Art107eTPEPC1973

Métadonnées

• Nom affiché : Art107eTPEPC1973
• Numéro d'article : 107
• Dossier / langue : English
• Tag langue : #English
• PDF original : Articles/English/Articles 101-125/Article 107 (English version)/Art107eTPEPC1973.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. 107 MPO Beschwerdeberechtigte und Verfahrensbeteiligte

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.	92	IV/6514/61	S. 2
IV/6514/61	92	IV/3076/62	S. 158
VE 1962	107	6498/IV/64	S. 39

Dokumente der MDK

E 1972	106	M/9	S. 32
"	106	M/14	S. 92
"	106	M/54/I/II/III	S. 17
"	106	M/109/I/R 5	S. 9
"	106	M/146/R 4	Art. 107
"	106	M/PR/I	S. 52/53
"	106	M/PR/G	S. 202

Minutes of the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole

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

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

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

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

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

II. Report on the work of Main Committee II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4

might be burdened with the costs of the second proceedings which he had not even wanted. The present draft should not therefore be amended. 437. In reply to the FICPI delegation's question, the United Kingdom delegation expressed the opinion that the unwilling party - even if not actively participating - was a party to the proceedings and should therefore be taken into consideration when costs were awarded; the Board of Appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal would naturally bear in mind when awarding costs that his participation had occurred unwillingly. As regards the UNION delegation's example of an unfavourable ruling in appeal proceedings, the partial success in the proceedings of the first instance, i.e. the limitation of the patent, would be forfeit if the Board of Appeal were to decide that the contested patent were to remain in full force. In such a case the inactive party should also have to bear a part of the costs since his contention would also have been rejected by the ruling in the proceedings of the second instance. The awarding of costs in this case should be left to the discretion of the Board of Appeal which would certainly find an appropriate solution. 438. The Chairman admitted that the results described could in fact occur; he pointed out, however, that the substantive decision by the Board of Appeal could also be in the opponent's favour. In that event the decision awarding costs would also have to be changed, naturally also in favour of parties which had not taken part in the appeal proceedings. 439. The Netherlands delegation noted that Article 103 (104) laid down the principle that each party to proceedings should meet the costs he incurred and that only to the extent that reasons of equity demanded it could a different apportionment of costs be ordered. The delegation thought that even if this amendment were accepted the Board of Appeal would decide the award of costs fairly on the basis of this provision. 440. The Austrian delegation asked that a decision on this point be postponed so that it could have the opportunity to examine this problem again in collaboration with its legal experts. 441. Since no other delegation wished to have this matter decided immediately, the Chairman postponed a decision on Article 106. 442. When dealing with this Article at a subsequent meeting the Chairman again brought up the proposal by the Member States of the European Communities (M/14, point 7) and asked for a detailed explanation of it. 443. The representative of the Legal Service of the Council of the European Communities adduced the following in explanation: firstly, as a general principle, a party to the proceedings of the first instance should not be permitted to withdraw from the proceedings of the second instance. An illustration should make this clear: suppose that opposition proceedings ended with the revocation of the patent; the applicant, who has appealed against this decision, manages to have it reversed. It was impossible for the opponent to avoid his rôle as a party to the proceedings of the second instance, since the ruling given in the proceedings of the first instance was not yet conclusive as far as he was concerned, and could, as the illustration showed, be completely reversed. Otherwise the abstaining party could adopt the position that because he had decided not to participate in further proceedings he could not be affected by the reversal of any decision.

Secondly, there were also practical difficulties, particularly as regards costs, as was illustrated by the following example. Suppose there were two opponents. One of them declared himself satisfied with the limitation of the patent, but the appeal lodged by the other opponent or by the proprietor of the patent ended with the restitution of the patent in its original scope, thus naturally entailing a redistribution of costs.

However, in the view of the EEC Member States, there was no justification at all for exempting from these costs that party which had not participated in the appeal proceedings. The possibility of abandoning the right to take part in the appeal proceedings should therefore be excluded.

This obviously did not mean that every party had to take an active part in the proceedings of the second instance; it merely had to be ensured that, if the decision of the first instance were amended, no uncertainty in the law should ensue. 444. The Austrian delegation requested additional information as to whether consideration had been given to the legal implications or the possibility that, under this solution, a party might be forced against its will to take part in proceedings. 445. The Chairman replied that the legal experts on the EC Working Party had examined the proposal and, to his knowledge, had raised no objections. 446. The Main Committee adopted the proposal of the Member States of the European Communities.

Article 107 (108) - Time limit and form of appeal

447. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the Luxembourg delegation (M/9, point 19). 448. The United Kingdom delegation proposed that the original combined time limit of three months for the filing of an appeal and for setting out the grounds on which it was based should be replaced by two separate time limits, that is, two months for the former and three months for the latter, both running from the date of notification of the decision appealed from (M/64/I, page 1). The appeal fee would also have to be paid within the period for filing the appeal. Experience in Great Britain had shown that, with a combined time limit, appeals were frequently filed at the last minute, so that no time remained for setting out the grounds on which they were based. 449. Referring to its comments in M/22 (point 34), the CEIF delegation said that it, too, was in favour of two separate time limits. However, it considered that the period for setting out the grounds of the appeal should be longer, i.e. up to six months after the date fo notification. 450. The UNICE delegation was likewise in favour of the two separate time limits but considered that a period of three to four months would be sufficient for setting out the grounds of the appeal. The appeal fee should be paid within the period for filing. 451. Referring to the suggestion it had put forward in M/21 (point 9), the UNION delegation expressed similar views. It favoured a period of two months for filing and of four months for setting out the grounds on which the appeal was based, both of them running from the date of notification. It would be undesirable for the period for setting out the grounds of appeal to run from the date of filing of the appeal, since the European Patent Office would then have to inform the appellant of the date on which the appeal was filed. 452. The CNIPA delegation supported the UNION proposal. 453. The COPRICE delegation, referring to its comments in M/16 (point 12), considered that the period for setting out the grounds of appeal should be longer than a mere three months, and that it should be permissible for the appeal fee to be paid after the expiry of the period for filing. 454. On the latter point, the United Kingdom delegation said that this would mean appeals being filed regardless of the related costs, and found such a solution unacceptable. 455. The FEMIPI delegation was in favour of a period of two months for filing and of four months for setting out the grounds of appeal, both to run from the date of notification. Given the possibility of postal delays in Europe, the three months

