Art101eTPEPC1973

Métadonnées

• Nom affiché : Art101eTPEPC1973
• Numéro d'article : 101
• Dossier / langue : English
• Tag langue : #English
• PDF original : Articles/English/Articles 101-125/Article 101 (English version)/Art101eTPEPC1973.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. 101 MPO Prdfung des Einspruchs

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.	9oaBis	IV/4860/61	S. 55
IV/4860/61	9oaBis	IV/3076/62	S. 157
VE Mai 1962	98	6551/IV/62	S. 27
VE 1965	97a	11821/IV/64	S. 17
VE 1965 (Ue)	97a	BR/12/69	Rdn. 31
BR/70/70	101b	BR/87/71	Rdn. 9
VE 1971 (Ue)	102	BR/135/71	Rdn. 138/39
VE 1971 (Ue)	103	BR/135/71	Rdn. 138
BR/88/71	101b	BR/125/71	Rdn. 66
BR/184/72	100	BR/209/72	Rdn. 11

Dokumente der MDK

E 1972	100	M/28	S. 344
"	100	M/146/R 4	Art. 101
"	100	M/PR/I	S. 5149
"	100	M/PR/G	S. 201/202-185

• not available

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-à-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

REPORT

by Mr. Paul Braendli, Lic. iur. Vice-Director of the Federal Intellectual Property Office (Switzerland) on the results of Main Committee I's proceedings

REPORT

by Mr. R. Bowen Assistant Comptroller, British Patent Office on the results of Main Committee II's proceedings

REPORT

by Mr. Fressonnet Deputy Director of the Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (France) on the results of Main Committee III's proceedings

REPORT

by Mr. A. Fernandez Mazarambroz Head of the Spanish Patent Office on the results of the Credentials Committee's proceedings with regard to full powers for signing the Convention

Page 5

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)

Page 7

were not official languages of the European Patent Office wanted translations of specifications and publication of those translations to be required; three months each had been agreed on for translation and publication. The remaining three months had been considered as time for consideration by the patentee's competitors in that State. 399. The Netherlands and Swiss delegations took up the Observer delegations' point. The Netherlands delegation stressed that as a result of the Main Committee's decision the applicant should provide translations of the patent claims into the two other official languages of the European Patent Office (see point 378), the period of time specified in Article 96, paragraph 4, would probably have to be extended by two months, with the result that that extra time would be gained for translation. It thus seemed justified to shorten the time allowed for filing opposition correspondingly. 400. The United Kingdom delegation did not want the period of nine months allowed for filing opposition to be changed immediately. If it were to emerge later that it was too long, the Administrative Council could always shorten it then. It was also worthy of note that the United Kingdom's experience of shorter time limits had been unfortunate, in that notices of opposition had not been drawn up with sufficient care and had had to be amended later. 401. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany thought that competitors should in any case have six months in which to give notice of opposition. Consideration had also to be given, however, to competitors in other countries who would probably require translations of patents in their own languages; in such countries - for example Sweden - the patent would only be available for examination in the national language much later, with the result that even in the event of a nine-month period for filing opposition those competitors would be much worse off than those in countries whose national language was the language of the proceedings. The period should be allowed to stand at least for the present. 402. The Swedish delegation thought that the period of nine months which had been agreed upon hitherto should be used to start with and that it should be left to the Administrative Council to make any reduction in this period on the basis of practical experience. 403. The Netherlands delegation pointed out that the time allowed for providing translations of specifications under Article 63 (65), paragraph 1, started from the moment when an applicant was informed by the European Patent Office of the form which it was intended the grant of a patent would take. Only after these three months, which were to be extended to five, could mention of the grant be made in the European Patent Bulletin. The period allowed for filing opposition only began with the publication of that mention. In all, that amounted to fourteen months and it would therefore be quite justifiable to reduce the period allowed for filing opposition to, for instance, seven months. 404. The Norwegian delegation, taking into account the views of interested circles in Norway, was in favour of retaining the present period. 405. The Irish delegation did not think that the period for filing opposition should be changed for the time being. 406. In the ensuing vote, three delegations were in favour of reducing the period for filing opposition to six months, ten were in favour of retaining the nine-month period, and three delegations abstained. 407. The Member States of the European Communities proposed that a new paragraph provide that opposition might still be filed even where the patent had been surrendered or had lapsed for all designated States (see M/14, point 4). 408. The United Kingdom delegation explained this proposal by pointing out that the effect of a patent's being surrendered or lapsing was immediate, but that there might be residual legal effects which could appropriately be removed subsequently by means of the opposition procedure. 409. The Main Committee adopted this proposal. 410. The Netherlands delegation said that paragraph 4 constituted an exception to the principle of the uniform treatment of proprietors laid down in Article 117 (118) in that a previous proprietor and the person who replaced him in respect of a designated Contracting State were not treated as joint proprietors. It followed therefore that two separate patents would be involved, which might turn out quite differently as regards claims, descriptions and so on. Because of this fact textual drafting changes would probably have to be made in the Implementing Regulations. 411. The Chairman noted that this was also the view of the Main Committee.

Article 99 (100) - Grounds for opposition

412. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a proposal for the rewording of sub-paragraph (b) of this Article by the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany (M/11, point 26).

Article 100 (101) - Examination of the opposition

413. The Norwegian delegation withdrew its proposal concerning Article 100 (M/28, point 10).

Article 101 (102) - Revocation or maintenance

414. A proposal by Member States of the European Communities concerning the wording of paragraph 2 (M/14, point 5) was referred to the Drafting Committee. 415. As regards paragraph 3, the Main Committee decided that, in the same way as it had been laid down that the applicant would be required to have the patent claims translated into the two other official languages of the European Patent Office (see point 378 above), the proprietor of the patent would have to supply a translation of any claims changed as a result of opposition proceedings.

Article 104 (105) - Intervention of the assumed infringer

416. A proposal by the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the wording of paragraphs 1 and 2 (M/47/I/II/III, point 41) was referred to the Drafting Committee. 417. In connection with paragraph 1, the Swiss delegation proposed that a third party should also be allowed to intervene in opposition proceedings if he showed that, after being warned of infringement by the proprietor of the patent, he had instituted proceedings against the proprietor of the patent in order to have a ruling that he was not infringing the patent (see M/54/I/II/III, page 15). This remedy was available under the law of a number of countries and had proved to be of value. 418. The UNICE delegation supported this proposal. It stressed, however, that warning by the proprietor of the patent could not be considered sufficient grounds for intervention, but that a party wanting to intervene would have to have started proceedings for a ruling. 419. The CEIF and UNION delegations, the latter making reference to its own proposal in M/28, point 8, also supported this proposal.

• For an explanation of these Articles, see points 2012, 2015 and 2016.

Page 8

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

FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

(Munich, 10 September to 5 October, 1973)

Page 10

Article 100 707 Examination of the opposition (1) If the opposition is admissible, the Opposition Division shall examine whether the grounds for opposition laid down in Article 100 prejudice the maintenance of the European patent. (2) In the examination of the opposition, which shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Implementing Regulations, the Opposition Division shall invite the parties, as often as necessary, to file observations, within a period to be fixed by the Opposition Division, on communications from another party or issued by itself.

Page 11

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 30 September 1973

M/ 146/R 4

Original: English/French/German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: General Drafting Committee

Subject: Convention: Articles 84 to 111

Page 12

Europäische Patentamt eine Anmeldung als zurückgenommen ansehen können, wenn der Anmelder einer Aufforderung nicht nachkommt.

11 Im Zusammenhang mit Artikel 125 wurde auf der 6. Tagung der Regierungskonferenz „festgestellt, daß das Europäische Patentamt ein und derselben Person für dieselbe Erfindung, für die Anmeldungen mit dem gleichen Anmeldedatum vorliegen, nur ein europäisches Patent erteilen kann" (Nr. 49 des Berichts). Nach Meinung Norwegens ergibt sich jedoch aus Artikel 52 Absatz 3, daß am gleichen Tag eingereichte Anmeldungen im Verhältnis zueinander keineswegs neuheitsschädlich sind und daß ein Anmelder somit ohne Nachteil für sich selbst mehrere Anmeldungen am selben Tag einreichen kann. Unter diesen Umständen sollte eine mögliche Beschränkung, wie sie auf der 6. Tagung festgelegt wurde, im Übereinkommen ausdrücklich vorgesehen werden.

