Art06eTPEPC1973

Métadonnées

• Nom affiché : Art06eTPEPC1973
• Numéro d'article : 6
• Dossier / langue : English
• Tag langue : #English
• PDF original : /Articles/English/Articles 001-025/Article 006 (English version)/Art06eTPEPC1973.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. 6 MPO Sitz

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.	43	IV/215/62	S. 91,92
Vorschl. d.Vors.	43a	IV/3076/62	S. 148
VE 1962 (EFTA)	33	BR/7/69	Rdn. 54/55
VE Mai 1962	33	6551/IV/62	S. 16,58,59
IV/215/62	43	IV/3076/62	S. 148
VE 1970 (Ue)	33	BR/87/71	Rdn. 54
BR/33/70	35a	BR/87/71	Rdn. 81
BR/33/70	a	BR/34/70	Rdn.10-17
BR/33/70	a	BR/53/70	Rdn.5-9
BR/33/70	b	BR/53/70	Rdn. 10-15
VE 1971 (Ue)	33	BR/169/72	Rdn. 38
VE 1971 (Ue)	33	BR/135/71	Rdn. 127
BR/88/71	35a	BR/125/71	Rdn. 96-103
BR/88/71	35b	BR/125/71	Rdn. 104
BR/199/72	7	BR/219/72	Rdn. 173-181
BR/199/72	7	BR/218/72	Rdn. 39-41

• not available

Dokumente der MDK

E 1972	6	M/13	S. 84
"	6	M/22	S. 252
"	6	M/23	S. 292
"	6	M/26	S. 312	3741376
"	6	M/30	S. 1

Page 3

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)

Seat

(1) The Organisation shall have its seat at Munich. (2) The European Patent Office shall be set up at iunich. It shall have a branch at The Hague.

CONVENTION

ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS (EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION)

PROJET DE CONVENTION INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

Page 7

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 30 September 1973

M/ 146/R 1

Original: English/French/German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: General Drafting Committee

Subject: Convention: Articles 1 to 26

Article 6

Seat (1) Unchanged from 1972 published text (2) The European Patent Office shall be set up at Munich. It shall have a branch at The Hague.

Page 9

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 24 September 1973

M/130/II/R 6 Original English/French/German

TEXTS DRAWN UP BY THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE OF MAIN COMMITTEE II AT THE MEETING ON 24 SEPTEMBER 1973

Articles of the Convention: Articles 1 4 6 7 9 15 16 16a 18a 19 21 22 28 31 33 166 176

Implementing Regulations: Rules 9 12

Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Patent Organisation

Protocol on the Centralisation of the European Patent System and on its Introduction

AS THE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR SEARCHING

PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CONVENTION AND THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS

The French delegation previously suggested for the reasons set forth in N/26 of 9 May 1973 (Nos. 9 to 12) that the Conference should make the necessary adjustments to the Convention and the Implementing Regulations "in order to incorporate the IIB into the European Patent Office".

It proposes the following amendments which it considers would have to be made if this suggestion were adopted.

CONVENTION

ARTICLE 6 - Seat

1. Unchanged.

2. The European Patent Office shall be set up at Munich. It shall have a branch at The Hague comprising the Receiving Section and the Search Divisions.

  NOTE: This wording takes account of the French proposal, submitted elsewhere, concerning the Receiving Section.

ARTICLE 7 - Sub-offices of the European Patent Office

By decision of the Administrative Council, sub-offices of the European Patent Office may be created if need be for the purpose of information and liaison, in the Contracting States and with (....) inter-governmental organisations in the field of industrial property, subject to the approval of the Contracting State or organisation concerned.

ARTICLE 15 - The departments charged with the procedure

For implementing the procedures laid down in this Convention, there shall be set up within the European Patent Office:

1. a Receiving Section; 2. a Search Divisions; 3. to (e) Unchanged.

Page 11

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 11 September 1973

M/ 59/I/II

Original: French

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: French delegation

Subject: Incorporation of the IIB into the European Patent Office as the Directorate-General for Searching Proposals for amendments to the Convention and the Implementing Regulations

Page 12

The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany submits herewith proposals for amendments to the draft texts.

Proposals for amendments of substance appear under I and drafting proposals under II.

The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany has also observed that the three texts do not correspond completely on a few points. The attention of the drafting committees of the three Main Committees will be drawn to these points.

I. Proposals for amendments of substance

A. Convention

1. Article 6 "(2) The European Patent Office shall be set up at Munich. (3) The European Patent Office shall have a branch at The Hague. This branch shall be responsible for the duties of the Receiving Section."

Article 16 " .... European Patent Office. The Receiving Section shall also be responsible for the publication of the European patent application and the European search report."

2. Article 10

see point 14 M/47/I/II/III

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 10 September 1973 M/47/I/II/III Original: German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drean un by: The delexation of the Federal Retublic of Germany Subject: Proposals for amendments to the draft texts

Page 14

Comments submitted by the Centre Européen de l'Entreprise Publique (CEEP), on preparatory documents M / 1, M / 2 and M / 5 I. Draft Convention (M/1)

1. Article 6

In the opinion of some members of CEEP the wording of Articles 6 and 89 is ambiguous. Pursuant to the second sub-paragraph of Section I, paragraph 1, of the Draft Protocol on the Centralisation of the European Patent System and on its Introduction, the International Patent Institute at The Hague will constitute a Directorate-General of the European Patent Office. Pursuant to Article 6, this Directorate will be responsible for the examination on filing. It is therefore unnecessary, as provided under Article 89, for the European Patent Office, upon the completion of this examination, to forward a copy of the documents of the application to that Directorate-General since it will already have them. 2. Article 16

It would be desirable for the wording of this Article to make it clear that the Receiving Section shall be responsible for the examination of each European patent application either up to the time when a request for examination has been made, or when a European search report has been received by the European Patent Office, the last of these two events to occur being used to define the limits of the responsibility of the Receiving Section. 3. Article 18, paragraph 2

It would be desirable for the Opposition Division to be able to entrust examination of the opposition only to one of its members who has not taken part in the proceedings.

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Brussels, 23 May 1973 M / 30 Original: French

PREPARATORY DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: Centre Européen de l'Entreprise Publique (CEEP) Subject: Comments relating to the Draft Convention establishing a European System for the Grant of Patents

Page 16

zupassen, die denen des Protokolls entgegenstehen. Ferner trifft auch zu, daß das Inkrafttreten des Übereinkommens nach Artikel 168 mit der Eröffnung des Europäischen Patentamts zeitlich nicht zusammenfällt. Es ist jedoch ungewöhnlich, daß eine der ersten Entscheidungen des Verwaltungsrats in der Ubergangszeit nach Artikel 158 darin besteht, noch vor der Eröffnung des Europäischen Patentamts Bestimmungen des Übereinkommens und der Ausführungsordnung zu ändern, durch die dem Internationalen Patentinstitut Aufgaben übertragen werden, die von Anfang an von der Generaldirektion Recherche des Europäischen Patentamts wahrgenommen werden. Dies gilt insbesondere für die Artikel 89 und 91 und die Regeln 44 bis 48.

10 Um diesen Nachteil zu vermeiden, wird vorgeschlagen, daß die Münchner Diplomatische Konferenz die Anpassungen der genannten Artikel des Übereinkommens und der Ausführungsordnung vornimmt, die zur Eingliederung des Internationalen Patentinstituts in das Europäische Patentamt erforderlich sind; dies hätte übrigens zur Folge, daß der letzte Satz des Abschnitts VII des Entwurfs eines Protokolls über die Zentralisierung des europäischen Patentsystems und seine Einführung zu streichen wäre.

11 Falls dieser Vorschlag angenommen wird, könnte Artikel 6 Absatz 2 Satz 2 - unter Berücksichtigung der zuvor zur Eingangsstelle gemachten Bemerkungen - wie folgt gefaßt werden: „Es (das Europäische Patentamt) hat eine Zweigstelle in Den Haag, die aus der Eingangsstelle und der Generaldirektion Recherche besteht."

12 Außerdem müßte die Generaldirektion Recherche in Artikel 15 erwähnt und ihre Zuständigkeit in einem neuen Artikel definiert werden.

Artikel 71 - Vertragliche Lizenzen

13 In Artikel 71 ist nur der Fall einer Lizenz an europäischen Patentanmeldungen vorgesehen, die für alle oder einen Teil der Hoheitsgebiete der Vertragsstaaten gewährt wird. Eine europäische Patentanmeldung kann indessen namentlich einen Anspruch für ein Erzeugnis, einen Anspruch für ein Verfahren zu dessen Herstellung und auch einen Anspruch für dessen Verwendung enthalten. In diesem Fall wird häufig eine Teillizenz erteilt, die sich beispielsweise nur auf die Verwendung des Erzeugnisses erstreckt.

14 Mit Rücksicht hierauf wird vorgeschlagen, Artikel 71 wie folgt zu fassen: „Eine Patentanmeldung kann ganz oder teilweise Gegenstand von Lizenzen für alle oder einen Teil der Hoheitsgebiete der benannten Vertragsstaaten sein." any provisions in the Convention which conflict with those of the Protocol. It seems equally certain that the entry into force of the Convention, pursuant to the provisions of Article 168, will not coincide with the opening of the European Patent Office. However, it is strange to note that one of the first decisions of the Administrative Council during the transitional period referred to in Article 158, before the European Patent Office has even opened, will be to amend certain provisions of the Convention and of the Implementing Regulations assigning powers to the International Patent Institute which will be assumed right from the start by the Directorate-General for Searching of the European Patent Office. This applies in particular to Articles 89 and 91 and to Rules 44 to 48.

10 It is suggested that to avoid this difficulty the Munich Diplomatic Conference should make the necessary adjustments to the above-mentioned provisions of the Convention and of the Implementing Regulations in order to incorporate the International Patent Institute in the European Patent Office; this would also entail the deletion of the last sentence in Section VII of the Draft Protocol on the Centralisation of the European Patent System and on its Introduction.

11 If this suggestion were adopted, the second sentence of Article 6, paragraph 2, could, taking into account what has previously been stated with respect to the Receiving Section, be worded as follows: "It (the European Patent Office) shall have a branch at The Hague comprising the Receiving Section and the Directorate-General for Searching."

12 In addition the Directorate-General for Searching should be mentioned in Article 15 and its responsibilities defined in a new Article.

Article 71 - Contractual licensing

13 Article 71 deals only with licences granted in respect of a European patent application for the whole or part of the territories of the Contracting States. However, a European patent application may comprise a claim for a product, a claim for a process for manufacturing this product and a claim for the use of the product. In such cases the licence granted will frequently be only partial and will, for example, only relate to the use of the product.

14 In the light of this comment it is proposed that Article 71 be worded as follows: "A European patent application may be licensed in whole or in part for the whole or part of the territories of the designated Contracting States."

Page 17

des europäischen Recherchenberichts hingewiesen worden ist (Artikel 93 Absatz 2) - wobei letzterer gleichzeitig mit der Patentanmeldung oder später veröffentlicht werden kann (Artikel 92 Absatz 2), ergibt sich folgendes: Die Eingangsstelle ist, falls der Prüfungsantrag nach Eingang des europäischen Recherchenberichts gestellt wird, bis zur Stellung des Prüfungsantrags zuständig; sie ist, falls der Prüfungsantrag vor Eingang des Recherchenberichts gestellt worden ist, bis zum Eingang des Berichts zuständig; sie bleibt ferner zuständig, solang sie die Prüfungen nach den Artikeln 88 und 90 noch nicht abgeschlossen hat.

6 Nach Artikel 16 in Verbindung mit den Artikein 88 und 90 ist also offenbar die Eingangsstelle in jedem Fall für die Prüfungen nach den Artikeln 88 und 90 zuständig, dagegen für die Veröffentlichung der Patentanmeldung nach Artikel 92 im allgemeinen nur dann, wenn ihr der europäische Recherchenbericht nach Ablauf der Frist von 18 Monaten nach dem Anmeldetag bzw. dem Prioritätstag zugegangen ist; nach Ablauf dieser Frist muß die europäische Patentanmeldung veröffentlicht werden (Artikel 92 Absatz 1). Anderenfalls ist die Prüfungsabteilung für die Veröffentlichung der Anmeldung zuständig (Artikel 17).

7 Allerdings könnte die Eingangsstelle nach Regel 9 Absatz 2 mit der Veröffentlichung der europäischen Patentanmeldungen betraut werden. Es dürfte jedoch zur Vermeidung von Unklarheiten zweckmäBiger sein, anstelle der jetzigen Fassung des Artikels 16 die Zuständigkeit der Eingangsstelle lediglich unter Bezugnahme auf die Artikel 88, 90 und 92 zu definieren.

8 Bei Annahme dieses Vorschlags bräuchte in Artikel 6 Absatz 2 zweiter Satz lediglich gesagt zu werden, daB sich die Eingangsstelle in Den·Haag befindet. b) Artikel 6 Absatz 2 Satz 2 in Verbindung mit dem Entwurf eines Protokolls über die Zentralisierung des europäischen Patentsystems und seiner Einführung sowie mit anderen Artikeln des Ubereinkommens (Artikel 89 und 91) und Regeln der Ausführungsordnung (Regeln 44 bis 48)

9 Nach Abschnitt I des genannten Protokollentwurfs werden vom Zeitpunkt der Eröffnung des Europäischen Patentamts an alle Aktiva und Passiva sowie das gesamte Personal des Internationalen Patentinstituts in das Europäische Patentamt als Generaldirektion Recherche mit Sitz in Den Haag eingebracht. Im Übereinkommensentwurf wird jedoch der Protokollentwurf, der Bestandteil des Übereinkommens ist und den Vorschriften des Übereinkommens vorgeht (Abschnitt VII des Protokollentwurfs) nicht berücksichtigt. Es ist zwar richtig, daB nach Abschnitt VII der Verwaltungsrat befugt ist, den Wortlaut der Vorschriften des Übereinkommens an- on which the European Patent Bulletin records the publication of the European search report (Article 93, paragraph 2) - which may be published at the same time as the patent application or subsequently (Article 92, paragraph 2) - it would appear that the Receiving Section is responsible until submission of the request for examination, where this request is filed after the European search report has been received, and until the report has been received where the request for examination is filed beforehand, except where it has not completed the examinations specified in Articles 88 and 90.

6 The effect of Article 16 and of Articles 88 and 90 would therefore seem to be that the Receiving Section is responsible for carrying out the examinations referred to in Articles 88 and 90 but that on the other hand it will generally only be responsible for the publication of the patent application as provided in Article 92 if the European search report is forwarded to it after the period of eighteen months from the date of filing or the date of priority at the end of which the European patent application must be published (Article 92, paragraph 1). In other cases publication of the application is the responsibility of the Examining Division (Article 17).

7 Rule 9, paragraph 2, may of course be used for vesting the Receiving Section with responsibility for publication of European patent applications. But to avoid any confusion, it would appear preferable to replace the present text of Article 16 by a definition of the responsibility of the Receiving Section relating solely to the application of Articles 88, 90 and 92 .

8 If this proposal were accepted Article 6, paragraph 2, second sentence, could be replaced by a statement that the Receiving Section shall be located at The Hague. (b) Article 6 - paragraph 2, second sentence - in conjunction with the Draft Protocol on the Centralisation of the European Patent System and on its Introduction and other Articles (89 and 91) of the Convention and Rules ( 44 to 48) of the Implementing Regulations

9 In accordance with Section I of the abovementioned Draft Protocol all the assets and liabilities and all the staff members of the International Patent Institute will be incorporated in the European Patent Office, as soon as it opens, as the Directorate-General for Searching located at The Hague. However the Draft Convention does not take account of the Draft Protocol which forms an integral part of the Convention and which takes precedence over the provisions of the Convention (Section VII of the Draft Protocol). To be sure, Section VII does state that the Administrative Council shall be empowered to adapt the wording of

Page 18

eines Protokolls über die Zentralisierung des europäischen Patentsystems und seine Einführung, über den langwierige Verhandlungen stattgefunden haben. Die französische Delegation hat erklärt, daß ihr sehr daran liege, daß die in den Vertragsstaaten des Übereinkommens über ein europäisches Patenterteilungsverfahren vorhandenen Möglichkeiten auf dem Gebiet der Dokumentenrecherche und der Prüfung von Erfindungen im Europäischen Patentamt konzentriert werden. Der Weg zur Einsetzung einer einzigen für die Recherche und Prüfung zuständigen Behörde ist übrigens in den Artikeln 16 Absatz 2 und 56 Absatz 3 des PCT aufgezeigt. Nach Ansicht der französischen Delegation drängt sich diese Lösung für die zur Münchner Diplomatischen Konferenz eingeladenen europäischen Staaten auf. Der Protokollentwurf hat zweifellos hauptsächlich diese Zentralisierung der Recherche und Prüfung zum Ziel, sieht jedoch Ausnahmen vor, die das Ergebnis eines schwierigen Kompromisses zwischen unterschiedlichen Auffassungen bilden, der nach Ansicht der französischen Delegation auf der Münchner Konferenz nicht in Frage gestellt werden sollte.

4 Die französische Regierung will aus diesen Gründen die der Münchner Diplomatischen Konferenz unterbreiteten Texte in ihren Grundzügen nicht mehr in Frage stellen; die Texte stellen ihres Erachtens selbst wenn sie zuweilen ziemlich von ihren eigenen Vorstellungen abweichen - das Ergebnis einer fruchtbaren Zusammenarbeit zwischen europäischen Staaten auf dem so wichtigen Gebiet des Erfindungsschutzes dar.

