Art89eTPEPC1973

Métadonnées

• Nom affiché : Art89eTPEPC1973
• Numéro d'article : 89
• Dossier / langue : English
• Tag langue : #English
• PDF original : Articles/English/Articles 076-100/Article 089 (English version)/Art89eTPEPC1973.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. 89 MPO Wirkung des Prioritätsrechts

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.	67a	IV/6514/61	S. 83-85
IV/6514/61	67a	IV/3076/62	S. 151
VE Mai 1962	73	6551/IV/62	S. 22
NE 1962 (Ue)	73	BR/10/69	Rdn. 42-47
√() BR/9/69	73	√() BR/12/69	Rdn. 96/97
√() BR/13/69	73	√() BR/26/70	Rdn. 27
VE 1970 (Ue)	74	√(B R / 49 / 70)	Rdn. 110
VE 1970 (Ue)	74	√(B R / 87 / 71)	Rdn. 66
√() BR/70/70	74	√() BR/94/71	Rdn. 80
VE 1971 (Ue)	74	√() BR/168/72	Rdn. 94/95
VE 1971 (Ue)	74	√() BR/169/72	Rdn. 76-78
VE 1971 (Ue)	74	√() BR/177/72	Rdn. 44
√() BR/88/71	74	BR/125/71	Rdn. 43

Dokumente der .MDK

"E 1972	87	M / 20	S. 204
"	87	√()M / 27	S. 332
"	87	M / 74 / I / R 1	S. 10
"	87	M / 80 / I / R 2	S. 12
"	87	M / 88 / I / R 3	S. 5
"	87	M / 109 / IR 5	S. 5
"	87	M / 146 / R 4	Art. 89
"	87	M / PR / I	S. 44
"	87	M / PR / G	S. 201

VERTRAULICH !

Erster Arbeitsentwurf
eines Abkommens
über ein europäisches Patentrecht.

Artikel 61 bis 90 f -100

Page 4

Für den Bonutzer des curopäischen Abkommens ist es schliesslich praktischer, wenn or alle ihn interessiorendon Bestimmungen im Abkommen solbst findet.

Auf oine Bemerkung von Eerrn Van Bunthem weist dor Prăsident darauf hin, dass es nicht zwockmässig ist, in das curopäische Abkommen oine Klausel aufzunehmen, dio nach jodor Inderung der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft cino automatische Uberprüfung des abkommens vorsioht.

Die Grupp stimmt dem Präsidenten darin zu, und nimmt oinon Vorschlag von Herrn Roscioni an, wonach in den Schlussbestimmungen des curopäischen Abkommens den Mitgliedstaaten dieses Abkommens vorgoschrieben werden soll, unmittelbar nach jeder Anderung der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft zusammenzutroten und zu prüfen, ob das curopäische Abkommen guändert werden muss.

Der Präsident beauftragt den Redaktionsausschuss, den Wortlaut von Artikel 67 bis 67 c) zu überprüfun. Der Ausschuss soll darauf achton, dass die Bestimmungen der Pariser Verbandsüberoinkunft berücksichtigt werden. Die noue Fassung soll der Gruppe in der nächsten Sitzung vorgelcgt werden. Die Gruppe billigt diesen Vorschlag.

Der Präsident erklärt, jedes Mitglied der Arboitsgruppe worde nachstehende Unturlagen erhalten :

1. die Ergoönisse dieser Sitzung (Wortlaut der Artikel, Berichte, Pressomittcilung), 2. eino Zusammenfassung der vom Redaktionsausschuss in den cinzolnon Sitzungen der Gruppe boroits goprüfton Artikel.

Dio nächste Sitzungspuriode wird vom 8. bis 19. Januar 1962 in Brüssel stattfinden. In dioser Sitzungsperiode sollen die Lücken der augenblicklichen Fassung des Vorontwurfs ausgefüllt und den Dolegierten Gelegenheit gegoben werden, zu den noch ungelösten Fragen Stellung zu nehmen.

Der Präsident dankt der Arbcitsgruppe und den Dienststollon der EWG.

Die Sitzung wird um 13 Uhr geschlossen.

Page 5

4. In der Ubergangszeit wird ein nationales Patent angemeldet und nach der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft dio Priorität einer ouropäischen Patontanmeldung geltend gemacht. 5. und 6. Nach Beendigung der Ubergangszeit ontfällt der doppelte Schutz. Die Gruppe verzichtet darauf, im augenblicklichen Zeitpunkt die beiden diesbezüglichen Fälle zu erörtern.

Die Gruppe ist der Ansicht, dass os in den ersten vier Fällen immor zulässig sein muss, nach der Parisor-Verbandsübereinkunft die Priorität auf Grund einer europäischen Anmeldung und für cino europäische Anmeldung geltend zu machen.

Herr Roscioni stellt die Frage, ob es nicht zweckmässiger sei, zu Beginn des Abkommens wegen der Prioritätsfragen auf die Parisor Verbandsübereinkunft zu vorweisen, statt dieses Problem erschöpfend zu rogeln, wie das im Vorontwurf der Fall ist.

Nach einer cingehenden Erörterung gelangt die Gruppe zu dem Ergobnis, dass es aüs nachstehenden Gründen zweckmässiger ist, die Priorität im Abkommen erschöpfend zu rogeln.

Zunächst ist zu beachten, dass die beiden Lösungen die gleichen Rechtsfolgen haben.

Eine Verwoisung auf die Parisor Verbandsübereinkunft müsste vorzugsweise eine globale Verwoisung sein. Die Erörterungen zu Artikel 5 tor haben gezeigt, dass cine solche Vorweisung nicht möglich ist. Die Parisor Verbandsübereinkunft betrachtet nämlich die gesamten Mitgliedstaaten des curopäischen Abkommens nicht als cino nationale Linhoit, denn dic Parisor Verbandsübereinkunft enthält keine Bestimmungen, die derien des revidierten Haager Nustorabkommens entsprechen.

Eine Verwoisung auf die Parisor Verbandsübereinkunft hätte ausscrdom den Nachteil, dass rechtlich umstrittene Bestimmungen Anwendung finden würden. Diese Bestimmungen sind nämlich das Ergebnis von Kompromisslösungen, die zu Unrecht untur einer annehmbaren Fassung Meinungsvorschicdenheiten in der Sache selbst verborgen.

Page 6

Die Gruppe crklärt sich mit ciner mündlichon Vorhandlung grundsätzlich cinvorstandon. Sic wird vom Präsidenten aufgefordert, zu dor Frage Stellung zu nohmon, ob dioso Vorhandlung obligatorisch odor fakultativ sein soll. Er weist darauf hin, dass das Beschwerdoverfahren im Rahmen dos grundsätzlich schriftlichen Ertollungsverfahrons durchgefuhrt wird. Dio Notwendigkeit oinor mündlichen Verhandlung könne also in das Ermessen der Bcschwerdekammer gestellt worder

Dic Gruppe gonuhmigt einstimmig die fakultati Lösung. Die obligatorische Lösung schoitort nämlich an den Schwierd ten, dio sich aus den grossen Entfernungen im Goltungsbereich des ou: schen Patents, aus den hohen Kosten und aus don Sprachproblomen c

Dic Gruppe hält cs für orforderlich, die K: wegfallen zu lassen, damit dic Beschwerdokammer die Bofugnis - die Notwendigkeit oinor mündlichen Vorhandlung zu onta

Artikel 9c a) wird an in Redaktionsaussc n.

Erörterungen zu Artikel 67 bis 67 c) des Vorontw Der Präsident zählt zunächst die sochs Fälle auf, in donon das Problem der Priorität auftritt.

1. Eino europäische Patentanmuldung wird oingorcicht, für dio nach der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft dio Priorität oiner in oinom Nicht-Mitgliedstaat des ouropäischen Abkommens orfolgton Anmeldung geltond gemacht wird. 2. Ein europäisches Patent wird angomeldet. Für dio gloiche Erfindung wird in oinem Nicht-Mitgliodsland des ouropäischen Abkommens cin Patent angomeldot und nach der Parisor Verbandsübereinkunft dio ouropäische Priorität geltond gemacht. 3. In der Ubergangszeit, dic oinon doppelten Schutz derselben Erfindung durch ein nationalos und oin europäisches Patent zulässt, wird oino europäische Patentanmeldung oingoreicht und nach der Parisor Verbandsübereinkunft dic Priorität oinor nationalen Anmeldung in oinom Mitgliedstaat des ouropäischen Abkommens geltend gemacht.

PRGmuer

IV/6514/61-D

ARBEITSGRUPPE Brüssel, den 13. November 1961 "Patente" VERTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der dritten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 25. September bis 6. Oktober 1961 in Brüssel

Page 8

Brüssel, den 6. Oktober 1961

Artikel 67 a

Wirkung des Prioritätsrechts

Das Prioritätsrecht hat die Wirkung, dass der Zeitpunkt der ersten Anmeldung a) als Zeitpunkt der europäischen Patentanmeldung im Sinne des Artikels 14 Abs. 2 und 3 gilt, b) als Zeitpunkt gilt, der für den Erwerb eines Vorbenutzungsrechts oder eines persönlichen Besitzrechts gemäss Artikel 22 massgebend ist, sofern das nach Artikel 22 angewendete nationale Recht nichts anderes bestimmt. 7

Bemerkung : Siehe Bemerkung zu Artikel 67.

Page 9

Pfannet IV/6514/61-D

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Brüssel, den 13. November 1961 VERTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der dritten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 25. September bis 6. Oktober 1961 in Brüssel

Page 10

Landesverteidigung betreffen, eine Ausnahme 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 Eur. 2 a-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 angenomen. 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 Anriahme des französischen Vorschlags überflüssig.