12 Nach Artikel 139 Absatz 3 können die Vertragsstaaten vorschreiben, ob eine Erfindung, die sowohl in einem nationalen Patent als auch in einem europäischen Patent mit gleichem Anmeldetag offenbart ist, gleichzeitig durch nationale und europäische Patente geschützt werden kann. Die norwegische Regierung bezweifelt, daß es richtig ist, es den Staaten zu gestatten, in diesen Fällen das europäische Patent für nichtig zu erklären. Dies dürfte besonders dann zweifelhaft sein, wenn das europäische Patent und das nationale Patent verschiedenen Erfindern gehören.

13 Da Artikel 153 das Europäische Patentamt nur in seiner Eigenschaft als Bestimmungsamt im Sinne des Zusammenarbeitsvertrags behandelt, sollte in Absatz 2 die Bezugnahme auf Artikel 39 Absatz 1 des Zusammenarbeitsvertrags gestrichen werden. Hingegen sollte dem Artikel 155 ein dem Artikel 153 Absatz 2 entsprechender zweiter Absatz - mit Bezug auf die nationale Gebühr nach Artikel 39 Absatz 1 des Zusammenarbeitsvertrags - hinzugefügt werden.

14 Es sei auf den Fall aufmerksam gemacht, in dem der Anmelder einen oder mehrere europäische Staaten auswählt, die von dem Vorbehalt nach Artikel 64 Absatz 2 Buchstabe a des Zusammenarbeitsvertrags Gebrauch gemacht haben. In diesem Fall muß die von einem solchen Staat abgegebene Erklärung zusätzlich zu den Bestimmungen des Zusammenarbeitsvertrags berücksichtigt werden. Dem Artikel 155 sollte ein Absatz 3 hinzugefügt werden, der diese Variante erfaßt.

15 Nach Artikel 157 Absatz 1 tritt die Veröffentlichung einer internationalen Anmeldung nach dem Zusammenarbeitsvertrag, in der das Europäische Patentamt benannt ist, an die Stelle der europäischen Veröffentlichung. Diese Bestimmung dürfte in Verbindung mit Artikel 150 Absatz 3 zur Folge haben, daß eine solche internationale Anmeldung unabhängig davon, ob sie nach Einreichung einer Übersetzung und Entrichtung einer nationalen able to deem an application to be withdrawn if the applicant fails to reply.

11 In connection with Art. 125 the sixth meeting of the Inter-Governmental Conference "established that the European Patent Office may not grant more than one European patent to the same person for the same invention being the subject of applications filed on the same date" (Minutes par. 49). However, in the Norwegian opinion, it follows from Art. 52(3) that applications filed on the same day do not at all constitute novelty hindrance against each other and that an applicant may thus without detriment to himself file several applications on the same day. Under the circumstances, a possible restriction as established at the sixth meeting should be expressly stated in the Convention.

12 According to Art. 139(3) the contracting states may prescribe whether an invention disclosed in both a national patent and a European patent having the same date of filing, may be protected simultaneously by both patents. The Norwegian Government questions whether it is right to allow the states to revoke the European patent in these cases. This seems particularly doubtful where the European patent and the national patent belong to different inventors.

13 As Art. 153 only deals with the European Patent Office as a designated office under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the reference in paragraph 2 to Art. 39(1) of the Cooperation Treaty should be omitted. To Art. 155 should, on the other hand, be added a second paragraph corresponding to Art. 153(2), yet with reference to the national fee provided for in Art. 39(1) of the Cooperation Treaty.

14 Attention is drawn to the case where the applicant elects one or more European states which have made use of the reservation under Article 64(2)(a) of the Patent Cooperation Treaty. In this case the declaration made by such state must be applied in addition to the provisions of the Cooperation Treaty itself. A third paragraph ought to be added to Art. 155 to cover this alternative.

15 According to Art. 157(1) publication under the Cooperation Treaty of an international application in which the European Patent Office is designated, shall take the place of the European publication. This provision, together with Art. 150(3), seems to entail that such international application will become prior art pursuant to Art. 52(3) irrespective of whether it is carried on with the European Patent Office by furnishing of a translation and a national

Page 13

4 Zum Übereinkommensentwurf selbst möchte die norwegische Regierung folgendes bemerken:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 14

Original: Englisch English Anglais

STELLUNGNAHME DER NORWEGISCHEN REGIERUNG

COMMENTS BY THE NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT

PRISE DE POSITION DU GOUVERNEMENT NORVÉGIEN

MÜNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ

ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS 1973 (München, 10. September bis 6. Oktober 1973)

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

CONFÉRENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

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

STELLUNGNAHMEN

zu den vorbereitenden Dokumenten herausgegeben von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

COMMENTS

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

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

Page 16

(2) Bei der Prüfung des Einspruchs, die nach Maßgabe der Ausführungsordnung durchzuführen ist, fordert die Einspruchsabteilung die Beteiligten so oft wie erforderlich auf, innerhalb einer von ihr zu bestimmenden Frist eine Stellungnahme zu ihren Bescheiden oder zu den Schriftsätzen anderer Beteiligter einzureichen.

[^0]Artikel 101 Widerruf oder Aufrechterhaltung (1) Ist die Einspruchsabteilung der Auffassung, daß die in Artikel 99 genannten Einspruchsgründe der Aufrechterhaltung des Patents entgegenstehen, so widerruft sie das europäische Patent. (2) Ist die Einspruchsabteilung der Auffassung, daß die in Artikel 99 genannten Einspruchsgründe der Aufrechterhaltung des Patents nicht entgegenstehen, so weist sie den Einspruch zurück, wenn eine Änderung der Patentschrift nicht erforderlich ist. (3) Ist die Einspruchsabteilung der Auffassung, daß unter Berücksichtigung der vom Patentinhaber im Einspruchsverfahren vorgenommenen Änderungen das Patent und die Erfindung, die es zum Gegenstand hat, den Erfordernissen dieses Übereinkommens genügen, so beschließt sie die Aufrechterhaltung des europäischen Patents in dem geänderten Umfang, vorausgesetzt, daß a) gemäß der Ausführungsordnung feststeht, daß der Patentinhaber mit der Fassung, in der die Einspruchsabteilung das Patent aufrechtzuerhalten beabsichtigt, einverstanden ist, und b) die Druckkostengebühr für eine neue Patentschrift innerhalb der in der Ausführungsordnung vorgeschriebenen Frist entrichtet worden ist. (4) Wird die Druckkostengebühr für eine neue Patentschrift nicht rechtzeitig entrichtet, so wird das europäische Patent widerrufen.

Vgl. Regeln 59 (Prüfung des Einspruchs), 69 (Form der Entscheidungen) und 90 (Berichtigung von Fehlern in Entscheidungen)

Artikel 102

Veröffentlichung einer neuen Patentschrift Ist das europäische Patent nach Artikel 101 Absatz 3 geändert worden, so gibt das Europäische Patentamt gleichzeitig mit der Bekanntmachung des Hinweises auf (2) In the examination of the opposition, which shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Implementing Regulations, the Opposition Division shall invite the parties, as often as necessary, to file observations, within a period to be fixed by the Opposition Division, on communications from another party or issued by itself.

Cf. Rules 57 (Rejection of the notice of opposition as inadmissible), 58 (Preparation of the examination of the opposition), 59 (Examination of opposition), 60 (Requests for documents) and 71 (Form of communications from the European Patent Office)

Revocation or maintenance of the patent

(1) If the Opposition Division is of the opinion that the grounds for opposition mentioned in Article 99 prejudice the maintenance of the European patent, it shall revoke the patent. (2) If the Opposition Division is of the opinion that the grounds for opposition mentioned in Article 99 do not prejudice the maintenance of the patent, it shall reject the opposition, if there is no need to amend the specification. (3) If the Opposition Division is of the opinion that, taking into consideration the amendments made by the proprietor of the patent during the opposition proceedings, the patent and the invention to which it relates meet the requirements of this Convention, it shall decide to maintain the patent as amended, provided that: (a) it is established, in accordance with the provisions of the Implementing Regulations, that the proprietor of the patent approves the text in which the Opposition Division intends to maintain the patent; and (b) the fee for the printing of a new specification is paid within the time limit prescribed in the Implementing Regulations. (4) If the fee for the printing of a new specification is not paid in due time, the European patent shall be revoked.