Artikel 6 - Sitz

a) Artikel 6 Absatz 2 zweiter Satz in Verbindung mit Artikel 16 - Eingangsstelle

5 Das Europäische Patentamt wird nach Artikel 6 Absatz 2 in München errichtet und hat eine Zweigstelle in Den Haag, der die Eingangs- und Formalprüfung sowie die Veröffentlichung der europäischen Patentanmeldungen obliegt; die Einzelheiten dieser Prüfungen und der Veröffentlichung werden in den Artikeln 88, 90 und 92 geregelt. Nach Artikel 16 ist die Eingangsstelle für die Prüfung europäischer Patentanmeldungen bis zu dem Zeitpunkt zuständig, zu dem ein Prüfungsantrag gestellt und der europäische Recherchenbericht beim Europäischen Patentamt eingegangen ist. Da der Prüfungsantrag jederzeit nach Einreichung der Patentanmeldung bis zum Ablauf von 6 Monaten nach dem Tag gestellt werden kann, an dem im Europäischen Patentblatt auf die Veröffentlichung the Draft Protocol on the Centralisation of the European Patent System and on its Introduction which gave rise to long and delicate negotiations. The French delegation stated that it was strongly in favour of the facilities for patent searches and the examination of inventions available in the States parties to the Convention establishing a European System for the Grant of Patents being concentrated at the European Patent Office. Article 16, paragraph 2, and Article 56, paragraph 3, of the PCT points the way to the setting up of a single administration responsible for searches and examination. In the French delegation's opinion such an arrangement is necessary for the European States invited to participate in the Munich Diplomatic Conference. The main purpose of the Draft Protocol is of course to centralise patent search and examination procedures, but it contains exceptions which are the result of a difficult compromise between different viewpoints and the French Government feels that this Protocol should not be called in question again at the Munich Conference.

4 The French Government therefore does not intend to review the general content of the texts submitted to the Munich Conference, for it considers that, although they are sometimes fairly far removed from its own thinking in the matter, these texts are the result of fruitful collaboration between European States in the highly important field of the protection of inventions.

Article 6 - Seat

(a) Article 6, paragraph 2, second sentence - in conjunction with Article 16 - Receiving Section

5 Paragraph 2 of this Article provides that the European Patent Office shall be set up in Munich and shall have a branch at The Hague responsible for the examination on filing, the examination as to formal requirements and the publication of the European patent application; the content of these examinations and the publication is defined in Articles 88, 90 and 92 respectively. Pursuant to Article 16, the Receiving Section shall be responsible for the examination of each European patent application up to the time when a request for examination has been made and a European search report received by the European Patent Office. Since the request for examination may be made at any time from the filing of the patent application up to six months after the date

Page 19

Original: Französisch French Français

M/26 9. Mai 1973

9 May 1973 9 mai 1973

STELLUNGNAHME

DER FRANZÖSISCHEN REGIERUNG

COMMENTS

BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT

PRISE DE POSITION DU GOUVERNEMENT FRANÇAIS

Page 20

ein europäisches Patenterteilungsverfahren (Dokument M/1) und den Entwurf einer Ausführungsordnung zu diesem Übereinkommen (Dokument M/2), die am 8. Dezember 1972 als vorbereitende Dokumente für die Münchner Diplomatische Konferenz veröffentlicht worden sind, in ihrer Gesamtheit.

14 Die nachstehenden Bemerkungen betreffen gegebenenfalls zugleich die Artikel des Übereinkommensentwurfs und die Regeln des Ausführungsordnungsentwurfs.

15 Artikel 14, Regel 2 Absatz 1

Wenn die Verfahrenssprache gewechselt wird, sollte dies früher mitgeteilt werden; für die Übersetzung sollte das Patentamt sorgen, und die Kosten hierfür hätte der Beteiligte zu tragen, der den Wechsel der Verfahrenssprache beantragt.

16 Artikel 16

Im Zusammenhang mit den Artikeln 6, 15 und 73 sollte klargestellt werden, daß auch die Zweigstelle des Patentamts in Den Haag befugt ist, europäische Patentanmeldungen entgegenzunehmen.

17 Artikel 17, 18 und 31 Absatz 1 Buchstabe a

Die Prüfungsabteilungen sollten nicht unbedingt und für ständig auf einen einzigen Prüfer verringert werden; ferner sollte ein Prüfer, der in einer Einspruchsabteilung mitwirkt, weder deren Vorsitzender noch Berichterstatter sein.

18 Artikel 67 Absatz 2

Es sollte klargestellt werden, daß der gemäß den ursprünglichen Patentansprüchen verliehene einstweilige Schutz im Falle einer "Verlagerung" (Shifting) der Patentansprüche während des Verfahrens nicht gegeben ist.

19 Artikel 74, Regel 25 Absatz 1a

Es sollte die Möglichkeit vorgesehen werden, eine Anmeldung jederzeit zu teilen, sofern der Gegenstand der Teilanmeldung in mindestens einem der anfänglich eingereichten Patentansprüche enthalten ist.

20 Artikel 76, Regel 24 Absatz 2

Das Europäische Patentamt sollte zur Kontrolle auf der Empfangsbescheinigung neben dem Tag des Eingangs und der Nummer der Anmeldung auch noch systematisch alle eingegangenen Unterlagen aufführen.

Draft Convention establishing a European System for the Grant of Patents (Document M/1) and the Draft Implementing Regulations to that Convention (Document M/2), published on 8 December 1972 as preparatory documents for the Munich Diplomatic Conference.

14 The comments below relate, where so indicated, both to the Articles of the Draft Convention and to the Rules of the Draft Implementing Regulations.

15 Article 14; Rule 2, paragraph 1

Where the language of the proceedings is changed notification should be made much earlier and provision for interpreting should be made by the European Patent Office at the expense of the party requesting the change.

16 Article 16

In connection with Articles 6, 15 and 73, it should be made clear that the branch of the office at The Hague is also competent to receive European patent applications.

17 Articles 17, 18 and 31, paragraph 1(a)

Examination of cases by only one examiner in the Examining Divisions should not be of an absolute and permanent nature; in addition an examiner who is a member of an Opposition Division should not be the Chairman or rapporteur of that Division.

18 Article 67, paragraph 2

It should be stated that provisional protection on the basis of the original claims does not apply where there is a shifting of claims during the procedure.

19 Article 74; Rule 25, paragraph 1(a)

It should be stated that divisional applications may be made at any time provided that the subjectmatter of the divisional application is comprised in at least one of the claims originally filed.

20 Article 76; Rule 24, paragraph 2

For control purposes the receipt issued by the Office should always list the number of documents received in addition to the date of receipt and the application number.

FEMIPI

Europäischer Verband der Industrie-Patentingenieure

FEMIPI

European Federation of Agents of Industry in Industrial Property

PRISE DE POSITION DE LA

FEMIPI Fédération européenne des mandataires de l'industrie en propriété industrielle

Page 22

Regel 87 - Änderung der europäischen Patentanmeldung

12 CIFE schlägt vor, am Ende des Absatzes 3 folgendes hinzuzufügen: ,es sei denn, daß die Änderungen zu Einschränkungen der Anmeldung führen, die von der Beschreibung und/oder den Zeichnungen getragen werden."

13 Eingangsstelle

In Artikel 6 heißt es: Das Europäische Patentamt hat eine Zweigstelle in Den Haag, der die Eingangs- und Formalprüfung sowie die Yeröffentlichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung obliegt.

Nach den Artikeln 15 und 16 scheint diese Zweigstelle in Wirklichkeit die Eingangsstelle zu sein.

Nach Artikel 73 kann die europäische Patentanmeldung beim Europäischen Patentamt eingereicht werden (Absatz 1 Buchstabe a).

Nach Regel 24 Absatz 1 können europäische Patentanmeldungen unmittelbar oder durch die Post eingereicht werden.

Es wäre zweckmäßig, diese Bestimmungen klarer zu fassen und zum Ausdruck zu bringen, daß die europäischen Patentanmeldungen - falls sie nicht bei den einzelstaatlichen Ämtern eingereicht werden - unmittelbar bei der in Den Haag befindlichen Eingangsstelle eingereicht werden müssen (oder können).

CIFE erinnert in diesem Zusammenhang an das bereits von ihm geäußerte Anliegen, daß die Übermittlung von Unterlagen von einem Ort zu einem anderen wegen der dadurch entstehenden Verzögerungen, Versandkosten und Verlustrisiken weitestgehend vermieden werden sollte.

CIFE stellt mit Genugtuung fest, daß, geographisch gesehen, Artikel 6 ein vereinfachtes Verfahren festlegt, das von der Einreichung bis zur Veröffentlichung nach 18 Monaten in Den Haag und von der Stellung des Prüfungsantrags bis zur Patenterteilung in München abläuft. Er beantragt, die Konsequenzen aus diesem Verfahren klarzustellen und zu präzisieren.

Rule 87 - Amendment of the European patent application

12 CEIF suggests adding at the end of paragraph 3: "except where such amendments will bring restrictions to the scope of the application which are borne out by the description and/or the drawings."

13 Receiving Section

Under Article 6: The European Patent Office shall have a branch at The Hague which shall be responsible for the examination on filing, the examination as to formal requirements and the publication of the European patent application.

Under Articles 15 and 16 it seems that this branch is in fact the Receiving Section.

Under Article 73 the European patent application may be filed at the European Patent Office (paragraph 1(a)).

Under Rule 24, paragraph 1 European patent applications may be filed either directly or by post.

It would be helpful to clarify these stipulations and to specify that European patent applications to be filed at the European Patent Office (rather than through a national Receiving Office) should (or may) be filed at the Receiving Section situated at The Hague.

CEIF on this subject would reiterate its preoccupation that transmission of files from one place to another should be reduced to a minimum, because of delay, cost of handling and risk of loss that such transmission will entail.

CEIF notes with satisfaction that Article 6 consecrates the principle of a geographically simplified procedure, taking place at The Hague from filing to publication at 18 months and at Munich from the request for examination until the grant. It would ask for the consequences to be clarified and specified.

Page 23

Original: Französisch French (1) Français

M/22 5. April 1973

5 April 1973 5 avril 1973

CIFE

Rat der Europäischen Industrieverbände

CEIF

Council of European Industrial Federations

PRISE DE POSITION DU

CIFE Conseil des fédérations industrielles d'Europe

Page 24

zu ziehen. Die Beschreibung und die Zeichnungen dürften lediglich dazu verwendet werden, um das Schutzbegehren zu erä̈utern. Die schwedische Regierung schlägt daher vor, die Erklärung in diesem Sinne zu ändern, um eine restriktivere Handhabung sicherzustellen.

8 In bezug auf die organisatorische Regelung hat die schwedische Regierung festgestellt, daß der Übereinkommensentwurf (Artikel 6) einer Zweigstelle in Den Haag die Eingangs- und Formalprüfung sowie die Veröffentlichung der europäischen Patentanmeldungen überträgt. Nach Ansicht der schwedischen Regierung dürften damit Dokumentation und auch Personal sinnvoll eingesetzt werden können.

9 Eine für Schweden und die anderen nordischen Länder wichtige Frage betrifft die Möglichkeit für das Schwedische Patentamt, aufgrund des Vertrags über die internationale Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet des Patentwesens (PCT) in einem europäischen Patenterteilungsverfahren tätig zu werden. Die schwedische Regierung legt großen Wert auf die Vereinbarung, daß das schwedische Patentamt auch nach dem Beitritt Schwedens zum europäischen Patentübereinkommen internationale Recherchenbehörde und mit der internationalen vorläufigen Prüfung beauftragte Behörde werden kann, da ohne eine solche Vereinbarung Anmelder aus nordischen Ländern nicht in der Lage wären, internationale Patentanmeldungen gemäß dem Zusammenarbeitsvertrag in ihrer Muttersprache einzureichen. Die schwedische Regierung stellt daher mit großer Befriedigung fest, daß die mit der nordischen Beteiligung an der Europäischen Patentorganisation zusammenhängenden Sprachenprobleme bei der Abstimmung des PCT-Vertrags mit dem europäischen Verfahren berücksichtigt worden sind.

10 Ebenso ist die schwedische Regierung sehr positiv zu der engen Zusammenarbeit eingestellt, die sich wie im Verlauf der Verhandlungen unterstellt wurde - zwischen dem schwedischen Patentamt als internationaler Recherchenbehörde und als mit der internationalen vorläufigen Prüfung beauftragter Behörde einerseits und dem künftigen Europäischen Patentamt andererseits entwickeln wird. Eine solche Zusammenarbeit sollte eigentlich Voraussetzung dafür sein, daß Anmelder aus dem nordischen Sprachraum Anmeldern aus Ländern, die den großen Sprachengruppen angehören, gleichgestellt werden.

11 Die schwedische Regierung behält sich schließlich noch vor, der Diplomatischen Konferenz weitere Vorschläge zu unterbreiten. drawings should only be used in order to further specify the subject-matter claimed. The Swedish Government therefore proposes that the declaration be amended in this sense to ensure a more restrictive practice.

8 As regards the administrative arrangements the Swedish Government has noted that the Draft Convention (Article 6) confers on a branch at The Hague the responsibility for the examination on filing, the examination as to formal requirements and the publication of the European patent application. In the opinion of the Swedish Government, this arrangement would seem to imply a constructive utilisation of resources in documentation and manpower.

9 A question which is essential to Sweden and the other Nordic countries concerns the possibilities for the Swedish Patent Office to assume active functions in connection with the Patent Cooperation Treaty within the framework of a European patent system. The Swedish Government attaches great importance to the agreement according to which the Swedish Patent Office, also after the accession of Sweden to the European Patent Convention, is capable of becoming an International Searching and International Preliminary Examining Authority, since in the absence of such an agreement Nordic applicants would be deprived of the possibility to file in their own language an international patent application in accordance with the Cooperation Treaty. The Swedish Government therefore takes note, with great satisfaction, of the fact that the language problems connected with Nordic participation in the European Patent Organisation have been taken into account in the co-ordination of the Patent Cooperation Treaty system with the European system.

10 The Swedish Government also takes a very positive view of the close collaboration which - as was assumed in the course of the negotiations - will develop between the Swedish Patent Office in its capacity as an International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authority and the future European Patent Office. Such a collaboration should in reality be viewed as a prerequisite for an applicant from the Nordic language region to be placed on an equal basis with applicants from countries belonging to the large language groups.

11 Finally, the Swedish Government reserves the right to present further proposals to the Diplomatic Conference.

Page 25

Original: Englisch English Anglais

PRISE DE POSITION

DU GOUVERNEMENT SUÉDOIS

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 27

(2) Die Organisation besitzt in jedem Vertragsstaat die weitestgehende Rechts- und Geschäftsfähigkeit, die juristischen Personen nach dessen Rechtsvorschriften zuerkannt ist; sie kann insbesondere bewegliches und unbewegliches Vermögen erwerben und veräußern sowie vor Gericht stehen. (3) Der Präsident des Europäischen Patentamts vertritt die Organisation gerichtlich und außergerichtlich.

Artikel 6

Sitz (1) Die Organisation hat ihren Sitz in München. (2) Das Europäische Patentamt wird in München errichtet. Es hat eine Zweigstelle in Den Haag, der die Eingangs- und Formalprüfung sowie die Veröffentlichung der europäischen Patentanmeldungen obliegt.

Artikel 7

Dienststellen des Europäischen Patentamts In den Vertragsstaaten und bei dem Internationalen Patentinstitut in Den Haag sowie bei anderen zwischenstaatlichen Organisationen auf dem Gebiet des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes können, soweit erforderlich und vorbehaltlich der Zustimmung des betreffenden Vertragsstaats oder der betreffenden Organisation, durch Beschluß des Verwaltungsrats Dienststellen des Europäischen Patentamts zu Informations- oder Verbindungszwecken geschaffen werden.

Artikel 8

Vorrechte und Befreiungen Die Organisation, die Mitglieder des Verwaltungsrats, die Bediensteten des Europäischen Patentamts und die sonstigen Personen, die in dem diesem Übereinkommen angefügten Protokoll über die Vorrechte und Befreiungen der Europäischen Patentorganisation bezeichnet sind und an der Arbeit der Organisation teilnehmen, genießen in den Hoheitsgebieten der Vertragsstaaten die zur Durchführung ihrer Aufgaben erforderlichen Vorrechte und Befreiungen nach Maßgabe dieses Protokolls.

Artikel 9

Haftung (1) Die vertragliche Haftung der Organisation bestimmt sich nach dem Recht, das auf den betreffenden Vertrag anzuwenden ist. (2) In each of the Contracting States, the Organisation shall enjoy the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal persons under the national law; it may, in particular, acquire or transfer movable and immovable property and may sue and be sued in its own name. (3) The President of the European Patent Office shall exercise the legal capacity of the Organisation.

Article 6

Seat (1) The Organisation shall have its seat at Munich. (2) The European Patent Office shall be set up at Munich. It shall have a branch at The Hague which shall be responsible for the examination on filing, the examination as to formal requirements and the publication of the European patent application.

Article 7

Sub-offices of the European Patent Office By decision of the Administrative Council, sub-offices of the European Patent Office may be created if need be for the purpose of information and liaison, in the Contracting States and with the International Patent Institute at The Hague or other inter-governmental organisations in the field of industrial property, subject to the approval of the Contracting State or organisation concerned.

Article 8

Privileges and immunities The Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Patent Organisation annexed to this Convention, shall define the conditions under which the Organisation, the members of the Administrative Council, the employees of the European Patent Office and such other persons specified in that Protocol as take part in the work of the Organisation, shall enjoy, in the territory of each Contracting State, the privileges and immunities necessary for the performance of their duties.

Article 9

Liability (1) The contractual liability of the Organisation shall be governed by the law applicable to the relevant contract.

PROJET DE CONVENTION

INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

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 30

VII. Article 7 of the Draft Convention 39. The Committee observed that it was not its responsibility to take a decision regarding the applications which had been made for the seat of the Organisation. It therefore merely discussed the procedure whereby the Conference could decide this matter.

The Committee agreed to suggest to the Conference that it decide first of all on the proposal made by the German and Netherlands delegations (BR/213/72), since it would depend on the decision on this proposal whether or not the Netherlands delegation would withdraw the application of The Hague for the seat of the European Patent Office. If the proposal contained in the above-mentioned document were to be adopted by the Conference, it would no longer be necessary to vote on the other applications. 40. The Committee also agreed that it should propose that the Conference take the decision as to the seat after having decided on the Protocol on the Centralisation of the European Patent System and on its Introduction, and on Article 154. 41. With regard to the proposal contained in BR/213/72, the Committee agreed that it should be considered that the branches for information and liaison to be set up under paragraph 3 would form parts of the European Patent Office. It was also agreed that the Drafting Committee should use different terminology to distinguish between the branch referred to in paragraph 2 and those referred to in paragraph 3.

