Art108eTPEPC1973

Métadonnées

• Nom affiché : Art108eTPEPC1973
• Numéro d'article : 108
• Dossier / langue : English
• Tag langue : #English
• PDF original : Articles/English/Articles 101-125/Article 108 (English version)/Art108eTPEPC1973.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. 108 MPO Frist und Form

Entwurf, der dem nebenstehenden Dokument zugrunde liegt	Art. Nr. im Entwurf/ Dokument	Dokument, in dem der Art. behandelt wird	Fundstelle im Dokument
Vorsch1.d.Vors.	93	IV/6514/61	S. 3
IV/6514/61	93	IV/3076/62	S. 158
VE 1962	108	6498/IV/64	S. 39-41
VE 1965 (Ue)	108	BR/12/69	Rdn. 46
BR/70/70	111	BR/84/71	Rdn. 29
BR/70/70	111	BR/94/71	Rdn. 80
VE 1971 (Ue)	111	BR/135/71	Rdn. 145
VE 1971 (Ue)	111	BR/168/72	Rdn. 132
VE 1971 (Ue)	111	BR/169/72	Rdn. 114

Dokumente der MDK

E 1972	107	M/9	S. 32
"	107	M/15	S. 122
"	107	M/16	S. 140
"	107	M/19	S. 174
"	107	M/20	S. 204
"	107	M/21	S. 218
"	107	M/22	S. 262
"	107	M/23	S. 296
"	107	M/64/I	S. 1
"	107	M/88/I/R 3	S. 9
"	107	M/109/I/R 5	S. 10
"	107	M/146/R 4	Art. 108
"	107	M/PR/1	S. 53/54
"	107	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

proposed by the United Kingdom delegation for setting out the grounds of appeal was not, in its view, sufficient. 456. The EIRMA delegation endorsed the views of the UNICE and UNION delegations. 457. At that juncture the French delegation spoke out in favour of the United Kingdom delegation's proposal, considering it to have the advantage of compelling the potential appellant to decide more quickly whether or not to file an appeal and thus leaving him more time for setting out the grounds of appeal. However, it did not consider advisable the suggestion made by some delegations to extend to six months the period for setting out the grounds of the appeal, since this could only prolong the appeal proceedings unduly. 458. The Netherlands delegation welcomed the separation of the time limits for filing and for setting out the grounds of appeal, as suggested by the United Kingdom delegation. However, in view of the attitudes adopted by the interested circles, it would like the period for setting out the grounds of appeal extended to four months, running from the date of notification. 459. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany supported the more far-reaching proposal put forward by the Netherlands delegation. 460. While supporting the separation of the two time limits, the Italian delegation considered that the period for setting out the grounds of appeal should not exceed four months. It also wondered whether an appeal would have to be rejected as inadmissible if it were filed, but not substantiated, in due time. 461. After the Finnish and Irish delegations had spoken out in favour of the Netherlands delegation's proposal, the United Kingdom and French delegations said they would be willing to agree to a four-month period for setting out the grounds of appeal. 462. The Chairman noted that the Main Committee had come to an agreement as follows: the period for filing an appeal and for setting out the grounds of appeal should be two and four months respectively, each to run from the notification of the decision. The appeal fee had to be paid during the period for filing the appeal. 463. In reply to the question as to what the legal consequences would be if the grounds of appeal were not set out in due time, the Netherlands delegation expressed the view that the appeal would then have to be rejected as inadmissible. 464. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany endorsed this view, drawing attention to Rule 66 (65). 465. The United Kingdom delegation concurred, adding that, in its opinion, the appeal fee should not be refunded in such an eventuality. 466. The Italian delegation wondered whether this solution was totally satisfactory since, by filing an appeal, the appellant did, after all, indicate his dissatisfaction with the contested decision. The appeal should, perhaps, therefore be examined in this case.

Article 108 (109) - Interlocutory revision

467. The United Kingdom delegation proposed that paragraphs 2 and 3 should be brought into line with the agreed amendment of Article 107 (see point 462 and M/64/I, page 1). In particular, the one-month period for the interlocutory revision of the appeal should run from the date of filing of the grounds of appeal and not from the date of the filing of the notice of appeal. 468. The Swiss delegation wondered whether this date was the most suitable one to take as a basis since, within the four-month period for setting out the grounds of appeal, further grounds could be submitted, and the first instance would also have to take them into account. 469. The United Kingdom delegation considered that this problem, which also arose under the existing text of Article 108, could be dealt with as a matter of internal administration, i.e. by the Board referring back to the first instance appeals which had been duly remitted to it one month after filing of the grounds on which the appeal was based. 470. The Chairman noted that, in the Main Committee's view, this question of jurisdiction should be left to the European Patent Office, whereupon the amendment proposed by the United Kingdom delegation was adopted.