Cf. Rules 59 (Examination of opposition), 69 (Form of decisions) and 90 (Correction of errors in decisions)

Article 102

Publication of a new specification If a European patent is amended under Article 101, paragraph 3, the European Patent Office shall, at the same time as it publishes the mention of the opposition

[^0]: Vgl. Regeln 59 (Prüfung des Einspruchs), 69 (Form der Entscheidungen) und 90 (Berichtigung von Fehlern in Entscheidungen)

Artikel 98

Einspruch (1) Innerhalb von neun Monaten nach der Bekanntmachung des Hinweises auf die Erteilung des europäischen Patents kann jedermann beim Europäischen Patentamt gegen das erteilte europäische Patent Einspruch einlegen. Der Einspruch ist schriftlich einzureichen und zu begründen. Er gilt erst als eingelegt, wenn die Einspruchsgebühr entrichtet worden ist. (2) Der Einspruch erfaßt das europäische Patent für alle Vertragsstaaten, in denen es Wirkung hat. (3) Am Einspruchsverfahren sind neben dem Patentinhaber die Einsprechenden beteiligt. (4) Weist jemand nach, daß er in einem Vertragsstaat aufgrund einer rechtskräftigen Entscheidung anstelle des bisherigen Patentinhabers in das Patentregister dieses Staats eingetragen ist, so tritt er auf Antrag in bezug auf diesen Staat an die Stelle des bisherigen Patentinhabers. Abweichend von Artikel 117 gelten der bisherige Patentinhaber und derjenige, der sein Recht geltend macht, nicht als gemeinsame Inhaber, es sei denn, daß beide dies verlangen.

[^0]

PART V

OPPOSITION PROCEDURE

Article 98

Opposition (1) Within nine months from the publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent, any person may give notice to the European Patent Office of opposition to the European patent granted. Notice of opposition shall be filed in a written reasoned statement. It shall not be deemed to have been filed until the opposition fee has been paid. (2) The opposition shall apply to the European patent in all the Contracting States in which that patent has effect. (3) Opponents shall be parties to the opposition proceedings as well as the proprietor of the patent. (4) Where a person provides evidence that in a Contracting State, following a final decision, he has been entered in the patent register of such State instead of the previous proprietor, such person shall, at his request, replace the previous proprietor in respect of such State. By derogation from Article 117, the previous proprietor and the person making the request shall not be deemed to be joint proprietors unless both so request.

Article 99

Grounds for opposition Opposition may only be filed on the grounds that: (a) the subject-matter of the European patent is not patentable within the terms of Articles 50 to 55; (b) the European patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art; (c) the subject-matter of the European patent extends beyond the content of the application as filed, or, if the patent was granted on a divisional application or on a new application filed in accordance with Article 59, beyond the content of the earlier application as filed.

Article 100

Examination of the opposition (1) If the opposition is admissible, the Opposition Division shall examine whether the grounds for opposition laid down in Article 99 prejudice the maintenance of the European patent.

[^0]: Vgl. Regeln 13 (Aussetzung des Verfahrens), 56 (Form des Einspruchs), 61 (Fortsetzung des Einspruchsverfahrens von Amts wegen), 62 (Rechtsübergang des europäischen Patents), 70 (Feststellung eines Rechtsverlusts) und 91 (Unterbrechung des Verfahrens)

PROJET DE CONVENTION

INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

MÜNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ

ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS 1973 (München, 10. September bis 6. Oktober 1973)

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

CONFERENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

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

VORBEREITENDE DOKUMENTE

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

PREPARATORY DOCUMENTS

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

DOCUMENTS PRÉPARATOIRES

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

Page 20

paragraph 3, should he fail to reply to an invitation from the European Patent Office during opposition proceedings.

It was pointed out that indeed the legal position of an applicant for a patent differed from that of a proprietor of a patent and that the sanction consisting of revocation of the patent which was provided for in paragraph 3 was not justified, since the Opposition Division, for reasons of public interest, had to continue the opposition proceedings on the basis of the documentary evidence in the file submitted to it.

Following the deletion of Article 100, paragraph 3, the reference to this provision appearing in Article 109 was also deleted.

Article 151

12. The Committee decided by a majority to adopt the Drafting Committee's suggestion that, in paragraph 1, it should be stipulated that the European Patent Office should act as a designated Office for those Contracting States parties to the Convention for which the Co-operation Treaty had come into force. Since a similar stipulation appears in Article 153, in the absence of such a stipulation in Article 151 one might conclude by a contrario argument that the European Patent Office could act as a designated Office, even vis-à-vis the Contracting States parties to the Convention for which the Co-operation Treaty had not come into force. 13. During this discussion, one delegation observed that a problem would arise in the Second Convention, since it

Page 21

Article 138 8. The Committee recorded its preference for a text which clarified the three separate situations combined in the text proposed by the Drafting Committee, on the basis of the three provisions of the Second Preliminary Draft (Articles 6, 76, paragraph 1a, and 134). These provisions concern simultaneous protection, the prior right effect of a national application or patent, and the prior right effect of a European application or patent. (b) Problems arising following the work of the Drafting Committee

Article 59, paragraph 1 9. The Committee recorded its agreement that the period within which a person may present to the European Patent Office a decision adjudging that he is entitled to the grant of a European patent, be fixed at three months.

Article 63, paragraph 1 10. The Committee adopted a suggestion from the Drafting Committee that a Contracting State may prescribe a longer period than the minimum period of three months laid down in paragraph 1, for the translation of the European patent specification.

Article 100 11. The Committee did not adopt the suggestion by the Drafting Committee that a peragrapb 3 should be added providing, in respect of the proprietor of a European patent, for a sanction similar to that provided for in Article 95,

Page 22

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

Brussels, 6 June 1972 BR/209/72

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the

second meeting of the Co-ordinating Committee

held in Brussels from 15 to 19 May 1972

1. The second meeting of the Co-ordinating Committee was held in Brussels from 15 to 19 May 1972 with Dr HAERTEL, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair.

Representatives of the Commission of the European Communities, of the IIB and of WIPO took part as observers. The representatives of the Council of Europe sent their apologies for being unable to attend. The list of those taking part in the meeting is given in Annex I to this report.

2. The Co-ordinating Committee - hereinafter referred to as the Committee - adopted the provisional agenda as contained in BR/174/72, supplemented as follows:

BR/209 8/72 1:07PM/prk

.../...

Page 23

Article 100 (101b, paragraph 1+102+103 ) Examination (1) If the opposition is admissible, the Opposition Division shall examine whether the grounds for opposition laid down in Article 99 prejudice the maintenance of the European patent. (2) In the examination of the opposition, which shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Implementing Regulations, the Opposition Division shall invite the parties, as often as necessary, to file observations, within a period to be fixed by the Opposition Division, on communications from another party or issued by itself. [13) If the proprietor of the European patent fails to reply in due time to any invitation under paragraph 2, the patent shall be revoked. 7

Page 24

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

Brussels, 24 April 1972 BR / 184 / 72

- Secretariat -

DRAFT CONVENTION
ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

(Text drawn up by the Conference Drafting Committee 8 to 24 March and 10 to 20 April 1972)

Page 25

65.

The Conference noted that the wording of Article 101a allows third parties to lodge opposition on the grounds of lack of novelty of the invention which constitutes the subject-matter of a European patent; provided that the priority on which the European patent application was based has been refuted.

Article 101b (Examination of opposition)

66.

The Norwegian delegation wondered whether it was advisable to provide in paragraph 2 that the Opposition Division may disregard fresh facts or evidence. This seemed contrary to the spirit of paragraph 1, which laid down that the Opposition Division is to examine the facts.

In this connection it was pointed out that the Opposition Division would probably use its discretion in exercising this right which, moreover, may be exercised to counteract any delaying tactics employed by parties to opposition proceedings.

The Norwegian delegation reserved the right to submit a proposed amendment to this provision before the next Meeting of the Conference.

Page 26

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

Brussels, 7 July 1971 B R / 125 / 71

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

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

Page 27

Article 101b Examination of opposition (1) If the opposition is admissible, the Opposition Division shall examine the facts, in so far as they lie within the grounds for opposition laid down in Article 101a; this examination shall not be restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought. (2) The Opposition Division may disregard fresh facts or evidence submitted by the parties concerned, which were not included in the statement of grounds for opposition or in the reply to the opposition.