Page 31

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

Brussels, 26 September 1972 BR / 218 / 72

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the

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

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

Page 32

181. The Conference also agreed to make provision for the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to be that with which the instruments of ratification of the Convention were to be deposited. Articles 161.to 164, 170, 173 and 174 of the Convention were supplemented pursuant to this decision. E. RECOMMENDATION BY THE INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE TO THE DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE ON BEGINNING PREPARATIONS FOR THE OPENING OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE (item 8 on the Agenda) 182. The Conference examined the draft recommendation submitted by the Co-ordinating Committee, as contained in BR / 204 / 72.

The Conference adopted this recommendation subject to the following observations and some drafting amendments. 183. With regard to point 2, the Conference agreed that the preparation of the special agreements contained in the Protocol on Centralisation should also be entrusted to the Interim Committee. The Conference was referring both to the agreements provided for in Section IV of the said Protocol and to the task of preparing the integration of the IIB with the European Patent Office, in respect of which the representatives of the IIB had submitted a proposal in Working Document No. 29.

Page 33

177. The Conference recorded its unanimous agreement on the proposal contained in BR / 213 / 72. One delegation abstained. 178. Dr HAERTEL then spoke on behalf of the German delegation, whose thanks he expressed for the Conference's unanimous decision in favour of Munich. He wished to give complete assurances that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would do its utmost to justify the confidence thus placed in it, so that the European Patent Office would be able to commence operation in 1976, and to create conditions such that the aims of the Patent Office might be achieved.

Dr HAERTEL went on to say that in view of the decision which had been taken, he was empowered to declare, on behalf of his Government, that it would invite the delegations to a Diplomatic Conference to be held in Munich during 1973 . 179. The Netherlands delegation also wished to thank the Conference for the decision it had taken and for the confidence it had shown in the Netherlands Government. It especially wished to thank the United Kingdom and Luxembourg delegations. 180. At the suggestion of the Co-ordinating Committee, the Conference adopted a different terminology for the Hague branch and the information branches. A series of drafting amendments were made in consequence.

Page 34

(ii) BR/213/72 submitted by the German and Netherlands delegations. 174. Mr SAVIGNON took the Chair for the Conference's discussions on this point. 175. The Luxembourg delegation referred to the policy of welcoming European institutions, which the Luxembourg Government had always followed. In this connection, it also recalled Article 3 of the Decision of the Member States of the European Communities concerning the provisional installation of certain Community institutions and departments. On this basis, the Luxembourg Government had in the past sent a memorandum to the States attending the Conference. However, as the work proceeded, the Luxembourg Government had reconsidered its position and had not officially informed the Conference of the city of Luxembourg's application to be the headquarters of the European Patent Office. The Luxembourg delegation stated that it reserved the right to submit this application if agreement on another site could not be reached. 176. The President recalled that the Netherlands Government had submitted the application of The Hague and that the Netherlands delegation had submitted a proposal jointly with the German delegation (BR/213/72), and said that if this proposal was not adopted, the Netherlands delegation reserved the right to re-submit the application of The Hague. For this reason, the Chairman proposed that the Conference should first of all discuss this proposal.

Page 35

171. The French delegation remarked that paragraphs 2 to 4 were doubtless intended to ensure a comparable standard between European and international searches. However, this was a permanent objective, since the standard could vary over a period of time. The French delegation noted that although it was ready to support the Chairman's proposal, one should not ignore the eventuality of an international search of undeniable quality undertaken by an international authority which did not take sufficient account of the European search. This was why the French delegation was requesting that any interpretation should not rule out this possibility.

The Chairman noted that in such an eventuality paragraphs 2 to 4 ought in fact to be applied. 172. Finally, the Conference recorded its agreement that the main aim of paragraphs 2 to 4 was to guarantee an equivalent standard between European and intornational searches. It also recorded its agreement on the text of Article 154, deleting the square brackets round paragraphs 2 to 4. (c) Article 7 of the draft Convention 173. The Conference was apprised of the following proposals: (i) BR/195/72 and Working Document No. 2 submitted by the United Kingdom delegation; B R / 219 e/72 oyd/AH/prk

Page 36

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

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 26 September 1972 BR/219/72

MINUTES of the

6th meeting of the Inter-Governmental Conference for the setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents (Luxembourg, 19 to 30 June 1972)

Page 37

Article 7 (33) Location and branches for information and liaison (1) The Organisation shall have its seat at ..., where the European Patent Office shall be located. (2) By decision of the Administrative Council, branches of the European Patent Office may be created if need be for the purpose of information and liaison, in the Contracting States and with the International Patent Institute at The Hague or other inter-governmental organisations in the field of industrial property, subject to the approval of the Contracting State or organisation concerned.

Page 38

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE	Brussels, 25 May 1972
FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN	BR/199/72
SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Secretariat -

Deutsche	Peteniamt
Eing. 31.	1972

DRAFT CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS (Stage reached on 20 May 1972)

Page 39

Thus the Conference took into account the fact that a collegial body such as the Administrative Council which, moreover only meets at certain intervals, might hardly be in a position to conclude such agreements itself.

103. The Conference also added further powers for the Administrative Council to those contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, as Working Party II had not been able to consider them when drafting Article 35a. For purposes of simplification, the Conference divided the now completed Article 35a into three separate Articles (35aa, 35ab, and 35cc, BR/118/71, pages 3 to 6).

Article 35b (Preparatory duties of the Administrative Council)

104. The Conference deleted this Article. The power to prepare revision conferences, together with the power to convene such conferences, is already covered in the previous Article. The power to prepare such adaptations to the Convention as may be rendered necessary by the accession of third countries did not, in the opinion of the Conference, need to be laid down expressly. Should the necessity for such adaptations arise a revision conference would have to be convened, as in the case of other amendments.

Article 35c (Representation of Contracting States)

105. The Conference decided that only the representatives of the Contracting States could be members of the Administrative Council, and worded paragraph 1 accordingly. The representatives of the inter-governmental organisations

Page 40

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

Brussels, 7 July 1971 BR / 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 41

Article 35b Preparatory duties of the Administrative Council

The Administrative Council shall be empowered : (a) to prepare Conferences for the revision of this Convention; (b) to prepare such adaptations to this Convention as may be rendered necessary by the accession of third countries.

Page 42

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

- Secretariat -

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

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

- Stage reached on 29 January 1971 -

BR/88 e/71

Page 43

Thus the Conference took into account the fact that a collegial body such as the Administrative Council which, moreover only meets at certain intervals, might hardly be in a position to conclude such agreements itself.

103. The Conference also added further powers for the Administrative Council to those contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, as Working Party II had not been able to consider them when drafting Article 35a. For purposes of simplification, the Conference divided the now completed Article 35a into three separate Articles (35a, 35b and 35c, BR/118/71, pages 3 to 6).

Article 35b (Preparatory duties of the Administrative Council)

104. The Conference deleted this Article. The power to prepare revision conferences, together with the power to convene such conferences, is already covered in the previous Article. The power to prepare such adaptations to the Convention as may be rendered necessary by the accession of third countries did not, in the opinion of the Conference, need to be laid down expressly. Should the necessity for such adaptations arise a revision conference would have to be convened, as in the case of other amendments.

Article 35c (Representation of Contracting States)

105. The Conference decided that only the representatives of the Contracting States could be members of the Administrative Council, and worded paragraph 1 accordingly. The representatives of the inter-governmental organisations

Page 44

Council for not acting without its approval in certain cases (see point 97 above). The Conference accordingly deleted sub-paragraph (f). 101. The Austrian delegation proposed that a new subparagraph (g) in paragraph 2 should lay down that it is the responsibility of the Administrative Council to instruct the President of the European Patent Office, at the requeat of a ?tartingiste, to make a report. The Conference did not agree to this request, because the Administrative Council's power to instruct the President to make a report is already implicit in its general supervisory rights. The Conference did not however see the expediency of obliging the Administrative Council to comply with the request of a single Contracting State. 102. In connection with paragraph 3 B the Conference noted that the necessity might arise for the European Patent Office to conclude agreements other than those listed in this provision. It therefore replaced this. list with a provision drawn up in general terms. Acting on a request made by the Netherlands delegation and endorsed by the Austrian delegation, the Conference also laid down the respective responsibilities of the Administrative Council and the President of the European Patent Office for the conclusion of agreements with States or international organisations, making the President responsible for the actual negotiations and the conclusion of the agreements, although he must obtain the approval of the Administrative Council before opening the negotiations and concluding the agreements.

Page 45

President and the Administrative Council. This does not mean that dealings undertaken by the President without the required approval are to be invalidated because approval was not obtained, but that the President is to be responsible to the Administrative Council for them (cf. point 100). 98. The Conference did not endorse the United Kingdom delegation's proposal that in paragraph 1 E the Administrative Council should be empowered to amend the time-limit laid down in Article 88, paragraph 2. It was the Conference's opinion that this time limit constituted such an essential feature of the deferred examination system that, except in the case referred to in Article 159, amendment should only be possible by means of a revision of the Convention. 99. In order to make a clear distinction between the duties of the Administrative Council (supervision of the activities of the European Patent Office) and those of the President (direction of the European Patent Office), the Conference deleted eub-paragraph (a) from paragraph 2. 100. In connection with paragraph 2(f) it was agreed that the Administrative Council must be empowered to specify the cases in which the President of the European Patent Office must obtain the prior approval of the Administrative Council before he undertakes actions at law. The Conference was however of the opinion that it was not necessary to restrict the President's powers of representation in respect of third parties. The desired aim would also be achieved just as satisfactorily if the President were to be responsible to the Administrative

Page 46

CHAPTER I a Powers and Functions of the Administrative Council

Article 35a (Powers of decision of the Administrative Council)

96. The Conference noted in connection with paragraph 1 A that this provision only ays down that the Administrative Council is competent to amend the Implementing Regulations, whereas the Diplomatic Conference is to adopt them. It therefore considered that it would be expedient to specify in a final provision that the Implementing Regulations form an integral part of the Convention (see point 127 under Article 161a). (BR/121/71, Page 5).

97. The Conference deleted from paragraph 1 B(a) the power of the Administrative Council to adopt Administrative Regulations, as all the administrative regulations required are either contained in the Implementing Regulations or may be adopted by the President of the European Patent Office as part of his task of directing its business, in which he is supervised by the Administrative Council.

The power provided for in sub-paragraph (d) to adopt any other rules necessary for the implementation of the Convention allows the Administrative Council, in the Conference's opinion, to determine the cases in which the President of the European Patent Office will require the approval of the Administrative Council to exercise the legal capacity of the European Patent Office internally. This condition of approval is not however to restrict the President's power to repressnt the European Patent Office externally but is to apply only to the internal relations between the

Page 47

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

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 7 July 1971 B R / 125 / 71

M I N U T E S

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

Page 48

Article 35a continued: (c) the agreements with Contracting States to the Patent Co-operation Treaty which are not Contracting States to this Convention referred to in Article 119, paragraph 2; (d) any agreement with any other inter-governmental organisation exercising an activity in which the European Patent Office has an interest; C. decide as to the possibility of the European Patent Office acting as a receiving Office within the meaning of Chapter I of the Patent Co-operation Treaty, in the case provided for in Article 119, paragraph 3; D. decide upon the creation of branches for information and liaison purposes in the Contracting States or with the International Patent Institute at The Hague or other inter-governmental organisations in the field of industrial property, subject to the approval of the Contracting State or the organisation concerned.

1. Note to Article 35a, paragraph 1 (E):

It should be re-examined whether provision should be made for an exception, as provided for in E 2nd sentence, to be made for other time-limits. 2. Note to Article 35a, paragraph 2 (f):

Adoption of the provision contained in (f) would necessitate an amendment of Article 32 (3), which should be completed as follows: "in accordance with the provisions laid down in Article 35a, paragraph 2 (f)".

Page 49

Article 35 ∞ continued: (2) In addition, the Administrative Council shall : (a) take any necessary measures for the purpose of ensuring the smooth functioning of the European Patent Office; (b) adopt each year the budget of the European Patent Office and such amending or supplementary budgets as may be submitted to it by the President of the European Patent Office, and supervise the implementation thereof; (c) audit and approve each year the accounts and inventories and the balance sheet; (d) approve the annual management reports of the President of the European Patent Office; (e) appoint the senior officials referred to in Article 37, subject to the conditions laid down in that Article, and may, on the proposal of the President of the European Patent Office, take disciplinary action in regard to those officials referred to in paragraph 3 of the said Article, while observing the provisions of the Service Regulations applicable to them; (f) give, in each particular case, to the President of the European Patent Office, to whom the President of the Administrative Council shall to this end address a written communication, an authorisation to exercise the legal capacity of the European Patent Office for the purposes of :

- actions at law with the exception of those of an urgent or protective nature, or those in which the European Patent Office has been made a defendant, - acts relating to the disposal of immovable property, or relating to the disposal of movable property when the sum involved exceeds the exchange value of 20 kilograms of fine gold, as well as acts affecting, in the two cases referred to above, the ownership of such property. (3) Furthermore, the Administrative Council shall : A. give its decision on requests for accession to this Convention formulated by third countries; b. conclude or amend on behalf of the European Patent Office : (a) the agreement with the International Patent Institute at The Hague laying down the procedures for its collaboration with the European Patent Office; (b) any agreement with the International Bureau provided for in the Patent Co-operation Treaty, for the purposes of applying Articles 117 to 123 of this Convention;

Page 50

CHAPTER Ia (1) Powers and functions of the Administrative Council Article 35a Powers of decision of the Administrative Council (1) The Administrative Council shall be competent to : A. amend the Implementing Regulations to this Convention; B. adopt or amend : (a) the Administrative and Financial Regulations of the European Patent Office; (b) the Service Regulations for officials and the conditions of employment of other employees of the European Patent Office, the salary scales of the said officials and other employees, and also the nature and the rules for the grant of the supplementary benefits which may be accorded to them; (c) the Rules relating to fees; (d) any other rules necessary for the implementation of this Convention; C. take the decisions referred to in Article 159; D. amend Articles 54 and 55 so as to re-allocate in the light of experience the responsibilities entrusted to the Examining Sections and Examining Divisions; E. amend the time limits laid down in this Convention independently of any revision under Article 162. This shall not apply to the time limit laid down in Article 88, paragraph 2, subject to the provisions of Article 159. (1) The provisions of Chapters Ia, Ib and Ic will require to be harmonised with the other provisions of the Convention at a later date. The position of these Chapters in the Convention is provisional.

Page 51

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 52

which the Administrative Council might establish should only be for information or liaison. This proposal was not supported by the other delegations.

Article 160b (Appointment of senior officials during a transitional period)

128. In the discussion on the "running-in" of the European Patent Office, the United Kingdom delegation pointed out that it was unlikely that the members of the Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal would be employed full-time during the first few years of operation of the European Patent Office. It therefore proposed that it should be possible for ad hoc appointments to be made during a transitional period: this would take the form of a temporary suspension of Article 58, paragraphs 1 and 2.

The Working Party recognised this problem and certain delegations were in favour of the solution proposed by the United Kingdom delegation as this would also allow both technically qualified staff of the European Patent Office and members of national courts to be appointed. Other delegations were opposed to appointing officials of the European Patent Office as members of the Boards of Appeal or the Enlarged Board of Appeal for constitutional reasons (independence of judges) and practical reasons (insufficient number of technically qualified staff for the duties of the Examining Division, the Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal to be carried out by officials who have to be different under the provisions of Article 135).

Page 53

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

All the delegations expressed great interest in the ideas put forward by the Chairman, who agreed to draw up a document along these lines to be submitted to the Working Party before 1 January 1974. The French delegation also agreed to submit a document by the same date on the present activities of the CEIPI at Strasbourg and on the developments which could be envisaged by the French authorities, particularly in view of the international role which the Centre might be called upon to play. On the basis of these documents, steps should be taken to enable the InterGovernmental Conference of June 1972 to take a decision on the general lines of this plan.

Article 33 (Location and branches for information and liaison) 127. In connection with the discussion on Article 88a and on the problem of the "running-in" of the European Patent Office, the Working Party examined a proposal by the United Kingdom delegation (BR/GT I/113/71) to amend Article 33, paragraph 2, by removing the restriction that branch offices

Page 54

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).

Page 55

One organisation (FICPI) proposed an alternative solution to the effect that in the Contracting States where patents of addition may be granted in respect of improvements, developments or supplements to an earlier national patent, a European patent for such improvements to an earlier patent could be registered in the States in question as a patent of addition and made subject to the rules of the relevant national law. 37. Three organisations (IAPIP, EIRMA and IFIA) advocated that patents of addition might be granted throughout the term of validity of the parent patent.

Article 33 (Location and Branches for information and liaison) 38. The ICC expressed the wish that the decision on the location should be taken on the basis of considerations which would make for the operation of the European Patent Office on the most economic lines possible.

Article 34 (Languages) and Re. Article 34, No. 1 (Legal authenticity and time limit for the filing of a translation of the application) 39. CEIF and FEMIPI considered that the arrangements laid down in the Implementing Regulations concerning the language to be used in oral proceedings (Re. Article 34, No. 5) were less favourable towards parties whose language was not one of those laid down in Article 34, paragraph 1: one way in which to remedy this situation might be to charge the costs of interpretation to the European Patent Office.

Page 56

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

Brussels, 15 March 1972 BR/169/72

- Secretariat -

MINUTES of the

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

Part II

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

(Luxembourg, 26 January to 1 February 1972)

BR/169 e/72 ley/KM/prk

KAPITEL I

Rechtsstellung und allgemeine Organisation Artikel 30 (früher Artikel 31) Rechtsstellung (1) Das Europäische Patentamt ist eine gemeinsame Einrichtung der Vertragsstaaten mit verwaltungsmäßiger und finanzieller Selbständigkeit. (2) Die Tätigkeit des Europäischen Patentamts wird vom Verwaltungsrat überwacht.

Artikel 31 (früher Artikel 31a)

Zuweisung von Aufgaben durch ein besonderes Übereinkommen Dem Europäischen Patentamt können durch ein besonzeres Übereinkommen im Sinne des Artikels 8 zuatzliche Aufgaben übertragen werden. Für die Durchführung dieser zusätzlichen Aufgaben können im Europäischen Patentamt besondere. den am besonderen Übereinkommen beteiligten Staaten gemeinsame Organe gebildet werden. die von einem engeren Ausschuß des Verwaltungsrats überwacht werden.

