérée comme déposée à la date à laquelle les conditions requises au paragraphe 1 du présent article sont remplies, sous réserve que la taxe de dépôt soit acquittée dans un délai d'un mois à compter de cette date. (4) Si le paiement de la taxe de dépôt est effectuée après l'expiration du délai prévu au paragraphe 3, la demande est considérée comme déposée à la date du paiement, sous réserve que celui-ci intervienne deux mois au plus tard après une injonction de l'office européen des brevets.

COMITE DE REDACTION

Bruxelles, le 26 mai 1962 STRICTEMENT CONFIDENTIEL

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

   =   V E    M a i · A 962

Artikel 68 (63)

Erfordernisse der Anmeldung (1) Die europäische Patentanmeldung muß enthalten a) einen Antrag auf Erteilung des europäischen Patents, b) eine Beschreibung der Erfindung, gegebenenfalls mit den Zeichnungen, auf die die Beschreibung sich bezieht.

Die Anmeldung muß in einer der in Artikel 34 Abs. 1 und 2 vorgesehenen Sprachen abgefaßt sein. (2) Fur die europäische Patentanmeldung ist die Anmeldegebühr zu entrichten, die in der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Abkommen vorgeschrieben ist. (3) Eie europäische Patentanmeldung gilt als zu dem Zeitpunkt eingereicht, an dem die Erfordernisse des Absatzes 1 dieses Artikels erfullt sind, sofern die Anmeldegebühr innerhalb einer Frist von einem Monat von diesem Zeitpunkt an entrichtet wird. (4) Wird die Anmeldegebühr nach Ablauf der in Absatz 3 vorgesehenen Frist entrichtet, so gilt die Anmeldung als zu dem Zeitpunkt der Zahlung eingereicht, sofern diese Zahlung spätestens zwei Monate nach einer Zahlungsaufforderung des Europäischen Patentamtes eingeht.

Page 63

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" Redaktionsausschuss

Brüssel, den 26. Mai 1962

STRENG VERTRAULICH

V or e n t w u r f eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Page 64

deux semaines. Dans le 2ème paragraphe, on pourrait prévoir une exception à ce principe pour les demandes européennes intéressant la défense nationale. Dans ce paragraphe, il vaudrait mieux adopter la formule plus souple proposée par la délégation française.

L'article 62 est transmis au Comité de rédaction.

Article 63

Le Comité de rédaction doit prendre en considération les dispositions de l'article 44 concernant les langues utilisées par l'Office. Pour tenir compte des propositions françaises, le Comité de rédaction ajoutera une remarque.

Article 64

Le Comité de rédaction devra veiller à la concordance avec l'article 5, n^∘ 1 du projet du Conseil de l'Europe. Il examinera s'il est indiqué de fusionner les articles 64 et 65 . En outre, le Comité de rédaction examinera le problème soulevé à ce sujot par la proposition française et soumettra des propositions au groupe au mois de juin.

L'article 64 est adopté. Les articles 65 et 66 sont adoptés.

Article 67 à 67 c

Le Comité de rédaction est chargé d'examiner ces articles compte tenu de l'ensemble de la procédure prévue pour le brevet et soumettra des propositions au groupe. M. Pressonnet remarque que ces articles sont superflus si l'on adopte la proposition française.

Ces articles sont transmis au Comité de rédaction. Les articles 68 et 69 sont adoptés.

Page 65

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 66

Landesverteidigung betreffen, eine Ausnaĭme von diesem Grundsatz vorsehen. In diesem Absatz sei es besser, die von der französischen Delegation vorgeschlagene elastischere Formulierung zu verwenden.

Artikel 62 wird dem Redaktionsausschuß überwiesen.

Artikel 63

Der Redaktionsausschuß wird angewiesen, die Bestimmungen des Art. 44 bezüglich der vom Patentamt verwendeten Sprachen zu beachten, Um den französischen Vorschlag nicht zu übergehen, soll der Redaktionsausschuß eine Anmerkung hinzufügen.