Page 28

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

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 15th February 1971 BR / 88 / 71

ESTABLISHING

A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Stage reached on 29 January 1971 -

Page 29

Some delegations were worried in case such a communication might prejudice the equality of the parties in the proceedings. Others considered that there was no foundation for this anxiety, since this was only the preliminary stage of the proceedings.

In conclusion, and to avoid excessive extensions of time limits, the Working Party decided that the right of opponents to reply in every case should not be recognised, and that this right should be limited to cases in which the Opposition Division considered that it would be useful; in such cases the opponent would have at his disposal the period allotted to him by the Opposition Division itself. 137. The Working Party did not adopt the United Kingdom delegation's proposal that Article 101 should also contain a new paragraph 4 , which would lay down a provision similar to that of Article 92, paragraph 2, i.e. that in the event of the patentee failing to indicate within the period fixed by the Opposition Division that he wished to maintain his patent, the patent would be deemed to be revoked. 138. In view of the decisions taken by the Working Party on Article 101, paragraph 3, a number of amendments had to be made to the wording of Articles 102 and 103 of the Convention. 139. In Article 102 it was, moreover, specified that the application mutatis mutandis of the provisions of Article 95 during opposition proceedings was to be limited to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, paragraphs 1a and 1b being inapplicable, as the proceedings' would otherwise be overburdened.

Page 30

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

Brussels, 17 November 1971 BR / 135 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

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

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

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

Page 31

(3) Die Einspruchsabteilung teilt dem Patentinhaber die eingelegten Einsprüche mit und fordert ihn auf, innerhalb einer von ihr zu bestimmenden Frist dazu Stellung zu nehmen. Die Stellungnahme des Patentinhabers wird den übrigen Beteiligten mitgeteilt.

Artikel 101 a

Einspruchsgründe Der Einspruch kann nur darauf gestützt werden, a) daß der Gegenstand des europäischen Patents nach den Artikeln 9 bis 14 nicht patentfähig ist; b) daß das europäische Patent die Erfindung nicht so deutlich und vollständig offenbart, daß ein Fachmann sie danach ausführen kann; c) daß der Gegenstand des europäischen Patents weiter ist als der Inhalt der eingereichten Patentanmeldung.

Artikel 101 b

Prüfung des Einspruchs (1) Ist der Einspruch zulässig, so erforscht die Einspruchsabteilung den Sachverhalt im Rahmen der in Artikel 101 a vorgesehenen Einspruchsgründe von Amts wegen; diese Prüfung ist weder auf das Vorbringen noch auf die Anträge der Beteiligten beschränkt. (2) Die Einspruchsabteilung braucht neue von den Beteiligten vorgebrachte Tatsachen und Beweismittel nicht zu berücksichtigen, die nicht in der Einspruchsbegründung oder in der Erwiderung auf den Einspruch enthalten sind.

Artikel 102

Prüfungsbescheid im Einspruchsverfahren Ist die Einspruchsabteilung nach Prüfung des Einspruchs der Auffassung, daß das europäische Patent nicht hätte erteilt werden dürfen, so ist Artikel 95 entsprechend anzuwenden. Der Prüfungsbescheid und die Stellungnahme des Patentinhabers werden den übrigen Beteiligten mitgeteilt.

Artikel 103

Stellungnahme der Beteiligten Die Einspruchsabteilung fordert die übrigen Beteiligten auf, sich innerhalb einer von ihr zu bestimmenden Frist zu Stellungnahmen des Patentinhabers zu äußern, sofern diese wesentliches neues Vorbringen enthalten oder die Einspruchsabteilung dies aus anderen Gründen für sachdienlich hält. (3) The Opposition Division shall notify the proprietor of the patent of any opposition lodged and shall invite him to present his observations within a period to be fixed by the Division. The observations of the proprietor of the patent shall be communicated to the other parties concerned.

Article 101a

Grounds for opposition Opposition may only be lodged on the grounds that: (a) the subject-matter of the European patent is not patentable within the terms of Articles 9 to 14; (b) the European patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art; (c) the subject-matter of the European patent extends beyond the content of the application as filed.

Article 101 b

Examination of opposition (1) If the opposition is admissible, the Opposition Division shall examine the facts, in so far as they lie within the grounds for opposition laid down in Article 101a; this examination shall not be restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought. (2) The Opposition Division may disregard fresh facts or evidence submitted by the parties concerned, which were not included in the statement of grounds for opposition or in the reply to the opposition.

Article 102

Notification of the result of the examination in opposition proceedings If, after having examined the opposition, the Opposition Division considers that the European patent should not have been granted, Article 95 shall apply mutatis mutandis. The result of the examination and the observations of the proprietor of the patent shall be communicated to the other parties concerned.

Article 103

Reply of the parties concerned The Opposition Division shall invite the other parties concerned to comment, within a period to be fixed by the Division, on the observations of the proprietor of the patent in so far as these contain substantial new elements or in so far as the Opposition Division considers this expedient for other reasons.

ZWEITER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

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

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

Page 33

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

ZWEITER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

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

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

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

Page 34

For Article 101, paragraph 1(c), see point 156, which covers Article 83a. 140. For Article 101, new paragraph 1b, see point 105, which covers Article 23.

Article 105a (Effect of the decision) 141. In accordance with its mandate from the Conference (cf. BR/125/71, page 67), the Working Party looked into the feasibility of improving the wording of this Article so as to make it clear that, in conformity with the principle of the ex tunc effect of revocation decisions, it would be left to national law to lay down the details of the effects of these decisions as regarded derived rights, and in particular licence contracts.

The Working Party found that it was unnecessary to amend the wording of Article 105a, as Article 18 of the Convention stated which rights this provision referred to, these being the rights conferred on the proprietor of the patent. The absence of provisions governing the derived rights of third parties meant that they fell within the jurisdiction of national laws. 142. The Working Party agreed to re-examine at a later stage the question raised by the United Kingdom delegation of whether the ex tunc effect of the revocation of a patent commenced as from the date of grant of the patent or whether it also extended to the provisional protection conferred by the patent application on which the revoked patent was granted.

Page 35

Some delegations were worried in case such a communication might prejudice the equality of the parties in the proceedings. Others considered that there was no foundation for this anxiety, since this was only the preliminary stage of the proceedings.

In conclusion, and to avoid excessive extensions of time limits, the Working Party decided that the right of opponents to reply in every case should not be recognised, and that this right should be limited to cases in which the Opposition Division considered that it would be useful; in such cases the opponent would have at his disposal the period allotted to him by the Opposition Division itself. 137. The Working Party did not adopt the United Kingdom delegation's proposal that Article 101 should also contain a new paragraph 4 , which would lay down a provision similar to that of Article 92, paragraph 2, i.e. that in the event of the patentee failing to indicate within the period fixed by the Opposition Division that he wished to maintain his patent, the patent would be deemed to be revoked. 138. In view of the decisions taken by the Working Party on Article 101, paragraph 3, a number of amendments had to be made to the wording of Articles 102 and 103 of the Convention. 139. In Article 102 it was, moreover, specified that the application mutatis mutandis of the provisions of Article 95 during opposition proceedings was to be limited to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, paragraphs 1a and 1b being inapplicable, as the proceedings' would otherwise be overburdened.

Page 36

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

Brussels, 17 November 1971 B R / 135 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

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

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

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

Page 37

(3) Die Einspruchsabteilung teilt dem Patentinhaber die eingelegten Einsprüche mit und fordert ihn auf, innerhalb einer von ihr zu bestimmenden Frist dazu Stellung zu nehmen. Die Stellungnahme des Patentinhabers wird den übrigen Beteiligten mitgeteilt.

Artikel 101 a

Einspruchsgründe Der Einspruch kann nur darauf gestützt werden, a) daß der Gegenstand des europäischen Patents nach den Artikeln 9 bis 14 nicht patentfähig ist; b) daß das europäische Patent die Erfindung nicht so deutlich und vollständig offenbart, daß ein Fachmann sie danach ausführen kann; c) daß der Gegenstand des europäischen Patents weiter ist als der Inhalt der eingereichten Patentanmeldung.

Artikel 101 b

Prüfung des Einspruchs (1) Ist der Einspruch zulässig, so erforscht die Einspruchsabteilung den Sachverhalt im Rahmen der in Artikel 101a vorgesehenen Einspruchsgründe von Amts wegen; diese Prüfung ist weder auf das Vorbringen noch auf die Anträge der Beteiligten beschränkt. (2) Die Einspruchsabteilung braucht neue von den Beteiligten vorgebrachte Tatsachen und Beweismittel nicht zu berücksichtigen, die nicht in der Einspruchsbegründung oder in der Erwiderung auf den Einspruch enthalten sind.