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

Page 11

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

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

Page 12

Artikel 73 (67a)

Wirkung des Prioritätsrechts

Das Prioritätsrecht hat die Wirkung, daß der Zeitpunkt der ersten Anmeldung a) als Zeitpunkt der europäischen Patentanmeldung im Sinne des Artikels 11 Abs. 2 und 3 sowie des Artikels 19 gilt, b) als Zeitpunkt gilt, der für den Erwerb eines Vorbenutzungsrechts oder eines persönlichen Besitzrechts gemäB Artikel 22 maBgebend ist, sofern das nach Artikel 22 anzuwendende nationale Recht nichts anderes bestimmt.

Page 13

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

V o r e n t w u r f

eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Page 14

- 22 -

6551/IV/62-D

Artikel 72 (67)

Der Vorsitzende wies darauf hin, dass eine Annahme von Artikel 72 nur dann in Frage komme, wenn man sich für die erste Fassung von Artikel 5 ent- scheide.

Diese Fassung von Artikel 5 sei während der fünften Sitzungsperiode in Brüssel verteilt worden und betreffe die Frage der Antragsberechtigung und deren Beurteilung unter dem Gesichtspunkt der "offenen Tür"; hierbei sei jedoch darauf hinzuweisen, dass dieses Antragsrecht zwar grundsätzlich frei sein solle, jedoch unter der Voraussetzung, dass das Prioritätsrecht der europäischen Anmeldung den Staat anerkannt werde, aus dem die Patentanmeldung stammt. Daher solle man Artikel 72 durch eine Bestimmung ergänzen, wonach einem Antragsteller, der seinen Sitz oder seine Hauptniederlassung in einem nicht am Vertrage beteiligten Staat habe, nur dann die in Artikel 72 genannten Prioritätsrechte zustehen, wenn dieser dritte Staat das Prioritätsrecht der europäischen Anmeldung anerkenne.

Die Gruppe schloss sich diesem Vorschlag des Vorsitzenden an. Diejenigen Delegationen, die der zweiten Fassung von Artikel 5 den Vorzug geben, hielten einen derartigen Zusatz zu Artikel 72 für den Fall für unerlässlich, dass man sich letzten Endes doch für diese erste Fassung von Artikel 5 entscheide.

Zur Regelung der Frage, wie festgestellt werden solle, ob ein dritter Staat das Prioritätsrecht der europäischen Anmeldung anerkenne, solle der Redaktionsschuss eine ähnliche Formulierung entwerfen, wie sie Artikel 72 Abs. 6 enthält.

Artikel 73 (67 a)

Der Artikel wurde angenommen.

Artikel 74 (67 b)

Der Artikel wurde angenommen.

Page 15

6551/IV/62-D

Orig.: F

ARBEITSGRUPPE

"Patente"

Brüssel, den 31. Juli 1962

Vertraulich

Ergebnisse der sechsten Sitzung

der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente"

vom 13. bis 23. Juni 1962

in München

KAPITEL II
PRIORITÄT

Artikel 72 Prioritätsrecht (1) Jedermann, der eine Anmeldung für ein Patent oder ein Gebrauchsmuster vorschriftsmässig eingereicht hat, oder sein Rechtsnachfolger geniesst für die Anmeldung derselben Erfindung zum europäischen Patent während einer Frist von zwölf Monaten vom Zeitpunkt der Einreiohung der ersten Anmeldung an ein Prioritätsrecht. (2) Der Tag der Einreichung wird nicht in die Frist eingerechnet. Ist der letzte Tag der Frist am Sitz der zuständigen Behörde im Sinne des Artikels 66 Absatz 1, bei der die europäische Patentanmeldung eingereicht wird, ein gesetzlicher Feiertag oder ein Tag, an dem die zuständige Behörde zur Entgegennahme von Anmeldungen nicht geöffnet ist, so erstreckt sich die Frist auf den nächstfolgenden Werktag. (3) Als prioritätsbegründend wird jede Anmeldung anerkannt, der nach dem nationalen Recht des Staats, in dem die Anmeldung eingereicht worden ist, oder nach zwei- oder mehrseitigen Verträgen die Bedeutung einer vorschriftsmässigen nationalen Anmeldung zukommt. (4) Unter vorschriftsmässiger nationaler Anmeldung ist jede Anmeldung zu verstehen, die zur Festlegung des Zeitpunkts ausreicht, an dem die Anmeldung in dem betreffenden Staat eingereicht worden ist, wobei das spätere Schicksal der Anmeldung ohne Bedeutung ist. (5) Als erste Anmeldung, von deren Einreichung an die Prioritätsfrist läuft, wird auch eine jüngere Anmeldung angesehen, die denselben Gegenstand betrifft wie eine erste ältere in demselben Verbandsland der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft zum Schutz des gewerblichen Eigentums eingereichte Anmeldung, sofern diese ältere Anmeldung bis zur Einreichung der jüngeren Anmeldung zurückgenommen, fallengelassen oder zurückgewiesen worden ist, und zwar bevor sie öffentlich ausgelegt worden ist und ohne dass Rechte bestehengeblieben sind; ebensowenig darf diese ältere Anmeldung schon Grundlage für die Inanspruchnahme des Prioritätsrechts gewesen sein. Die ältere Anmeldung kann in diesem Fall nicht mehr als Grundlage für die Inanspruchnahme des Prioritätsrechts dienen. (6) Ist die erste Anmeldung in einem Staat eingereicht worden, der nicht Vertragstaat ist, so finden die vorstehenden Bestimmungen nur insoweit Anwendung, als dieser Staat nach einer Bekanntmachung des [Verwaltungsrats] das Prioritätsrecht auf Grund einer ersten Anmeldung beim Europäischen Patentamt gewährt.

Artikel 73 Wirkung des Prioritätsrechts Das Prioritätsrecht hat die Wirkung, dass der Zeitpunkt der ersten Anmeldung a) als Zeitpunkt der europäischen Patentanmeldung im Sinne des Artikels 11 Absätze 2 und 3 sowie des Artikels 19 gilt, b) als Zeitpunkt gilt, der für den Erwerb eines Vorbenutzungsrechts oder eines persönlichen Besitzrechts gemäss Artikel 22 massgebend ist, sofern das nach Artikel 22 anzuwendende nationale Recht nichts anderes bestimmt.

Page 17

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

CORDINIERUNGSAUSSCHUSSAUF DEM GEBIET JES GEWERBLICHEN RECHTSSCHUTZES EINGESETZT VON DEN MITGLIEDSTAATEN UND DER KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN WIRTSCHAFTSGEMEINSCHAFT

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

COORDINATIE-COMITE OP HET GEBIED VAN DE INDUSTRIELE EIGENOOM INGESTELD DOAR DE LID-STATEN EN DE

MEENSCHAP

VE 1965

De Texias all frondiat fiongeia,et

AVANT-PROJET DE CONVENTION relatif à un droit européen des brevets élaboré par le groupe de'travail abrevets: VE 1962

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

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

VOORONTWERP VERDRAG

betreffende een Europees octrooirecht opgesteld door de werkgroep octrooien

VE 1962 unter Berücksichtigung der im Arbeitsdokument 2335/IV/65 der EWG-Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 22. Jan. 1965 enthaltenen Änderungen unveröffentlicht

Page 18

46. As regards the second question, certain delegations were of the opinion, while noting the serious problems raised by US practice, that the Convention should not contain a more restrictive ruling vis-à-vis nationals of certain States than that of the 1965 Draft. Other delegations wocllared whether, in view of the situation created in the United States, it would not be advisable to provide in Article 73 that the treatment laid down in the 1965 Draft would only be applied on condition of reciprocity. The Working Party did not reach a final position on this problem. 47. At this point the French delegation reminded the Working Party that it reserved the right to propose a new text for Article 5 (persons entitled to apply), which had previously been discussed by the Working Party.

Article 74 - Claiming priority 48. Paragraph 1 differs from the corresponding provision in the 1965 Draft, in order to bring it into line with the PCT plan. It was pointed out that, as a result, the corresponding provisions of the Stresbourg Convention on the unification of certain points of Substantive Law on Patents for Invention would have to be amended accordingly, in due course.

Article 75 - Equivalence of national filing with European filing 49. No comment.

Page 19

44. Following this analysis, the Chairman noted that Article 73 of the Convention is based on equality of the treatment accorded to applications made by nationals of Contracting States and to applications made by nationals of third countries, as regards the date to be taken into consideration for the prior art effect, by contrast with what appears to be the situation, according to the above statement, in the United States. The Working Party sees this as raising two basic questions:

- on the one hand, what attitude should the European States take as regards the last sentence of Article 27, paragraph 5, of the PCT draft, which authorises the Contracting States to maintain the present legislation?(1) - on the other hand, should Article 73 of the Convention incorporate the sense of the provisions of the 1965 Draft or should it, on the contrary, be amended to avoid granting nationals of third countries an advantage which European applicants would not obtain in those countries?

45. As regards the first question, mention was made of information according to which, if the attitude of the European countries was opposed, when the PCT plan came up for approval, to acceptance of the last sentence of Article 27(5), this would entail serious problems as regards US adhesion to the PCT plan, in respect of which it had been agreed that it should not lead to any amendment of national laws. It was in any event recognised that a uniform attitude on this question on the part of the European States would be necessary at the diplomatic conference planned for the approval of the PCT plan.

(1) The text reads: "Thus it is also understood that the effective date of any international application for prior art purposes (as distinguished from priority purposes) in each Contracting State is governed by the national law of that State and not by the provisions of Article 11(3) or any other provision of this Treaty.