Page 5

420. The EIRMA delegation suggested that Article 104 (105) be completely deleted. Discussion of the length of time to be allowed for filing opposition had shown that nobody wanted to extend this period more than was necessary for legal certainty. There was a danger here in the case of intervention that the opposition procedure might be held up. At the moment, however, there was no need to provide for intervention since the assumed infringer could both file opposition within the permitted period and/or initiate an action for revocation in national courts. If Article 104 were to be retained, the time limits set for the grant and opposition procedures would have to be reconsidered in the interests of the research-oriented industries. 421. The Chairman replied that no extension proper of these periods was involved since opposition proceedings had to be in progress already. Article 104 was intended to protect third parties, against whom proprietors of patents had not initiated infringement proceedings until after the expiry of the period allowed for filing opposition, from having to initiate revocation proceedings in a number of national courts. He further noted that the suggestion that Article 104 be deleted had not been taken up by the delegation of any Government. 422. In response to the Swiss delegation's supplementary proposal, the French delegation said that there was no provision in French law for actions intended to produce such negative rulings. It also wondered whether there was not a certain difference between the present provisions of paragraph 1, which the French delegation understood as being in the interest of the proprietor of the patent, and the Swiss delegation's proposal, which might in fact cause the procedure to be more drawn out than before. In the event of a vote on the matter the French delegation would probably abstain. 423. The Chairman concluded by establishing that no Government Delegation opposed the Swiss proposal and that the proposal was therefore adopted.

Article 105 (106) - Decisions subject to appeal

424. The Main Committee adopted a proposal by the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany that paragraph 1 be amended to the effect that appeals should also lie from decisions of the Legal Division (M/47/I/II/III, points 6 and 17). 425. The Main Committee noted a proposal by Member States of the European Communities that a new paragraph be included (see M/14, point 6). 426. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a proposal by the Luxembourg delegation (M/9, point 17) and two proposals by the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany (M/11, points 28 and 29) concerning the wording of paragraph 2. 427. With the support of the Netherlands and Austrian delegations, the Swedish delegation suggested that in paragraph 4, because of the minimum permitted amount for an appeal against a decision fixing the amount of costs, no reference be made to the Implementing Regulations; the minimum amount should be fixed by the Convention itself or a second possibility - by the Rules relating to Fees (see M/54/I/II/III, page 16). As regards the figure for this minimum amount, consideration might be given to fixing it at three times the opposition fee, which had been fixed at present at 20 UA (equal to about DM 140.00). If three times the opposition fee were reached or exceeded, then it would no longer be a question of a small amount, and appeals against decisions fixing the amounts of costs would be in order. 428. The United Kingdom delegation reminded the meeting that the appeal fee would also be high and was expected to be 50 UA . If the minimum payment were fixed at three times the opposition fee, i.e. 60 UA , then nobody would, in practice, make use of the possibility of making an appeal. In its view the best solution was not to allow any appeal at all against decisions fixing the amounts of costs since they were purely discretionary. 429. The French delegation opposed the Swiss delegation's proposal on the grounds that it might not be wise to fix an amount in the Convention; it preferred an amount to be laid down in the Implementing Regulations since then it could be more easily changed. If it were done in this way, the French delegation could agree to three times the amount of the opposition fee. 430. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany did not think that the minimum permitted amount for an appeal should be linked to the opposition fee. The opposition fee could be fixed in accordance with widely differing criteria and might perhaps in the course of time undergo changes. Moreover, it would be preferable not to fix a minimum payment in the Convention so that it might be more easily changed. For these reasons the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany could not support the Swiss delegation's main proposal. 431. After the Swiss delegation had withdrawn its main proposal in a subsequent meeting, the Main Committee accepted its alternative proposal that the minimum permitted amount for appeals be fixed in the Rules relating to Fees; at the same time it deleted Rule 64 (63), paragraph 5.

Article 106 (107) - Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to appeal proceedings

432. The Main Committee referred drafting proposals by the Luxembourg (M/9, point 18) and Swiss (M/54/I/II/III, page 17) delegations to the Drafting Committee. 433. The Member States of the European Communities proposed that in the second sentence the words "with the exception of those who have abandoned that right" be deleted (M/14, point 7). 434. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany thought that the aim of this proposal was for parties to proceedings of the first instance also to be entitled to take part in the appeal proceedings. Most national regulations governing civil proceedings included provisions embodying this principle. The present draft, on the other hand, could lead to difficulties in the allocation of costs in appeal proceedings. If one of the parties to the proceedings of the first instance were able to drop appeal proceedings, it might well be that the other party would have to bear the full costs in the event of a court's ruling in its favour. Such an outcome was naturally not desirable; the power to drop appeal proceedings should therefore be ruled out. 435. The FICPI delegation asked whether a party to proceedings who was convinced of the hopelessness of an appeal could be compelled to take part in appeal proceedings and thereby run the danger of being required, possibly years later, to contribute to costs. 436. The UNION delegation thought that that would be an unjustifiable burden. By way of illustration it gave the following example: proceedings brought by two opponents has led to the limitation of the patent. One of the opponents is content with that result; the other, however, wants the whole patent to be revoked and starts appeal proceedings. If all parties were bound to be party to the appeal proceedings, it could happen that in the event of an unfavourable ruling the first opponent

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING

UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM

FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS (Munich, 10 September to 5 October, 1973) published by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

Article 106^6|c·†

Persons entitled to appoal and to be parties to appeal proceedings Any party to proceedings adversely affected by a decision may appeal. Any other parties to the proceedin on shall be partics to the appeal proceedings as of right.