Artikel 64

Der Redaktionsausschuß soll auf die Übereinstimmung mit Art. 5 Nr .1 des Europa-Rat-Entwurfs achten. Er soll ferner die Zweckmäßigkeit einer Verschmelzung der Artikel 64 und 65 prüfen. Weiter soll der Redaktionsausschuß das durch den französischen Vorschlag aufgeworfene Problem untersuchen und im Juni der Arbeitsgruppe Vorschläge unterbreiten.

Artikel 64 wird angenommen. Die Artikel 65, 66 werden angenommen.

Artikel 67-67 c

Der Redaktionsausschuß wird beauftragt, diese Artikel unter Berücksichtigung des gesamten. Verfahrens zur Patenterteilung zu überprüfen und der Arbeitsgruppe Vorschläge zu machen.

Herr Fressonnet meint, diese Artikel seien bei einer Annahme des französischen Vorschlags überflüssig.

Die Artikel werden dem Redaktionsausschuß überwiesen. Die Artikel 68, 69 werden angenommen.

Page 67

ARBEITSGEUPPE " Patente "

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

3076/IV/62-D Orig.: F

Page 68

Article 63 Conditions de la demande (1) La demande de brevet européen doit contenir : a) une requête en délivrance d'un brevet européen, b) une description de l'invention avec, le cas échéant, les dessins auxquels elle se refere.

La demande doit être rédigée dans l'une des langues prévues à l'article (2) La demande de brevet européen donne lieu au payement de la taxe de dépôt prévue au règlement relatif aux taxes. (3) La demande de brevet européen est considérée comme déposée à la date à laquelle les conditions requises au paragraphe 1 du présent article sont remplies, sous reserve que la taxe de dépôt soit acquittée dans un délai d'un mois à compter de cette date. (4) Si le payement de la taxe de dépôt est effectuée après l'expiration du délai prévu au paragraphe 3, la demande est considérée comme déposée à la date du payement, sous reserve que celui-ci intervienne deux mois au plus tard après une injonction de l'office européen des brevets.

Page 69

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL "Brevets"

Bruxelles, le 18 juillet 1961

Confidentiel

Résultats de la deuxième session du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 3 au 14 juillet 1961

Page 70

Artikel 63 Erfordernisse der Anmeldung (1) Die europäische Patentanmeldung muss enthalten : a) einen Antrag auf Erteilung des curopäischen Patents, b) eine Beschreibung der Jrfindung, gegebenenfalls mit den Zeichnungen, auf die die Beschreibung sich bezieht.

Die Anmoldung muss in einer der in Artikel ...... vorgesehenen Sprachen abgefasst sein. (2) Für die europäische Patentanmeldung ist die Anmeldegebühr zu entrichten, die in der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Abkommen vorgeschricben. ist. (3) Die europäische Patentanmeldung gilt als zu dem Zeitpunkt eingereicht, an dem die Erfordernisse des Absatzes 1 dieses Artikels erfüllt sind, sofern die Anmeldegebühr innerhalb einer Frist von einem Monat von diesem Zeitpunkt an entrichtet wird. (4) Wird die Anmeldegebühr nach Ablauf der in Absatz 3 vorgesehenen Frist entrichtet, so gilt die Anmeldung als zu dem Zeitpunkt der Zahlung eingeroicht, sofern diese Zahlung spätestens zwei Monate nach einer Zahlungsaufforderung des Europäischen Patentamtes eingeht.

Page 71

ARBLITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Brüssel, den 18. Juli 1961

VERTRAULICH

Ergobnisso der zwoiton Sitzung der Arboitsgruppe "Patente" vom 3. bis 14. Juli 1961 in Brüssel

Page 72

Discussion de l'article 66 du 1 'avant-projet.