Page 20

PCT application is not created at the time when it was deemed to have been filed in the United States under Article 11, paragraph 3, PCT, but at a considerably later date, namely, when the PCT application reached the US Patent Office by way of transmitting to that Office a copy or translation of the PCT application 20 months after the priority date. In other words, this would allow to delay the prior art effect not only by 12 months but by up to 20 (phase I of PCT) or 25 (phase II of PCT) months to the disadvantage of the foreign PCT applicant. If this were to be implemented, the situation of the PCT applicant would be considerably worse than the situation of the applicant using the Paris Route. The difference of 12 months for the Paris Route might be reduced down to zero if the foreign applicant was sufficiently interested in the US market to file very early in the priority year. The time difference of 20 months under PCT would, however, be fixed by law and could not be reduced by the applicant. An applicant sufficiently interested in having the full prior art effect of his application in the United States as soon as possible would therefore tend to use the Paris Route rather than the PCT.

Page 21

of the application would allow to create the necassary distance between a patent with earlier priority and later patents by observing and invoking the rule of obviousness. If the same situation existed between two US applications not based on foreign priority, then the prior art effect of the earlier filing would win over the later filing. In the example cited, however, both won which meant in essence a certain loss of defensive value of the patent filed by the Swedish applicant.

Re. (3)

The problem of the prior art effect of patent applications had also been raised with respect to the PCT. Article 11, paragraph 3, PCT, contained the principle that an international application filed with any given Receiving Office in one of the Contracting States was deemed to have been filed at the same date in all other Contracting States designated by the applicant. Section 102 of the McClellan bill applied to this situation would lead to an assimilation of international applications to national US applications with regard to the date of prior art effect. To avoid this consequence, the US delegation requested to insert in Article 27, paragraph 5, PCT, a last sentence saying that it was understood that the effective date of any international application for prior art purposes (as distinguished from priority purposes) in each Contracting State was governed by the national law of that State and not by Article 11, paragraph 3, PCT. This would allow the US legislator to pass a law implementing PCT which would in effect provide that the prior art effect of the

BR/10 e/69 kel/PA/mk

Page 22

not use his earlier US date against Mr. Nilsson because of the priority effect of Mr. Nilsson's application protecting the latter against filings during the priority year. Theoretically both would get the patent, but in a priority contest procedure Mr. Nilsson would win over Mr. Johnson since he could use his Swedish priority against him.

Assuming that the inventions were not the same but were rather close - Mr. Nilsson applied for elements A + B in combination whereas Mr. Johnson applied for elements A + B + C in combination, C being new but its addition to the combination being obvious - the result were this:

Mr. Nilsson could not use his application as prior art against Mr. Johnson since he had the later date in the US. Mr. Johnson could not use his date against Mr. Nilsson since the latter was protected against filings during the priority year. In this case there was no possibility for a priority contest in an interference procedure since the subject matter of the applications was not the same. Therefore both would get the patent. This means that the value of the patent of Mr. Nilsson was reduced first of all as to scope of protection, but particularly because the defensive value of such a patent was much smaller than that of a normal patent. Only the prior art effect

Page 23

date of the European (the European cannot go back to any such date before his priority date since Section 104 of the new McClellan bill excluded swearing back to dates of foreign conception and reduction to practice). The possibility to invoke the foreign priority in an interference procedure existed, however, only as long as there was identity of subject matter of the two applications concerned. Only there the priority effect would apply. If there was, however, no identity of subject matter, but the subject matter of the younger application was sufficiently close to say that this invention represented no inventive step over the invention having an earlier priority, then only the prior art effect would apply. Since there was no prior art effect before the actual US filing date, the European could in this case not prevent that a patent was granted to the American applicant as well. The following example was given to illustrate the difference :

Mr. Nilsson filed a Swedish patent application in Stockholm on January 1, 1970. Mr. Johnson filed a US patent application in Washington on October 1, 1970. Mr. Nilsson filed on December 1, 1970, his application in the United States claiming the priority of the Swedish application. Assuming that both applications concerned essentially the same invention, namely, an invention containing two elements A+B in combination, the consequence of the McClellan bill was the following : Mr. Nilsson could not use his application in the United States as prior art against Mr. Johnson because his US filing date was later. Mr. Johnson, in turn, could

Page 24

if the invention is identically disclosed or described in a published United States patent application or US patent of another which had an actual filing date in the United States before the invention was made by the inventor named in the application. Section 100(F) of the same bill defined the term "actual filing date" by saying that this excludes a foreign priority date. Thus, under the Hilmer decision and the future US patent law, a US application claiming foreign priority had two effects which were to be distinguished by their date : the prior art effect counting only from the actual filing date in the US and the priority effect counting from the foreign priority date. The priority effect, as a consequence of Sections 119 and 104 of the McClellan bill, permitted the applicant to preserve his foreign priority date in an interference procedure against a younger American applicant. The consequence of this distinction was the following : a European applicant having an earlier priority date but a later US filing date than a given American applicant could not oppose his application against the American applicant because his actual US filing date was younger. He could, however, go into an interference procedure and there invoke his earlier European priority date and win over the American, provided that the American cannot swear back to a date of conception and reduction to practice of the invention which is earlier than the foreign priority

Page 25

Three problem areas had to be considered in this context : (1) The Hilmer decision passed in 1966 by the US Court of Customs and Patent Appeals ; (2) The present stage of the reform of the US patent law as reflected by the McClellan bill of August 1, 1969; (3) The situation under Article 27, paragraph 5, last sentence of the PCT draft.

Re. (1) The Hilmer decision, in changing a long-standing practice of the US Patent Office, stated the principle that earlier filed but later published patent applications had prior art effect or could be cited as prior art against other applications only as of the actual filing date of the application in the United States and not as of its foreign priority date. In other words, an application could only create prior art effect as soon as it was virtually filed with the United States Patent Office.

Re. (2) Based on the Hilmer decision, a provision on prior art effect was introduced into the bill to reform the US patent law (McClellan bill of August 1, 1969). Section 102(D)(2) of the McClellan bill said that a patent may not be obtained

Article 72 - Priority Right

41. The provision contained in paragraph 6 has been drafted in such a way as to cover not only the Member States of the Paris Union, but all other countries as well.

On the subject of non-Member States of the Paris Union, it was noted that the Administrative Council should see to it that these States, where they did not already do so, recognised the priority right for a national application made in any Contracting State to this Convention.

Article 73 - Effect of priority right

42. Before reaching a conclusion on the text of this Article, the Working Party thought it necessary to study the effects which recent developments in legislation and jurisprudence in the United States may have on the treatment which will be applied in the United States to applications for which the priority of a European application is claimed. 43. In order to prepare the ground for this study, the representative of BIRPI made a statement on the invitation of the Chairman (1) : (1) The following text was drafted by Mr. PFANNER in English.

Page 27

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. HAERTZEL, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair.

The Commission of the European Communities, BIRPI, the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe and the International Patent Institute took part in the meeting (1).

2. The Working Party agreed to appoint the following as rapporteurs:

- a member of the Swiss delegation for Articles 54 to 65 (organisation of the departments - register, publications, classification - relations with national authorities);

(1) See Annex I for list of participants in the meeting of the Working Party.

BR/10 e/69 kel/PA/mk

Page 28

The right of priority shall have the effect that the date of the first filing shall count as : (a) the date of filing the application for a European patent for the purposes of Article 11, paragraphs 2 and 3. (b) - deleted -

Note :

The provisions of this Article will be the subject of further examination by the Working Party.

Page 29

Article 73 Effect of priority right

1962 Draft	EFTA Draft	1965 Draft
For the purpose of a right of priority, the date of the first filing shall be considered to be : (a) the date of filing the application for a European patent within the meaning of Article 11, paragraphs 2 and 3 and of Article 19 ; (b) the date for the acquisition of a right based on prior use or personal possession within the meaning of Article 22, provided that there are no contrary provisions of national law applied in accordance with the said Article.	(a) + (b) +	The right of priority shall have the effect that the date of the first filing shall count as : (a) the date of filing the application for a European patent within the meaning of Article 11, paragraphs 2 and 3 and of Article 19 ; (b) * the date for the acquisition of a right based on prior use or personal possession within the meaning of Article 22, provided that there are no contrary provisions of national law applied in accordance with the said Article.

Page 30

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

- Secretariat -

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

Brussels, 7 November 1969 BR/9/69

Articles 54 to 96 prepared by Working Party I (14 October to 17 October 1969)

compared synoptically with

- the 1962 and 1965 versions of the Draft Convention as established by the FEC "Patents" Working Party and - the Draft of an open European Patent Convention drawn up by the Member States of the European Free Trade Association

BR/9 e/69 mk

Page 31

Article 73 - Effect of priority right 96. At its meeting held in October (cf. BR/10/69, point 46, page 21) the Working Party reserved the right to re-examine this provision. The Working Party considered it advisable to define the direction such re-examination could follow. This is the purpose of the new note appearing under Article 73 in BR/13/69. 97. In addition, the Working Party supplemented this Article with the reference to Article 15, paragraph 1, to allow for the settlement of the case where several persons have made an invention independently of each other and filed applications for a European patent having different priority dates.

Article 80 - Division of the application before filing a request for examination 98. The Working Party thought it appropriate to make it clear in both the new title of Article 80. and in the text that this provision applies to a division of the application made prior to the filing of a request for examination. Article 94a lays down the rules which apply to the division of an application after that time. 99. The Working Party postponed examination of a proposal from the Netherlands delegation on article 78 and a proposal from the Swedish delegation notably concerning Article 162. These proposals will be examined at a later date.

Page 32

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

Brussels, 18 December 1969 BR / 12 / 69

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

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

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

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

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

Page 33

The right of priority shall have the effect that the date of the first filing shall count as : (a) the date of filing the application for a European patent for the purposes of Article 11, paragraphs 2 and 3 and Article 15, paragraph 1. (b) - deleted -

Note :

The question will be re-examined later whether to deny for prior art purposes the priority date claimed in European applications which are based on applications filed in States which do not, in their national laws, make the priority date of foreign patent applications effective also for prior art purposes, though as a general rule including the content of patent applications in the state of the art as from the date of filing.