Page 8

EPR 1135173

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 30 September 1973

M/ 146/R 4

Original: English/French/German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: General Drafting Committee

Subject: Convention: Articles 84 to 111

Page 9

Article 106 Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to appeal proceedings Any party to proceedings adversely affected by a decision may appeal. Any other parties to the proceedin on shall be parties to the appeal proceedings as of right.

Page 10

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

- 1973 - 1

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

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

Articles of the Convention: Articles 58 . 62 68 71 87 95 102 105 106 107 109 123

Rules of the Implementing Regulations: Rules 13 16 34 59

Article 106

Proposal: The German text should be aligned on the two other texts in order to make it clear in the German as well that the abandonment of the right to be a party to the proceedings relates to the appeal proceedings.

Reason: This is purely a drafting proposal. The word "diesem" (1) in the second sentence refers back to the proceedings mentioned in the first sentence which led to the disputed decision, i.e. to the proceedings in the departments of the first instance. The abandonment of the right to be a party to the proceedings however relates to the appeal proceedings and not to the proceedings in the first instance. (1) Only concerns German text.

Page 12

EPR 1002173

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 10 September 1973

M/54/I/II/III

Original: German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: The Swiss delegation

Subject: Proposals for amendments to the draft texts

Page 13

Es sollte ein neuer Absatz 1 a folgenden Wortlauts eingefügt werden: ,(1a) Eine Beschwerde gegen die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung kann auch eingelegt werden, wenn für alle benannten Vertragsstaaten auf das europäische Patent verzichtet worden ist oder das europäische Patent für alle Vertragsstaaten erloschen ist."

Begründung:

Dieser Vorschlag bildet einen Zusatz zu dem Vorschlag für einen neuen Absatz 2 a Artikel 98 (siehe Punkt 4). Eine solche Bestimmung braucht nicht unbedingt erforderlich zu sein, wenn man davon ausgeht, daß die Beschwerde unabhängig von der Frage gegeben ist, ob das Patent, das Gegenstand der angefochtenen Entscheidung ist, noch gilt oder nicht. Es dürfte jedoch zweckmäßig sein, diese Möglichkeit ausdrücklich vorzusehen, damit nicht aus dem Fehlen einer dem Artikel 98 Absatz 2 a entsprechenden Bestimmung im Umkehrschluß gefolgert werden kann, daß man die Beschwerde in diesem Falle ausschließen wollte.

7 Artikel 106

Die Worte ,,mit Ausnahme derjenigen, die auf ihre Beteiligung an diesem Verfahren verzichtet haben" im letzten Satz sollten gestrichen werden.

Begründung:

Derjenige, der an dem Verfahren beteiligt war, das zu der angefochtenen Entscheidung geführt hat, bleibt am Beschwerdeverfahren beteiligt; bei diesem Grundsatz sollte es sein Bewenden haben, damit Schwierigkeiten insbesondere für den Fall vermieden werden, daß die Beschwerdeinstanz die Entscheidung der Vorinstanz auch hinsichtlich der Verteilung der Kosten auf die Beteiligten ändern sollte. Die Worte, deren Streichung vorgeschlagen wird, könnten als Abweichung von diesem Grundsatz aufgefaßt werden, was indes nicht beabsichtigt ist. Vielmehr soll ausgedrückt werden, daß die Beteiligung der Parteien des Verfahrens der Vorinstanz am Beschwerdeverfahren nicht bedeutet, daß jeder am Beschwerdeverfahren aktiv teilnehmen muß; dies braucht aber nicht ausdrücklich bestimmt zu werden.

8 Artikel 133 Absätze 2 und 3

a) - im englischen Text sollte der Ausdruck ,,registered place of business" durch den Ausdruck ,seat" ersetzt werden (1);

- im französischen Text sollte der Ausdruck ,,établissement" durch den Ausdruck ,,siège" ersetzt werden. Außerdem sollte der letzte Satz des Absatzes 3 wie folgt lauten: „... Le Conseil d’ad-

It is proposed that a new paragraph 1a worded as follows be inserted: "(1a) An appeal may be filed against the decision of the Opposition Division even if the European patent has been surrendered or has lapsed for all the designated States."

Reason:

This proposal supplements the proposal for a new paragraph 2a in Article 98 (see point 4 above). Such a provision may be unnecessary if it is felt that the right to appeal remains open irrespective of whether or not the patent which was the subject of the contested decision is still in force. However, it would appear preferable to lay down an express provision for this possibility in order to avoid the danger of it being claimed, by means of an argument a contrario, that the absence of a provision corresponding to Article 98, paragraph 2a, is an indication of an intention to exclude appeals in such cases.

7 Article 106

It is proposed that the words "with the exception of those who have abandoned that right" in the last sentence should be deleted.

Reason:

It was considered that parties to proceedings resulting in a decision against which an appeal is filed continue to be parties to the appeal proceedings ipso jure and that this principle must be retained to avoid difficulties particularly where the appeals body amends the decision of the lower instance and such amendment also relates to the division of costs between the parties. The words which it is proposed to delete could be interpreted as a departure from this principle. This was not the intention; the intention was to make it clear that although the parties to the proceedings before the lower instance are recognised as parties to the appeal proceedings, this does not mean that persons not wishing to take an active part in the latter proceedings will be forced to do so: this is however clear without any express provision being necessary.