Artikel 102

Prüfungsbescheid im Einspruchsverfahren Ist die Einspruchsabteilung nach Prüfung des Einspruchs der Auffassung, daß das europäische Patent nicht hätte erteilt werden dürfen, so ist Artikel 95 entsprechend anzuwenden. Der Prüfungsbescheid und die Stellungnahme des Patentinhabers werden den übrigen Beteiligten mitgeteilt.

Artikel 103

Stellungnahme der Beteiligten Die Einspruchsabteilung fordert die übrigen Beteiligten auf, sich innerhalb einer von ihr zu bestimmenden Frist zu Stellungnahmen des Patentinhabers zu äußern, sofern diese wesentliches neues Vorbringen enthalten oder die Einspruchsabteilung dies aus anderen Gründen für sachdienlich hält. (3) The Opposition Division shall notify the proprietor of the patent of any opposition lodged and shall invite him to present his observations within a period to be fixed by the Division. The observations of the proprietor of the patent shall be communicated to the other parties concerned.

Grounds for opposition

Opposition may only be lodged on the grounds that: (a) the subject-matter of the European patent is not patentable within the terms of Articles 9 to 14; (b) the European patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art; (c) the subject-matter of the European patent extends beyond the content of the application as filed.

Examination of opposition

(1) If the opposition is admissible, the Opposition Division shall examine the facts, in so far as they lie within the grounds for opposition laid down in Article 101a; this examination shall not be restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought. (2) The Opposition Division may disregard fresh facts or evidence submitted by the parties concerned, which were not included in the statement of grounds for opposition or in the reply to the opposition.

Article 102

Notification of the result of the examination in opposition proceedings If, after having examined the opposition, the Opposition Division considers that the European patent should not have been granted, Article 95 shall apply mutatis mutandis. The result of the examination and the observations of the proprietor of the patent shall be communicated to the other parties concerned.

Article 103

Reply of the parties concerned The Opposition Division shall invite the other parties concerned to comment, within a period to be fixed by the Division, on the observations of the proprietor of the patent in so far as these contain substantial new elements or in so far as the Opposition Division considers this expedient for other reasons.

Page 38

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 39

Article 101b (new) : Examination of opposition 9. The Working Party supported the proposal of the Chairman to apply to opposition proceedings the principle that the department concerned may act on its own initiative. Several delegations considered it to be in the public interest that the European Patent Office should be able to revoke the patent on a ground not invoked by the opponent himself, where it finds that the patent ought not to have been granted. The Working Party based its decision on the consideration that the principle of the department being able to act on its own initiative had been contained in the system originally envisaged of opposition prior to grant; the change to the system of belated opposition had been decided by the Conference for a different reason and should not affect the application of the principle that the Office may act on its own initiative.

The Working Party also expressed the hope that in practice this principle would be applied within reasonable bounds.

Article 104 : Limitation of amendment of the patent 10. With regard to Article 104, the Working Party reached the conclusion that it was not sufficient merely to prevent the claims being amended in such a way as to extend the protection conferred but that it was equally important that the patent should not be extended beyond the content of the application as filed. As a result of this consideration, paragraph 2 was added to Article 104. 11. The Working Party incorporated in Article 83a a provision corresponding to Article 104, paragraph 2 (new), for the patent application at the stage prior to the filing of a request for examination.

Page 40

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

Brussels, 28 February 1971 B R / 87 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

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

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

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

Page 41

Article 101b Examination of opposition (1) If the opposition is admissible, the Opposition Division shall examine the facts, in so far as they lie within the grounds for opposition laid down in Article 101a; this examination shall not be restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought. (2) The Opposition Division may disregard fresh facts or evidence submitted by the parties concerned, which were not included in the statement of grounds for opposition or in the reply to the opposition.

Page 42

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

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

Page 43

Article 97a - Reply of the parties concerned 31. The Working Party had a brief discussion of whether it would not be better to place this article somewhere else in the Convention, but did not take any final decision on this matter, since the position of the various Articles within the Convention, and the possibility of transferring them to the Implementing Regulations, must in any case be reviewed at the end of the work.

Article 97b - Limitation of amendment of claims 32. The question was raised, in connection with Article 97b, which supplements the provision of Article 82 as regards the opposition procedure, whether Article 82 can be considered as adequate in its present form. The Working Party decided to examine this question later.

Article 98 33. As far as the division of a patent application before the end of the examination is concerned, the content of Article 98 of the earlier drafts has been incorporated in Article 94a. For the time after the end of the examination, i.e. from the grant of the European patent under Article 96 to the final decision terminating any opposition proceedings, the Working Party rejected, for the time being; the possibility of providing for any division, but without excluding the possibility of a later review of this position.

Page 44

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

Brussels, 18 December 1969 BR / 12 / 69

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

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

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

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

- 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 45

Après un échange de vues à ce sujet, le Président conclut qu'il faut faire confiance aux fonctionnaires de l'Office pour user le plus judicieusement possible de la faculté qui leur est faite à l'article 97 a). Aussi propose-t-il le maintien du texte en question.

Le groupe approuve la proposition du Président. Le point 11 est adopté c.à.d. que le Comité de rédaction est chargé d'examiner l'article 98 à la lumière des modifications intervenues dans la procédure d'opposition.

Au point 12 est proposé un nouveau texte pour l'article 99 relatif à la fin de la procédure en cas d'extinction du brevet européen provisoire. La première phrase est adoptée sans discussion. La deuxième phrase qui prévoit le remboursement de la moitié de la taxe d'examen si le brevet est annulé prématurément est supprimée. En effet, le groupe estime que ce remoursement entrânerait des dépenses administratives dispreportionnées pour l'Office.

Le point 13 est transmis au Comité de rédaction qui est chargé d'examiner la proposition d'une modification rédactionnelle à l'article 100.

Il en va de même pour le point 14 se rapportant à une modification rédactionnelle de l'artiole 101.

Au point 15, il est prévu do nodifier le troisième parceraple de l'artiole 2. Le texte proposé a pour objot de dire que la chambre de recours renvoie l'affaire à la division d'examen lorsqu'elle annule une décision de celle-ci ayant pour objet l'annulation du brevet européen provisoire. Cette mesure a pour but de ne pas faire perdre une instance aux tiers participants.

A la suite d'une demande de M. van Benthem, le groupe décide de modifier légèrement le texte proposé. En effet, il est entendu que dans le cas prévu la chambre de recours devra renvoyer l'affaire à la division d'examen mais il faut prévoir que la chambre de recours pourra fixer les revendications qui devront être publiées et devra également décider de cette publication.

Le Comité de rédaction est chargé de modifier le texte proposé en ce sens. M. van Benthem se réfère aux articles 102 et 111 relatifs à la faculté donnée à la division d'examen d'entendre, lorsqu'elle le juge utile, le titulaire ou toute autre partie à la procédure et de statuer d'office ou sur requête après une procédure orale si elle l'estime utile.

Page 46

Le texte relatif à ces tiers doit figurer entre crochets. Le groupe discute de la question de savoir s'il est opportun de communiquer cette rédaction aux tiers en question qui ont simplement formulé des obser vations. H. Pfanner n'est pas favorable à cette communication. On peut craindre, en effet, que les tiers, s'ils ont une information de valeur, la garderont jusqu'au moment où ils formeront opposition. De plus, l'observation formulée sur la base de l'article 92 permettra aux tiers d'avoir des informations gratuitement et risque d'entraîner de lourdes charges administratives pour l'offico.

A la suite d'un échange de vues, le groupe se prononce en faveur de la suppression du texte mis entre crochets.

Le point 8 prévoit la création d'un article 96 a) organisant l'opposition des tiers à compter de la date de la publication de la décision transitoire. Il est adopté sans discussion.

Le point 9 propose une nouvelle rédaction pour l'article 97 concernant la notification d'examen dans la procééure d'opposition. Cette modification est adoptée sans discussion.

Le point 10 prévoit un nouvel article 97 a) concernant les prises de position des tiers participants. Il prévoit que la division d'examen invite les autres tiers participants à se prononcer sur les prises de position du titulairs pour autant que celles-ci contiement des éléments neufs ou si la division d'examen le juge utile.