Artikel 32

Rechtsnatur (1) Das Europäische Patentamt besitzt Rechtspersönlichkeit. (2) Das Europäische Patentamt besitzt in jedem Vertragsstaat die weitestgehende Rechts- und Geschäftsfähigkeit. die juristischen Personen nach dessen Rechtsvorschriften zuerkannt ist; es kann insbesondere bewegliches und unbewegliches Vermögen erwerben und räußern sowie vor Gericht stehen. (3) Der Präsident des Europäischen Patentamts vertritt das Europäische Patentamt gerichtlich und außergerichtlich.

Artikel 33

Sitz und Informations- oder Verbindungsstellen (1) Das Europäische Patentamt hat seinen Sitz in (2) In den Vertragsstaaten und bei dem Internationa len Patentinstitut in Den Haag sowie bei anderen zwischenstaatlichen Organisationen auf dem Gebiet des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes können, soweit erforderlich und vorbehaltlich der Zustimmung des betreffenden Vertragsstaats oder der betreffenden Organisation, durch Beschluß des Verwaltungsrats Dienststellen des Europäischen Patentamts zu Informations- oder Verbindungszwecken geschaffen werden.

Status and general organisation

Article 30 (former Article 31) Legal status (1) The European Patent Office is an organisation common to the Contracting States and endowed with administrative and financial autonomy. (2) The activities of the European Patent Office shall be supervised by the Administrative Council.

Article 31 (former Article 31a)

Assignment of tasks by means of a special agreement The European Patent Office may be given additional tasks by a special agreement within the meaning of Article 8. Special organs common to the States entering into this agreement may be set up within the European Patent Office in order to carry out such additional tasks; such organs shall be subject to the supervision of a select committee of the Administrative Council.

Article 32

Legal character (1) The European Patent Office shall have legal personality. (2) In each of the Contracting States, the European Patent Office shall enjoy the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal persons under the national law; it may, in particular, acquire or transfer movable and immovable property and may sue and be sued in its own name. (3) The President of the European Patent Office shall exercise the legal capacity of that Office.

Article 33

Location and Branches for information and liaison (1) The European Patent Office shall be located at . . . . . (2) By decision of the Administrative Council, branches of the European Patent Office may be created if need be for the purpose of information and liaison, in the Contracting States or with the International Patent Institute at The Hague or other inter-governmental organisations in the field of industrial property, subject to the approval of the Contracting State or organisation concerned.

Page 58

REGIERUNGSKONFERENZ ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS

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

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

ERSTER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

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

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

Page 59

15. The Working Party finally agreed that a solution totally reconciling the three requirements set out under (i), (ii) and (iii) was hardly possible. It felt that, under these circumstances, the least objectionable course would perhaps be to accept a solution which would involve practical difficulties for the European Patent Office, but which would safeguard both the rights acquired by applicants and the interests of States which had not ratified the revised text. It therefore decided in favour of the first solution (1). However, the Working Party did not feel that it could by itself assess the seriousness of the practical difficulties entailed by this solution as regards the working of the European Patent Office, such an assessment lying more within the scope of Working Party I. For this reason, it was decided to adopt this solution, on the understanding that it would be submitted to Working Party I, which was to be asked whether it was compatible with the smooth operation of the European Patent Office.

Article c - Signature - Ratification

16. In this provision, the intention of the Working Party was to limit signature of the Convention to the States taking part in the Inter-Governmental Conference ( 17 countries) or which had been offered the option of taking part in it (Malta and Monaco).

For subsequent accession by other European States, see Article d(2) below.

Article d - Accession

17. The Working Party pointed out that the accession of States able to be parties to the Convention from the time the latter was open for signature should be effected automatically as soon as such State expressed the wish to [^0] [^0]: (1) Set out under point 12

Page 60

feel it was in his interest to delay the examination procedure, as he was allowed to do by the Convention. One delegation pointed out the drawbacks that would be entailed in obliging the applicant to transfer his application, even if the amendment of the provisions of the Convention affected his application only to an insignificant extent. 14. The Working Party also examined a proposal by the French delegation. The system advocated concerned all the applications under consideration, making no distinction between applications desiguating one or more States which had not, ratified and the rest. They should, as a matter of principle, be examined on the basis of the law previously in force, unless the nature of the amendments to the Convention affected the applicant's acquired right to the grant of a European Patent. As for applications which designated States which had not ratified, the applicant was free to request transfer to the national authorities if he did not want the European Patent Office to continue with the examination of his application.

In opposition to this proposal, the Working Party reaffirmed the principle that reviewing Conferences should not be circumscribed by present rulings and that all that was needed was to adopt rules for applications designating States which had not ratified the revised text, in so far as those States were concerned. One delegation, moreover, pointed out that this proposal dealt with the acquired rights of the applicant, without there being any agreement as to the substance of these rights. This delegation added that the choice allowed the applicant was superflous since his rights were sufficiently protected by the first and second considerations of the French delegations proposal.

Page 61

13. The Working Party thereupon applied itself to seeking a formula which would avoid those disadvantages and the Danish delegation put forward a number of suggestions to this end: (i) The first suggestion drew a distinction according to whether or not the revised text provided for applications under consideration to be subject to the former provisions. If so the EPO would apply the same rules when examining applications in respect of a State which had not ratified. If not, applications relating to that State would be transferred to the competent national authorities. (ii) a second suggestion laid down that the EPO should examine the applications in question, unless States which had not ratified called for the transfer of applications relating to them to their national authorities. (iii) The third suggestion, finally, was that the applications in question should be examined by the EPO in accordance with the law previously in force only if the applicants had asked for them to be examined within two months following the entry into force of the amendment. Otherwise the transfer to the national authorities would follow automatically.

The main objection put forward to these different systems was that they did not take the interests of the applicant sufficiently into account. The Working Party felt that although the third solution did not totally rule out the right of the applicant to choose the system to be applied and would not cause any lasting difficulties for the European Patent Office, it constituted an infringement of the rights of the applicant, who might

Page 62

Some delegations were, however, of the opinion that patents could continue to be granted for some time in respect of these States, on the basis of the Convention to which they were parties, without this constituting an infringement of their rights.

(iii) The Working Party realised that the first two requirements could be met only by ensuring the continuation of the unrevised text, for a limited period. It recognised that, depending on the nature and scope of the amendments the simultaneous existence of two legal systems could create problems of implementation for the European Patent Office and that it would be desirable to avoid such difficulties as far as possible.

The first solution submitted to the Working Party made provision for applications under consideration at the date of entry into force of the revised text to be examined by the European Patent Office in accordance with the law applicable before the entry into force of the revised text. It was pointed out that this provision applied to patent applications designating States which had not ratified the new text only in so far as these States were concerned. This system reconciled the first two requirements described under (i) and (ii) but failed to take account of the interests of the European Patent Office, which would be compelled to apply two different legal systems for a period of anything up to seven years, depending on the solution adopted by the Convention on the matter of deferred examination. Moreover, applications designating both States which had agreed to the revised text and other States, would have to be kept separate for examination according to the different provisions. One delegation, whose national law makes provision for the patent examination procedure, stressed the practical difficulties of such a solution.

Page 63

11. Examination of the problems relating to such applications revealed that the issue at stake was to reconcile three not altogether compatible requirements: (i) to protect the acquired rights of applicants; (ii) to respect the wishes of States which had not ratified the revised text; (iii) to avoid the European Patent Office running into operational difficulties. (i) The Working Party agreed that an applicant held certain rights which ought to be protected, whatever subsequent amendments might be made to the Convention under whose rules he filed his application. The Working Party did not, however, come to an agreement as to the nature of the rights acquired by the applicant, since their content varied considerably according to the different national legal systems. Some delegations felt that an applicant was entitled to have his application examined under the system in force at the time of filing. Another delegation, however, felt that the applicant's only right was to obtain a patent in accordance with the regulations in force at the time of its granting. The Working Party was of the opinion, nevertheless, that it did not seem indispensible for the wording of this provision to specify this concept of acquired right. (ii) The Working Party agreed that there could be no question of adopting any solution which took no account of the wishes of the States; one that would, in other words, have the effect of imposing on them a legal system to which they were not parties.

Page 64

moment, its intention to ratify the revised text, could not, in the event, suspend the time limit following which the said State would cease to be a party to the Convention. 9. The Working Party agreed to draw the attention of its "Suplementing Regulations" sub-Committee to the need to provide for publication in the Official journal of the European Patent Office, both of the amendments referred to in article a and of the situation of the States in relation to the revised text, in order to ensure that private individuals were kept informed. It was pointed out that this note was also relevant to accessions to the Convention, to denunciations, and to the various declarations relating to the territorial field of application.

Article b - Reservation of acquired rights in cases of non-ratification 10. As the principle of acquired rights for patents granted before the revision raised no problems, the Working Party examined the case of applications under consideration by the European Patent Office at the time of entry into force of the revised text. It considered that it would be up to each reviewing Conference to decide what should be done about these applications as regards the States which had agreed to the revised text. Since, however, the rules drawn up by the reviewing Conference could not be imposed on any States which abstained from ratifying the new text - because, on this assumption, these States would be excluded from the new legal system - it would be advisable to lay down a ruling in the Convention itself on what was to be done about applications, which designated one or more such States, in so far as these States were concerned.

Page 65

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

Brussels, 8 October 1970 BR / 53 / 70

- Secretariat -

MINUTES of the Meeting of Working Party II (Luxembourg, 1-4 September 1970 - 2nd meeting)

I

1. The second meeting of Working Party II was held at Luxembourg, from Tuesday 1 to Friday 4 September 1970; under the Chairmanship of Mr. R. LABRY, Counsellor at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (France).

The Commission of the European Communities and the International Patent Institute attended the meeting as observers. (1). 2. The Working Party.would draw attention to the provisional nature of the wording of the texts it adopted.

Bearing in mind the timetable laid down for the meetings of the other Working Parties, the outcome of which might lead the Working Party to revise some of the provisions which it had previously adopted, in particular those relating to the Administrative Council, (1) The list of those attending the meeting is given in the Annex.

BR / 53 e/70 son/PB/prk

35
Article b

Preparatory duties of the Administrative Council

The Administrative Council shall be empowered: (a) to prepare Conferences for the revision of this Convention; (b) to prepare such adaptations to this Convention as may be rendered necessary by the accession of third countries.

Page 67

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

Brussels, 13 March 1970 BR/33/70

- Secretariat -

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

Provisions relating to the Administrative Council Text drawn up by Working Party II (4 to 6 March 1970)

BR/33 e/70 mrk

Page 68

moment, its intention to ratify the revised text, could not, in the event, suspend the time limit following which the said State would cease to be a party to the Convention.

9. The Working Party agreed to draw the attention of its "Suplementing Regulations" sub-Committee to the need to provide for publication in the Official Journal of the European Patent Office, both of the amendments referred to in Article a and of the situation of the States in relation to the revised text, in order to ensure that private individuals were kept informed. It was pointed out that this note was also relevant to accessions to the Convention, to denunciations, and to the various declarations relating to the territorial field of application.

Article b - Reservation of acquired rights in cases of non-ratification

10. As the principle of acquired rights for patents granted before the revision raised no problems, the Working Party examined the case of applications under consideration by the European Patent Office at the time of entry into force of the revised text. It considered that it would be up to each reviewing Conference to decide what should be done about these applications as regards the States which had agreed to the revised text. Since, however, the rules drawn up by the reviewing Conference could not be imposed on any States which abstained from ratifying the new text - because, on this assumption, these States would be excluded from the new legal system - it would be advisable to lay down a ruling in the Convention itself on what was to be done about applications, which designated one or more such States, in so far as these States were concerned.

Page 69

gratification of the revised text, this being the same majority as had been adopted in the decision on accession (See Article d). 7. The Working Party agreed to extend to one year the period provided for in Paregrapb 4(a). Thus, the entry into force of the revised text, on the expiry of this period, would mark the point at which those States which had not ratified the revised text would cease to be parties to the Convention. The Working Party felt it necessary to leave each State sufficient time, in view of the necessary internal procedures, to decide whether it would be expedient to ratify the revised text or to be excluded from the Convention, with effect from the time when the State could be sure that the revision would come into force, by reason of the deposit of a sufficient number of instruments of ratification. 8. This set of safeguards enabled the Working Party to rule that any States having failed to ratify the revised text or to abide by it would cease to be parties to the Convention with effect from the entry into force of the revised text (Paregraph 4(b)). One delegation suggested providing for each proposed amendment to be accompanied by a vote on the issue of whether, in each particular case, refusal to ratify the revised text should entail exclusion from the Convention. This system was found to be too complicated and liable to give rise to scarcely acceptable consequences, since it would result either in the application of two different texts of the Convention, or in imposing a new legal system on States which had not agreed to it.

In this same context, it was agreed that a declaration by a Contracting State, making known, at a given

Part VI bis of the Convention

Final and general provisions

Article a - Revision

5. The overriding preoccupation of the Working Party was, in the event of an amendment not being accepted by all the States, to avoid two different texts being in force simultaneously. The solution adopted by the Working Party was to lay down that all States which had not ratified the revised text would cease to be parties to the Convention. Nevertheless, in order to avoid, as far as possible, such situations as might arise as consequence of these provisions, the Working Party adopted certain adjustments (See points 6,7 and 8 below). 6. The Working Party was at pains to avoid a proliferation of amendments, bearing in mind the serious consequences of the entry into force of a revised text for any States which might be unable to ratify or abide by the revised Convention once the revised text came into force. The Working Party accordingly decided against the principle of a reviewing Conference, meeting periodically, and preferred to leave it to the Administrative Council to decide when such meetings would be appropriate. The Working Party also agreed to fix a rather high quorum for deliberations at any reviewing conference which might be held. This enabled it to agree to a reduction, in relation to the Chairman's initial proposal, in the majorities required both for the adoption and for the

Page 71

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

Brussels, 8 October 1970 B R / 53 / 70

- Secretariat -

MINUTES of the Meeting of Working Party II (Luxembourg, 1-4 September 1970 - 2nd meeting)

I

1. The second meeting of Working Party II was held at Luxembourg, from Tuesday 1 to Friday 4 September 1970; under the Chairmanship of Mr. R. LABRY, Counsellor at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (France).

The Commission of the European Communities and the International Patent Institute attended the meeting as observers. (1). 2. The Working Party would draw attention to the provisional nature of the wording of the texts it adopted.

Bearing in mind the timetable laid down for the meetings of the other Working Parties, the outcome of which might lead the Working Party to revise some of the provisions which it had previously adopted, in particular those relating to the Administrative Council, (1) The list of those attending the meeting is given in the Annex.

BR,53 e/70 son/PB/prk

Page 72

already imposed by the budget, whose adoption falls to the Administrative Council. The Working Party, while recognizing the existence of these limitations, believed that they would not apply to every case where a special authorisation from the Administrative Council to the President would seem desirable to it. The Working Party accordingly adopted the text contained in paragraph 2 (f), it being understood that the adoption of this provision would require the amendment of Article 32 (3) of the Draft Convention.

The Working Party agreed to re-examine, where appropriate, the limit of 20 kilograms of fine gold, laid down in the second sub-section of (f), in the light of the financial provisions of the Convention, to be drawn up by Working Party IV. 16. As regards paragraph 3 (A) the Working Party agreed that this provision could, where appropriate, be re-examined once the final provisions of the Convention had been drawn up.

It was further noted that this paragraph, which deals with the "International functions" of the Administrative Council, could be incorporated as a separate Article.

Article b - Preparatory duties of the Administrative Council 17. No comment.

Page 73

13. The question was raised of whether the power of the Council to appoint auditors should be specifically mentioned in paragraph 2. Subject to the financial provisions for the Convention, to be drawn up by Working Party IV, the Working Party believed it was not essential to provide for the appointments of auditors in the body of the Convention itself. This could indeed come under certain rules to be included in the Financial Regulations. 14. As regards paragraph 2 (e), the Working Party, while providing that disciplinary action may be taken in regard to the members of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, believed it necessary to stipulate that in taking any such disciplinary action, the independence of the members of the said Boards must be respected. For this reason, it laid down that such disciplinary action may only be taken if the provisions of the Service Regulations applicable to the members in question are observed. The Service Regulations must therefore define the guarantees enjoyed by the members of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

The Working Party agreed not to make specific mention of the possibility allowed the Council to take disciplinary action in regard to the President and the Vice-President of the European Patent Office. 15. As regards paragraph 2 (f), the Working Party noted that Article 32 (3) of the Draft Convention, in the version drawn up by Working Party I and adopted by the Conference, gives power to the President of the European Patent Office to exercise the legal capacity of that Office. The Working Party wondered whether this power entrusted to the President should not, for certain important acts, be subject to an authorisation to be granted to the latter by the Council for each case. In this context, mention was made of the limitations

Page 74

On the other hand, the Working Party did provisionally adopt (while waiting to know the final contents of the Implementing Regulations) a solution to be applied only to those cases where unanimity is required. This solution consists in allowing any Contracting State to declare, upon the adoption of a decision, that its entry into force requires, by virtue of that State's national constitution, the completion of certain formalities of internal law. Under this system, such a decision would only enter into force when the State concerned had notified the Administrative Council of the completion of such formalities. The text adopted to this end has been incorporated in Article m (2) by the Working Party. 12. The Working Party wondered whether the list of decisions contained in paragraph 1 (b) should be completed by reference to: (i) the list of posts (ii) the staff complement (iii) the establishment plan of the European Patent Office.

It did not eventually complete the said provision in this manner, for the following reasons:

As regards the list of posts, where this is understood as an abstract description of the duties of each grade, it was of the opinion that such a list would be contained in the Service Regulations; and, where this is understood as an establishment plan of the Office, it would be contained in the provisions of the Administrative Regulations provided for in B (a). Finally, the numbers of officials and other employees would be laid down for each Class in the budget of the European Patent Office, to be adopted by the Administrative Council under paragraph 2 (b).