8 Article 133, paragraphs 2 and 3

(a) It is proposed that:

- in the English text, the words "registered place of business" be replaced by "seat" (1); - in the French text, the word "établissement" be replaced by "siège". In addition the last sentence of

Page 14

Original: Deutsch/Englisch/Französisch English/French/German Allemand/Anglais/Français

STELLUNGNAHME

DER MITGLIEDSTAATEN DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN

COMMENTS

BY THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

PRISE DE POSITION DES ÉTATS MEMBRES DES COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES

Page 15

entscheidung anfechtbar, sofern nicht die Stelle, die die Entscheidung getroffen hat, die sofortige Beschwerde in der Entscheidung zugelassen hat.") Die Verwendung des Wortes ,,instance" zur Wiedergabe des Wortes „Stelle" hatte die luxemburgische Delegation bereits früher vergeblich beanstandet (vgl. auch Artikel 451 Zivilprozeßordnung von 1806).

Vorschlag:

Der französische Text erhält folgende Fassung: ,,(2) Une décision qui ne met pas fin à une procédure à l'égard d'une des parties ne peut être attaquée par un recours que conjointement avec le recours contre la décision finale, à moins que la décision attaquée n'ait autorisé un recours immédiat".

Artikel 106 - Beschwerdeberechtigte und Verfahrensbeteiligte

18 Die französische Fassung könnte zu einer falschen Auslegung führen. Der Ausdruck ,,pour autant" (,,soweit"), gefolgt vom Konjunktiv, gibt die Idee des Umfangs der Beschwerdebefugnis nur unzureichend wieder; diese Wendung könnte lediglich bedeuten, daß die Beschwerdemöglichkeit überhaupt davon abhängt, daß das eine oder andere Begehren ganz zurückgewiesen worden ist, während man doch ausdrücken will, daß der „Devolutiveffekt" der Beschwerde die Entscheidung in dem Maße erfaßt, als ein Begehren zurückgewiesen worden ist.

Vorschlag:

Der französische Text erhält folgende Fassung: „Toute partie ... peut recourir contre cette décision dans la mesure où elle lui cause tort et grief".

Artikel 107 - Frist und Form (der Beschwerde)

19 Die Formulierung der französischen Fassung ,,Le recours doit être formé par écrit auprès de l'Office..." dürfte terminologisch kaum annehmbar sein. Außerdem wird dadurch, daß in dieser Fassung in einem besonderen Gliedsatz hinzugefügt wird ,,il (le recours) doit être motivé" [sie (die Beschwerde) ist zu begründen], scheinbar die Möglichkeit eröffnet, die Begründung später nachzureichen.

Vorschlag:

Der französische Text erhält folgende Fassung: ,,Le recours doit être introduit auprès de l'Office" oder ,,Le recours est à porter devant l'Office . . .; il est formé par un écrit motivé . . ." oder (noch besser): „Le recours doit, par un écrit motivé, être déclaré à l'Office . . .". scheidung anfechtbar, sofern nicht die Stelle, die die Entscheidung getroffen hat, die sofortige Beschwerde in der Entscheidung zugelassen hat."). The use of the term "instance" (department) to render the word "Stelle" was criticised in vain in previous interventions by the Luxembourg delegation. (See Article 451, 1806 Civil Procedural Code).

Proposal:

State: "(2) Une décision qui ne met pas fin à une procédure à l'égard . . . la décision attaquée n'ait autorisé un recours immédiat" (A decision which does not terminate the proceedings as regards one of the parties can only be appealed together with the appeal against the final decision unless the former decision allows an immediate appeal).

Article 106 - Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to appeal proceedings

18 The French text could give rise to an erroneous interpretation. The expression "pour autant" followed by the subjunctive inadequately expresses the idea of proportionality since this turn of phrase could be taken to mean simply that the principle of an appeal being made is subject to a party being adversely affected by the decision, whereas the intention is that the decision should not be subject to the effect "devolving" from an appeal except as concerns those of its parts adversely affecting a party.

Proposal:

State: "Toute partie . . . peut recourir contre cette décision dans la mesure où elle lui cause tort et grief" (English text unchanged).

Article 107 - Time limit and form of appeal

19 In the French text the phrase "Le recours doit être formé par écrit auprès de l'Office..." (An appeal must be filed in writing at the European Patent Office) is hardly acceptable from the terminological point of view. Furthermore the fact that "it (the appeal) must set out the grounds on which it is based" is given in a separate phrase seems to open the possibility that the grounds may be stated in a subsequent document.

Proposal:

State: "Le recours doit être introduit auprès de l'Office" (An appeal must be submitted to the European Patent Office) or "Le recours est à porter devant l'Office...; il est formé par un écrit motivé . . ." (An appeal must be brought before the European Patent Office . . .; it must be filed in the form of a reasoned statement . . .) or (perhaps preferably): "Le recours doit, par un écrit motivé, être déclaré à l'Office..." (An appeal must be notified to the European Patent Office in the form of a reasoned statement).

Page 16

Original: Französisch French Français

M/9 28. März 1973 28 March 1973 28 mars 1973

STELLUNGNAHME

DER LUXEMBURGISCHEN REGIERUNG

COMMENTS

BY THE LUXEMBOURG GOVERNMENT

PRISE DE POSITION DU GOUVERNEMENT LUXEMBOURGEOIS

ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS 1973

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

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

CONFÉRENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

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

STELLUNGNAHMEN

zu den vorbereitenden Dokumenten herausgegeben von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

COMMENTS

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

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

Artikel 105

Beschwerdefähige Entscheidungen (1) Die Entscheidungen der Eingangsstelle, der Prüfungsabteilungen und der Einspruchsabteilungen sind mit der Beschwerde anfechtbar. Die Beschwerde hat aufschiebende Wirkung. (2) Eine Entscheidung, die ein Verfahren gegenüber einem Beteiligten nicht abschließt, ist nur zusammen mit der Endentscheidung anfechtbar, sofern nicht die Stelle, die die Entscheidung getroffen hat, die sofortige Beschwerde in der Entscheidung zugelassen hat. In diesem Fall läuft die Beschwerdefrist vom Tag der Zustellung dieser Entscheidung an. (3) Die Verteilung der Kosten des Einspruchsverfahrens kann nicht einziger Gegenstand einer Beschwerde sein. (4) Eine Entscheidung über die Festsetzung des Betrags der Kosten des Einspruchsverfahrens ist mit der Beschwerde nur anfechtbar, wenn der Betrag eine in der Ausführungsordnung bestimmte Höhe übersteigt.