Une discussion s'instaure tout d'abord sur le point de savoir s'il faut lire dans le texte français de la proposition "éléments neufs" ou "éléments essentiels neufs".

La deuxième expression est adoptée. M. van Benthem, tout en partageant l'avis de la délégation allemande, se demande s'il ne serait pas opportun de supprimer la restriction contenue dans la dernière partie de cet article et qui donne à la division d'examen un trop grand pouvoir d'appréciation de telle sorte que certains tiers participants risqueraient de se voir privés du droit de s'exprimer sur tous les documents.

Page 47

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

11821/IV/64-F-déf. Bruxelles, le 7 décembre 1964 Confidentiel

Résultats de la quinzième session du groupe de travail " Provets " qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 19 au 29 octobre 1964

COMPTE RENDUS

Article 97a

Prises de position des tiers participants

La division d'examen invite les tiers participants a se prononcer, dans un délai a déterminer par elle, sur les prises de position du titulaire du brevet, pour autant que celles-ci comportent des éléments nouveaux et substantiels ou que la division d'examen le juge utile a d'autres titres.

V E 1965

OROURE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

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

Confidentiel

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

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

Articlle 92 (86)

H. yan Beathen propose de supprimer au paragraphe 1 les mots : "jusqu'à l'expiration du délai mentionné à l'articlle 91, paragraphe 1". Ce délai ne lui paraít pas justifié. En effet, toute personne peut toujours présenter des observations à l'office européen sur la validité d'un brevet

Le groupe se rallio à cot avis. L'article ost transmis au Comitó de rédaction avec cotto remarque.

Articlo 53 (87)

Le toste allemana sora noóifif dans le sons du texte français au sujot du mot "commninciśos".

L'article est adnptó.

Articlle 94 (88), 96 (90) et 57 (90 a)

adoptés sans discussion.

Articlo 95

Déjà supprimé ot sautora dans la nouvelle numérotation. + )

Articlo 98 (90 a bia)

Lo groupe approuve la modification de fond introduite par le Comité de rédaction visant à donner à la division d'examen la faculté d'envoyer ou ron une notification aux tiers. Cette nouvelle disposition a, en effet, pour resultat de simplifier la procédure.

L'article est adopté.

Articlo 99 (89)

adopté.

Articlo 100 ( 90 c )

Le paragraphe 1, littera e lire 101 au lieu do 90 a ter. Adopté. +) = La suppression de cet article a pour conséquence de changer la numérotation de l'avant-projet définitif à partir de cet endroit. Toutefois, cette nouvelle numérotation n'apparaît dans le présent compte-rendu qu'à partir de la page 73.

Page 51

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 31 juillet 1962 Confidentiel

Fésultats de la sixième session

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

Page 52

Article 98 (90 a bis) Nouvelle notification d'examen (1) Si, après examen des observations prévues à l'article 97 la division d'examen estime que le brevet européen provisoire ne peut être confirmé en brevet européen définitif dans la mesure résultant de la notification visée à l'article 97, paragraphe 1, la procédure se poursuit conformément à l'article 96 . (2) Dans le cas visé au paragraphc 1, la procédure d'intervention des tiers prévue à l'article 97 s'applique si la division d'examen le juge utile.

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

=V E Mai 1962

Page 54

L'article 85 est transmis au Comitś de rédaction.

Article 86

Le Comité de rédaction est chargé d'examiner si les tiers peuvent également intervenir en ce qui concerne la condition d'activité inventive. Article 88

Le paragraphe 3 doit être sup rimé en raison de la disposition de l'article 97, paragraphe 4. L'article 88 est adopté.

Article 88 a

La délégation française maintient sa romarque qui devrait être soumise au Comité de ooordination.

L'article 89 est adopté.

Article 90

Lo paragraphe 2 est supprimé.

Article 90 a

Le paragraphe 4 est supprimé.

Article 90 a bis

Los deux variantes du paragraphe 2 sont maintenues jusqu'à la décision du groupe lors de la prochaine sassion.

Le Comité de rédaction est invité à marquer sa préférence. Los articles 90 a, 90 a tor jusqu'à 90 f sont adoptés.

Article 90 g

La phrase entre crochets du paragraphe 4 est rayée en vue de la disposition de l'article 164, paragraphe 5.

Les articles 91 à 98 sont adoptés.

Page 55

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 22 mai 1962. Confidentiel

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

Page 56

Bruxelles, le 12 juillet 1961

Article 90 a bis Nouvelle notification d'examen (1) Si, après examen des observations prévues à l'article 90 a, la division d'examen estime que le brevet européen provisoire ne pourra pas être confirmé en brevet européen définitif dans la mesure qui résulte de la notification faite conformément au paragraphe 1 de l'article 90 a , la procédure se poursuit conformément à l'article 90. (2) 1ère variante

Dans le cas visé au paragraphe 1, la procédure d'intervention des tiers prévue à l'article 90 a ne s'applique pas.

2ème variante

La nouvelle notification d'examen est également adressée auktiers participants qui peuvent présenter leurs observations dans le délai visé à l'article 90.

Remarque :

Le Comité de rédaction a constaté que le Groupe de travail n'a pas encore examiné s'il y avait lieu de prévoir une nouvelle intervention des tiers en application de l'article 90 a bis et, dans ces conditions, il a estimé qu'il conviendrait de présenter deux solutions possibles dans un deuxième paragraphe.

Page 57

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL "Brevets"

Bruxelles, le 18 juillet 1961

Confidentiel

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

Session du 3 an 14 juillet 1961.

Compte-rendu : de la séance du 11 juillet 1961.

Le Président ouvre la séance à 9 heures 45 . L'approbation du procès-verbal de la séance du 7 juillet est reportée au lendemain.

Discussion des articles 90 a, 90 a bis et 90 a ter.

Le Président expose au groupe les principes contenus dans ces nouveaux articles qui sont inspirés d'une proposition de la délégation néerlandaise tendant à permettre aux tiers qui ont introduit une requête de participer à lá procédure avant que la division des brevets ne prenne sa décision sur la confirmation du brevet provisoire.

Le Président fait observer qu'il manque encore un article réglant la question de la procédure orale. Cet article sera rédigé ultérieurement.

A la suite d'une observation de M. van Benthem, le Président explique que la communication des objections soumises par des tiers participant est prévue à l'alinéa 3 de l'article 90 a) parce qu'il est possible que le titulaire du brevet désire limiter lui-même sa demande étant donné ces objections.

Le groupe devra trancher ultérieurement la question de savoir si le respect des délais prévus à l'alinéa 3 sera indispensable en cas de procédure orale.

Le groupe adopte à l'unanimité les trois articles et les transmet au Comité de rédaction.

Page 59

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL "Brevets"

Bruxelles, le 18 juillet 1961

Confidentiel

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

Page 60

Nach einem Gedankenaustausch hierüber zieht der Vorsitzende die Schlußfolgerung, daß man den Beamten des Amts zutrauen könnte, von der ihnen in Artikel 97 a) gebetenen Möglichkeit in vernünftiger Weise Gebrauch zu machen. Er schlägt deshalb die Aufrechterhaltung des betreffenden Textes vor.

Die Gruppe stimmt dem Vorschlag des Vorsitzenden zu. Punkt 11 wird ebenfalls angenommen, wonach der Redaktionsausschuß den Auftrag erhält, Artikel 98 aufgrund der beim Einspruchsverfahren vorgenommenen Änderungen zu fassen.

Unter Punkt 12 wird eine neue Fassung für Artikel 99 betreffend das Ende des Vorfahrens im Falle des Erlöschens des vorläufigen europäischen Patents vorgeschlagen. Der erste Satz wird ohne Erörterung angenommen. Dagegen wird der zweite Satz gestrichen,der die Erstattung der Prüfungsgebühr vorsieht, wenn das Patent vorzeitig erlischt. Nach Ansicht der Gruppe würde diese Zurückzahlung unverhältnismäBig große administrative Ausgaben für das Amt mit sich bringen.

Punkt 13 wird an den Redaktionsausschuß verwiesen, der den Vorschlag zu einer redaktionellen Änderung des Artikels 100 prüfen soll.

Das gleiche gilt für Punkt 14, der eine redaktionelle Änderung des Artikels 101 betrifft.