Page 75

Working Parties, between the Convention itself and the Implementing Regulations remained completely open, as had been pointed out by Working Party I. Accordingly, the Working Party noted that the provision relating to the power of the Administrative Council to amend the Implementing Regulations could be re-examined at a later stage, in the light of the contents of the Implementing Regulations. Since it was not yet certain what the contents of the Implementing Regulations would be, the Working Party was not able to affirm immediately that the Administrative Council will be able to exercise its power to amend the Implementing Regulations without this in certain (admittedly limited) cases entailing recourse by any given Contracting State to certain procedures of internal law (such as parliamentary approval) before the latter could finally approve the amendments in question.

At this stage in the proceedings, the Working Party considered it expedient to examine the means allowing any difficulties which might face the Administrative Council to be solved, in view of the problems brought forward above. To this end, it considered a first proposal consisting in delaying the entry into force of the decisions of the Council for a fixed period, during which any State faced with such problems should be able to complete the required formalities. After thorough examination, the Working Party rejected this proposal. It did indeed appear difficult to the Working Party to fix a priori a standard period for entry into force for all future decisions of the Council, when the administrative requirements of the European Patent Office could call for the immediate or early entry into force of such decisions.

Page 76

9. It was further agreed that the order of the various provisions contained in Part III bis and examined by the Working Party was provisional and could be reconsidered at a later stage.

MAIN COMMENTS ON THE VARIOUS ARTICLES RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL

PART III bis OF THE CONVENTION

CHAPTER I

Article a - Powers of decision of the Administrative Council 10. In paragraph 1 (a), the Working Party provided that the Administrative Council shall have the power to amend the Implementing Regulations to the Convention. It was of the opinion that the responsibilities of the Administrative Council did not extend to the adoption of these Regulations, which should indeed be drawn up at the same time as the Convention itself. The Working Party therefore assumed that it would be for the diplomatic Conference to decide on the manner in which the Implementing Regulations were to be adopted. 11. The Working Party further noted that the question of the distribution of the various provisions drawn up by Working Party I, and of those to be drawn up by the other

Page 77

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

Brussels, 20 March 1970 B R / 34 / 70

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the meeting of Working Party II (Luxembourg, 4-6 March 1970)

I 1. The first working meeting of Working Party II, set up by the Conference at the latter's meeting of 13-16 January 1970, was held at Luxembourg from Yednesday 4 to Friday 6 March 1970.

In accordance with the decision taken by the Working Party at its anaugural meeting held at Luxembourg on 16 January 1970, the Chair was taken by Mr. LABRY, Counsellor at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (France).

The Commission of the European Communities, BIRPI and the International Patent Institute (IIB) took part in the meeting as observers. The representative of the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe, who had also been invited to take part in the meeting, apologized for being unable to attend (1). (1) See list of participants in the meeting of the Working Party given in Annex II. As regards Annex I, see point 38 on page 16 .

BR/34 e/70 kel/RT/mrk

Page 78

79. Article 138 : Notification of the grounds

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

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

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

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

Page 79

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

Brussels, 28 February 1971 B R / 87 / 71

- Secretariat -

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

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

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

Page 80

Article a contd. (3) Furthermore, the Administrative Council shall: A. give its decision on requests for accession to this Convention formulated by third countries; B. conclude or amend on behalf of the European Patent Office: (a) the agreement with the International Patent Institute laying down the procedures for its collaboration with the European Patent Office; (b) any agreement with the International Bureau provided for in the Patent Co-operation Treaty, for the purposes of applying Articles 117 to 123 of this Convention; (c) the agreements with Contracting States to the Cooperation Treaty which are not Contracting States to this Convention referred to in Article 119, paragraph 2 ; (d) any agreement with any other inter-governmental organisation exercising an activity in which the European Patent Office has an interest; C. decide as to the possibility of the European Patent Office acting as a receiving Office within the meaning of Chapter I of the Co-operation Treaty, in the case provided for in Article 119, paragraph 3; D. decide upon the creation of branches for information and liaison purposes in the Contracting States or with the International Patent Institute or other inter-governmental organisations in the field of industrial property, subject to the approval of the Contracting State or the organisation concerned.

Page 81

Article a contd. (f) give, in each particular case, to the President of the European Patent Office, to whom the President of the Administrative Council shall to this end address a written communication, an authorisation to exercise the legal capacity of the European Patent Office for the purposes of:

- actions at law with the exception of those of an urgent or protective nature, or those in which the European Patent Office has been made a defendant, - acts relating to the disposal of immovable property, or relating to the disposal of movable property when the sum involved exceeds the exchange value of 20 kilograms of fine gold, as well as acts affecting, in the two cases referred to above, the ownership of such property.

Note:

Adoption of the provision contained in (f) would necessitate an amendment of Article 32 (3); which should be completed as follows: " in accordance with the provisions laid down in Article a, paragrep. 3 (f)".

Page 82

Article 2 contd. tale the de-enting refilind is in tinte 150 C. amend-the-procedure-for requests for examination, in accordance with the provisions of Article 89, paragraphs 1 to 3 . -

Note:

-The Working Party, to take into account the note -to-Articles-54-and-55, proposes to introduce a -new paragraph D as follows: D. ⟷ Amend Articles 54 and 55 so as to re-allocate in the light of experience the responsibilities entrusted to the Examining Sections and Examining Divisions. E. inwis E. in 88107 J107/70. 41 (2) In addition, the Administrative Council shall: (a) take any necessary measures for the purpose of ensuring the smooth functioning of the European Patent Office; (b) adopt each year the budget of the European Patent Office and such amending or supplementary budgets as may be submitted to it by the President of tho European Patent Office, and supervise the implementation thereof; (c) audit and approve each year the accounts and inventories and the balance sheet; (d) approve the annual management reports of the President of the European Patent Office; (e) appoint the senior officials referred to in Article 37, subject to the conditions laid down in that Article, and may, on the proposal of the President of the European Patent Office, take disciplinary action in regard to those officials referred to in paragraph 3 of the said Article, while obeerving the provisions of the Service Regulations applicable to them; B R / 33 e/70 bm

CHAPTER I

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS

Articlela

Powers of decision of the Administrative Council (1) The Administrative Council shall be competent to: A. amend the Implementing Regulations to this Convention; B. adopt or amend: (a) the Administrative and Financial Regulations of the European Patent Office; (b) the Service Regulations for officials and the conditions of employment of other employees of the European Patent Office, the salary scales of the said officials and other employees, and also the nature and the rules for the grant of the supplementary benefits which may be accorded to them; (c) the Rules relating to fees; (d) any other rules necessary for the implementation of this Convention;

Page 84

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

Brussels, 13 March 1970 BR/33/70

- Secretariat -

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

Provisions relating to the Administrative Council Text drawn up by Working Party II (4 to 6 March 1970)

BR/33 e/70 mrk

Page 85

53. Article 29 : Supplementary application of national law in legal transactions

The Working Party discussed a note submitted by the Netherlands delegation (BR/GT I/85/70), who reserved the right to put the matter before the Working Party again. At the present stage, the Working Party agreed not to retain the draft which it had previously adopted (BR/48/70) and to confine itself to a note, since the matter had in any case to be referred to the Government legal experts. 54. Article 33 : Location and Branches for information and liaison

It is recalled that, considering its position on Branch Examining Offices (BR/49/70 point 129), the UK delegation reserved the right to put forward an amendment to the present provision at a later date. 55. Article 34(5) : Languages

Cf. BR/ /70 on this subject. . . . 56. Article 35 : Privileges and immunities

The Working Party deleted the note to this Article in view of the provisions adopted by Working Party II, which lay down that the members of the Administrative Council shall enjoy the privileges and immunities in question. 57. Article 36 : Administration

The note was deleted (cf. BR/70/70, Chapter I (a), (b), (c)).

Page 86

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

Brussels, 28 February 1971 B R / 87 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

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

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

Representatives of the Commission of the European Communities, WIPO-BIRPI and the Intèrnational 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.

Rechtsstellung und allgemeine Organisation

Artikel 30 (früher Artikel 31) Rechtsstellung (1) Das Europäische Patentamt ist eine gemeinsame Einrichtung der Vertragsstaaten mit verwaltungsmäßiger und finanzieller Selbständigkeit. (2) Die Tätigkeit des Europäischen Patentamts wird vom Verwaltungsrat überwacht.

Artikel 31 (früher Artikel 31a)

Zuweisung von Aufgaben durch ein besonderes Übereinkommen Dem Europäischen Patentamt können durch ein beconderes Übereinkommen im Sinne des Artikels 8 zuatzliche Aufgaben übertragen werden. Für die Durchführung dieser zusätzlichen Aufgaben können im Europäischen Patentamt besondere. den am besonderen Übereinkommen beteiligten Staaten gemeinsame Organe gebildet werden. die von einem engeren Ausschuß des Verwaltungsrats überwacht werden.

Artikel 32

Rechtsnatur (1) Das Europäische Patentamt besitzt Rechtspersönlichkeit. (2) Das Europäische Patentamt besitzt in jedem Vertragsstaat die weitestgehende Rechts- und Geschäftsfähigkeit. die juristischen Personen nach dessen Rechtsvorschriften zuerkannt ist; es kann insbesondere bewegliches und unbewegliches Vermögen erwerben und gräußern sowie vor Gericht stehen. (3) Der Präsident des Europäischen Patentamts vertritt das Europäische Patentamt gerichtlich und außergerichtlich.

Artikel 33

Sitz und Informations- oder Verbindungsstellen (1) Das Europäische Patentamt hat seinen Sitz in (2) In den Vertragsstaaten und bei dem Internationa. len Patentinstitut in Den Haag sowie bei anderen zwischenstaatlichen Organisationen auf dem Gebiet des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes können, soweit erforderlich und vorbehaltlich der Zustimmung des betreffenden Vertragsstaats oder der betreffenden Organisation, durch Beschluß des Verwaltungsrats Dienststellen des Europäischen Patentamts zu Informations- oder Verbindungszwecken geschaffen werden.

Status and general organisation

Article 30 (former Article 31) Legal status (1) The European Patent Office is an organisation common to the Contracting States and endowed with administrative and financial autonomy. (2) The activities of the European Patent Office shall be supervised by the Administrative Council.

Article 31 (former Article 31a)

Assignment of tasks by means of a special agreement The European Patent Office may be given additional tasks by a special agreement within the meaning of Article 8. Special organs common to the States entering into this agreement may be set up within the European Patent Office in order to carry out such additional tasks; such organs shall be subject to the supervision of a select committee of the Administrative Council.

Article 32

Legal character (1) The European Patent Office shall have legal personality. (2) In each of the Contracting States, the European Patent Office shall enjoy the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal persons under the national law; it may, in particular, acquire or transfer movable and immovable property and may sue and be sued in its own name. (3) The President of the European Patent Office shall exercise the legal capacity of that Office.

Article 33

Location and Branches for information and liaison (1) The European Patent Office shall be located at . . . . . (2) By decision of the Administrative Council, branches of the European Patent Office may be created if need be for the purpose of information and liaison, in the Contracting States or with the International Patent Institute at The Hague or other inter-governmental organisations in the field of industrial property, subject to the approval of the Contracting State or organisation concerned.

Page 88

REGIERUNGSKONFERENZ ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS

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

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

ERSTER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

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

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

Page 89

Le Président rappelle que si le brevet principal s'éteint, le brevet additionnel s'éteint aussi. Une exooption à ce principe consiste dans le cas de la nullité. En effet, en l'occurence le brevet principal s'éteint contre le gré de son titulaire. On ajoute l'exception de la renonciation; pour éviter un procès en nullité à l'inventeur. M. van Benthem voit une objection grave contre ce système dans le fait qu'on ne prévoit pas le paiement d'annuités pour le brevet additionnel. Pour échapper au paiement des annuités dues sur tout brevet principal, la grande industrie déposera une multitude de brevets additionnels.

Le Président répond que la limitation de la vie du brevet additionnel constitue à ses yeux un frein suffisant.

De plus, il constate que quatre délégations sont hostiles au paiement d'annuités pour un brevet additionnel.

Il aborde ensuite le problème de la conversion du brevet additionnel en brevet principal en cours de procédure jusqu'a la délivrance du brevet européen définitif. M. Roscioni désire que la question soit élargie en cas inverse.

Le Comité de rédaction rédigera une proposition sur cette question qui sera examinée lors de la session de Munich.

ricle 29

La deuxième variante est supprimée.

Articles 41 à 47

Pour ces articles, le Comité de rédaction rédigera un texte sur la base des propositions françaises.

Article 49

Cet article est maintenu ainsi que les romarques. La question posée devra être tranchée par le Comité de coordination.

GRGUPE DE TRAVAIL

" Brevets "

Deuxième Partie : COMPTES RENIUS

Avant-projet de convention relatif à un droit européen des brevets

Page 91

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 92

Bruxelles, le 18 janvier 1962

Article 43 Siège

Promière variante :

L'Office curopéen des brevets a son siège à

Deuxième variante : Le siège de l'Office européen des brevots est fixé par le [Conseil d'administration].

Troisième variante : Le siège de l'Office européen des brevets est fixé d'un commun accord des Gouvernements des Etats contractants.

Remarque : Le groupe s'est prononcé on faveur de la faculté pour l'Office européen des brevets d'ouvrir en tant que de besoin des agences d'information décentralisées.

" Brevets "

Première Partie : T E X T E S

Avant-projet de convention relatif à un droit européen des brevets

Page 94

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL

" Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 1 février 1962

Confidentiel

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

IV/215/62-F

Page 95

M. Fressonnet attire l'attention du groupe sur le fait que, dans l'article de la Convention générale dont un projet se trouve en annexe du texte du projet de la Convention, la compétence en cause est attribuée au Conseil d'administration.

Le Président estime qu'aussi longtemps que le paragraphe 2 - qui, plus tard, doit être incorporé dans la Convention générale - sera maintenu dans le texte du projet, il est utile à le' compréhension d'indiquer cuelle autorité est compétente.

Article 37 (47)

Au paragraphe 3 de cet article, le Comité de rédaction avait ajouté que les chefs de division seront nommés par décision du Conseil d'administration, prise sur proposition du Président de l'Office. H. Frissonnet estime que le pouvoir de nomination et de disciplins iu Conseil d'administration ne devrait s'exorcer qu'à l'ígard des fonctionnaîrs: d'un rang très ilevé ou cos magistrats de l'Office. Pour ces motifs, il propose que la nomination des chefs de division relève de la compétence du Prísident de l'Office.

Le groupe se rallie à cette opinion et décide de modifier l'article 37, § 3 en conformité avec cette décision. La remarque peut alors être supprimée.

Article 36 (46)

Avec la solution trouvée pour le problème de l'article 37, la question posée par l'article 36 est pratiquement réglée. La référence à l'article 37 ne concerne maintenant que les personnes ayant une fonction quasi judiciaire pour lesquelles le pouvoir disciplinaire ne peut pas être exercé par le Président. Celui-ci garde cependant le droit de proposer des mesures disciplinaires au Conseil d'administration.

Le groupe décide de maintenir le texte actuel

Article 33(43+43 a)

Le Président pose la question de savoir si le groupe pourrait être d'accord de supprimer la 3e variante; en effet cette règle, si elle était adoptée, pourrait sérieusement entraver le fonctionnement de la Convention. M. Planner se prononce en faveur de la suppression. Selon des informations regues par les experts dans le ministère de la jusitice, la solution de la 3e variante aurait l'effet, au moins dans la République fédérale, que l'accord des gouvernements fixent lo siège de l'Office européen devrait être soumis à la ratification du parlement parceque la fixation ću siége déterminereait également le drojt applicable dans certains cas. Il ajoute que la délégation allemande préfèrerait la 1e variante, mais qu'elle pourrait également se déclarer d'accord avec la 2e. M. Rcscioni peut se déclarer d'accord avec la suppression de la 3e variante. Il insiste cependant de maintenir la 2e variante en y ajoutant que le siège doit être fixé par le Conseil d'administration à l'unanimité. M. Pressonnet, tout en étant d'accord que la 3e variante ne sera pas praticable, propose de la laisser subsister quand même pour mettre au clair que le groupe a discuté toutes les solutions possibles. Pour ces raisons techniques, une telle procédure lui semble meilleure à l'égard du Comité de coordination.

Le groupe retient cette proposition de M. Pressonnet, mais décide de présenter la remarque de façon à exposer clairement que la 3e variante ne lui semble pas praticable.

Le Comité de rédaction est chargé on outre d' ajouter "à l'unanimité". à la 2e variante.

Au sujet du paragraphe 2 de l'article 33, le Président fait remarquer qu'il faudrait mentionner l'autorité compétente de décider la création des agences de l'Office européen.

Page 97

Président scus poine de risquer de graves difficultés, notamment dans le cas très vraisemblable où le Conseil d'administration ne siègera pas dans le même Etat que l'Office. Le groupe approuve le Président et décide de biffer le contem des crochets du paragraphe 3 et de maintenir le texte de la remarque.

Dans cos conditions, l'article est adopté.

Article 33 (41 43 a)

L'oxamen do cot artiole est difféé jusqu'á l'arrivée de la délégation frençaise.

Artiole 34 (44)

Au paragraphe 2 le groupe unanime entend par l'expression "dans la larpue de cet Etat" qu'il a'agit de la on des langues officielles employées dans cet Etat. L'artiole est adopto.

Artiole 35 (45)

Cet article est-adopté sans obeorvations.

Artiole 36 (46)

Ie Président énonco quelques remarques rédactionnelles concernant le texto allemand de cot article. En cutre, au littera h) du paragraphe 2 il estime qu'il faut une rédaction plus large disant que le Président peut déléguor ses attributions. Le groupe décide de biffer les mots "certaines de cos" et de les remplacer par "ses". La remarque et celle sous l'article suivant seront discutées en présence de la délégation française.

L'article ost adopte.

Artiole 37 (47)

L'article est adopté à l'exooption de la remarque.

Page 98

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 31 juillet 1962 Confidentiel

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

Article 33(43+43 a)

Siège et agences d'information ct de liaison (1)

lère variante

L'Office curopéen des brevets a son siège à ..... .

2ème variante

Le siège de l'Office curopéen des brevets est fixé par le Conseil d'administration.