Page 34

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

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 8 December 1969 BR/13/69

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

CORRIGENDA to BR/6/69 and BR/9/69

resulting from the work of Working Party I (24- 28 November 1969)

and concerning

Articles 5, 11, 15, 16, 20, 20bis, 20ter, 24, 24a, 25, 26 to 30, 29, 34 56, 73, 80, 88 to 96

BR/13 ø/69 mk

Page 35

receipt of the report by the Working Party instructed to examine the problems of financing the European Patent Office. It was understood that in order not to prejudice the final decision, paragraph 4 (page 3 of BR / 20 / 69 ) should be expressed in a more general way.

29 . It was explained that any person making observations under Article 87a did not have any status in the proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Article was simply intended so as to enable such persons to give the European Patent Office any information that might be in their possession, as to, for example, the state of the art.

Articles 88 to 96 c

Examination for novelty (Report by the German delegation : BR / 21 / 69 ) 30. The question of the time limit for making a request for examination under Article 88 (2) gave rise to a division of opinions.

Certain delegations pointed out their preference for automatic examination of the application. They were however prepared to accept deferred examination if the time limit for making a request for examination did not exceed two years. 'Those delegations which stated their preference for early examination advocated a time limit of two years. The delegations representing countries where a system of deferred examination is in force opted for a period of sever years. One delegation proposed the adoption of an intermediate period of five years, without the Administrative Council being authorized to extend it beyond the five years.

Page 36

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

Brussels, 30 January 1970 BR/26/70

- Secretariat -

MINUTES of the 2nd MEETING held at Luxembourg on 13 to 16 January 1970

Item 1 on the agenda (BR/14/59) (1)

OPENING OF THE MEETING

1. The Conference began its work at 10.00 a.m. on Tuesday 13 January at the Kirchberg European Centre, Luxembourg, with Dr. HÄRTEL, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair (2).

Item 2 on the agenda

ADOPTION OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA

2. The Conference adopted the provisional agenda submitted by the President.

(1) The agenda is given in Annex I (2) The list of those attending the 2nd meeting is given in Annex II.

BR/26 e/70 kel/PA/mk

2u Artikel 74 (früher Artikel 73)

Wirkung des Prioritätsrechts Das Prioritätsrecht hat die Wirkung. daß der Zeitpunkt der ersten Anmeldung als Zeitpunkt der europäischen Patentanmeldung im Sinne des Artikels 11 Absätze 2 und 3 sowie des Artikels 15 Absatz 1 gilt.

Artikel 75 (früher Artikel 74)

Inanspruchnahme der Priorität (1) Wer die Priorität einer früheren Anmeldung in Anspruch nehmen will, hat gegenüber dem Europäischen Patentamt bei der Einreichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung eine Erklärung über den Zeitpunkt und den Staat der ersten Anmeldung abzugeben und das Aktenzeichen der ersten Anmeldung zu nennen. Werden bei der Einreichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung Zeitpunkt und Staat der ersten Anmeldung nicht angegeben oder wird das Aktenzeichen der ersten Anmeldung nicht vor Ablauf des sechzehnten Monats seit dem Prioritätszeitpunkt eingereicht, so erlischt der Prioritätsanspruch für die Anmeldung. (2) Das Europäische Patentamt kann von demjenigen. der eine Prioritätserklärung abgibt, verlangen, daß er innerhalb einer vom Europäischen Patentamt zu bestimmenden Frist, die frühestens vier Monate nach der Einreichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung endet, eine Abschrift der ersten Anmeldung einschließlich der Beschreibung, der Patentansprüche und der Zeichnungen vorlegt. Die Abschrift muß von der Behörde, bei der die erste Anmeldung eingereicht worden ist, als übereinstimmend bescheinigt sein. Ferner ist eine Bescheinigung dieser Behörde über den Zeitpunkt der Einreichung beizufügen. Werden die Abschriften und die Bescheinigungen nicht rechtzeitig vorgelegt, so erlischt der Prioritätsanspruch für die Anmeldung. (3) Für eine europäische Patentanmeldung können mehrere Prioritäten in Anspruch genommen werden, selbst wenn sie aus verschiedenen Staaten stammen.

Effect of priority right

The right of priority shall have the effect that the date of the first filing shall count as the date of filing the application for a European patent for the purposes of Article 11, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 15, paragraph 1.

Claiming priority

(1) Any person desiring to take advantage of the priority of a previous application shall be required, on filing the application for a European patent, to lodge a declaration with the European Patent Office indicating the date of the previous filing and the country in which it was made and mentioning the file number. Failure, on filing the application for a European patent, to indicate the date of the previous filing and the country in which it was made, or failure to give notice of the file number of the previous application before the end of the sixteenth month after the priority date, shall lead to the loss of the right to claim priority of filing. (2) The European Patent Office may require any person making a declaration of priority to produce a copy of the first application, including the description, claims and drawings, within a period to be laid down by the Office which shall expire not earlier than four months after the date of applying for a European patent. The copy must be certified as correct by the authority which received the first application. A certificate issued by that authority stating the date of filing shall be attached to the copy. Failure to produce the copy and the certificate in due time shall lead to the loss of the right to claim priority of filing. (3) Multiple priorities may be claimed in respect of the application for a European patent, notwithstanding the fact that they originate in different countries.

Page 38

REGIERUNGSKONFERENZ ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS

ERSTER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

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

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

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

Page 39

109. As a result of the Conference's instructions concerning the deferred examination procedure - and particularly the period for filing the request - (cf. Article 88), the Working Party drafted a new paragraph 4 a which refers to the Implementing Regulations the fixing of a three month period during which the IIB has to transmit the report and the definitive contents of the abstract to the European Patent Office. In doing this, it was guided by the provisions of Rule 42.1 of the PCT Regulations.

Article 74 (former Article 73) : Effect of Priority Right (BR/40/70, page 5, No. 16) 110. The Working Party recommends to the Conference the deletion of the note concerning this Article, which appears in the First Preliminary Draft, in view of the discussions which took place within Working Party IV of the Central Committee of the Washington Conference on the PCT.

In making this recommendation, the Working Party assumes that applications relating to the effect of the priority right of foreign applications in certain States will be recognised, and that no declaration under the terms of Article 64.4 of the FCT will be made.

Article 85 (former Article 86a) : Publication of a European patent application (BR/40/70, page 6, No. 17) 111. Paragraphs 1 and 5 of the First Preliminary Draft were amended, in view of the new provisions of Article 88 (cf. observations relating to this Article). 112. Moreover, the Working Party deemed it preferable to deal with the publication of the original claims in the language in which the application was filed, in Article 34 paragraph 5, which was amended to this effect. BR/49 e/70 oyd/PA/ft

Page 40

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

Brussels, 26 October 1970 B R / 49 / 70

- Secretariat -

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

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

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

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

BR/49 e/70 eld/PA/bcc

Page 41

66. Article 74 : Effect of priority right

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brussels, 29 March 1971 BR/87/71 (ccrr. 1)

- Secretariat -

CORRIGENDUM to B R / 87 / 71

Page 22, point 55, please read : " 55. Article 34, (5) : Languages

The Working Party found that the problem in question was settled by the wording of Article 19(4) of the First Preliminary Draft of a Convention".

BR/87 e/71 (corr. 1) oyd/MT/prk

MINUTES

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

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

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

Page 44

Article 74 (former Article 73) Effect of priority right

The right of priority shall have the effect that the date of the first filing shall count as the date of filing the application for a European patent for the purposes of Article 11, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 15, paragraph 1.

Note to Article 74 : The Conference had reserved the possibility of re-examining later whether to deny for prior art purposes in relation to another application or patent the priority date claimed in European applications which are based on applications filed in States which do not, in their national laws, make the priority date of foreign patent applications effective also for prior art purposes, though as a general rule including the content of patent applications in the state of the art as from the date of filing.

Working Party I recommends that the Conference should delete this note.

Page 45

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 46

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

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

Item 7 on the agenda: Other business 82. The Working Party agreed as follows for its future programme of work:

The reports of the delegations of Working Party I and of the General Rapporteur on amendments to the pablished 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 48

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

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

Page 49

(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 50

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

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

Page 51

(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 52

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 53

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

Brussels, 6th April 1971 B R / 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 54

(5) Ist die erste Anmeldung in einem nicht zu den Vertragsstaaten der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft zum Schutz des gewerblichen Eigentums gehörenden Staat eingereicht worden, so sind die vorstehenden Vorschriften nur insoweit anzuwenden, als dieser Staat nach einer Bekanntmachung des Verwaltungsrats auf Grund einer ersten Anmeldung beim Europäischen Patentamt gemäß zwei- oder mehrseitigen Übereinkommen ein Prioritätsrecht gewährt, und zwar unter Voraussetzungen und mit Wirkungen, die denen der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft vergleichbar sind.

Artikel 74

Wirkung des Prioritätsrechts Das Prioritätsrecht hat die Wirkung, daß der Tag der ersten Anmeldung als Tag der europäischen Patentanmeldung im Sinne des Artikels 11 Absätze 2 und 3 sowie des Artikels 15 Absatz 1 gilt.