Punkt 15. sieht eine Änderung von Artikel 112 Absatz 3 vor. Nach dem vorgeschlagenen Text soll die Beschwerdekammer die Angelegenheit an die Prüfungsabteilung zurückverweisen, wenn sie eine Entscheidung der letzteren aufhebt, die eine Aufhebung des vorläufigen europäischen Patents zum Gegenstand hat. Diese Maßnahme bezweckt, die Beteiligten nioht um eine Instanz zu bringen.

Auf Antrag von Herrn van Benthem beschlieBt die Gruppe eine geringfügige Änderung des vorgeschlagenen Textes. Es wird vorgeschlagen, daß in diesem Fall die Beschwerdekammer die Angelegenheit an die Prüfungsabteilung zurückverweist, daß. sie aber die Ansprüche festlegen kann, die bekanntgemacht werden müssen und daß sie auch über die Bekanntmachung entscheiden kann.

Der Redaktionsausschuß wird damit beauftragt, den Text entsprechend zu ändern.

Herr van Benthem verweist auf die.Artikel 102 und 111, wonach die Prüfungsabteilung befugt ist, den Patentinhaber oder sonstige Beteiligte von Amts wegen oder auf Antrag zu hören, wenn sie dies für sachdienlich erachtet.

Page 61

Der Text, der sich auf Dritte bezieht, muß in Klammern gesetzt werden. Die Gruppe erörtort die Frage, ob eine Bekanntgabe dieser Fassung auch an Dritte zweckmäBig ist, die lediglich Bemerkungen eingereicht haben.

Herr Pfanner ist gegen eine derartige Mitteilung. Es steht zu befürchten, daß Dritte, die eine Information von Wert besitzen, diese bis zu dem Zeitpunkt, in dem sie den Einspruch erheben, für sich behalten. Darüber hinaus würden es Äußerungen aufgrund des Artikels 92 Dritten ermöglichen, Auskünfte kostenlos zu erhalten, was eine schwere verwaltungsmäBige Belastung für das Amt mit sich brächte.

Im Anschluß an den Gedankenaustausch spricht sich die Gruppe für eine Streichung des zwischen Klammern gesetzten Textes aus.

Unter Punkt 8 wird ein neuer Artikel 96 a) vorgesehen, wonach die Einspruchsfrist für Dritte mit dem Zeitpunkt der Bekanntmachung der vorläufigen Entscheidung beginnt. Er wird ohne Erörterung angenommen.

Unter Punkt 9 wird eine neue Fassung von Artikel 97 betreffend den Prüfungsbescheid im Einspruchsverfahren vorgeschlagen. Die Änderung wird. ohne Diskussion angenommen.

Unter Punkt 10 wird ein neuer Artikel 97 a) über die Stellungnahme der Beteiligten vorgeschlagen. Danach soll die Prüfungsabteilung die anderen Beteiligten auffordern, zu der Stellungnahme des Patentinhabers sich zu äußern, sobald diese neue Punkte enthält. oder die Prüfungsabteilung dies für sachdienlich hält.

Daraufhin wird erörtort, ob in der französischen Fassung des Vorschlags der Ausdruck "6léments neufs" oder "6léments essentiels neufs" verwendet werden soll.

Man entscheidet sich für die zweite Fassung. Herr van Benthem teilt zwar die Auffassung der deutschen Delegation, stellt aber die Frage, ob es nicht angebracht sei, die im letzten Teil dieses Artikels vorgesehene Einschränkung zu streichen, die der Prüfungsabteilung eine zu große Ermessensbefugnis gebe; dies könne nämlich zur Folge haben, daß bestimmte Beteiligte das Recht vorlören, sich zu allen Dokumenten zu äußorn.

Page 62

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Brüssel, den 7. Dezember 1964 Vertraulich

Ergobnisca der 15. Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 19. - 29. Oktobor 1964 in Brüssel

Page 63

Artikol 97a Stellungnahmen der Betoiligten

Dic Prüfungsabteilung fordert die übrigen Betoiligten auf, sich innerhalb einer von ihr zu bestimmenden Frist zu Stellungnahmen des Patentinhabers zu äußern, sofern dieso wesentliches neues Vorbringen enthalten oder die Prüfungsabteilung dios aus anderen Gründen für sachdienlich hält.

Page 64

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente"

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

Vertraulich

Anderungen des Vorentwurfs eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

(Artikel 1 bis 175)

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

Page 65

Artikel 92 (86) Herr van Benthem schlug vor, im ersten Absatz die Worte "bis zum Ablauf der in Artikel 91, Abs. 1 genannten Frist" zu streichen. Diese Frist scheine ihm nicht gerechtfertigt, da ja jeder Dritte jederzeit vor dem Europäischen Patentamt Einwendungen gegen die Gültigkuit eines Patentes geltend machen kann.

Die Gruppe schloss sich dieser Auffassung an. Der Artikel wurde dem Redaktionsausschuss mit diesem Hinweis übergeben.

Artikel 93 (87) Im deutschen Text soll das Wort "zugestellten" entsprechend dem Sinn des französischen "communiquées" durch "mitgeteilten" ersetzt werden.

Die Artikel 94 (88), 96 (90) und 97 (90 a) wurden ohne Diskussion angenommen. Artikel 95 ist bereits gestrichen und wird bei der neuen Numerierung übergangen. +) Artikel 98 ( 90 a bis) Die Gruppe genehmigt die vom Redaktionsausschuss vorginommene Anderung zur Sache, die es der Frïfungsabteilung iuburlässt, ob sie Dritte beteiligen will oder nicht. Diese neue Bestimmung werde das Verfahren vereinfachen.

Der Artikel wurde angenommen. Artikel 99 (89) Der Artikel wurde angenommen. Artikel 100 ( 90 e) In Absatz 1 muss es unter b) heissen : lol anstelle von 90 a ter. Der Artikel wurde angenommen.

+1) Infolge der Streichung dieses Artikels ändert sich die Numerierung des endgültigen Vorentwurfs von dieser Stelle an. Die neue Numerierung wird jedoch im vorliegenden Bericht erst ab Seite 73 angewandt.

Page 66

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brăssel, den 31. Juli 1962 Vertraulich

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

Artikel 98 ( 90 a bis )
Erneuter Prüfungsbescheid

(1) Ist die Prüfungsabteilung nach Prüfung der Einwendungen gemäß Artikel 97 der Auffassung, daß das vorläufige europäische Patent nicht in dem Umfang als endgültiges europäisches Patent bestätigt werden kann, der sich aus der Mitteilung gemäß Artikel 97 Abs. 1 ergibt, so richtet sich das weitere Verfahren nach Artikel 96 . (2) In dem in Absatz 1 vorgesehenen Fall findet das Verfahren der Beteiligung Dritter gemäß Artikel 97 Anwendung, wenn die. Prüfungsabteilung dies für sachdienlich hält.

Page 68

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" Redaktionsausschuss

Brüssel, den 26. Mai 1962

STRENG VERTRAULICH

Vor e h t w h ṙ f eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Page 69

Die niederländische Delegation soll dem RedaktionsausschuB einen Vorschlag unterbreiten über die eventuell in Abs. 1 aufzunehmende Verpflichtung, den Zwischenantrag zu begründen. Falls im RedaktionsausschuB keine Einstimmigkeit zu erreichen sei, soll er in der nächsten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe die Frage erneut vorlegen.

Artikel 85 wird dem RedaktionsausschuB überwiesen.

Artikel 86 Der RedaktionsausschuB wird beauftragt, zu prüfen, ob Dritte auch bezüglich der Voraussetzung einer neuen Erfindung das Widerspruchsrecht bekommen sollen.

Artikel 88 Wegen der Bestimmung des Art. 97 Abs. 4 muß Abs. 3 gestrichen werden. Artikel 88 wird angenommen.

Artikel 88 a Die französische Delegation besteht darauf, daB ihre Bemerkung dem KoordinationsausschuB vorgelegt wird.

Artikel 89 wird angenommen. Artikel 90 Absatz 2 wird gestrichen.

Artikel 90 a Absatz 4 wird gestrichen. Artikel 90 a bis Die beiden Alternativen des Absatzes 2 werden bis zur Entscheidung der Arbeitsgruppe in der nächsten Sitzung beibehalten.

Der Redaktionsausschuß soll sich darüber äußern, welche Alternative er vorziehe.

Die Artikel 90 a, 90 a ter - 90 f werden angenommen.