Vgl. Regeln 13 (Aussetzung des Verfahrens), 14 (Beschränkung der Zurücknahme der europäischen Patentanmeldung), 64 (Kosten) und 91 (Unterbrechung des Verfahrens)

Artikel 106

Beschwerdeberechtigte und Verfahrensbeteiligte Die Beschwerde steht denjenigen zu, die an dem Verfahren beteiligt waren, das zu der Entscheidung geführt hat, soweit sie durch die Entscheidung beschwert sind. Die übrigen an diesem Verfahren Beteiligten mit Ausnahme derjenigen, die auf ihre Beteiligung an diesem Verfahren verzichtet haben, sind am Beschwerdeverfahren beteiligt.

Artikel 107

Frist und Form Die Beschwerde ist innerhalb von drei Monaten nach Zustellung der Entscheidung schriftlich beim Europäischen Patentamt einzulegen und zu begründen. Die Beschwerde gilt erst als eingelegt, wenn die Beschwerdegebühr entrichtet worden ist.

Vgl. Regeln 65 (Inhalt der Beschwerde) und 70 (Feststellung eines Rechtsverlusts)

PART VI

APPEALS PROCEDURE

Article 105

Decisions subject to appeal (1) An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Receiving Section, Examining Divisions and Opposition Divisions. It shall have suspensive effect. (2) A decision which does not terminate proceedings as regards one of the parties can only be appealed together with the final decision, unless the department taking the decision allows in the decision immediate appeal. In this case, the time limit for filing the appeal shall run from the date of notification of the decision. (3) The apportionment of costs of opposition proceedings cannot be the sole subject of an appeal. (4) A decision fixing the amount of costs of opposition proceedings cannot be appealed unless the amount is in excess of that laid down in the Implementing Regulations.

Cf. Rules 13 (Suspension of proceedings), 14 (Limitation of the option to withdraw the European patent application), 64 (Costs) and 91 (Interruption of proceedings)

Article 106

Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to appeal proceedings Any party to proceedings adversely affected by a decision may appeal. Any other parties to the proceedings shall be parties to the appeal proceedings as of right, with the exception of those who have abandoned that right.

Article 107

Time limit and form of appeal An appeal must be filed in writing at the European Patent Office within three months after the date of notification of the decision appealed from; it must set out the grounds on which it is based. An appeal shall not be deemed to be filed until after the fee for appeal has been paid.

Cf. Rules 65 (Content of the appeal) and 70 (Noting of loss of rights)

MÜNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ

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

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

CONFERENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

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

VORBEREITENDE DOKUMENTE

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

PREPARATORY DOCUMENTS

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

DOCUMENTS PRÉPARATOIRES

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

Page 20

parle de répartition des frais alors que le texte allemand vise simplement une décisicr relative aux frais.

Le Président remarque cu'il s'agit' là d'un problème rédactionnel. En effet, du point de vue du fond, cette question est résolue par l'article 166 dont il résulte que les recours en cette matière ont toujours pour résultat une répartition des frais. Le groupe décide de confier au Comité de rédaction la tâche de faire concorder les deux textes du paragraphe 3. Le groupe s'interroge ensuite sur le point de savoir si la deuxième phrase du paragraphe 3 est bien nécessaire. Ene signifie qu'une décision sur la répartition des frais prise is lément ne peut jamais faire l'objet d'un recours. Le Comité de rédaction est également chargé d'examiner cette question.

Article 206 Pas de commentaires. Article 107 Cet article traite des personnes admises à former le recours. Il débute par ces mots : "Quiconque a participé à la procédure". Le Royaume-Uni estime que ce "quiconque" devrait être précisé à savoir le titulairé du brevet et les tiers au sens de l'article 96, 2.

Le Président observe que d'autres tiers peuvent intervenir, ceux qui par exemple auraient demandé la publication d'un dossier. La portée de ce "quiconque" doit donc se dégager selon la procédure dont il s'agit. En conclusion, le groupe estime qu'il serait inutile et même dangereux de changer l'expression "quiconque a participé".

Article 108 Cet article traite des délais de recours. Le recours doit être formé par écrit dans un délai de deux mois après la signification de la décision et il doit être dûment motivé, prévoit le texte. Afin de clarifier la discussion, le Président série les questions. I propose au groupe d'examiner tout d'abord le délai à prévoir pour l'introduction du recours, indépendamment de la question

Page 21

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

6498/IV/64-F-déf. Bruxelles, le ler août 1964 Confidentiel

Résultats de la quatorzième session du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenus à Munich du ler au 12 juin 1964

COMPTES RENDUS

Page 22

he, orwähno die dcutsche Fassung nur die Zntscheidung über die Kosten. Der Vorsitzende bomerkt, daB es sich um ein rodaktionelles Problem handle. In sachlicher Hinsicht worde diese Frage durch Artikel 164 gelöst, woraus hervorsohe, daB oino Boschwerdo auf diosem Gebiet immer oino Teilung. der Kosten zur Folge habe. Die Cruppo beschlicBt, den RedaktionsausschuB damit zu beauftragen, Ubereinstimmung zwischen den beiden Fassungen von Ab- satz 3 herzustellen. Danach befaßt sich die Gruppe mit der Frage, ob der zweite Satz von Absatz 3 wirklich orforderlich ist. Er bodoutot, daB oino Entscheidung über die Kosten des Vorfahrons für sich allein nicht Gegenstand einer Beschwerde bilden kann. Dor RedaktionsausschuB wird auch mit der Prüfung dieser Frage beauftragt.

Artikel 106

Keino Bemerkungen.