Inanspruchnahme der Priorität

(1) Wer die Priorität einer früheren Anmeldung in Anspruch nehmen will, hat gegenüber dem Europäischen Patentamt bei der Einreichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung eine Erklärung über den Tag und den Staat der ersten Anmeldung abzugeben und das Aktenzeichen der ersten Anmeldung zu nennen. Werden bei der Einreichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung Tag und Staat der ersten Anmeldung nicht angegeben oder wird das Aktenzeichen der ersten Anmeldung nicht vor Ablauf des sechzehnten Monats seit dem Prioritätstag eingereicht, so erlischt der Prioritätsanspruch für die Anmeldung. (2) Das Europäische Patentamt kann von demjenigen, der eine Prioritätserklärung abgibt, verlangen, daß er innerhalb einer vom Europäischen Patentamt zu bestimmenden Frist, die frühestens vier Monate nach der Einreichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung endet, eine Abschrift der ersten Anmeldung einschließlich der Beschreibung, der Patentansprüche und der Zeichnungen vorlegt. Die Abschrift muß von der Behörde, bei der die erste Anmeldung eingereicht worden ist, als übereinstimmend bescheinigt sein. Ferner ist eine Bescheinigung dieser Behörde über den Tag der Einreichung beizufügen. Werden die Abschriften und die Bescheinigungen nicht rechtzeitig vorgelegt, so erlischt der Prioritätsanspruch für die Anmeldung. (3) Für eine europäische Patentanmeldung können mehrere Prioritäten in Anspruch genommen werden, selbst wenn sie aus verschiedenen Staaten stammen. (4) Werden eine oder mehrere Prioritäten für die europäische Patentanmeldung beansprucht, so umfaßt das Prioritätsrecht nur die Merkmale der europäischen Patentanmeldung, die in der oder den Patentanmeldungen enthalten sind, deren Priorität in Anspruch genommen worden ist. (5) If the first filing has been made in a State which is not a party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the above-mentioned provisions shall apply only in so far as that State, according to a notification published by the Administrative Council, and by virtue of bilateral or multilateral agreements, grants on the basis of a first filing made at the European Patent Office and subject to conditions equivalent to those laid down in the Paris Convention, a right of priority having equivalent effect.

Effect of priority right

The right of priority shall have the effect that the date of the first filing shall count as the date of filing the application for a European patent for the purposes of Article 11, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 15, paragraph 1.

Claiming priority

(1) Any person desiring to take advantage of the priority of a previous application shall be required, on filing the application for a European patent, to lodge a declaration with the European Patent Office indicating the date of the previous filing and the country in which it was made and mentioning the file number. Failure, on filing the application for a European patent, to indicate the date of the previous filing and the country in which it was made, or failure to give notice of the file number of the previous application before the end of the sixteenth month after the priority date, shall lead to the loss of the right to claim priority of filing. (2) The European Patent Office may require any person making a declaration of priority to produce a copy of the first application, including the description, claims and drawings, within a period to be laid down by the Office which shall expire not earlier than four months after the date of applying for a European patent. The copy must be certified as correct by the authority which received the first application. A certificate issued by that authority stating the date of filing shall be attached to the copy. Failure to produce the copy and the certificate in due time shall lead to the loss of the right to claim priority of filing. (3) Multiple priorities may be claimed in respect of the application for a European patent, notwithstanding the fact that they originate in different countries. (4) If one or more priorities are claimed in respect of the application for a European patent, the right of priority shall cover only those elements of the application for a European patent which are included in the application or applications for a patent whose priority is claimed. (5) The particulars mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be entered in the Register of European Patents, be published

Page 55

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

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 56

Article 73 - Priority right 93. With regard to the request by one organisation that the priority period should be made unalterable, see point 66 above.

Article 74 - Effect of priority right 94. The Conference instructed the Drafting Committee to include in Article 74 a reference to Article 76, paragraph 1, in accordance with the wishes of one organisation. 95. The Conference was also of the opinion that reference should also be made to Article 21 in the event of the retention of patents of addition, in accordance with the desire expressed by one organisation.

Article 75 - Claiming priority 96. With reference to paragraph 1, the Conference decided to reject the request by several organisations that a time limit be set for the applicant to give details of the date of the first filing and the country in which it was made. However, Working Party I was instructed to examine whether Re. Article 145, No. 4a, should not be reworded in such a way that an incorrect statement, particularly concerning the priority date of a European application, could be corrected. 97. The Conference decided to reject the request made by several organisations and supported by one delegation, to the effect that presentation of the translation of the first application should be obligatory only if the European Patent Office so requires (paragraph 2a).

Page 57

INTER-COVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SEGMENT OF O' A LAROSEAN SYSTEM FOR THE DELAY OF PAYERS

BATTERY, 19 March 1972 10/16/72

SECRETARY:

M. R. H. M. F. S.

1972

5th Meeting of the Inter-Governmental Conference for the setting of the European System for the Grant of Patents

Part 1 Land

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

Page 58

Article 74 (Effect of priority right) 76. FICPI expressed the wish that two things should be made clear in Article 74: (a) that the principle whereby the filing of an application for a European patent has the effect of the filing of a national application, should apply as from the date of filing of the application of which priority is claimed; this should be done by inserting a reference to Article 76, paragraph 1; (b) that a priority right is not lost if drawings are subsequently filed, within the period of priority, in accordance with Article 78(b). 77. EIRMA pointed out that in Article 74, reference would also have to be made to Article 21, if patents of addition were to be re-introduced, since it had to be possible to claim the same priority for a patent of addition as for the parent patent. 78. COPRICE proposed that Article 74 should be limited to the effect that a priority right would take effect only if the description of the priority application were adequate within the meaning of the Implementing Regulation, and if in addition the elements claimed in the European application were described in the priority application.

Article 75 (Claiming priority) 79. CNIPA, EIRMA, FICPI and UNICE proposed that Article 75 , paragraph 1 , be so amended that it would still be possible, within 16 months of the priority date, to state the date and the country of the first filing, since the date of first filing in particular was not always known at the time of filing the European application. In their

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

for the Grant of Patents

—

Part II

establishing a European System for the Grant of Patents

(Luxembourg, 26 January to 1 February 1972)

—

BR/169 e/72 ley/KM/prk

Page 60

The new text is, in its view, compatible with Article 27, paragraph 4, of the PCT.

Article 74 - Effect of priority right 44. It was pointed out in the Working Party that the InterGovernmental Conference had referred to its Drafting Committee the addition proposed by the delegation acting as rapporteur (cf. BR/168/72, point 94).

Article 75 - Claiming priority 45. With regard to Article 75, paragraph 1, a number of delegations had expressed the wish that a time limit be stipulated for loding the declaration indicating the date and country of the previous filing (cf. BR/168/72, point 96). To make it possible to correct later such indications which had been given in due time but which were erroneous, Working Party I decided to broaden Re. Article 145, No. 4a; it was made clear in the second sentence that the requirement that the error should be obvious should apply only to the description, claims or drawings. 46. In connection with paragraph 2, the question was raised of whether the period for producing the copy of the first application should be extended from 16 to 20 months.

The Working Party considered it preferable to make no change in the light of Rule 17.1 of the Regulations under the PCT.

Page 61

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

Brussels, 13 April 1972 B R / 177 / 72

- Secretariat -

R E P OR 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.

Effect of priority right

The right of priority shall have the effect that the date of the first filing shall count as the date of filing the application for a European patent for the purposes of Article 11, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 15, paragraph 1.

Note to Article 74 :

The Conference had reserved the possibility of re-examining later whether to deny for prior art purposes in relation to another application or patent the priority date claimed in European applications which are based on applications filed in States which do not, in their national laws, make the priority date of foreign patent applications effective also for prior art purposes, though as a general rule including the content of patent applications in the state of the art as from the date of filing.

Working Party I recommends that the Conference should delete this note.

Page 63

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

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 15th February 1971 BR/88/71

Doutoches Eing. D.T. Mar. 1971 Dutert E.P.R. 7.2.4. Y.S.

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

- Stage reached on 29 January 1971 -

BR/88 e/71

Page 64

42. The IIB representative stressed the purely descriptive nature of the statement quoted above and said that he was prepared to send a more detailed report on the Institute to the Conference, if possible by September 1971, if so requested by one or more of the delegations.

CHAPTER II

Priority

Article 74 (Effect of priority right)

43. The Conference considered it necessary to delete the note contained in the First Preliminary Draft Convention. This note, which referred to the introduction of a reciprocity clause on the effect of the priority right for foreign applications, was rendered unnecessary by the signature of the PCT.

Article 75 (Claiming priority)

44. Regarding paragraph 1, the Conference decided that a provision should be drawn up to allow for subsequent correction of inaccurate information in order to avoid loss of the priority right. In this connection, it should also be considered whether a period could be granted in indicating the date and country of filing.

Page 65

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

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 7 July 1971 BR/125/71

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

BR/125 e/71 ley/KM/bp

Page 66

(3) Werden eine oder mehrere Prioritäten für die europäische Patentanmeldung beansprucht, so umfaßt das Prioritätsrecht nur die Merkmale der europäischen Patentanmeldung, die in der Anmeldung oder den Anmeldungen enthalten sind, deren Priorität in Anspruch genommen worden ist. (4) Sind bestimmte Merkmale der Erfindung, für die die Priorität beansprucht wird, nicht in den in der früheren Anmeldung aufgestellten Patentansprüchen enthalten, so reicht es für die Gewährung der Priorität aus, daß die Gesamtheit der Anmeldungsunterlagen der früheren Anmeldung diese Merkmale deutlich offenbart.

Vgl. Regeln 5 (Beglaubigung von Übersetzungen), 38 (Prioritätserklärung und Prioritätsunterlagen) und 89 (Berichtigung von Mängeln in den beim Europäischen Patentamt eingereichten Unterlagen)

Artikel 87

Wirkung des Prioritätsrechts Das Prioritätsrecht hat die Wirkung, daß der Prioritätstag als Tag der europäischen Patentanmeldung für die Anwendung des Artikels 52 Absätze 2 und 3 sowie des Artikels 58 Absatz 1 gilt. (3) If one or more priorities are claimed in respect of a European patent application, the right of priority shall cover only those elements of the European patent application which are included in the application or applications whose priority is claimed. (4) If certain elements of the invention for which priority is claimed do not appear among the claims formulated in the previous application, priority may nonetheless be granted, provided that the documents of the previous application as a whole specifically disclose such elements.