Article 109 (110) - Examination of appeals

471. The Main Committee discussed the significance of the existing version of paragraph 3 on the basis of a Norwegian proposal that this paragraph should clearly specify that the application could be deemed to be withdrawn only of the applicant failed to reply to a request of the Board of Appeal in appeal proceedings before the grant of the patent (M/60/I, page 4). 472. The Austrian delegation said it had always taken paragraph 3 to mean that, if the appellant failed to reply to a request of the Board, only the appeal which had been filed, and not the whole application, would be deemed to be withdrawn. 473. This view was shared by the Chairman, who based his interpretation on the words "entsprechend" and "mutatis mutandis" in the German and English texts respectively. Thus, in certain circumstances, the appeal would be deemed to be withdrawn, whereas the fate of the application depended on the contested decision. 474. In contrast, the Netherlands delegation said that it had always taken the reference to Article 95, paragraph 3, to mean that the legal consequence thereof, i.e. the withdrawal of the application, should ensue in appeal proceedings before the grant of the patent. In opposition proceedings, on the other hand, the application was not deemed to be withdrawn and, consequently, the application should not be deemed to be withdrawn either in appeal proceedings within the opposition proceedings. 475. The United Kingdom delegation concurred with the Netherlands delegation. If the purpose of the provision did not emerge sufficiently clearly from the existing version of paragraph 3, then it should be amended. 476. The Austrian delegation pointed out that there was no equivalent in the French text to the words "entsprechend" in the German text and "mutatis mutandis" in the English text. 477. The French delegation replied to this comment by saying that, in French legal terminology, it was not customary to use an expression such as "par analogie" to express the application of a legal consequence to another, similar set of circumstances, but rather to use a formula such as that found here. It maintained, therefore, that there was no discrepancy between the three versions. As for the purpose of paragraph 3, it agreed with the views of the United Kingdom and Netherlands delegations. 478. The Netherlands delegation quoted an example in support of its views. Suppose an applicant appealed against the decision of the Examining Division refusing a patent application. The Board of Appeal deemed that a patent would have to be granted if the applicant limited his claims, and so requested him to do so. If the applicant then failed to reply to this request, the application, not the appeal, should be deemed to be withdrawn, for otherwise the Board of Appeal would have to decide on a further refusal. 479. The Chairman replied that the same result would also be achieved if his views and those of the Austrian delegation prevailed. In the example quoted, if the applicant and the

Page 5

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

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING

UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM

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

Page 7

Article 107^∘L· 8 Time limit and form of appeal Notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the European Patent Office within two months after the date of notification of the decision appealed from. The notice shall not be deemed to have been filed until after the fee for appeal has been paid. Within four months after the date of notification of the decision, a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal must be filed.

Page 8

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 30 September 1973

M/ 146/R 4

Original: English/French/German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: General Drafting Committee

Subject: Convention: Articles 84 to 111

Page 9

- 10 -

For the German text this page replaces page 9 of document M/88/I/R 3

Article 107

Time limit and form of appeal

Notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the European Patent Office within two months after the date of notification of the decision appealed from. The notice shall not be deemed to have been filed until after the fee for appeal has been paid. Within four months after the date of notification of the decision, a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal must be filed.

M/109/I/R 5

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

Articles of the Convention:

Articles 58 . 62 68 71 87 95 102 105 106 107 109 123 Rules of the Implementing Regulations: Rules 13 16 34 59

Page 11

Article 107 Time limit and form of appeal

Notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the European Patent Office within two months after the date of notification of the decision appealed from. The notice shall not be deemed to have been filed until after the fee for appeal has been paid. Within four months after the date of notification of the decision, a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal must be filed.

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

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

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

Articles of the Convention:

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

Rules of the Implementing Regulations: Rules 56 65 73 96

Article 107 Time limit and form of appeal

Notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the European Patent Office within two months after the date of notification of the decision appealed from. The notice shall not be deemed to be filed until after the fee for appeal has been filed. Within three months after the date of that notification, a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal must be filed.

Article 108

(1) Unchanged (2) ... within one month after receipt of the statement of grounds, it shall be remitted ... (3) ... shall be remitted to the Board of Appeal as soon as the statement of grounds has been filed.