Page 70

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

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

3076/IV/62-D Orig.: F

Erneuter Prüfungsbescheid

(1) Ist die Prüfungssbteilung nach Prüfung der Einwendungen gemäss Artikel 90 a der Auffassung, dass das vorläufige europäische Patent nicht in dem Umfang als endgültiges europäisches Patent bestätigt werden kann, der sich aus der Mitteilung gemäss Artikel 90 a Absatz 1 ergibt, so richtet sich das weitere Verfahren nach Artikel 90.

(2) 1. Fassung

In dem in Absatz 1 vorgesehenen Fall findet das Verfahren der Beteiligung Dritter gemäss Artikel 90 a keine Anwendung.

2. Fassung

Der erneute Prüfungsbescheid wird auch den Beteiligten mitgeteilt, die innerhalb der in Artikel 90 vorgesehenen Frist Einwendungen herheben können.

Bemerkung :

Der Redaktionsausschuss hat festgestellt, dass die Arbeitsgruppe noch nicht geprüft hat, ob es zwockmässig ist, eine erneute Beteiligung Dritter in Anwendung des Artikels 90 a bis vorzusehen. Der Ausschuss war unter diesen Voraussetzungen der Ansicht, dass es zwockmässig wäre, zwei mögliche Lösungen in einem zweiten Absatz vorzulegen.

ARBEITSGBUPP

"Patente"

Brüssel, den 18. Juli 1961

VERTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der zweiten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 3. bis 14. Juli 1961 in Brüssel

Page 73

Sitzung vom 3. bis 14. Juli 1961 Bericht über die Sitzung vom 11. Juli 1961

Der Fräsident eröffnet die Sitzung um 9.45 Uhr. Die Genehmigung des Protokolls über die Sitzung vom 7. Juli wird auf den nächsten Tag verschoben.

Erörterungen zu artike1 90 a), 90 a bis und 90 a ter

Der Präsident erläutert der Gruppe die Grundsätze dieser neuen auf einen Vorschlag der niederländischen Delegation zurückgehenden Artikel, die den Dritten, die einen Antrag auf Beteiligung gestellt haben, die Möglichkeit geben sollen, dem Verfahren bis zur Entscheidung der Patentabteilung über die Bestätigung des vorläufigen Patentes beizutreten.

Der Präsident macht darauf aufmerksam, dass noch eine Bestimmung über das mündliche Verfahren fehle. Diese Bestimmung soll später ausgearbeitet werden.

Auf eine Bemerkung von Herrn van Bonthem erklärt der Präsident, die Mitteilung der Einwendungen beteiligter Dritter sei in artike1 90 a) Absatz 3 vorgesehen, weil der Patentinhaber seine amoldung möglicherweise mit Rücksicht auf diese Einwendungen selbst beschränken wolle.

Die Gruppe soll die Frage crörtern, ob die in absatz 3 vorgesehene Frist im Falle des mündlichen Vorfahrons unbedingt beachtet werden muss.

Die Gruppe genohmigt einstimmig die drei artike1 und überweist sie an den Redaktionsausschuss.

ARBEITSGRUPPE

"Patente"

Brüssel, den 18. Juli 1961

VERTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der zweiten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 3. bis 14. Juli 1961 in Brüssel

Page 75

designated Contracting States. The valid interests of an assumed infringer in the retroactive revocation of the patent may thus be upheld. In this connection it may be noted that this amendment has raised the opposition proceedings another step towards the level of actual revocation proceedings.

A further procedural amendment was made to Article 104 whereby any person who has been given notice by the proprietor as a result of a claimed patent infringement may also intervene in the opposition proceedings, if he proves that he has instituted proceedings to establish that the act in question did not infringe the patent. This text takes into account the fact that national laws of Contracting States allow such actions for negative declaratory judgments.

9. Appeals procedure (Articles 105-111/Rules 65-68)

Corresponding to the amendment to Article 98 with reference to the possibility of continuing the opposition proceedings despite the lapse of the patent, the Committee decided also to allow an appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division in such cases and to amend Article 105 accordingly. It was consequently made clear in Article 106 that all parties to proceedings of the first instance are also parties to appeal proceedings, even if they do not actively participate in the proceedings, so that for example a decision concerning costs by the Boards of Appeal which differs from the decision of the lower department will be binding for all parties.

The discussions during the earlier stages of the negotiations concerning the length of the time limit for filing an appeal were - as was to be expected - resumed in the Main Committee. An exchange of opinions showed that the division of the time limit for filing an appeal, as provided for in Article 107, into a time limit for filing the appeal and a time limit for filing the grounds for appeal, was generally welcomed. In the interests of the applicants and especially of their representatives who have such a multiplicity of time limits to observe, the Main Committee divided the time limits into one of two months for the notice of appeal, which also applies to the payment of the fee for appeal, and one of four months for filing the grounds for appeal; both time limits are to commence from the time when notification is given of the contested decision. This amendment made it necessary to adjust the one-month time limit for interlocutory revision, which now begins from the receipt of the grounds for appeal (Article 108). If the potential appellant waits until the end of each time limit - which experience leads us to expect - an appeal which is not immediately allowed will not reach the Board of Appeal earlier than five months after the contested decision has been taken! Whether this is compatible with the previously defended principle of streamlining the proceedings, remains to be seen.

In Article 109, paragraph 3, it was specified in respect of the appeals procedure that the deemed withdrawal of a European patent application in the event of failure to reply to an invitation from the Board of Appeal is not valid in proceedings against decisions of the Legal Division. In Article 111 the Committee expressly maintained in the interests of clear legal relationships that the parties to appeal proceedings should also be parties to any proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal. Such a principle could easily be derived from Articles 112/115.

10. General principles governing procedure (Articles 112-126/Rules 69-92)

Some points of the general rules governing procedure were discussed in the Main Committee. In order to avoid improper delays in proceedings an assurance was given in Article 115 that repeated requests for oral proceedings could be refused by the European Patent Office under certain conditions. In Article 116 and in Rule 73 the peculiarities of the national laws of Contracting States were taken into account in respect of the taking of evidence, on the basis of letters rogatory, by authorities in the Contracting States and, in addition to the giving of evidence under oath by a party, witness or expert, provisions were made for other binding forms of evidence which enable the truth to be established. With reference to the communication of the possibility of appeal in accordance with Rule 69, paragraph 2, the principle that parties may invoke errors in the communication was abandoned; errors are however almost entirely excluded because reference must always be made in the communication to the relevant provisions of Articles 105-107, the text of which must be attached.

The rules governing time limits and the arrangements for dealing with unobserved time limits were adopted by the Committee with the following amendments. In Article 120 the time limit concerning the request for further processing of the European patent application was adapted to the new time limit for filing appeals and was therefore quite rightly reduced from three to two months. There was a detailed discussion on the concept of "force majeure" required in accordance with Article 121 for the re-establishment of rights. This condition was generally felt to be too strict because it would justify re-establishment only in the rarest of cases. The Committee also considered conditions such as those of the "unavoidable event" or of the "legitimate excuse" which are based on national laws of Contracting States. After comparing the laws of various States, the Committee finally agreed, in accordance with the conclusions of the Working Party which it had set up, that the justification for the re-establishment of rights was an impediment which, in spite of all due care required by the circumstances having been taken, had led to the non-observance of the time limit. The Committee also endorsed the general opinion that in reality justice is done to this obligation to take all due care only if the applicant or proprietor and his assistants, especially his representatives, have complied with it. In addition, the Committee considered that Article 121 was to be interpreted in a restrictive manner.

The Main Committee extended the maximum duration of time limits to be set by the European Patent Office under Rule 85 from four to six months for certain special circumstances. However, a proposal was not accepted which aimed to make provision for a one-month extension, on request, of any time limit for representatives who in the proceedings had to draw up documents to the European Patent Office in a language other than the official language of their State or residence. The Committee recognised unanimously that during a transitional period such translation difficulties should be deemed to be "certain special circumstances" within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Rule 85 , in so far as the parties complied with their obligation to take due care in obtaining translations.

The provision in Article 124 concerning the procedure for drawing up supplementary search reports provided a large amount of material for discussion. This Article was deleted. The Committee considered it unnecessary to impose search costs on the applicant in the event of his making necessary an additional search due to an amendment to the claims. This financial problem could be settled by slightly increasing the standard amount of the main search fee. After lengthy discussions the Committee reached the majority decision that additional fees for additional searches which were drawn up outside the procedure for international search reports under Article 156, could be dispensed with, especially since such an additional cost would have an unfavourable visual effect in the Convention. At the same time the Committee stated expressly