Cf. Rules 5 (Certification of translations), 38 (Declaration of priority and priority documents) and 89 (Correction of errors in documents filed with the European Patent Office)

Article 87

Effect of priority right The right of priority shall have the effect that the date of priority shall count as the date of filing of the European patent application for the purposes of Article 52, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 58, paragraph 1.

MUNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ
ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS 1973

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

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE
FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS, 1973

(Munich, 10 September to 6 October 1973)

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

(Munich, 10 septembre - 6 octobre 1973)

VORBEREITENDE DOKUMENTE

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

PREPARATORY DOCUMENTS

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

DOCUMENTS 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

Artikel 86 Absatz 3

18 Die Verwendung des Ausdrucks ,,Merkmale" im deutschen Text ist unverständlich. Wenn die beanspruchte europäische Erfindung eine Kombination von A und B ist, dürfte es unangebracht sein, eine Priorität einzuräumen, wenn durch die frühere Anmeldung lediglich A oder B und nicht die Kombination offenbart wurde.

Artikel 87

19 Es wäre zu erwägen, ob es zweckmäßig ist, diesen Artikel auf Artikel 53 Absatz 1, Artikel 74 Absatz 2 und die Regel 28 anzuwenden.

Artikel 92 - Regel 51 Absatz 2

20 Anmelder haben viele Bedingungen zu erfüllen, und es ist daher offensichtlich unbillig, daß sie auf der anderen Seite durch Fehler des Europäischen Patentamts in Mitleidenschaft gezogen werden sollten. Es wird daher darum gebeten, diesen Absatz in der Regel 51 zu streichen.

Artikel 107

21 Da es schwierig ist, alle Gründe für eine Beschwerde zum gleichen Zeitpunkt anzugeben, an dem der Beschluß, sie zu erheben, gefaßt wird, wird darum gebeten, daß zu dem Grundsatz des früheren Artikels 111 (2. Vorentwurf) zurückgekehrt wird, d.h., daß gesonderte Fristen für die Beschwerdeerhebung und für die Einreichung eines Schriftsatzes mit der Begründung vorgesehen werden. Es wird empfohlen, beide Fristen zum gleichen Zeitpunkt beginnen zu lassen. Die Frist für die Beschwerdeerhebung könnte dann verkürzt und die Frist für die Einreichung des Schriftsatzes mit der Begründung verlängert werden.

Artikel 115 - Regel 69 Absatz 2

22 Es dürfte gegenüber dem Anmelder ungerecht sein, daß er aus einem Irrtum des Europäischen Patentamts, durch den er unter Umständen in eine Lage gebracht worden ist, in der keine Abhilfe mehr möglich ist, keine Ansprüche auf Bereinigung der Situation herleiten kann. Es wird daher darum gebeten, den letzten Satz zu streichen.

Artikel 118 - Regel 70 Absatz 2

23 Mit dieser Regel, die den Rechtsverlust nach Maßgabe vieler weiterer Artikel betrifft, wird vorgesehen, daß Entscheidungen gegenüber dem Anmelder

Article 86 (3)

18 The use of "Merkmale" in the German text is not understood. If the European invention claimed is the combination of A and B, it seems inappropriate to give priority if the early application disclosed only A or B, and not the combination.

Article 87

19 Consideration should be given to the desirability of applying this Article to Articles 53 (1), 74 (2) and Rule 28.

Article 92 - Rule 51 (2)

20 There are many terms to be met by applicants and it is manifestly unfair that they should be adversely affected by error of the European Patent Office. Cancellation of this paragraph from Rule 51 is requested.

Article 107

21 In view of the difficulty of developing full grounds for appeal at the same time as a decision to appeal is made, it is requested that there be a return to the principle of the previous Article 111 (Second Preliminary Draft) namely that the terms for filing appeal and for filing grounds be separate. It is recommended that both start from the same date. The filing term for the appeal can then be shortened and that for the grounds can be lengthened.

Article 115 - Rule 69 (2)

22 It seems unfair to an applicant that an error of the European Patent Office, which may have misled him into an irrecoverable position, cannot be invoked to correct the situation. Cancellation of the last sentence is requested.

Article 118 - Rule 70 (2)

23 In this Rule, which is concerned with loss of rights under many other Articles, it is provided that only unfavourable decisions are to be given to the

CNIPA

Committee of National Institutes of Patent Agents

CNIPA

Committee of National Institutes of Patent Agents

PRISE DE POSITION DU

CNIPA Committee of National Institutes of Patent Agents

MUNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ
ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS 1973

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

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

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

(Munich, 10 septembre - 6 octobre 1973)

STELLUNGNAHMEN

zu den vorbereitenden Dokumenten herausgegeben von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

COMMENTS

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

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

Page 71

Patentanmeldungen einreichen dürfen. Das in Artikel 4 der Pariser Verbandsibereinkunft vorgesehene Prioritätsrecht wird in Ubereinstimmung mit der Stockholmer Fassung der Pariser Verbandsibereinkunft in den Artikeln 85 bis 87 des Ubereinkommensentwurfs und in der Regel 38 der Ausführungsordnung verankert. Dies bedeutet, daB auch die materiellen Bestimmungen der Stockholmer Fassung der Pariser Verbandsibereinkunft über die Prioritätsrechte hinsichtlich der Erfinderscheine in vollem Umfang berücksichtigt worden sind.

2 Die Harmonisierung zwischen dem Vertrag über die internationale Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet des Patentwesens (PCT) einerseits und dem Ubereinkommensentwurf und den dazugehörigen Dokumenten andererseits ist besonders wichtig, da die beiden internationalen Ubereinkommen im wesentlichen das gleiche Ziel verfolgen, nämlich die Schaffung eines einfacheren und wirtschaftlicheren Verfahrens für die Erlangung des Schutzes von Erfindungen in Fällen, in denen dieser Schutz für mehrere Länder gewünscht wird. Der PCT strebt dieses Ziel durch eine internationale Einreichung, Recherche und Veröffentlichung der Anmeldungen sowie durch deren internationale vorläufige Prüfung mit darauffolgenden nationalen oder regionalen Verfahren zur Erteilung von Patenten oder von entsprechenden Rechten an. Das in dem Ubereinkommensentwurf in Aussicht genommene System sieht die Erteilung regionaler Patente auf der Grundlage eines zentralisierten Verfahrens vor. In Artikel 45 und den anderen einschlägigen Bestimmungen des PCT wird ausdrücklich die Möglichkeit anerkannt, das PCT-Verfahren dergestalt mit einem regionalen Patentsystem zu verbinden, daB auf der Grundlage von PCT-Anmeldungen regionale Patente erteilt werden können. Im Ubereinkommensentwurf und in den dazugehörigen Dokumenten wird von dieser Möglichkeit - in sehr zufriedenstellender Weise - Gebrauch gemacht, und zwar dank des ausdrücklichen Wunsches der Regierungskonferenz, den Zielen des PCT Rechnung zu tragen, und dank der gründlichen Vorarbeit der Konferenz, bei der die WIPO fortlaufend konsultiert wurde. Ein besonderes Kapitel des Ubereinkommensentwurfs enthält Bestimmungen, die in völliger Übereinstimmung mit dem PCT die Grundlagen dafür schaffen, daB ein durch eine internationale Anmeldung im PCT-Rahmen eingeleitetes Verfahren durch ein Verfahren zur Erteilung eines europäischen Patents fortgesetzt werden kann. Darüber hinaus wurden der Ubereinkommensentwurf und die dazugehörigen Texte einerseits und das PCT andererseits im ganzen hinsichtlich der Verfahrensbestimmungen weitgehend harmonisiert, wenn nicht sogar vereinheitlicht. Insbesondere die Bestimmungen, in denen Fristen festgelegt werden, sind so abgefaBt, daB sie mit den entsprechenden PCT-Fristen vereinbar sind. Die Bestimmungen über Form und Inhalt der europäischen Patentanmeldung sind so formuliert, daB ein beträchtliches MaB an Übereinstimmung besteht; bis zu einem gewissen Grade sind diese Bestimmungen sogar gleichlautend mit den ein-

87 of the Draft Convention and Rule 38 of the Draft Implementing Regulations. This means that the substantive provisions of the Stockholm Act of the Paris Convention concerning priority rights with respect to inventors' certificates have also been fully respected.