Artikel 107

Dioser Artikel behandelt die Beschwerdeberechtigton. Nach Auffassung des Vereinigten Königreichs müBte der Ausdruck "quiconque" dahingehend orläutort worden, daB darunter der Inhaber des Patents und Dritte im Sinne des Artikels 96 Absatz 2 zu vorstehon sind.

Dor Vorsitzende bomorkt, daB auch andere Dritte in Botracht kommen, z.3. solche Personen, die die Veröffentlichung oinor Akte beantragt heben. Die Bedeutung des Ausdrucks "quiconque" hängt von dem Verfahren ab, um das es sich handelt. Dio Gruppe ist folglich der Auffassung, daB es unnötig, ja sogar gefährlich wäre, den Ausdruck "diojonizon, dio an dem Verfahren teilgonommon haben" zu ändorn.

Artikel 108

Diosor Artikel behandelt Frist und Form der Beschwerde. Dio Boschwerde ist nach dioson Artikel innerhalb oinor Frist von 2 Monaten nach Zustollung der Entscheidunz schriftlich einzulegen und zu begründen. Zur Zrlcichterung der Diskussion schlägt der Vorsitzende der Cruppo vor, zunächst die Frist für 6493 / I V / 54-3

Page 23

Brüssel, den 1. August 1964

VERTRULICH

Ergebnisse der 14. Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 1. bis 12. Juni 1964 in München

SITZUNGSBERICHT

Page 24

(4) The effect of the publication referred to in paragraph 3 is to convert the provisional European patent into a final European patent.

Article 102. Hearing before the Examining Division Whenever the Examining Division deems it necessary, it shall, on its own initiative or on request, hear the proprietor or any other party to the proceedings.

Article 103. Publication of a final European patent

At the same time as it publishes the confirmation of the provisional European patent as a final European patent, the European Patent Office shall publish a printed specification of the final European patent containing the description of the invention, together with the drawings.

Article 104. Certificate of a final European patent

(1) As soon as the printed patent specification has been published, the European Patent Office shall issue to the proprietor a certificate for the final European patent to which shall be annexed the printed specification. (2) The certificate shall state that the provisional European patent has been confirmed as a final European patent in the name of the person mentioned in the certificate in respect of the invention described in the printed patent specification.

CHAPTER III—APPEALS

Article 105. Decisions subject to appeal (1) An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Examining Sections, the Examining Divisions and the Patent Administration Divisions. (2) A decision which does not terminate proceedings as regards one of the parties cannot, of itself, be the subject of an appeal. (3) A decision in respect of the allocation of costs of proceedings cannot, of itself, be the subject of an appeal. No appeal shall lie against a decision dealing solely with such allocation. (4) A decision fixing the amount of costs of proceedings cannot be the subject of an appeal unless the amount is in excess of

Note: The appeal procedure should be laid down either in the Convention or in the Implementing Regulations.

Article 106. Effect of appeals

An appeal shall have suspensive effect. Article 107. Persons entitled to appeal and to take part in appeal proceedings Any party to proceedings who was adversely effected by a decision may appeal. The other participants in the proceedings shall be parties to the appeal proceedings, as of right.

Page 25

BOARD OF TRADE

Translation of a Draft Convention relating to a European Patent Law

LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE FIVE SHILLINGS NET

Page 26

Article 99 Cette disposition doit être soumise à l'cxamen des experts des Ministères de la Justice. Le Comité de rédaction formulera une remarque à cot effot.

L'article 100 est adopté.

Article 101

A la majorité, le groupe décide de supprimer cet article. Il semble prématuré d'essaycr de définir les critères de l'intérêt public de la Communauté européenne. On pourrait éventuellement revenir sur unc pareille disposition lors de la lère révision de la Convention. Le Comité de rédaction est chargé d'examiner si la disposition de l'article 24, paragraphe 2 est applicable au cas où des licences obligatoires sont octroyées par des instances nationales ou par des autorités européennes.

Article 102

Le Comité de rédaction examinera si les crochets du paragraphe 1 peuvent être supprimés. La question soulevéo par les crochets insérés au paragraphe 2 doit faire l'objet d'une discussion à Munich.

La délégation française maintient sa réserve. Le Comité de rédaction doit donc retenir la formulation actuelle.

Article 103 Les crochets du paragraphe 1 seront supprimés. La question soulevéo par une réserve italienne et française sera discutéo lors de la prochaine session.

Article 104 Le membre de phrase entre crochets est supprimé. Article 105 La référence entre crochets est supprimés.

Page 27

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 22 mai 1962. Confidentiel

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

Page 28

Der in Abs. 4 eingeklammerte Satz wird wegen der Bestimmune in Art. Abs. 5 gestrichen.

Die Artikel 91 - 98 werden angenommen.

Artikel 99 Diese Vorschrift soll den Justizministern zur Prüfung vorgelegt werden. Der Redaktionsausschuß soll hierzu eine Anmerkung machen.

Artikel 100 wird angenommen.

Artikel 101 Die Mehrheit der Arbeitsgruppe beschließt die Streichung dieses Artikels. Es sei zu früh zu versuchen, die Kriterien des öffentlichen Interesses der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft zu definieren. Man könne eventuell bei der 1. Revision des Abkommens eine solche Bestimmung aufnehmen. Der Redaktionsausschuß soll prüfen, ob Art. 24 Abs. 2 Anwendung findet, wenn von den nationalen oder europäischen Behörden Zwangslizenzen erteilt. worden sind.

Artikel 102 Der Redaktionsausschuß wird mit der Prüfung beauftragt, ob die Klammern in Abs. 1 wegfallen können. Das durch die Klammern in Abs. 2 angezeigte Problem soll in der Münchener Sitzung erörtert werden.

Die französische Delegation bleibt bei ihrem Vorbehalt. Der Redaktionsausschuß muß also die gegenwärtige Formulierung übernehmen.