Article 120 Further processing of the European patent application (1) If ... failure to reply within a time limit ... application. (2) The request shall be filed in writing within two months of the date ... was notified or the communication ... notified. The omitted ... paid. (3) Unchanged

Page 14

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 11 September 1973

M/64/I

Original: English

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: United Kingdom delegation

Subject: Further proposals for Articles 107, 108, 120, 130, 133, 144 of the Convention and for Rules 43, 55 and 107 of the Implementing Regulations

Page 15

Das Beschwerdeverfahren sollte in zwei Phasen abgewickelt werden können; in einer ersten Phase, in der die förmliche Beschwerde innerhalb von zwei Monaten eingelegt werden muß, und einer zweiten Phase, in der die Beschwerde innerhalb von höchstens sechs Monaten zu begründen ist.

29 Artikel 120 Absatz 2 (Der FEMIPI führt diesen Artikel lediglich als Beispiel an)

Der FEMIPI empfiehlt eindringlich, daß die im Verfahren vorgeschriebenen Fristen - wie beispielsweise die Frist nach Artikel 120 Absatz 2 - mindestens zwei Monate betragen.

30 Artikel 128 Absatz 5 Zu den Auskünften, die Dritten vor der Veröffentlichung erteilt werden können, sollten gegebenenfalls auch die Angabe der Priorität und des PCTUrsprungs der Anmeldung gehören.

31 Artikel 130 und 131 Nach Ansicht des FEMIPI sollte sich die Erteilung von Auskünften an nationale Patentämter von Nichtvertragsstaaten keinesfalls auf Sachangaben erstrecken.

Ferner sollten die betreffenden Stellen ohne Rücksicht auf die Gründe bei diesen Auskunftserteilungen und sonstigen Mitteilungen den Grundsatz der Geheimhaltung im Interesse des Anmelders beachten.

32 Artikel 133, 134 und 162 Die Stellungnahmen, Bemerkungen und Vorschläge des FEMIPI zu diesen Artikeln, die die Vertretung vor dem Europäischen Patentamt betreffen, sind in den Nummern 1 bis 12 enthalten.

In diesem Zusammenhang legt der FEMIPI angesichts der Unterschiedlichkeit der zur Zeit geltenden einzelstaatlichen Regelungen und im Interesse einer Vereinheitlichung, Wert auf die Feststellung, daß die Vertreter der Industrie bis an die Grenze der für sie annehmbaren Zugeständnisse gegangen sind, die zum Teil übrigens dazu führen, daß Vorrechte, die sie zur Zeit in Anspruch nehmen können, hinfällig werden.

33 Artikel 135 Es dürfte sowohl im Interesse der Patentinhaber als auch der Dritten nicht zweckmäßig sein, die „Umwandlung" einer europäischen Patentanmeldung unter den in Artikel 135 Absatz 1 Buchstabe b vorgesehenen Bedingungen zuzulassen.

28 Articles 107 and 108 The appeals procedure should be divided into two stages: the first, the formal lodging of the appeal, being required to be made within a period of two months, and the second, the statement of the grounds on which the appeal is based, being required to be made within a maximum period of six months.

29 Article 120, paragraph 2 (This Article has been taken by FEMIPI as an example)

FEMIPI strongly recommends that the time limits provided for the procedure, such as that laid down in Article 120, paragraph 2, should be at least two months.

30 Article 128, paragraph 5 The information available to third parties before publication should also, where appropriate, comprise the reference to the priority and the reference to the PCT origin of the application.

31 Articles 130 and 131 In the opinion of FEMIPI, information communicated to the national offices of non-Contracting States should in no event include information of substance.

In addition, whatever the reasons for such exchanges of information and for any other communications, the principle of the secrecy of the proceedings of the bodies concerned should be observed in the interests of the applicant.

32 Articles 133, 134 and 162 The observations, comments and suggestions of FEMIPI on these Articles, which deal with representation before the European Patent Office, are contained in references 1 to 12 .

In this connection FEMIPI would stress that in view of the diversity of the present national systems and in the interests of standardisation, agents of industry have made all the possible concessions acceptable to them even to the extent of making certain concessions which will lead to a loss of some rights at present enjoyed.

33 Article 135 Both in the interests of patentees and in the interests of third parties it would appear to be undesirable to permit the "conversion" of a European patent application in the circumstances laid down in Article 135, paragraph 1(b).

FEMIPI

Europäischer Verband der Industrie-Patentingenieure

FEMIPI

European Federation of Agents of Industry in Industrial Property

FEMIPI

Fédération européenne des mandataires de l'industrie en propriété industrielle

Artikel 96 Absatz 2 Buchstabe b

32 Die Erteilungsgebühr und die Druckkostengebühr sollten zusammengefaßt werden.

Artikel 97 - Veröffentlichung des europäischen

Patents

33 CIFE möchte, daß in der Patentschrift die vom Patentamt bei der Prüfung berücksichtigten Unterlagen angegeben werden.

Artikel 107 und 108 - Frist und Form der Beschwerde und Abhilfe

34 Nach Artikel 107 ist die Beschwerde innerhalb von drei Monaten nach der Zustellung der Entscheidung einzulegen und zu begründen.