2 The harmonisation between the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) on the one hand and the Draft Convention and related texts on the other hand is of particular importance since both international instruments have essentially the same aim, namely, to simplify and render more economical the obtaining of protection for inventions where such protection is sought in respect of several countries. The PCT promotes this aim by a system of international filing, searching and publication of applications as well as by their international preliminary examination with a subsequent continuation of national or regional procedures for the grant of patents or related rights. The system envisaged by the Draft Convention provides for the grant of regional patents on the basis of a centralised procedure. The PCT, in Article 45 and related provisions, expressly recognises the possibility of combining the PCT procedure with a regional patent system in a way that allows for the grant of regional patents on the basis of PCT applications. The Draft Convention and related texts make use of this possibility and implement it in a very satisfactory way, thanks to the express desire of the Inter-Governmental Conference to take the aims of the PCT into account and to the thorough preparatory work of the Conference, during which WIPO has been continously consulted. A special chapter of the Draft Convention contains provisions which, in full conformity with the PCT, establish the basis for the continuation of the procedure initiated by an international application under the PCT with a procedure for the grant of a European patent. Moreover, the Draft Convention and related texts on the whole reflect a considerable degree of harmonisation, if not uniformity, with the PCT in so far as procedural provisions are concerned. In particular, the provisions fixing time limits are such that they are compatible with corresponding PCT time limits. The provisions on the form and contents of the European patent application have been drafted in such a way that they reflect a considerable degree of harmonisation and are even to a certain extent identical with the relevant provisions under the PCT. This high degree of harmonisation between the two systems, which it was possible to establish thanks to the spirit of international cooperation guiding the work of the InterGovernmental Conference, is particularly welcomed by WIPO. It will permit the practical implementation of a procedure of conjunctive use of the PCT and the European patent system, which will allow

Page 72

Die Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum (WIPO) hat mit großem Interesse die Initiative der 21 europäischen Staaten verfolgt, die auf der Regierungskonferenz über die Einführung eines europäischen Patenterteilungsverfahrens vertreten sind. Da das geplante System allen Anmeldern ungeachtet von Staatsangehörigkeit und Wohnsitz offensteht, wird der Zentralisierungs- und Vereinfachungseffekt des Patenterteilungsverfahrens, den das System zur Folge haben wird, nicht nur den teilnehmenden Staaten, ihren Staatsangehörigen und den in diesen Staaten ansässigen Personen, sondern der gesamten Völkergemeinschaft zugute kommen, die am Schutz von Erfindungen interessiert ist. Die WIPO begrüßt im Interesse ihrer Mitgliedstaaten diesen Aspekt des freien Zugangs zu dem geplanten regionalen System und betrachtet diesen als einen wesentlichen Faktor, mit dem durch ein regionales System ein nützlicher Beitrag zur weltweiten Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet des Erfindungsschutzes geleistet werden kann.

II.

Es wird besonders geschätzt, daß die WIPO eingeladen wurde, als Beobachter an den Vorarbeiten der Regierungskonferenz teilzunehmen, in deren Verlauf die Texte ausgearbeitet wurden, die nunmehr der Diplomatischen Konferenz unterbreitet werden. Auf diese Weise konnten Fragen der Harmonisierung mit weltweiten Übereinkommen, Verträgen und Übereinkünften bereits in einem frühen Stadium behandelt werden. Drei dieser weltweiten Übereinkünfte sind in diesem Zusammenhang von besonderer Bedeutung: die Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft zum Schutz des gewerblichen Eigentums, der Vertrag über die internationale Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet des Patentwesens und das Straßburger Übereinkommen über die internationale Patentklassifikation.

1 Die Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft zum Schutz des gewerblichen Eigentums (Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft) ist bei der Ausarbeitung des Übereinkommensentwurfs und der dazugehörigen Dokumente in vollem Umfang berücksichtigt worden. In der Präambel wird festgestellt, daß das Übereinkommen ein Sonderabkommen im Sinne des Artikels 19 der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft darstellt. Dem in Artikel 2 der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft aufgestellten Grundsatz der nationalen Behandlung wird in den Entwürfen entsprochen. Das Recht, Anmeldungen einzureichen, ergibt sich insbesondere aus Artikel 56 des Übereinkommensentwurfs, nach dem nicht nur Staatsangehörige der Vertragsstaaten des Europäischen Patentübereinkommens und Personen mit Sitz oder Wohnsitz in diesen Staaten, sondern auch Staatsangehörige anderer Staaten und Personen mit Sitz oder Wohnsitz in anderen Staaten europäische

I.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has followed with great interest the initiative of the 21 European countries represented in the Inter-Governmental Conference for the setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents. Since use of the envisaged system will be open to all applicants irrespective of their nationality and residence, the effect of centralisation and simplification of the procedure for the grant of patents which will result from that system will benefit not only the participating countries and their nationals and residents but the whole international community interested in the protection of inventions. WIPO, in the interest of its Member States, welcomes this aspect of free accessibility to the envisaged regional system and considers it an essential element permitting a useful contribution by a regional system to worldwide co-operation in the field of protection of inventions.

II.

It is particularly appreciated that WIPO was invited to participate in an observer capacity in the preparatory work of the Inter-Governmental Conference which has resulted in the elaboration of the texts now submitted to the Diplomatic Conference. Thus, questions of harmonisation with worldwide conventions, treaties and agreements could be dealt with at an early stage. Three of those worldwide instruments are of particular importance in this context: the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, and the Strasbourg Agreement Concerning the International Patent Classification.

1 The provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention) have been taken fully into account in the preparation of the Draft Convention and the texts relating to it. The Preamble states that the Convention will constitute a special agreement within the meaning of Article 19 of the Paris Convention. The principle of national treatment, contained in Article 2 of the Paris Convention, is complied with in the drafts. With respect to the right to file, this follows in particular from Article 56 of the Draft Convention, which permits the filing of European patent applications not only by nationals and residents of the Contracting States to the European Convention but by nationals and residents of any State. The priority right, provided for in Article 4 of the Paris Convention, is implemented in compliance with the Stockholm Act of the Paris Convention in Articles 85 to

Page 73

Original: Englisch English Anglais

STELLUNGNAHME DER

WIPO Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum

COMMENTS BY WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization

PRISE DE POSITION DE L'OMPI Organisation Mondiale de la Propriété Intellectuelle

MUNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ
ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS 1973

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

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

CONFÉRENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

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

STELLUNGNAHMEN

zu den vorbereitenden Dokumenten herausgegeben von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

COMMENTS

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

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

Page 75

- 10 -

Article 87

Effect of priority right

The right of priority shall have the effect that the date of priority shall count as the date of filing of the European patent application for the purposes of Article 52, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 58, paragraph[s] 1 [and 2].

Page 76

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 13 September 1973

M/ 74/I/R 1

Original: English/Pranch/German

SEXES DRAFT UP BY THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE OF MAIN COMMITTEE I AT THE SETTING ON 12 SEPTEMBER 1973

Articles of the Convention:

Article 14 Article 50 Article 52 Article 53 Article 58 Article 59 Article 63 Article 65 Article 68 Article 67

Rules of the Implementing Regulations:

Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 13 Rule 16

Page 77

- 12 -

This page replaces page 1C of document M/74/E/R :

Article 87

Effect of priority right

The right of priority shall have the effect that the date of priority shall count as the date of filing of the European patent application for the purposes of Article 52, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 58, paragraphs 1 and 2.

M/80/I/F 2

Page 78

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 14 September 1973 M/80/I/R 2 Original: English/Franch/Arran

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

Articles of the Convention:

Articles 53 86 68 57 59 62 62 66 71 68 72 60 73 101 74 102 84 104 85 148

Rules of the Implementing Regulations:

Rules 13 16 52 59

Page 79

- 5 -

This case replaces the 12 of document 7/90/T/7 2

Article 67

Effect of priority right

The right of priority shall have the effect that the date of priority shall count as the date of filing of the European patent application for the purposes of Article 52, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 58, paragraph 2.

10

Page 80

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 17 September 1973 M/88/I/R 3 Original: English/French/German

TEXTS DRAVY UP BY THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE OF MAIN COMMITTEE I AT THE MEETING ON 15 SEPTEMBER 1973

Articles of the Convention:

Articles 52 116 53 120 63 121 86 122 87 123 95 124 104 125 105 128 107 130 108 131 111 132 113 135 115

Rules of the Implementing Regulations:

Rules 56 65 73 96

Page 81

- 5 -

This page replaces page 5 of document K/83/I/R 3

Article 87

Effect of priority right

The right of priority shall have the effect that the date of priority shall count as the date of filing of the European patent application for the purposes of Article 52, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 58, paragraph 1a.

K/109/I/R 5 kw

Page 82

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

- 1973 -

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

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

Articles of the Convention:

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

Rules of the Implementing Regulations:

Rules 13 16 34 59

Page 83

Article 8789 Effect of priority right

The right of priority shall have the effect that the date of priority shall count as the date of filing of the European patent application for the purposes of Article 54, paragraphs 2 and 3, and Article 22, paragraph 2.

Page 84

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 30 September 1973

M/ 146/E 4

Original: English/French/German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: General Drafting Committee

Subject: Convention: Articles 84 to 111

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-á-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

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) ^4, 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 ^6 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 l'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/PR/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 12, 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

Article 85 (87) - Priority right

297. The Netherlands delegation proposed (M/52/I/II/III, point 11) that paragraph 5 be amended to ensure that a filing made in a State which was not a party to the Paris Convention would be recognised as giving right to a priority only if that State acknowledged as having priority effect not only filings made at the European Patent Office but also those made in the Contracting States. 298. The Main Committee adopted the proposal, which was supported by the Belgian, Danish and German delegations. 299. A further drafting proposal (M/32, point 15) concerning paragraph 5 was submitted by the Netherlands delegation and referred to the Drafting Committee.