Artikel 103 Die Klammern in Absatz 1 werden gestrichen. Das durch einen italienischen und französischen Vorbehalt aufgeworfene Problem soll in der nächsten Sitzung erörtert werden.

Artikel 104 Der eingeklammerte Satzteil wird gestrichen.

Artikel 105 Die in Klammern gesetzte Verweisung wird gestrichen.

Page 29

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 22. Mai 1962 VERTRAULICS

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

3076/IV/62-D Orig.: F

Page 30

Bruxelles, le 25 septembre 1961

Article 92 Personnes admises à former le recours

Le recours est ouvert à ceux qui ont participé à la procédure qui a conduit à la décision, pour autant que celle-ci n'ait pas fait droit à leurs prétentions.

Page 31

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL "Brevets"

Bruxelles, 13 novembre 1961 Confidentiel

Résultats de la troisième session du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 25 septembre au 6 octobre 1961

Page 32

Brüssel, den 25. September 1961

Artikel 92 Beschwerdeberechtigte

Die Beschwerde steht denjenigen zu, die an dem Verfahren teilgenommen haben, das zu der Entscheidung geführt hat, soweit sie durch die Entscheidung beschwert sind.

Page 33

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Brüssel, den 13. November 1961 VERTRAULICH

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

Page 34

Discussion de l'article 91 de l'avant-projet de Convention. ∵ Van Benthem se demande si la Convention devrait prévoir la possibilité de faire trancher directement par la deuxième instance certains problèmes à la demande du demandeur du brevet et sous forme de questions préjudicielles.

Le Président lui répond qu'une telle procédure aurait pour conséquence de priver le demandeur du bénéfice de la première instance. De plus, dans toute procédure administrative, la deuxième instance ne peut se prononcer qu'à la suite d'une décision de première instance. Enfin, la procédure de première instance permet d'arriver rapidement à ane décision qui donne lieu à un recours.

En ce qui concerne l'alinéa 2 de l'article 91, M. De Huyser pose la question de savoir si toutes les décisions donnent lieu à un recours.

Le Président explicite que seules les décisions portant sur le fond peuvent donner lieu à un recours. En revanche, les décisions de procédure ne peuvent pas être attaquées séparément par un recours. Il cite l'exemple du refus de l'examinateur d'accorder une prorogation d'un délai imposé au demandeur. Il n'y a pas de recours séparé contre une telle décision.

D'un pointde vue systématique, i. Van Benthem pose la question de savoir s'il n'est pas souhaitable de réunir les articles 91 et 92.

Le groupe décide de revenir sur cette question lors de la toilette de l'ensemble du texte de l'avant-projet.

L'article 91 est transmis au Comité de rédaction.

Page 35

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL "Brevets"

Bruxelles, 13 novembre 1961 Confidontiel

Résultats de la troisième session du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 25 septembre au 6 octobre 1961

rörterunten zu Artikel 91 des Vorentwurfs des Abkommens

Herr Van Benthem stellt die Frage, ob das abkommen die Möglichkeit vorsehen sollte, auf antra des katuntannulders bestimmte Probleme als Vorfra en unmittelbar der zweiten Instanz vorzuleien.

Der Prasident erwidert darauf, dais der Antragsteller bei einem derartigen Verfahren die erste Instans verlieren würde. Ausserdem sei es in jedem Verrallun zverfahren so, dass die zweite Instanz nur im Anschluss an eine Entscheidung der ersten instanz tatig werden könne. Das erstinstanzliche Verfahren ermogliche schliesslich eine schnelle Intecheidung, die durch ein Hechtsmittel angefochten werden. könne.

Zu Artikel 91 absatz 2 stellt Herr De Huyser dis Frage, ob alle Entscheidungen siner Beschwerde unterliegen.

Der Prasident erläutert, dass nur die Intscheidun, on in der Gache selbst angefochten weiden hümen. Die verfahreasrontlichen Entscheidungen seien für sich allein nicht anfechtbar. Als, seispiel nennt: or die ablehnende Eutschciäun des Prüfers, eine dem Antragsteller gesetzte Frist zu verlen,ern. Gegen eine solche Intscheidun, gäbe es kein besonderes Rechtsmittel.

In systematischer Hinsicht stellt Herr Van Benthem die Frage, ob es nicht zweckmässig sei, die Artikel 91 und 92 zusammenzufassen.

Die Gruppe beschliesst, auf diese Frage bei der endgültigen Formulierung der gesamten Bestimmungen des arbeitsentwurfs zurückzukommen.

Artikel 91 wird an den ncdaktionsausschuss uberwiesen.

Page 37

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente"

Brüssel, den 13. November 1961 VERTRAULICH

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

Page 38

systèmes juridiques. Le paragrafhe 2 développe logiquement une idée qui est déjà indiquée à l'article 91, paragraphe 2. Il vise à établir clairement que la question de savoir si une persôñé/a ou non la qualité de participant doit également pouvoir être examinée par la Chambre de recours. L'article 91, paragraphe 2, signifie, entre autres, que la constatation qu'il n'y a pas requête incidente valide au sens de l'article 85 peut faire l'objet d'un recours. L'article 92, paragraphe 2, vise à préciser que ce droit ne peut être rendu inopérant sous prétexte que le recours n'est pas ouvert aux personnes dont la requête incidente a été rejetée pour la raison que ces personnes ne peuvent, faute d'avoir introduit une requête valide, être considérées comme participant à la procédure.

La condition selon laquelle les intérêts du requérant doivent être lésés est également une condition à laquelle la jurisprudence de tous les Etats contractants, semble-t-il, subordonnent la formation d'un recours. Ce principe général de procédure découle de la considération que nul de doit pouvoir saisir les tribunaux, les instances para-judiciaires et les autorités sans motif et sans nécessité. Les intérêts d'une personne ne sont lésés que si la chose demandée par cette personne lui a été refusée.