Répondent à une quisti n de M. van Benthem, le Président explique les rapports entre l'article 66 et l'article 63, exception faite de la quastion du paiement dus taxus. Il précise qu'on ne peut considérer une demande de brevet commó déposée qu'à partir du moment où toutes les conditions de recevabilité prévues aux alinéa 1 ct 3 sont remplies, c'ost à dire dès l'instant où la dernière condition non encore satisfaite ust rempli..

M. Sünner suggère de décider que l'obligation de soumettre tous les documents necessaires dans une des langues prévues par la Convention soit atténuée pour permettre, dans les cas urgents, de remettre à une date ultéricure la rédaction complète de la demande dans une de cos langucs.

Aucune des délégations n'appuis cotte suggestion du fait qu'aucune des législations nationales n'admet une telle faculté.

Quant au paioment dus taxes, le groupe se réfère à la discussion de l'article 63 et fixe le délai à quatre somaines.

Répondant à une quastion de M. Gajac, le Président souligno que l'exigence d'une demande du délivrance d'un brevet curopéen prévue à l'alinéa 1 do l'article 63 ust nécessaire parce qu'elle fournit des indications indispensables pour la procédure devant l'Office, telle que l'adresse du domindeur, etc. Cette exigence est d'ailleurs prévue par la Convention uuropéenne relative aux conditions de forme.

L'article 66 ost transmis au Comité de rédaction.

Page 73

Discussion de l'article 62 do l'avant-projet.

Après une intervention du M. van Benthem, il est décidé de porter le délai prévu au paragraphe 2 de deux à trois mois.

L'article 62 est transmis au Comité de rédaction avec quelques observations concernant la forme et in lui domanclant de tenir compte des modifiations de l'article 61.

Discussion de l'article 63 do l'avant-projet.

A la suite de p.opositions faites par KN. van Benthem et Pfanner, il est décidé tout d'abord de disjoindre les paragraphes-1-3-3 (conditions de recevabilité) du paragraphe 4 qui constituera un article à lui seul et ensuite de prévoir sous le paragraphe 1 que les dessins font partie de la description afin de libérer ceux-ci de tout élément subjuct; d'appréciation de la part de l'examinateur.

La séance est levée à 12 heures 30 et reprise à 15 heures.

Suite de la discussion de l'article 63 de l'avant-projet.

Le Président précise qu'il faudrait donner un libellé moins strict à l'alinéa 2 de l'article 63 en ce qui concerne le paiement des taxes. Etant donné les difficultés d'obtenir la mention de l'heure du paiement, il conviendrait de prévoir qu'un dépôt établirait la priorité à condition que le paiement de la taxe de dépôt ait eu lieu dans un délai de deux à quatre semaines après l'accomplissement des conditions de recevabilité prévues aux paragraphes 1 et 3 . Les conditions du détail concernant le paiement de la taxe pourront être réglées ultérieurement par l'autorité compétente.

L'article 63 est transmis au Comité de rédaction.

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL

Bruxelles, le 18 juillet 1961 "Brevets"

Confidentiel

Résultats de la deuxième session du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 3 au 14 juillet 1961

Page 75

Erörterungen zu Artikel 66 des Vorentwurfs

Auf eine Frage von Herrn van Benthem crläutert der Prăsidont das Verhältnis von Artikel 66 zu Artikel 63 mit Ausnahme der Frage der Entrichtung der Gebühren. Die Patentanmeldung gultu erst als in dem Zeitpunkt cingercicht, da alle Zulässigkeitsvoraussetzungen nach Absatz 1 und 3 erfüllt soion, d.h. die letzte noch nicht verwirklichte Voraussetżung vorliege.

Herr Sünner schlägt vor, die Verpflichtung, wonach alle orforderlichen Dokumente in einer der vom Abkommen vorgesehenen Sprachen eingereicht'werden müssen, dahin zu mildern, dass die vollständige Abfassung der Anmeldung in einer dieser Sprachen in dringenden Fallon zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt nachgeholt werden kann.