Article 86 (88) - Claiming priority

300. The Netherlands delegation pointed out that under paragraph 1 a translation was required, in the language of the proceedings, of all previous applications which had not been drawn up in one of the official languages of the European Patent Office. The Netherlands delegation considered that this discriminated to a certain degree against thost applicants who had not been required to file previous applications in an official language of the European Patent Office, and therefore proposed that applicants be afforded the option of furnishing a translation in any one of such official languages (M/52/I/II/III, point 12). 301. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany supported this proposal. 302. The United Kingdom delegation held that this problem was of no great consequence in practical terms, on the grounds that applicants would, as a general rule, draw up initial applications in the language which they would subsequently select as the language of the proceedings. It was, however, prepared to support the proposal made by the Netherlands delegation, even though it should be made clear that where a European application was converted into a national application, the national patent office could require a translation of the previous application in its official language. 303. The FICPI and CNIPA delegations considered that the proposal by the Netherlands delegation embodied a considerable simplification of procedure. 304. The Swiss delegation initially opposed the Netherlands proposal, since the applicant was very likely to have had his earlier application translated into the language of the proceedings he himself had chosen; however, in view of the attitudes of the other delegations, it withdrew its objection. 305. The Main Committee thereupon adopted the proposal. 306. With regard to the problem of the translation of the earlier application in the event of the conversion of a European patent application (see point 302), which was raised by the United Kingdom delegation, the Chairman noted that the latter's view that the national office should be entitled to require a translation into its official language was, in any case, shared by the Netherlands delegation. 307. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the French delegation concerning paragraph 1(M / 58 / I / II). 308. With reference to its comments in M/48/1, Section C, page 7 , the FICPI delegation proposed that it should be made clear in paragraph 3 that, if necessary, multiple priorities could be claimed in respect of any one patent claim. If no such provision were made, the drafting of patent claims could, in certain cases, be extremely complicated. 309. The Danish delegation supported the proposal made by the FICPI delegation. 310. The Netherlands delegation considered the proposed addition to be superfluous since, in its view, Article 86 as it stood at present already provided for multiple priorities being claimed in respect of a single claim. However, it could agree to there being clarification to this effect. 311. The United Kingdom delegation was of the same opinion, but suggested that it should be left to the Drafting Committee to decide whether it would be better to clarify this point in Article 86 or to deal with it in the Implementing Regulations. 312. The delegations of CEIF, UNICE and the International Chamber of Commerce said they felt the same way as the FICPI delegation (see M/22, point 4 and M/19, point 8). 313. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany was opposed to the inclusion in Article 86 of a provision whereby multiple priorities could be claimed for any one claim. It thought that this problem should be left to the European Patent Office to settle on the basis of precedents and practice. It also pointed out that no such provision existed under German legal practice with respect to patents. 314. The FICPI delegation said that the question of whether a priority had been justifiably claimed could arise in the context of national revocation proceedings. It was therefore extremely desirable that the Convention should make it clear that multiple priorities could be claimed in respect of a single claim. 315. The CNIPA delegation endorsed this view. 316. The IAPIP and the UNION delegations said that, to their knowledge, multiple priorities for a single claim could, as a rule, also be claimed under German law. 317. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany finally withdrew its reservations regarding the amendment proposed by the FICPI delegation, and it was thereupon adopted.

Article 87 (89) - Effect of priority right

318. A suggestion by the IAPIP delegation that Article 87 should refer to Article 74 with regard to divisional applications failed to receive the support of any of the governmental delegations. 319. The Chairman pointed out that the question of how far the divisional application enjoyed the priority right of the earlier application was dealt with explicitly in Article 74, paragraph 2 (Article 76, paragraph 1).

Article 90 (91) - Examination as to formal requirements

320. Following the fundamental decision on the issue of the identification of the inventor which it took at an earlier meeting (see points 247,265 and 276), the Main Committee discussed drafting amendments to Article 90 on the basis of a proposal put forward by the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany (M/118/I). 321. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany said that the purpose of its proposal concerning paragraph 1(1) was to make it clear that identification of the inventor had to comply with Article 79 (81); that is, that the applicant had to identify the inventor and, where he himself was not the inventor or not the sole inventor, also indicate the origin of his right to the European patent. Furthermore, it had been necessary to amend paragraph 5 to take account of the fact that identification of the inventor was now necessary for all Contracting States. The details relating to the identification of the inventor would continue to be laid down by Rule 17, for which a redraft would also be proposed (see points 2038 et seq.).

Minutes of the Proceedings of Main Committee I

1. Main Committee I (see Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure*) set up by the Plenary of the Conference to deal with matters concerning patent law was chaired by Dr. Kurt Haertel, President of the German Patent Office (Federal Republic of Germany). Mr. Göran Borggård, Director-General of the Royal Swedish Patent Office (Sweden), was the first Vice-Chairman; Mr. Erkki Tuuli, Director-General of the Patent and Record Office (Finland), and Dr. Thomas Lorenz, Chairman of the Patent Office (Austria), were the other Vice-Chairmen. The Rapporteur was Lic. jur. Paul Braendli, Vice-Director of the Federal Intellectual Property Office (Switzerland) (see M/PR/K/1, points 19, 20 and 25; M/46/K, page 1 and M/55/K, page 2). 2. The duties of Main Committee I were based on Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure (M/34) and on a recommendation adopted by the Steering Committee of the Conference (M/56/1/II/III).

On this basis the Main Committee was responsible for Articles 14, 50-142,144,148-157,161,162 and 174 of the Draft Convention (M/1), Rules 1-7 and 13-107 of the Draft Implementing Regulations (M/2), the Draft Protocol on Recognition (M/3), the Recommendation on preparations for the opening of the European Patent Office (M/8) and the Recommendation on training staff for the European Patent Office (M/37). 3. Main Committee I met from 11 to 14 September, 17 to 21 September, 24 to 26 September and on 28 and 29 September 1973. 4. At its first meeting the Main Committee, on a proposal from its Chairman, set up a Drafting Committee. Modelled on the Drafting Committee of the Luxembourg Inter-Governmental Conference, this consisted of the delegations of the Federal Republic of Germany, France and the United Kingdom. The Chairman was Mr. J. B. van Benthem, President of the Octrooiraad and Head of the Netherlands delegation. 5. The Main Committee did not deal with the tasks assigned to it in exactly the same order as the Articles, Rules and other provisions but in the order which seemed most appropriate in the given circumstances. Thus it happened that one and the same provision was discussed on different occasions, for example if the problem in question was first passed to a Working Party and subsequently referred back to the Main Committee.

However, in this report each provision is dealt with only once. The reader should thus be able to obtain, in one place, all the information he wants on the discussion of a particular problem. Within the following Sections the provisions are dealt with in numerical order:

	points
A. General	8-10
B. Convention	11 et seq.
C. Implementing Regulations	2001 et seq.
D. Protocol on Recognition	3001 et seq.
E. Recommendation on preparations for the	4001 et seq.
opening of the European Patent Office
F. Recommendation on training staff for the	5001 et seq.
European Patent Office

6. If a provision was dealt with again in the Main Committee after being discussed in a Working Party or in the Drafting Committee, special mention is made of this below. On the other hand, if no mention is made, it is to be assumed that the Main Committee adopted the proposal of the Working Party or of the Drafting Committee. Purely drafting amendments which

[^0]are not based on written proposals are not mentioned as a general rule. 7. In this report the numbering of the Articles, Rules, paragraphs, etc. follows the text of the draft proposals (M/1 to M/8). Where it seems appropriate, the numbering in the signed text is given in brackets after the number of the provisions concerned.

A. General

8. At the beginning of the first meeting the Chairman noted that the Steering Committee had approved two requests at its meeting on 10 September 1973, namely that Mr. Sheehan of the US Patent Office and Mr. van Empel, a former member of the Secretariat, might be admitted as listeners to the meetings of the Main Committees. However, under Rule 48 of the Rules of Procedure Main Committee I's consent was also necessary, before participation in its proceedings was allowed.

Main Committee I agreed that both the gentlemen mentioned could take part in its proceedings as listeners pursuant to Rule 48, paragraph 1. 9. The Chairman pointed out that under Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure only requests made in writing by the Government delegations could be discussed and voted upon. In principle, written requests had to be submitted by 5 p.m. on the day prior to the discussion. 10. The Chairman also stated that, pursuant to the Rules of Procedure, only Government delegations could make proposals, whereas representatives of any observer delegations could make oral statements under Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure. If observer delegations made proposals, the latter had to be taken over by a Government delegation and seconded by a second Government delegation. If this was not the case, the proposal was deemed to be rejected.

The Main Committee agreed with this interpretation.

Article 14 - Languages of the European Patent Office

11. The Main Committee forwarded to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the Netherlands delegation concerning paragraph 2 (M/32, point 2). 12. While discussing Article 122, paragraph 2 (see point 594), the Main Committee decided on a further amendment to paragraph 2. 13. The Main Committee forwarded to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the Luxembourg delegation concerning paragraph 4 (M/9, point 8). 14. The Main Committee decided that a proposal from the Netherlands delegation concerning paragraph 17 (M/52/I/II/ III, point 2), to the effect that an applicant must submit a translation of the claims in the other two official languages of the European Patent Office, would be discussed in connection with Article 96 (see under point 350). The Committee also adopted paragraph 7. 15. The Turkish delegation proposed amending paragraph 7 so that claims would have to be translated into all the official languages of the designated Contracting States.

It was pointed out to the delegation that the question of the translation of the European patent specification is dealt with in Article 63 (65), so that, for example, Turkey could request that the specification be translated into Turkish, if the European patent was to be effective in Turkey.

The Turkish delegation said it was satisfied with this explanation and withdrew its proposal.

[^0]: * The Rules of Procedure (M/34) had been previously adopted unanimously by the Plenary (see M/PR/K/1, point 10).

Page 89

Introduction ..... 7 Report on the meeting of the Plenary ..... 9 Opening Meeting (M/PR/K/1) Minutes of the proceedings of the Credentials Committee ..... 25 (M/PR/V) Minutes of the proceedings of Main Committee I ..... 27 (M/PR/I) Minutes of the proceedings of Main Committee II ..... 109 (M/PR/II) Minutes of the proceedings of Main Committee III ..... 155 (M/PR/III) Minutes of the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole ..... 163 (M/PR/G) Report on the meeting of the Plenary ..... 199 Final Meeting (M/PR/K/2) List of participants ..... 211

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING

UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM

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

Artikel 67 a

Wirkung des Prioritätsrechts

Das Prioritätsrecht hat die Wirkung, daß als Zeitpunkt der europäischen Patentanmeldung im Sinne des Artikels 14 Abs. 2 und 3 der Zeitpunkt der ersten Anmeldung gilt.