3ème variante

Le siège de l'Office curopéen des brevets est fixé d'un commun accord dos gouvernements des Etats contractants. (2) Dos agences de l'Office curopéon des brevets peuvent Stre créées, on tant que de besoin, dans un but d'information ou do liaison, auprès des sorvices centraux de la propriété industriello des Etats contractants ou auprès de [I'Institut international des brevets à La Raye]. (3) La création do ces agences peut Stre décidée pour satisfaite aux besoins de l'Office curopéen des brevets ou à ceux des Etats contractants ou de [I'Institut international des brevets].

Remarque :

Le troisième variante du paragraphe 1 présente l'inconvénient do nécessiter dans certains pays une approbation de l'accord des gouvernements par le Parlement.

Page 100

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL "BREVETS" COMITE DE REDACTION

STRICTEMENT CONFIDENTIEL

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

= VE Mai 1962

4488/IV/62-7

Page 101

the Office, in so far as, in the interests of the applicants or the patent agents, it did not appear desirable to centralise all appeals at the Patent Office if the examinations were carried out in the various Branches. Another system could consist in arranging to have travelling Members of the Boards of Appeal. The choice between these two suggestions could, however, be made to depend on the needs later revealed by practice.

The Working Party did not discuss the British delegation's suggestions. It was agreed that the British delegation would in due course put in a working document explaining in detail the views which it had set out. Article 33 may therefore be the subject of further discussions on the basis of the Working Party's deliberations on the above-mentioned suggestions.

Article 34 - Languages 56. As regards paragraph 2, it was noted that there must be appropriate provisions to ensure that the translation of an application filed in a language other than one of the three Patent Office languages effectively corresponds to the content of the application itself. 57. Paragraph 4 a) can be discussed further, since the question of whether provision should be made for translation of the applications themselves into the languages of the Contracting States for which protection has been requested is open to review. 58. As regards paragraph 5, see the note in document BR / 6 / 69. It should be noted that the latter is based on the provision in the second sentence of Article 34, paragraph 5 of the EFTA Draft. It will however be

Page 102

of examination on the basis of the official languages in which applications were submitted. Applications drawn up in English could thus be dealt with in Great Britain by a Branch of the European Patent Office as such, independent of the British Patent Office; applications drawn up in German could be examined at a Branch located at, say, Munich, and applications drawn up in French could be examined at a Branch, the location of which remained to be determined. It appeared, in fact, that the examination of applications implied, even more than research work as to novelty, confidential relations between applicant and examiner, and a very sound knowledge of the language of the application by the latter. And it would probably be very difficult to recruit a sufficient number of examiners satisfying these requirements in a single place, in view of the fact that the examiners would probably not be prepared to enter into sufficiently long contracts in a foreign country.

Recognising that it was important to avoid different practices being adopted in the Branches of the European Patent Office as such, the British delegation believed that this problem, which would arise anyway, even within the single Office, could be solved by appropriate measures, such as ensuring close liaison between examiners of the different Branches and the Office itself, central instructions put out by the Office, checks carried out by the Patent Office on the various Branches, and, finally, meetings which could be arranged between different examiners in the same field.

As regards appeals, it might be appropriate to provide that Members of the Boards of Appeal be attested to the Branches of

Page 103

Article 33 - Location and branches for information and liaison 54. The Working Party adopted the first variant appearing in the 1965 Draft, considering it necessary, for practical reasons, for the location of the Patent Office to be fixed by the time of the signature of the Convention.

As regards the wording of paragraph 2, the Working Party deleted the expression "by unanimous decision" to be found in the 1965 Draft, on the understanding that reference is made to the later provisions governing the Administrative Ucuncil as regards the procedure by which the latter will adopt its decisions.

In addition, the Working Party was of the opinion that, for reasons of expediency, it would be advisable to restrict to the Contracting States the possibility afforded by the provisions of paragraph 2 of creating branches for information and liaison. However, the provisions relating to the Administrative Council could provide that the latter may, where appropriate, conclude agreements with non-Contracting countries should this prove necessary.

Finally, the Working Party decided to delete paragraph 3 of the 1965 Draft, since the expression "if need be", appearing in paragraph 2, seemed to be adequate. 55. The British delegation set out its ideas on the setting up of Branches of the European Patent Office as such, independently of the question of the location of the Office itself. In its opinion, these Branches would not act as information and liaison agencies, but would be competent to take decisions in the same way as the central European Patent Office.

It noted in this respect that, for reasons of efficiency, it seemed appropriate to distribute the tasks

Page 104

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

Brussels, 29 July 1969 BR/7/69

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

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

I

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

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

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

Page 105

(2) Par décision unanime du [Conseil d'administration 7 des agences de l'office européen des brevets peuvent être créées, en tant que de besoin, dans un but d'information ou de liaison, auprès des services centraux de la propriété induetrielle des Etats contractants ou aurpès de [I'Institut international des brevets de La Haye7. (3) La création de ces agences peut être décidée pour satisfaire aux besoins de l'office européen des brevets ou à ceux des Etats contractants ou de [I'Institut international des brevets 7 .

Remarque

La troisième variante du paragraphe 1 nécessite dans certains pays l'approbation par le Parlement d'un accord indépendant de la convention et portant exclusivement sur la fixation du siège de l'office européen des brevets.

Article 34 Langues (1) Sous réserve des dispositions ci-après, les langues utilisées aurpès de l'office européen des brevets sont l'allemand, l'anglais et le français. (2) Les personnes ayant leur siège social ou leur domicile sur le territoire d'un des Etats contractants dont la langue n'est pas visée au paragraphe 1 et les ressortissants de cet Etat ayant leur domicile à l'étranger, peuvent déposer des demandes de brevet européen dans la langue de cet Etat. Toutefois, une traduction dans l'une des langues visées au paragraphe 1 doit être produite dans le délai d'un mois à compter du dépôt. (3) Sous réserve des exceptions prévues par le règlement d'exécution de la présente convention, la langue de la demande de brevet européen ou, dans le cas visé au paragraphe 2, celle de la traduction doit être utilisée dans toutes les procédures devant l'office européen des brevets. Dans le cas où un document doit être fourni avant l'expiration d'un délai, les dispositions du paragraphe 2 s'appliquent par analogie sous réserve que la traduction soit produite dans la langue de la procédure. (4) Les inscriptions au registre européen des brevets sont effectuées dans les trois langues visées au paragraphe 1. En cas de doute l'inscription dans la langue de la demande fait foi. (5) Les fascicules imprimés des brevets européens sont publiés dans la langue de la demande ou, dans le cas visé au paragraphe 2, dans celle de la traduction; ils comportent une traduction des revendications dans les deux autres langues viséesau paragraphe 1. (6) Le Bulletin européen des brevets est publié dans les trois langues visées au paragraphe 1. (7) Le Journal officiel de l'office européen des brevets est publié en partie dans toutes les langues des Etats contractants et en partie dans les trois langues visées au paragraphe 1, conformément au règlement d'exécution de la présente convention.

STATUT ET ORGANISATION GENERALE

Artiole 31 Statut juridique (1) L'Office européen des brevets est un organisme commun aux Etats contractants, doté de l'autonomie administrative et financière. (2) L'activité de l'Office européen des brevets est controlée par le Conseil d'administration7.

Remarque

Cet article laisse ouverte la question de savoir si l'Office européen des brevets doit relever d'une institution internationale plus large dont le conseil d'administration serait l'organe de contrôle. Ce contrôle s'exercerait dans les conditions définies par la convention générale.

Article 32

Nature juridique (1) L'Office européen des brevets a la personnalité juridique. (2) L'Office européen des brevets possède dans chacun des Etats contractants la capacité juridique la plus large reconnue aux personnes morales par la législation nationale; il peut notamment acquérir ou aliéner des biens immobiliers et mobiliers et ester en justice. (3) Le président de l'Office européen des brevets exerce la capacité juridique de cet office.

Remarque

Au sujet du paragraphe 3, il conviendra de réexaminer si et dans quelle mesure la compétence du président devrait être subordonnée en matière financière à une autorisation du conseil d'administration.

Article 33

Siège et agences d'information et de liaison (1)

1ère variante

L'Office européen des brevets a son siège à .....

2ème variante

Le siège de l'Office européen des brevets est fixé par décision unanime du Conseil d'administration7.

3ème variante

Le siège de l'Office européen des brevets est fixé d'un commun accord des gouvernements des Etats contractants.

Page 107

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

X TONIERUNGSAUSSCHUSSAUF DEM GEBIET EWERBLICHEN RECHTSSCHUTZES EIN:T VON DEN MITGLIEDSTAATEN UND JMMSSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN WIRTSCHAFTSGEMEINSCHAFT

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

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

AVANT-PROJET DE CONVENTION

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

VORENTWURF EINES ABKOMMENS

über ein europäisches Patentrecht ausgearbeitet von der Arbeitsgruppe „Patente"

SCHEMA DI CONVENZIONE

sul diritto europeo dei brevetti predisposto dal Gruppo di lavoro «brevetti»

VOORONTWERP VERDRAG

betreffende een Europees octrooiracht opgesteld door de werkgroep «octrooien»

Textes allemand et français Deutscher und französischer Text

Page 108

Le Président rappelle que si le brevet principal s'éteint, le brevet additionnel s'éteint aussi. Une exooption à ce principe consiste dans le cas de la nullité. En effet, en l'occurence le brevet principal s'éteint contre le gré de son titulaire. On ajoute l'exception de la renonciation, pour éviter un procès en nullité à l'inventeur. M. van Benthem voit une objection grave contre ce système dans le fait qu'on ne prévoit pas le paiement d'annuités pour le brevet additionnel. Pour échapper au paiement des annuités dues sur tout brevet principal, la grande industrie déposera une multitude de brevets additionnels.

Le Président répond que la limitation de la vie du brevet additionnel constitue à ses yeux un frein suffisant.

De plus, il constate que quatre đélégations sont hostiles au paiement d'annuités pour un brevet additionnel.

Il aborde ensuite le problème de la conversion du brevet additionnel en brevet principal en cours de procédure jusqu'à la délivrance du brevet européen définitif. M. Roscioni désire que la question soit élargie en cas inverse.

Le Comité de rédaction rédigera une proposition sur cette question qui sera examinée lors de la session de Munich.

Article 29

La deuxième variante est supprimée.

Articles 41 à 47

Pour ces articles, le Comité de rédaction rédigera un texte sur la base des propositions françaises.

Article 49

Cet article est maintenu ainsi que les romarques. La question posée devra être tranchée par le Comité de coordination.

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL

" Brevets "

Deuxième Partie : COMPTES RENDUS

Avant-projet de convention relatif à un droit européen des brevets

Page 110

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 111

Il soumet une suggestion semblable à celle de jonsieur Roscioni a savoir la possibilité d'installer un bureau d'informations de l'Office européen des brevets a proximité des officos nationaux. i. van Bonthem estime qu'uno telle possibilité pourrait être utile. Sepencant il se demanda si une tolla possibilité existerait sans disposition expresse dans la Convintion. "Il voit un certain risqua dans le fait es donner au Jonceil d'administration ls pouvoir d'établir une décentralisation du service. i. de iuyser at Pfanner appruivent la déclaration de M. van Bonthem.

Le Président remarque que le groupe sst d'accord et souhaito l'éta( blissement d'un bureau auprès des officos nationaux qui donnerait des informations officílles concernant la procédure européenne. insuito, il faudrait savoir comment procéder a l'établissement de cos bureaux. Il parait évident que l'établissement des centres d'informations ne comporte pas une décentralisation des compétences de l'Office europén. Néanmoins un tel établissexant devrait être prévu dans la. Convontion. i. Roscioni souhaito que le groupe do travail soumette des propositions détaillées à ce sujet au Comité de Coordination.

La délégation française se déclare prête à élaborer de telles propositions au sujet des articles concernant l'organisation de l'Office pour la préparation de la 5 ème session du groupe.

L'article 43 sst transmis au Comité de rédaction qui ajoutera la 3ème variante proposéc par i. Pressonnet. L'opinion du groupe selon laquelle l'Office européen ne devrait pas être décentralisé n'apparaitra que dans le compte rendu.

Discussion de l'article 44 de l'avant-projet. appuyé par M. Pressonnet i. Roscioni prééérsait né pas distinguer dans le texte de la Convention entre langues officielles et langues de travail. Il lui parait sohaitable d'indiquer dans los divers articles concernant les actes de l'Office européen quelles langues devraient être utilisées.

Page 112

Les détails de la question doivent Etre réglés par la Convention générale.

L'articlo 42 est transmis au Comité de rédaction.

Discussion de l'articla 43 de l'avant-projet.

Le Président demande l'avis du groupe sur la question do savoir quelle variant de cet article dovrait Etrs adoptée. Il a joutu qu'il lui somblc de loin préférable d'adoptar la promière variante selon laquelle le siege do l'Office auropéon serait fixé par la Convention même. Sinon des difficultés semblables a celles roncontrées par lo iarché commun pourraient se présenter lors do la détermination du siego.

Los délégations italionns, allemande et néerlandaiso so prononcent en faveur de la première variante. M. Pressonnet sans émettre d'objections contre cotto première variante suggère d'en prévoir une troisième qui ferait dépendro la détermination du siège d'une décision dos gouvernoments des stats contractants.

Le groupe est d'ecord avec cotto suggestion. Il décide on outro de ne pas encore prendre position au sujet d'une autre question posée par le Président quant a la nécessité de fixor le siège de l'Office européen dans un lieu où il y a un offico a examen préalable, étant donné la néossité pour l'Office curopéen d'utiliser au moins dans le stado de constitution la documentation do ce dernier. Quant a la nécessité do contraliser l'Office curopéen des brevets en oxcluant la possibilité d'amorcer los services dans les différents itats membros, 2. Pressonnot romarqua qu'une décontralisation do l'Office européen lui somblc étro impossiblo. Il rappollo cependant la proposition de li. Boscioni d'employor des fonctionnaires de langues différentes dans les divors offices nationaux de la propriété industricllo.

GRONPE DE TRAVAIL

" Brevots "

Deuxième Partie : COMPTES RENIUS

Avant-projet de convention relatif à un droit européen des brevets

Page 114

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL

" Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 1 février 1962

Confidentiel

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

IV/215/62-F

Page 115

Ad article 43.

Biège.

1) Documents de base. a) Traité de la C.E.E., article 2 I6. b) Convention de la Haye révisée concernant la création d'un Bureau international des brevets, article 16. c) Convention d'union de Paris, article 13. 2) Remarques.

La première variante est calquée sur l'article 16 de la convention de La Hayo révisée concernant la création d'un Bureau international des brevets.

La deuxième variante est très proche quant à sa teneur de la disposition contenue dans le traité de la C.E.E., selon laquelle "le siège des institutions de la Communauté est fixé du commun accord des gouvernements des Etats membres.

Page 116

Outre les articles consacrés à l'organisation de l'office européen des brevets, les membres du groupe de travail ont également reçu, en vue de la préparation de la quatrième réunion, un organigramme provisoire de l'office européen des brevets.

PREMIERE PARTIE

Le brevet européen Troisième section L'Office européen des brevets.

Remarques préliminaires concernant les articles 41 à 49a.

Une partie des dispositions relatives à l'organisation de l'Office européen des brevets a déjà été arrêtée par le groupe de travail. Il s'agit des dispositions concernant l'organisation des diverses chambres de décision de l'Office uropéen des brevets. D'autres dispositions de cette section relatives à la division de l'administration des brevets, au registre européen des brevets et aux publications de l'Office européen des brevets ont été transmises aux membres du groupe de travail dans le document intitulé "articles divers" du 15 novembre 1961 .

Les articles 4 I à 49 a , soumis dans le présent document, contiennent des dispositions relatives à la nature juridique, au statut juridique, au siège aux langues officielles ainsi qu'aux privilèges et immunités. Ils traitent en outre de la direction de l'office, de problèmes relatifs à la non-observation des devoirs de la fonction ou à la responsabilité et de la couverture des dépenses de l'office européen des brevets ainsi que de la perception de taxes par cet office.

Plusieurs dispositions mentionnent le Conseil d'Administration comme organe chargé d'exercer un contrôle sur l'Office européen des brevets et auquel il sera accordé certains pouvoirs lui permettant d'arrêter des règlements. Le terme "Conseil d'administration" est placé entre crochets dans le projet pour indiquer que l'avant-projet ne doit nullement préjuger l'étude ultérieure de la question de savoir à quel organe ces prérogatives seront accordées dans le cadre de la convention relative au droit européen des brevets.

Page 118

Kurt Haertel.

Remarques

concernant le pramier avant-projet de convention relatif à un droit européen des brevets

   -1-1-

Articles 4 I à 60

[^0] [^0]: [ Articles 4I à 49a ]

Page 119

Article 43 Siège

Première variante:

L'Office européen des brevets a son siège a ..........

Deuxième variante: Le siège de l'Office européen des brevets est fixé par le Conseil d'administration?

Page 120

IV/8926/61-F Orig. : D

Kurt Haertel Bonn, 158 décembre 1961 CONFIDENTIEL

Promicr projet de convention

relative a un droit européen dos brevets

Articlos 41 a 60 [Articles 41 a 49 s]

Page 121

Der Vorsitzende weist darauf hin, daß das Zusatzpatent mit dem Hauptpatent erlösche. Eine Ausnahme bestehe nur bei der Nichtigkeit. In diesem Fall erlösche das Hauptpatent gegen den Willen seines Inhabers. Dazu komme die Ausnahme des Verzichts, um dem Erfinder ein Nichtigkeitsverfahren zu ersparen.

Herr van Benthem meint, da für das Zusatzpatent keine Jahresgebühren bezahlt werden müßten, liege darin ein schwerer Verstoß gegen dieses System. Die Großindustrie werde eine Unzahl von Zusatzpatenten anmelden, um die Zahlung der Jahresgebühren für jedes Hauptpatent zu sparen.

Der Vorsitzende erwidert, in seinen Augen sei die Begrenzung der Leesdauer des Zusatzpatents ein ausreichendes Hindernis.

Außerdem hätten sich 4 Delegationen gegen die Zahlung von Jahresgebühren für das Zusatzpatent ausgesprochen.

Der Vorsitzende kommt sodann auf das Problem der Umwandlung des Zusatzpatents in ein Hauptpatent im Laufe des Verfahrens bis zur Erteilung des endgültigen europäischen Patents.