Dieser Vorschlag wird von keiner Ielegation befürwortet, weil die Rechtsvorschriften der einzelnen Länder diese Möglichkeit nicht kennen.

Hinsichtlich der Entrichtung der Gebühren bezicht sich die Gruppe auf die Wrörterungen zu Artikel 63 und setzt die Frist auf 4 Wochen fest.

Auf eine Frage von Herrn Gajac hebt der Prăsidunt horvor, dass oine ouropäische Patentanmeldung nach Artikel 63 Absatz 1 orforderlich sei, weil sie die für das. Vorfahren vor dem Patentamt unentbehrlichen Angaben enthalte, wio z.B. die Anschrift des Anmelders usw. Dieses Erfordernis sei übrigens im ouropäischen Abkommen über Formvorschriften vorgesehon.

Artikel 66 wird an den Redaktionsausschuss überwiosen.

Page 76

Erörterungen zu Artikel 62 des Vorentwurfs

Auf cine Bemerkung von Horrn van Benthom wird beschlossen, die in Absatz 2 vorgesehene. Frist von 2 auf 3 Monate zu verlängern.

Mit einigen Anmerkungen zur Form und mit dor Bitte, die Abänderungen zu Artikel 61 zu berücksichtigen, wird Artikel 62 dem Redaktionsausschuss überwiesen.

Erörterungen zu Artikel 63 des Vorentwurfs

Auf Vorschlag von Herrn van Benthom und Horrn Pfanner wird beschlossen, die Absätze 1 bis 3 (Zulässigkeitsvoraussetzungen) von Absatz 4 zu trennen, der ein selbständiger Artikel werden soll; ferner soll Absatz 1 bestimmon, dass die Zeichnungen Beständteil der Beschreibung sind, damit die Zeichnungen jeder subjektiven Bewertung durch den Prüfer entzogen werden.

Die Sitzung wird um 12 Uhr 30 unterbrochen und um 15 Uhr wieder fortgesetzt.

Fortsetzung der Erörterungen zu Artikel 63 des Vorontwurfs

Der Präsident arklärt, die Vorschriften des Absatzes 2 von Artikel 63 über die Entrichtung der Gebühren müsse abgemildert wordon. Mit Rücksicht auf die Schwierigkeiten hinsichtlich der Feststellung des Zeitpunkts der Zahlung müsse eine Regelung getroffen werden, wonach der Vorschlag durch eine Anmeldung gesichert sei, sofern die Anmeldegebühr innerhalb von 3 bis 4 Wochen nach brfüllung der in Absatz 1 und 3 vorgesehenen Zulässigkeitsvoraussetzungen ontrichtet werde. Die Einzelheiten für die Entrichtung der Gebühr könnten später durch die zuständige Behörde festgelegt werden.

Artikel 63 wird dem Redaktionsausschuss überwiesen.

Page 77

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Brüssel, den 18. Juli 1961

VERTRAULICH

Ergobnisso der zwoiton Sitzung der Arboitsgruppe "Patente" vom 3. bis 14. Juli 1961 in Brüssel

Page 78

L'article 63, paragraphe 4 contient une disposition précisant quelles conditions ne doivent pas être nécessairement remplies par la demande de brevet pour qu'il y ait dépôt régulier servant de base pour établir la priorite de la domande. Il s'agit toutefois de conditions qui doivent être obligatoirement remplies pour que la demanio aboutisse à l'octroi d'un brevet européen provisoire (cf. article 71, paragraphe 2 c) de l'avant-projet). Il s'agit notamment de conditions requises par la convention européenne du 11 décembre 1953 relative aux conditions de forme de la demande de brevet. L'avant-projet part du principe selon lequel il s.rait opportun que ces conditions très détaillées ne soient pas énumérées dans la Convention elle-même, mais dans un règlement d'application de la Convention.