Page 39

Ad Article 92

Personnes habilitées à former un recours

1. Documents :

IIème règlement d'exécution de la loi suisse sur les brevets, article 65 .

2. Remarques :

Cette disposition do l'avant-projet de Convention limite doublement le nombre des personnes habilitées à former le recours : d'une part, en limitant le droit de recours aux participants à la procédure engagée devant l'Office européen des brevets, d'autre part, on exigeant que les intérêts du requérant soient lésés.

Le recours ne doit être ouvert qu'aux personnes qui participent à la procédure engagée devant l'Office européen des brevets. Cette clause tend à limiter la possibilité de recours aux personnes auxquelles la Convention permet de jouer un rôle dans la procédure engagée à propos de l'affaire considérée. A cet égard, la notion de procédure doit être comprise dans le sens le plus large, c'est à dire qu'il ne s'agit pas seulement de la procédure de délivrance du brevet et de la procédure d'examen; il faut entendre également par là, entre autres, la procédure de désignation de l'inventeur, la procédure de suspension de l'examen en cas d'usurpation (article 19, §4) ainsi que les procédures qui doivent être arrêtées en ce qui concerne la consultation des dossiers et et l'administration des brevets européens définitifs.

Comme la notion de procédure, le terme de "participant" doit être pris dans le sens le plus large. Bien entendu, le cercle des participants est plus large dans ce cas que dans celui de l'article 90 a, paragraphe 2 concernant la procédure d'examen. Dans ce dernier cas, le terme "participant" est expressément limité aux tiers qui ont présenté la requête en examen ou une requête incidente. La limitation de la possibilité de recours aux participants à la procédure est d'usage dans tous les

Page 40

Article 92

Personnes habilitées à former le recours

1) Le recours est ouvert aux participants à la procédure engagée devant l'Office européen des brevets, pour autant que leurs intérêts soient lésés par la décision. 2) Est également considérée comme "participant" au sens du paragraphe 1 la personne dont la participation à la procédure a été rejetée.

Page 41

Kurt Haertel

Bonn, le 28 juillet 1961.

CONFIDENTIEL

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

Articles 91 à 100

IV/5569/61-F Orig.: D.

Page 42

die Antrag auf Prüfung gestellt odor sich dem Prüfungsvorfahren angeschlossen haben. Eine Beschränkung der Beschwerdemöglichkeit auf die an Verfahren Beteiligten ist in allen Rechtssystemen üblich.

Absatz 2 führt einen in Artikel 91 Abs. 2 zum Ausdruck kommenden Gedanken konsequent weiter. Es soll eindeutig festgelegt werden, daß auch die Frage, ob jemand Beteiligter ist oder nicht, von der Beschwerdekammer überprüft werden kann. Artikel 91 Abs. 2 besart u.a., daß die Feststellung, daß kein rechtswirksamer Anschlußantrag gemäß Artikel 85 vorliege, mit der Beschwerde angegriffen werden kann. Artikel 92 Abs. 2 soll klarstellen, daß diese Berechtigung nicht mit der Begründung zu nichte gemacht werden kann, daß dem abgewiesenen Antragsteller auf Anschluß die Beschwerde nicht zustehe, da festgestellt sei, daß er mangels rechtswirksamen Antrag nicht als Beteiligter anzusehen ist.

Auch bei dem Erfordernis der Beschwer handelt es sich um eine von der Rechtsprechung wohl sämtlicher Vortragsstaaten geforderte Voraussetzung für die Einlegung eines Rechtsmittels. Dieser allgemeine Vorfahrensgrundsatz ergibt sich aus der Überlegung, daß Gerichte, gerichtsähnliche Instanzen und Behörden von niemandem ohne Anlaß und Notwendigkeit in Anspruch genommen werden können. Beschwert ist jemand nur dann, wenn ihm das was er beantragt hatte, versagt worden ist.

2u Artikel 92

Beschwerdeberechtigte

1.) Materialien:

Vollziehungsverordnung II zum schweizerischen Patentgesetz, Artikel 65.

2.) Bemerkungen:

Diese Bestimmung des Arbeitsentwurfs begrenzt den Kreis der zur Beschwerde berechtigten Personen in zweifacher Hinsicht, einmal durch Beschränkung auf die an dem Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt Beteiligten, zum anderen durch das Erfordernis einer Beschwer.

Die Beschwerde soll nur den Personen zustehen, die am Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt beteiligt sind. Damit soll die Beschwerdemöglichkeit auf die Personen beschränkt werden, denen das vorliegende abkommen für die in Betracht kommende Angelegenheit eine Stellung im Verfahren einräumt. Der Begriff des Verfahrens ist dabei im weiten Sinn zu verstehen, so daB nicht nur an das Patenterteilungs- und Prüfungsverfahren gedacht ist. Vielmehr fallen unter diesen Begriff z.B. auch das Verfahren zur Nennung des Erfindors, das Verfahren der Aussetzung im Falle der widerrechtlichen Entnahme (Artikel 19 Abs. 4) sowie die noch zu entwerfenden Verfahren über die Akteneinsicht und bei der Verwaltung der endgültigen europäischen Patente.

Wie der Begriff des Verfahrens ist auch hier der Ausdruck "Beteiligter" im weitegten Sinn zu verstehen. NaturgenäB ist der Kreis der Beteiligten im Sinn dieses Artikels weitergezogen als in Artikel 90a Abs. 2 für das Prüfungsverfahren. Dort ist der Ausdruck "Beteiligter" ausdrücklich auf die Dritten beschränkt,

Artikel 92

Beschwerdeberechtigte (1) Die Beschwerde steht den am Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt Beteiligten zu, soweit sie durch die Entscheidung beschwert sind. (2) Als Beteiligter im Sinne des Absatz 1 gilt auch der, dessen Beteiligung am Verfahren abgelehnt worden ist.

KertrauliCHI

Erster Arbeitsentwurf des Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Artikel 91 bis 100

Page 46

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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