Herr Roscioni meint, das Problem solle auf den umgekehrten Fall erweitert werden.

Der Redaktionsausschuß wird beauftragt, hierzu einen Vorschlag auszuarbeiten, der in der Münchener Sitzung erörtert werden soll.

Artikel 29 Die 2. Alternative wird gestrichen.

Artikel 41 bis 47 Der Redaktionsausschuß wird beauftragt, hierzu einen dem französischen Vorschlag entsprechenden Text auszuarbeiten.

Artikel 49 Der Artikel und die Anmerkungen werden beibehalten. Der Koordinationsausschuß soll das hier aufgeworfene Problem behandeln.

Page 122

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Zweiter Teil : SITZUNGSBERICHTE

Arbeitsentwurf eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Page 123

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 22. Mai 1962 VERTRAULICH

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

3076/IV/62-D Orig.: F

Artikel 43

Sitz

1. Alternative :

Das Europäische Patentamt hat seinen Sitz in 2. Alternative :

Der Sitz des Europäischen Patentamts wird vom [Verwaltungsrat] bestimmt. 3. Alternative :

Der Sitz des Europäischen Patentamts wird im Einvernehmen zwischen den Regierungen der Vertragsstaaten bestimmt.

Bemerkung : Die Arbeitsgruppe hat sich dafür ausgesprochen, dem Europäischen Patentamt zu ermöglichen, soweit erforderlich, dezentralisierte Auskunftsstellen zu eröffnen.

Page 125

ARDSITSGBUPPE "Patente"

Erster Toil : T E X T E N T W U R F E

Arbeitsentwurf eines Abkommons über ein curopäisches Patentrecht

Page 126

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 1. Februar 1962 VERTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der vierten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 8. bis 19. Januar 1962 in Drüse1

Page 127

Herr Fressonnet weist die Gruppe darauf hin, dass nach dem Artikel des allgemeinen Abkommen, der dem Abkommensentwurf im Entwurf anliegt, der Verwaltungsrat hierfür zuständig sein soll.

Solange Absatz 2, der später in das allgemeine Abkommen übernommen werden soll, im Entwurf stehen bleibt, hält es der Vorsitzende zur Vermeidung von Unklarheiten für zweckmässiger, hier anzugeben, welche Stelle zuständig ist.

Artikel 37 (47) Der Redaktionsausschuss hatte in Absatz 3 dieses Artikels hinzugefügt, dass die Abteilungsleiter auf Vorschlag des Präsidenten des Amtes vom Verwaltungsrat ernannt worden:

Nach Ansicht von Herrn Fressonnet sollte sich die Ernennungs- und Disziplinargewalt des Verwaltungsrates auf sehr hochgestellte Beamte beziehungsweise richterliche Beamte beschränken. Er schlage daher vor, die Ernennung der Abteilungsleiter dem Präsidenten des Patentamtes zu überlassen.

Die Gruppe schloss sich dieser Meinung an und entschied, Artikel 37 Abs. 3 dementsprechend zu ändern. Die Bemerkung wurde gestrichen.

Artikel 36 (46) Durch die Lösung des Problems in Artikel 37 ist auch die durch Artikel 36 aufgeworfene Frage praktisch bereits geregelt. Der Hinweis auf Artikel 37 betrifft hiernach nur noch richterliche Beamte, die der Disziplinargewalt des Präsidenten nicht unterstehen können. Letzterer soll jedoch auch hier das Recht behalten, dem Verwaltungsrat Disziplinarmassnahmen vorzuschlagen.

Page 128

Artikel 33(43+43 a) Der Vorsitzende stellt die Frage, ob die Gruppe der Streichung der dritten Fassung zuatimmt; diese Vorschrift könne nämlich, falls sie angenommen würde, die praktische Durchführung des Abkommens erheblich erschweren.

Herr Pfanner ist für die Streichung. Nach Mitteilungen von Sachverstăndigen des Bundesjüstizministeriums würde die dritte Lösung zumindest in der Bundesrepublik zur Folge haben, dass die Zustimmungserklärung der Regierung hinsichtlich des Sitzes des Patentantes dem Parlament zur Ratifizierung vorgelegt werden müsste, weil es von der Festlegung des Sitzes gleichzeitig für gerisse Fragen abhăngt, welches Recht anzuwenden ist. Er fügte hinzu, dass die deutsche Delegation die erste Fassung bevorzuge, aber auch der zweiten zustimmen könne.

Herr Roscioni ist mit der Streichung der dritten Fassung einverstanden und spricht sich ausdrücklich für die zweite Fassung aus mit dem Zusatz, dass der Sitz vom Verwaltungsrat einstimmig gewăhlt werden solle.

Herr Fressonnet hält zwar ebenfalls die dritte Fassung für undurchführbar, schlägt aber vor, sie dennoch stehen zu lassen, um deutlich zu zeigen, dass die Gruppe alle in Frage kommenden Lösungen erörtert habe. Aus diesen formalen Gründen scheine ihm dieser Weg dem Koordinierungsausschuss gegenüber zweckmässiger.

Die Gruppe nahm diesen Vorschlag an, beschloss aber in der Bemerkung deutlich zum Ausdruck zu bringen, dass ihr die dritte Fassung undurchführbar scheine.

Der Redaktionsausschuss wurde ausserdem beauftragt, in der zweiten Fassung das Wort "einstimmigen" hinzuzufügen.

Zu Artikel 33 Abs. 2 bemerkt der Vorsitzende, man müsse angeben, welche Stelle für die Schaffung der Dienststellen des Europäischen Patentamts zustăndig sein soll.

Page 129

che Begrenzung für auct nach außen wirkende Handlungen des Präsidenten (z.B. Vertretung des Aztes in Rechtsstreitigkeiten) zu ernsten Schwierigkeiten führen, insbesondere in des durchaus wahrscheinlichen Fall, daß der Verwaltungsrat seizen Sitz nicht im selben Staat haben sollte wie das Amt selbst. Die Groppe schloß sich den Ausführungen des Vorsitzenden an und beschloß, den Text innerhalb der eckigen Klammern in Absatz 3 zu streichen und sie Anmerkung stehen zu lassen.

Mit diesen Änderungen wurde der Artikel angenommen. Artikel 33(43+43 a) Die Prüfung dieses Artikels wurde bis zur Ankunft der französischen Delegation zurückgesteilt.

Artikel 34 (44) Die Gruppe stellt einstimmig fest, daß in Absatz 2 der Ausdruck "in Sprache dieses Landes" in sem Sinne zu verstehen sei, daß die amtliche Sprache bzw. die amtlichen Sprachen dieses Staates gemeint sind. Der Artikel wurde angenommen.

Artikel 35 (45) Dieser Artikel wurde zine weitere Bemerkungen angenommen. Artikel 36 (46) Der Vorsitzende machte einige Bemerkungen zu der deutschen Fassung dieses Artikels. Ferner hielt er in Absatz 2 unter h) eine weitergehende Fassung für erforderlich; am auszudrücken, daß der Präsident seine Befugnisse übertragen köme. Die Gruppe beschloß daraufhin, das Wort "gewisse" zu streichen und durch "seine" zu ersetzen. Die anschließende Bemerkung sowie auch die Bemerkung unter dem nachfolgenden Artikel sollen in Gegenwart der französischen Delegation erörtert werden.

Der Artikel wurde angenommen. Artikel 37 (47) Der Artikel wurde mit Ausnahme der Bemerkung angenommen.

Page 130

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 31. Juli 1962 Vertraulich

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

Artikel 33(43+43 a)
Sitz und Informations- oder Verbindungsstellen

(1)

1. Fassung:

Das Europäische Patentamt hat seinen Sitz in 2. Fassung:

Der Sitz des Europäischen Patentamts wird vom [Verwaltungsrat] bestimmt. 3. Fassung:

Der Sitz des Europäischen Patentamts wird im Einvernehmen zwischen den Regierungen der Vertragsstaaten bestimmt. (2) Bei den Zentralbehörden für den gewerblichen Rechtsschutz der Vertragsstaaten oder bei / dem Internationalen Patentinstitut in Den Haag7 können, soweit erforderlich, Dienststellen des Europäischen Patentamts zu Informations- oder Verbindungszwecken geschaffen werden. (3) Die Schaffung dieser Dienststellen kann vorgesehen werden, um den Bedürfnissen des Europäischen Patentamts, der Vertragsstaaten oder / des Internationalen Patentinstituts7 zu genügen.

Bemerkung:

Die dritte Fassung des Absatzes 1 hat den Nachteil, daß sie in gewissen Staaten eine Zustimmung des Parlaments zu der von den Regierungen zu schließenden Vereinbarung erforderlich macht.

Page 132

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" Redaktionsausschuss

Brüssel, den 26. Mai 1962

STRENG VERTRAULICH

Vor eht w u f eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Page 133

the Office, in so far as, in the interests of the applicants or the patent agents, it did not appear desirable to centralise all appeals at the Patent Office if the examinations were carried out in the various Branches. Another system could consist in arranging to have travelling Members of the Boards of Appeal. The choice between these two suggestions could, however, be made to depend on the needs later revealed by practice.

The Working Party did not discuss the British delegation's suggestions. It was agreed that the British delegation would in due course put in a working document explaining in detail the views which it had set out. Article 33 may therefore be the subject of further discussions on the basis of the Working Party's deliberations on the above-mentioned suggestions.

Article 34 - Languages 56. As regards paragraph 2, it was noted that there must be appropriate provisions to ensure that the translation of an application filed in a language other than one of the three Patent Office languages effectively corresponds to the content of the application itself. 57. Paragraph 4 a) can be discussed further, since the question of whether provision should be made for translation of the applications themselves into the languages of the Contracting States for which protection has been requested is open to review. 58. As regards paragraph 5, see the note in document B R / 5 / 69. It should be noted that the latter is based on the provision in the second sentence of Article 34, paragraph 5 of the EPTA Draft. It will however be

Page 134

of examination on the basis of the official languages in which applications were submitted. Applications drawn up in English could thus be dealt with in Great Britain by a Branch of the European Patent Office as such, independent of the British Patent Office; applications drawn up in German could be examined at a Branch located at, say, Munich, and applications drawn up in French could be examined at a Branch, the location of which remained to be determined. It appeared, in fact, that the examination of applications implied, even more than research work as to novelty, confidential relations between applicant and examiner, and a very sound knowledge of the language of the application by the latter. And it would probably be very difficult to recruit a sufficient number of examiners satisfying these requirements in a single place, in view of the fact that the examiners would probably not be prepared to enter into sufficiently long contracts in a foreign country.

Recognising that it was important to avoid different practices being adopted in the Branches of the European Patent Office as such, the British delegation believed that this problem, which would arise anyway, even within the single Office, could be solved by appropriate measures, such as ensuring close liaison between examiners of the different Branches and the Office itself, central instructions put out by the Office, checks carried out by the Patent Office on the various Branches, and, finally, meetings which could be arranged between different examiners in the same field.

As regards appeals, it might be appropriate to provide that Members of the Boards of Appeal be attached to the Branches of

Page 135

Article 33 - Location and branches for information and liaison 54. The Working Party adopted the first variant appearing in the 1965 Draft, considering it necessary, for practical reasons, for the location of the Patent Office to be fixed by the time of the signature of the Convention.

As regards the wording of paragraph 2, the Working Party deleted the expression "by unanimous decision" to be found in the 1965 Draft, on the understanding that reference is made to the later provisions governing the Administrative Ucuncil as regards the procedure by which the latter will adopt its decisions.

In addition, the Working Party was of the opinion that, for reasons of expediency, it would be advisable to restrict to the Contracting States the possibility afforded by the provisions of paragraph 2 of creating branches for information and liaison. However, the provisions relating to the Administrative Council could provide that the latter may, where appropriate, conclude agreements with non-Contracting countries should this prove necessary.

Finally, the Working Party decided to delete paragraph 3 of the 1965 Draft, since the expression "if need be", appearing in paragraph 2, seemed to be adequate. 55. The British delegation set out its ideas on the setting up of Branches of the European Patent Office as such, independently of the question of the location of the Office itself. In its opinion, these Branches would not act as information and liaison agencies, but would be competent to take decisions in the same way as the central European Patent Office.

It noted in this respect that, for reasons of efficiency, it seemed appropriate to distribute the tasks

M I N U T E S

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

I

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

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

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

Page 137

(2) Duroh einstimmigen Beschluss des [Verwaltungsrats] können bei den Zentralbehörden für den gewerblichen Rechtsschutz der Vertragstaaten oder bei [dem Internationalen Patenlinstitut in Den Haag], soweit erforderlich, Dienststellen des Europäischen Patentamts zu Informations- oder Verbindungszwecken geschaffen werden. (3) Die Schaffung dieser Dienststellen kann vorgesehen werden, um den Bedürfnissen des Europäischen Patentamts, der Vertragstaaten oder [des Internationalen Patentinstituts] zu genügen.

Bemerkung

Die dritte Fassung des Absatzes 1 macht in gewissen Staaten die Zustimmung des Parlaments zu einer vom Abkommen unabhängigen Vereinbarung erforderlich, die sich ausschliesslich auf die Bestimmung des Sitzes bezieht.

Artikel 34 Sprachen (1) Das Europäische Patentamt bedient sich vorbehaltlich der nachstehenden Vorschriften der deutschen, der englischen und der französischen Sprache. (2) Die Personen mit Sitz oder Wohnsitz im Hoheitsgebiet eines der Vertragstaaten, dessen Sprache in Absatz 1 nicht genannt ist, und die Angehörigen dieses Staats mit Wohnsitz im Ausland können europäische Patentanmeldungen in der Sprache dieses Staats einreichen. Jedoch muss eine Ubersetzung in eine der in Absatz 1 genannten Sprachen innerhalb einer Frist von einem Monat von der Anmeldung an gerechnet eingereicht werden. (3) Vorbehaltlich der in der Ausführungsordnung zu diesem Abkommen vorgesehenen Ausnahmen ist die Sprache der europäischen Patentanmeldung oder im Fall des Absatzes 2 diejenige der Ubersetzung in allen Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt zu verwenden. Muss ein Schriftstück vor Ablauf einer Frist vorgelegt werden, so finden die Bestimmungen des Absatzes 2 mit der Massgabe entsprechende Anwendung, dass die Ubersetzung in der Verfahrenssprache eingereicht wird. (4) Die Eintragungen in das europäische Patentregister werden in den in Absatz 1 genannten drei Sprachen vorgenommen. In Zweifelsfällen ist die Eintragung in der Sprache der Anmeldung massgebend. (5) Die Patentschriften europäischer Patente werden in der Sprache der Anmeldung oder im Fall des Absatzes 2 in der Sprache der Ubersetzung veröffentlicht; sie enthalten eine Ubersetzung der Ansprüche in die beiden anderen in Absatz 1 genannten Sprachen. (6) Das Europäische Patentblatt wird in den drei in Absatz 1 genannten Sprachen veröffentlicht. (7) Das Amtsblatt des Europäischen Patentamts wird gemäss der Ausführungsordnung zu diesem Abkommen in einem Teil in allen Sprachen der Vertragstaaten und in einem anderen Teil in den drei in Absatz 1 genannten Sprachen veröffentlicht.

KAPITEL I
RECHTSSTELLUNG UND ALLGEMEINE ORGANISATION

Artikel 31 Rechtsstellung (1) Das Europäische Patentamt ist eine gemeinsame Einrichtung der Vertragstaaten mit verwaltungsaässiger und finanzieller Selbständigkeit. (2) Die Tätigkeit des Europäischen Patentamts wird vom [Verwal tungorat] überwaOht.

Bemerkung

Dieser Artikel lässt die Frage offen, ob das Europäische Patentamt von einer umfassenderen internationalen Einrichtung abhängig sein soll, deren Kontrollorgan der Verwaltungsrat sein würde. Diese Kontrolle würde unter den Bedingungen ausgeübt werden, die im Allgemeinen Abkommen festgelegt werden.

Artikel 32 Rechtsnatur (1) Das Europäische Patentamt besitzt Rechtspersönlichkeit. (2) Das Europäische Patentamt besitzt in jedem Vertragstaat die weitestgehende Rechtsund Geschäftsfähigkeit, die juristischen Personen nach dessen Rechtsvorschriften zuerkannt ist; es kann insbesondere bewegliches und unbewegliches Vermögen erwerben und veräussern sowie vor Gericht stehen. . (3) Der Präsident des Europäischen Patentamts vertritt das Europäische Patentamt gerichtlich und aussergerichtlich.

Bemerkung

Hinsiohtlich Absatz 3 wird zu prüfen sein, ob und in welohem Umfang die Befugnisse des Präsidenten in finanziellen Fragen einer Ermächtigung durch den Verwaltungsrat unterworfen werden sollen.

Artikel 33 Sitz und Informations- oder Verbindungsstellen (1)

1. Fassung

Das Europäische Patentamt hat seinen Sitz in 2. Fassung

Der Sitz des Europäischen Patentamts wird durch einstimmigen Beschluss des [Verwaltungstats] bestimmt.

3. Fassung

Der Sitz des Europäischen Patentamts wird im Einvernehmen zwischen den Regierungen der Vertragstaaten bestimmt.

Page 139

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

YOINIEFUNGSAUSSCHUSSAUF DEM GEBIET GENERBLICHEN RECHTSSCHUTZES EINI:ZT O:I DEN MITGLIEDSTAATEN UND iER KIMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN, WIRTSCHAFTSGEMEINSCHAFT

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

COORDINATIE-COMITE OP HET GEBIED VAN DE INDUSTRIELE EIGENDOM INGESTELD DOOR DE LIG-STATEN EN DE COMMISSIE VAN DE EUROPESE ECONOMISCHE GEMEENSCHAP

AVANT-PROJET DE CONVENTION

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

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

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

VOORONTWERP VERDRAG

betreffende een Europees octrooirecht opgesteld door de werkgroep "octrooien"

Page 140

(3) The creation of these Branches may be decided upon in order to meet the needs of the European Patent Office or those of Contracting States or the [International Patents Institute at The Hague].

Note: The third variant of paragraph 1 will in certain countries require the approval on the part of Parliament of an agreement independent of the Convention and exclusively relating to determining the location of the European Patent Office.