Ajoutons enfin que, dans la mesure où elles concernent les formalités de la domande de brevet européen, les dispositions de la convention relative à un droit européen des brevets doivent rester dans le cadre de la Convention européenne précitée relative aux conditions de forme.

Page 79

Ad Article 63

1. Documents :

a) Convention européenne du 11 décembre 1953 relative aux conditions de forme requises pour les demandes de brevet, article 2; b) Projet de droit nordique des brevets, paragraphe 10.

2. Remarques :

Les paragraphes 1 à 3 de l'article 63 de l'avant-projet résument les conditions minima que doit remplir la demande de brevet européen pour être considéréc comme régulièrement déposée. En conséquence, l'article 66 de l'avant-projet prévoit que la demande de brevet européen n'est considérée comme déposée qu'à partir du moment où les conditions stipulées à l'article 63, paragraphes 1 à 3, sont remplies.

En ce qui concerne l'acquittement de la taxe de dépôt, l'article 63, paragraphe 2 de l'avant-projet est fondé sur le système de la "taxe versée à la demande" (Antragsgobühr). Afin d'éviter à l'office européen des brevets les difficultés résultant de la réclamation ou du recouvrement des taxes de dépôt impayées, l'article 63, paragraphe 2 de l'avant-projet prévoit, en corrélation avec l'article 66, que la demande de brevet européen n'est considérée comme déposée qu'après que la taxe de dépôt a été versée.

L'article 63, paragraphe 3 su pose qu'un autre article précisera ultérieurement quelles langues peuvent être employées vis à vis do l'office européen des brevets.

Page 80

Article 63

Conditions de la demande (1) La demande de brevet uuropéen doit contenir : a) une demande do délivrance d'un brevet européen; b) une description de l'invention; c) les dessins nécessaires pour l'intelligence de la description. (2) La taxe de dépôt prévue au tarif arrêté on exécution de la présente Convention doit être versée lors du dépôt de la demande de brevet ouropéen. (3) La demande de brevet européen doit être rédigée dans l'une des langues prévues à l'article (4) La demande de brevet ouropéen doit, en outre, remplir toutes les conditions prévues dans lc règlement d'exécution de la présente Convention.

Page 81

IV/3858/61-F Orig.: D. Kurt Haertel Bonn, le 29 mai 1961.

CONFIDENTIEL

Premier avant-projet de Convention relatif à un droit ouropéen des brevets

Articles 61 à 90 f IV/3858/61-F Orig.: D.

Page 82

welche Sprachen dem europäischen Patentamt gegenüber benutzt werden können.

Artikel 63 Abs. 4 enthält eine Bestimmung über diejenigen Erfordernisse der Patentanmeldung, deren Vorliegen für eine ordnungsgemäße Einreichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung, die den Zeitrang der Anmeldung begründet, nicht erforderlich ist. Gleichwohl handelt es sich dabei um Voraussetzungen, ohne deren Vorliegen ein vorläufiges europäisches Patent auf die Anmeldung nicht erteilt werden kann (vgl. Artikel 71 Abs. 2 c des Arbeitsentwurfs). Es handelt sich dabei insbesondere um Erfordernisse, wie sie in der Europäischen Übereinkunft über Formerfordernisse bei Patentanmeldungen vom 11. Dezember 1953 enthalten sind. Der Arbeitsentwurf geht davon aus, daß diese sehr ins einzelne gehenden Erfordernisse zweckmäßigerweise nicht im Abkommen wiedergegeben, sondern in eine Ausführungsordnung zum Abkommen aufgenommen werden sollten.

Ergänzend sei darauf hingewiesen, daß sich die Bestimmungen des Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht, soweit sie sich auf die Formalien für die europäische Patentanmeldung beziehen, in dem durch die vorgenannte Europäische Übereinkunft über Formerfordernisse vorgeschriebenen Rahmen halten müssen.

1. Materialien:

a) Europäische Übereinkunft über Formerfordernisse bei Patentanmeldung vom 11. Dezember 1953, Artikel 2 b) Entwurf eines nordischen Patentrechts, § 10

2. Bemerkungen:

Artikel 63 des Arbeitsentwurfs fasst in den Absätzen 1 bis 3 diejenigen Mindesterfordernisse einer europäischen Patentanmeldung zusammen, die vorliegen müssen, damit eine ordnungsgemäß eingereichte europäische Patentanmeldung überhaupt vorliegt. Demzufolge sieht Artikel 66 des Arbeitsentwurfs vor, daß eine europäische Patentanmeldung erst zu dem Zeitpunkt als eingereicht gilt, an dem die Erfordernisse des Artikels 63 Abs. 1 bis 3 erfullt sind.

Für die Entrichtung der Anmeldegebühr geht Artikel 63 Abs. 2 des Arbeitsentwurfs von dem System der Antragsgebühr aus. Um dem Europäischen Patentamt die Schwierigkeiten zu ersparen, die sich aus der Nachforderung oder der Beitreibung nicht entrichteter Anmeldegebühren ergeben, sieht Artikel 63 Abs. 2 in Verbindung mit Artikel 66 des Arbeitsentwurfs vor, daß eine europäische Patentanmeldung erst dann als eingereicht gilt, wenn die Anmeldegebühr entrichtet ist.

Artikel 63 Abs. 3 des Arbeitsentwurfs geht davon aus, daß in einem späteren Artikel vorgesehen wird,

Erfordernisse der Anmeldung

(1) Die europäische Patentanmeldung muß enthalten: a) einen Antrag auf Erteilung des europäischen Patents, b) eine Beschreibung der Erfindung und

(2) Mit der Einreichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung muß die in der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Abkommen vorgeschriebene Anmeldegebühr entrichtet werden. (3) Die europäische Patentanmeldung muß in einer der in Artikel ..... vorgesehenen Sprachen abgefaßt sein. (4) Die europäische Patentanmeldung muß im übrigen allen Erfordernissen genügen, die in der Ausführungsordnung zu diesem Abkommen vorgeschrieben sind.

Erster Arbeitsentwurf

eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Artikel 61 bis 90 f

5. Filing and requirements of the European patent application (Articles 73-84 and Rules 24-37)

During its discussion of Article 73, the Main Committee was faced with the question of which office of the European Patent Office the European patent application should be filed at. In the interests of the applicant, it gave him the choice of Munich or The Hague and amended Article 73, paragraph 1(a) and Article 74, paragraph 1, accordingly.

In connection with the requirements of the application under Article 76, the Main Committee examined the need to file the abstract. It considered that if this were not done, there would be a loss of information and therefore maintained this requirement. It also decided to prescribe the compulsory publication of the abstract with the search report under Article 92.

Closely connected with the substantive requirement of disclosing the invention under Article 81 was the problem of making special provisions for European patent applications covering micro-organisms. It was not contested that the relevant provision, Rule 28, should lay down that micro-organisms which are not available to the public should be deposited with a recognised culture collection no later than at the time of filing the application, that the micro-organism should be adequately described in the application, and that the culture collection should be identified either in the application itself or within a short time thereafter. It was also agreed that the disclosure of the micro-organism should be subject to certain measures to protect the applicant. Views differed, however, on the latest time at which the micro-organism should be made available to the public. Contrary to the draft of Rule 28, which provided for this to be not later than the date of publication of the application, it was proposed that the applicant should not be obliged to make the micro-organism available to the public until the time of the grant of the patent, at which point the provisional protection would be lost. The main arguments put forward in defence of this standpoint were that the approach contained in the draft laid an unfair burden on such applicants in comparison to inventors in other fields of technology by requiring the subject-matter of the invention to be deposited, and that the applicant was forced to reveal know-how, thus making it easier for his invention to be copied at a time when it was not yet definite whether or not the application would lead to the grant of a patent.