Article 34. Languages

(1) Subject to the following provisions, the languages in use at the European Patent Office shall be English, French and German. (2) Persons having their registered place of business or ordinary residence within the territory of one of the Contracting States, the language of which is not referred to in paragraph 1, and nationals of that State who are resident abroad, may file applications for European patents in the language of that State. Nevertheless, a translation in one of the languages referred to in paragraph 1, must be produced within a period of one month from the date of filing. (3) Subject to the exceptions provided for in the Implementing Regulations, the language of an application for a European Patent or, in the case referred to in paragraph 2, that of the translation, must be used in all dealings with the European Patent Office. If a document has to be produced before the expiration of a time limit, the provisions of paragraph 2 shall correspondingly apply, provided that the translation is produced in the language of the proceedings. (4) Entries in the Register of European Patents shall be made in the three languages referred to in paragraph 1. In cases of doubt, the entry in the language of the application shall be authentic. (5) The printed specifications of European patents shall be published in the language of the application or, in the case referred to in paragraph 2, in that of the translation; they shall include a translation of the claims into each of the other two languages referred to in paragraph 1. (6) The European Patent Bulletin shall be published in the three languages referred to in paragraph 1. (7) The Official Journal of the European Patent Office shall be published partly in all of the languages of the Contracting States and partly in the three languages referred to in paragraph 1, in conformity with the Implementing Regulations.

Article 35. Privileges and Immunities

The European Patent Office and its officials and other employees shall enjoy in the territory of Contracting States those privileges and immunities which are necessary to the carrying out of their tasks in accordance with the terms of the provisions laid down in a special protocol.

Article 31. Legal status

(1) The European Patent Office is an organisation common to the Contracting States and endowed with administrative and financial autonomy. (2) The activities of the European Patent Office shall be controlled by the [Administrative Council].

Note: This Article does not touch on the question whether the European Patent Office shall be dependent on a broader international insutution of which the Administrative Council would be the controlling body. Such control would be carried out under the conditions laid down by the general convention.

Article 32. Legal Character

(1) Thr. European Patent Office shall be a legal entity. (2) In each of the Contracting States, the European Patent Office shall have the maximum legal capacity given to legal entities by the national law; in particular, it may acquire or transfer immovables and movables and institute proceedings in its own name. (3) The President of the European Patent Office shall exercise the legal capacity of that Office.

Note: With regard to paragraph 3, the question will have to be examined, whether and to what extent the competency of the President in financial matters ought to be subject to the authority of the Administrative Council.

Article 33. Location of Head Office and of Branches for information and liaison (1) Ist Variant

The European Patent Office shall be located at 2nd Variant The location of the European Patent Office shall be determined by unanimous decision of the [Administrative Council].

3rd Variant

The location of the European Patent Office shall be determined by common agreement on the part of the Contracting States. (2) By unanimous decision, the [Administrative Council] may, if need be, create Branches of the European Patent Office for the purpose of information and liaison, in conjunction with the central industrial property services of the Contracting States or in conjunction with the [International Patents Institute at The Hague].

Page 142

BOARD OF TRADE

Translation of a Draft Convention relating to a European Patent Law

LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE FIVE SHILLINGS NET

Page 143

Der Vorsitzende weist darauf hin, daß das Zusatzpatent mit dem Hauptpatent erlösche. Eine Ausnahme bestehe nur bei der Nichtigkeit. In diesem Fall erlösche das Hauptpatent gegen den Willen seines Inhabers. Dazu komme die Ausnahme des Verzichts, um dem Erfinder ein Nichtigkeitsverfahren zu ersparen.

Herr van Benthem meint, da für das Zusatzpatent keine Jahresgebühren bezahlt werden müßten, liege darin ein schwerer Verstoß gegen dieses System. Die Großindustrie werde eine Unzahl von Zusatzpatenten anmelden, um die Zahlung der Jahresgebühren für jedes Hauptpatent zu sparen.

Der Vorsitzende erwidert, in seinen Augen sei die Begrenzung der Leesdauer des Zusatzpatents ein ausreichendes Hindernis.

Außerdem hätten sich 4 Delegationen gegen die Zahlung von Jahresgebühren für das Zusatzpatent ausgesprochen.

Der Vorsitzende kommt sodann auf das Problem der Umwandlung des Zusatzpatents in ein Hauptpatent im Laufe des Verfahrens bis zur Erteilung des endgültigen europäischen Patents.

Herr Roscioni meint, das Problem solle auf den umgekehrten Fall erweitert werden.

Der Redaktionsausschuß wird beauftragt, hierzu einen Vorschlag auszuarbeiten, der in der Münchener Sitzung erörtert werden soll.

Artikel 29 Die 2. Alternative wird gestrichen.

Artikel 41 bis 47 Der Redaktionsausschuß wird beauftragt, hierzu einen dem französischen Vorschlag entsprechenden Text auszuarbeiten.

Artikel 49 Der Artikel und die Anmerkungen werden beibehalten. Der Koordinationsausschuß soll das hier aufgeworfene Problem behandeln.

Page 144

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Zweiter Teil : SITZUNGSBERICHTE

Arbeitsentwurf eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Page 145

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 22. Mai 1962 VERTRAULICH

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

3076/IV/62-D Orig.: F

Page 146

Er unterbreitet einen ähnlichen Vorschlag wie Herr Roscioni, nämlich dem Europäischen Patentamt die Möglichkeit zu geben, bei den nationalen Patentämtern Auskunftsstellen einzurichten.

Herr van Benthem hält eine solche Möglichkeit für nützlich. Er fragt sich jedoch, ob hierzu nicht eine ausdrückliche Bestimmung im Abkommen erforderlich sei. In der Befugnis des Verwaltungsrats zur Dezentralisierung der Dienststellen sieht er eine gewisse Gefahr.

Herr De Muyser und Herr Pfanner stimmen Herrn van Benthem zu. Der Präsident stellt fest, dass die Gruppe einverstanden ist und dass bei den nationalen Patentämtern eine amtliche Auskunftsstelle über das europäische Verfahren eingerichtet werden soll. Sodann müsse geklärt werden, wie man bei der Einrichtung dieser Auskunftsstellen vorgehen solle. Offensichtlich führe die Eröffnung von zentralen Auskunftsstellen nicht zu einer Dezentralisierung der Zuständigkeiten des Europäıschen Patentamts. Trotzdem müsse die Einrichtung solcher Stellen im Abkommen vorgesehen werden.

Herr Roscioni regt an, die Arbeitsgruppe solle den Coordinierungsausschuss detaillierte diesbezügliche Vorschläge unterbreiten.

Die französische Delegation erklärt sich bereit, derartige Vorschläge für die Artikel über die Gliederung des Patentamts für die Vorbereitung der fünften Sitzung auszuarbeiten.

Artikel 43 wird an den Redaktionsausschuss übermiesen, der die dritte, von Herrn Fressonnet vorgeschlagene Alternative hinzufügen soll. Die Auffassung der Gruppe, wonåch das Europäische Patentamt nicht dezentralisiert werden darf, soll nur im Bericht festgehalten werden.

Erörterungen zu Artikel 44 des Vorentwurfs

Herr Roscioni, unterstützt von Herrn Fressonnet, hält es für zweckmässiger, im Abkommen nicht zwischen Amts- und Arbeitssprachen zu unterscheiden, sondern in den einzelnen Bestimmungen über die Rechtshandlungen des Europäischen Patentants anzugeben, welche Sprache angewendet werden muss.

Page 147

Umfang der Vertretungsbefugnis zurückgestellt wird. Die Frage soll in ihren Einzelheiten im allgemeinen Abkommen geregelt werden.

Artikel 42 wird an den Redaktionsausschuss überwiesen.

Erörterungen zu Artikel 43 des Vorentwurfs

Der Präsident bittet die Gruppe um Stellungnahme, welche Fassung dieses Artikels angenommen werden solle. Er selbst hält die erste Fassung, wonach der Sitz des Europäischen Patentamts durch das Abkommen selbst bestimmt wird, bei weitem für die günstigste. Andernfalls könnten bei der Bestimmung des Sitzes ähnliche Schwierigkeiten auftreten wie für den Gemeinsamen Markt.

Die italienische, deutsche und niederländische Delegation sprechen sich für die erste Fassung aus.

Ohne gegen diese erste Fassung Einwendungen zu erheben, regt Herr Fressonnet eine dritte Alternative an, wonach der Sitz Gurch eine Entscheidung der Regierungen der Vertragsstaaten bestimmt wird.

Die Gruppe ist mit diesem Vorschlag einverstanden. Zu einer weiteren, vom Präsidenten aufgeworfenen Frage über die Notwendigkeit, als Sitz des Europäischen Patentamts den Sitz eines Patentamts zu bestimmon, das eine vorhergehende Prüfung kenne, weil das Europäische Patentamt zumindest in der Aufbauzeit auf die Dokumentation dieses Patentamts zurückgreifen müsse, soll noch nicht Stellung genommen werden. Hinsichtlich der Notwendigkeit, das Europäische Patentamt dadurch zu zentralisieren, dass eine Inanspruchnahme der Dienststellen in den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten ausgeschlossen wird, bemerkt Herr Fressonnet, dass er eine Dezentralisierung des Europäischen Patentamts nicht für möglich halte. Er erinnert jedoch an den Vorschlag von Herrn Roscioni, bei den einzelnen nationalen Behörden für den gewerblichen Rechtsschutz Beamte verschiedener Sprachen zu verwenden.

Zweiter Teil : SITZUNGSBERICHTE

Arbeitsentwurf eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patontrecht

Page 149

ARBEITSGHUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 1. Februar 1962 VERTRAULICH

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

Zu Artikel 43

Sitz

1. Materialien: a) EWG-Vertrag, Art. 216; b) revidiertes Haager Abkommen über die Errichtung eines internationalen Patentbüros, Art.16; c) Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft, Art. 13. 2. Bemerkungen:

Die erste Alternative ist dem Art. 16 des revidierten Haager Abkommens über die Errichtung eines internationalen Patentbüros nachgebildet.

Die zweite Alternative kommt inhaltlich der im EWG-Vertrag niedergelegten Bestimmung nahe:"Der Sitz der Organe der Gemeinschaft wird im Einverständnis zwischen den Regierungen der Mitgliedsstaaten bestimmt."

Page 151

keiner Weise präjudiziert werden soll.

Neben den Artikeln, die sich mit der Organisation des Europäischen Patentamts beschäftigen, ist den Mitgliedern der Arbeitsgruppe zur Vorbereitung der nächsten Sitzung auch ein vorläufiges Organisationsschema für das Europäische Patentamt zugegangen.

Erster Teil

Das europäische Patent 3. Abschnitt

Das Europäische Patentamt Vor b e m e rkung zu Artikel 41 bis 49 a

Ein Teil der Vorschriften über die Organisation des Europäischen Patentamts ist von der Arbeitsgruppe bereits verabschiedet worden. Es handelt sich um die Vorschriften, die sich mit der Organisation der verschiedenen Spruchkammern des Europäischen Patentamts befassen. Weitere Vorschriften dieses Abschnitts über die Patentverwaltungsabteilung, das Europäische Patentregister und die Veröffentlichungen des Europäischen Patentamts sind den Mitgliedern der Arbeitsgruppe mit dem Dokument "Verschiedene Artikel" vom 15. November 1961 zugegangen.

Die mit dem vorliegenden Dokument vorgelegten Artikel 41 bis 49 a enthalten Bestimmungen über Rechtsnatur, Rechtsstellung, Sitz, Amtssprachen sowie Vorrechte und Befreiungen. Sie behandeln ferner die Leitung des Amts, Fragen der Amtspflichtverletzung oder Haftung und die Deckung der Ausgaben des Europäischen Patentamts sowie die Erhebung von Gebühren durch dieses Amt.

In mehreren Bestimmungen ist als Organ, das die Aufsicht über das Europäische Patentamt führen und eine gewisse Verordnungsgewalt eingeräumt erhalten soll, der Verwaltungsrat genannt. Das Wort "Verwaltungsrat" erscheint im Entwurf in Klammern, um anzudeuten, daß der späteren Prüfung der Frage, welchem Organ im Rahmen des Abkommens über das europäische Patentrecht entsprechende Befugnisse eingeräumt werden sollen, durch den arbeitsentwurf in

VERTRAULICH!

B e m e r k un g e n
zu dem ersten Arbeitsentwurf
eines Abkommens
über ein europäisches Patentrecht
Artikel 41 bis 60
Artikel 41 bis 49a

Artikel 43

Sitz

1. Alternative:

Das Europäische Patentamt hat seinen Sitz in 2. Alternative:

Der Sitz des Europäischen Patentamts wird vom (Verwaltungsrat 7 bestimmt.

VERTRAULICH!

Erster Arbeitsentwurf
eines Abkommens
über ein europäisches Patentrecht
Artikel 41 bis 60
Artikel 41 bis 49 a7

Page 156

Art. 6 MPO

Entwurf, der dem nebenstehenden Dokument zugrunde liegt	Art. Nr. im Entwurf/ Dokument	Dokument, in dem der Art. behandelt wird	Fundstelle im Dokument
1972	6	M/47/I/II/III	S. 1
	6	M/59/I/II	S. 1
	6	M/130/II/R 6	S. 3
	6	M/146/R 1	Art. 6
	6	M/PR/II	S. 148110

Page 157

22. The Austrian and German delegations endorsed the United Kingdom delegation's proposal. 23. The French and Luxembourg delegations, on the other hand, expressed a measure of doubt. For reasons of consistency, they considered it preferable to refrain from associating the exercise by the Organisation of its legal capacity, which was strictly a matter for paragraph 2, with the completely different question of the conferral upon the President of authority to represent the legal person constituted by the Organisation in its dealings with the outside world. 24. The IIB delegation pointed out that the United Kingdom delegation's intention was precisely that of extending the scope of paragraph 3 which, as it stood in the draft form, was confined to the exercise of legal capacity, to embrace the wider concept of representation. 25. In view of these additional clarifications the Committee adopted the United Kingdom delegation's proposal unanimously with one abstention.

Article 6 - Seat

26. When presenting its proposal as set out in M/59/I/II, the French delegation pointed out that Section I of the draft Protocol on Centralisation stipulated that the Member States of the IIB undertook to take all necessary steps to incorporate into the European Patent Office upon the opening of the latter all assets and liabilities and all staff members of the IIB. This would require the Administrative Council to decide upon amendments to the Convention and the Implementing Regulations thereto prior to the opening of the European Patent Office, in order to make allowance for the transfer of tasks from the IIB to the Directorate-General for Searching at the European Patent Office. The French delegation proposed that provision be made in the Convention itself for the incorporation of the IIB into the European Patent Office. A decision in principle along these lines would necessitate amending Article 6, paragraph 2, as follows: "(2) The European Patent Office shall be set up at Munich. It shall have a branch at The Hague comprising the Receiving Section and the Search Divisions." 27. The Austrian, Belgian, German, Netherlands and United Kingdom delegations supported the French proposal. 28. The Chairman noted that none of the delegations had expressed any objection to the decision in principle on placing the incorporation of the IIB in the Convention itself. 29. With reference to Article 6, paragraph 2, second sentence, the French delegation stated that the proposed wording would not involve any substantive alteration, as the text stipulated that the Receiving Section would be situated at The Hague and thus took account of the fact that the entire procedure up to the request for examination would be conducted there. 30. The Netherlands delegation concurred with this view. 31. The United Kingdom delegation supported the proposal in principle, although it wondered whether the Receiving Section would also be competent to deal with divisional applications submitted in the course of the procedure. In this context it referred to Articles 73 (75) and 74 (76) of the Convention. 32. The German delegation drew attention to the decisions taken by Main Committee I with regard to Articles 73 (75) and 74 (76), whereby it would be possible to file European patent applications either-in-Munich or at the branch at The Hague. 33. The Chairman noted that this part of the French delegation's proposal as contained in M/59/I/II was also adopted by the Committee and referred it to the Drafting Committee.

Article 7 - Sub-offices of the European Patent Office

34. The French delegation submitted in M/59/I/II a minor drafting change involving the deletion of the reference to the IIB from Article 7. 35. The Chairman noted that this amendment followed from the decision taken as regards the incorporation of the IIB and referred the proposal to the Drafting Committee.

(a) Paragraphe 2

36. The Luxembourg delegation presented its proposal contained in M/9, point 4. 37. The German delegation had no substantive objections to the proposal, although it considered that the clarification requested by the Luxembourg delegation was superfluous. Under German law, for example, it was quite clear that the legislation of the State concerned was applicable not only for determining the extent but also the principle itself of liability. 38. The Luxembourg delegation withdrew its proposal in view of the statement by the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany.

(b) Paragraph 4

39. The United Kingdom delegation further proposed that paragraph 4(a) should specify that jurisdiction would fall to the courts of the Federal Republic of Germany unless another court or national law were designated. The aim of this supplementary qualification was to ensure not only that the court with jurisdiction could be accurately identified, but also that the parties concerned would be free to determine the law applicable in their contract. 40. The Austrian and French delegations expressed reservations with regard to the proposal on the grounds of the structure of the Article, pointing out that the provisions establishing the law applicable were set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 . 41. In view of these comments the United Kingdom delegation withdrew its proposal. 42. The Committee called upon the Rapporteur to provide an explanation of the purport of this provision in his report to the Plenary in order to take account of the comments submitted by the Luxembourg delegation in M/9, point 5. 43. The Committee referred to the Drafting Committee the German delegation's proposal contained in M/47, point 37.

(a) Paragraph 2(a)

44. The Committee recorded its agreement to the proposal by the German delegation in M/47/I/II/III, point 14, in view of the fact that Main Committee I had accepted corresponding proposals by the same delegation on Articles 73 (75), paragraph 1(a), and 74 (76), paragraph 1 (see M/PR/I, point 198).

(b) Paragraph 3

45. The Committee agreed to the Luxembourg delegation's proposal in M/9, point 6, that in addition to the term "absence", express mention be made of indisposition of the President. 46. The Belgian delegation then submitted its proposal in M/33, point 1, whereby in his absence or in the event of his being indisposed, one of the Vice-Presidents would take the