Those who advocated the approach set out in the draft argued that the public could be considered to be sufficiently informed about the subject-matter of the invention only if the micro-organism were made available to the public at the time of the publication of the application; furthermore, it was only by such a disclosure that the micro-organism could be comprised in the state of the art under Article 52, paragraph 3, with the result that this was the only means whereby duplication of patents could be avoided and legal uncertainty in relation to national patent applications could be removed.

After detailed consideration of the various arguments for and against the two approaches, the Main Committee decided by a majority to retain the solution proposed in the draft and to lay down that the micro-organism should be made available to the public at the latest at the date of publication of the European patent application. At the same time, it added provisions to Rule 28 which gave the applicant far-reaching guarantees against misuse of the disclosed micro-organism during the existence of the provisional protection conferred by the application and the definitive protection of the European patent. These guarantees consisted in requiring that any third party who had access to a sample of the culture would have to make certain undertakings vis-a-vis the culture collection or the applicant for or proprietor of the patent in respect of the ways in which he used the culture. On the other hand, the Main Committee decided, in the same way as in respect of Article 67, not to adopt a procedural rule which would have obliged a third party who used a micro-organism disclosed by the applicant to prove that the culture concerned was not that described in the application, even though the reversal of the burden of proof would have reinforced the legal position of the applicant even further. It was also made clear in Rule 28 that the built-in safety clauses in favour of the applicant did not prejudice any national provisions concerning compulsory licences or uses in the interest of the State. The details governing the deposit, storage and availability of cultures were left to agreements to be concluded between the President of the European Patent Office and the recognised culture collections.

6. Questions of priority (Articles 85-87/Rule 38)

Apart from the amendment to Article 85, paragraph 5, already dealt with above in the chapter on "language questions", the provisions of Articles 85-87 concerning priority led to few amendments. It may be mentioned that the extension of the priority right to States which are not members of the Paris Convention, in accordance with an amendment decided upon by the Committee in the interests of the Contracting States, will apply only if international reciprocity is granted not only in relation to European but also in relation to national applications by Contracting States.

7. Procedure up to grant (Articles 88-97/Rules 39-55)

In so far as individual provisions of Articles 88-97 and the corresponding Rules 39-55 concerning the procedure up to grant have already been discussed in connection with language questions, identification of the inventor and the abstract, reference should be made to the appropriate Chapters 1 , 3 and 5 .

During the discussion of Articles 93/94 the Committee confirmed the specified period within which requests for examination may be filed and also the possibilities for extending the time limits, both of which are the result of well thought out compromises. The Committee refused in particular to lay down in Article 94 an absolute right for third parties to request examination in the event of the Administrative Council extending a time limit. The need for such a right for third parties depends largely on the length of time by which the period is extended.

8. Opposition procedure (Articles 98-104/Rules 56-64)

The provisions concerning opposition procedure gave rise to very little discussion. A proposal to delete the opposition fee in Article 98, paragraph 1, on the ground that the opponent was to be considered as a person helping to establish the legal facts of the matter, was rejected by the majority. If the fee were to be dispensed with, dilatory opposition would be encouraged. Furthermore, the interests of the opponent are his main incentive and lastly, pursuant to Article 114, any person who wishes to help to establish the legal facts of the matter may present, free of charge, observations concerning the patentability of an invention in respect of which an application has been filed. By a vast majority the Committee also refused to shorten to six months the nine-month opposition period laid down in Article 98, paragraph 1, which had been adopted as a compromise solution at an earlier stage in the negotiations.

In Article 98 and in Rule 61 the Committee added new provisions which also make possible the filing of notice of opposition and consequently the continuation of opposition proceedings when the proprietor has completely surrendered the European patent or when it has lapsed for all the