Eine solche Regelung dürfte nicht flexibel genug sein. CIFE hätte den Wunsch, daß für die Einlegung der Beschwerde eine relativ kurze Frist von beispielsweise zwei Monaten nach der Zustellung der Entscheidung eingeführt, für die Einreichung der Begründung jedoch eine längere Frist von beispielsweise sechs Monaten nach der Zustellung der Entscheidung eingeräumt wird.

Hält die Stelle, deren Entscheidung angefochten wird, die Beschwerde für zulässig, so müßte sie ihr innerhalb einer Frist von einem Monat nach Erhalt der Begründung stattgeben.

Artikel 120 Absatz 2 - Weiterbehandlung der europäischen Patentanmeldung

35 CIFE vertritt die Auffassung, daß alle in Artikel 120 Absatz 2 genannten Fristen einheitlich zwei Monate betragen sollten.

Artikel 124 Absatz 3 - Ergänzender europäischer Recherchenbericht

36 CIFE vertritt die Auffassung, daß die Frist von einem Monat für die Entrichtung der Zusatzrecherchengebühr auf zwei Monate verlängert werden sollte.

Artikel 128 Absatz 5 - Akteneinsicht

37 CIFE würde es für richtig halten, daß außer den in Artikel 128 Absatz 5 aufgeführten Angaben, die das Europäische Patentamt Dritten mitteilen und sogar vor der Veröffentlichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung veröffentlichen kann, noch folgende Angaben derselben Regelung unterliegen:

- Hinweis auf die Priorität, sofern eine solche beansprucht wird, und - Hinweis darauf, daß es sich um eine Anmeldung

Article 96, paragraph 2(b)

32 It is suggested that the fees for grant and printing be combined.

Article 97 - Publication of a European patent

33 CEIF formulates the wish that the patent specification should mention the documents considered in examination by the Office.

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

34 Article 107 stipulates that the appeal must be filed within three months after the date of notification of the decision and that it must set out the grounds on which it is based.

Such a system seems unduly rigid. CEIF would wish that the appeal has to be filed at relatively short notice, for example two months after the date of notification of the decision appealed from, but leaving more time, for example six months also from the date of notification, for giving the grounds on which it is based.

If the department whose decision is contested considers the appeal to be admissible, it should then rectify its decision within a month from receipt of the statement of grounds for the appeal.

Article 120, paragraph 2 - Further processing of the European application

35 CEIF considers that the periods in Article 120, paragraph 2, should be uniformly set at two months.

Article 124, paragraph 3 - Supplementary European search report

36 CEIF considers that the time limit of one month for payment of the additional search fee should be increased to two months.

Article 128, paragraph 5 - Inspection of files

37 CEIF would wish that the data which the European Patent Office may communicate to third parties or publish even before publication of the patent application should include, in addition to those listed in Article 128, paragraph 5:

- a mention of priority, if claimed - a mention of the PCT origin of the application where this is the case.

Page 18

Original: Französisch French (1) Français

CIFE

Rat der Europäischen Industrieverbände

CEIF

Council of European Industrial Federations

PRISE DE POSITION DU

CIFE Conseil des fédérations industrielles d'Europe

Artikel 107

9 Vorschlag: In Zeile 1 ist ,,drei" durch ,,zwei" zu ersetzen und in Zeile 3 ist nach dem Wort ,,und" einzufügen ,innerhalb von 4 Monaten nach der Zustellung".

Begründung:

Die Frist zur Einlegung der Beschwerde soll kurz sein, damit möglichst bald Klarheit darüber geschaffen wird, ob das Verfahren beendet ist oder fortgesetzt wird. Eine ausreichende Frist zur Begründung liegt im Interesse des Amtes an einer sorgfältigen Bearbeitung.

Artikel 108, Absatz (2)

10 Vorschlag: In Zeile 2 sind die Worte ,,ihrem Eingang" zu ersetzen durch ,,Eingang der Begründung".

Begründung:

Die Abteilung des Patentamtes wird über eine Abhilfe der Beschwerde erst entscheiden können, wenn die Begründung vorliegt.

Artikel 120, Absatz (2)

11 Vorschlag: In der ersten Zeile ist der Ausdruck ,,drei Monaten" zu ersetzen durch ,,zwei Monaten".

Begründung:

Im Interesse einer zuverlässigen Uberwachung der Fristen ist es erwünscht, daß die beiden in diesem Absatz erwähnten Fristen die gleiche Länge haben.

Artikel 121, Absatz (5)

12 Vorschlag: Der Absatz sollte ersatzlos gestrichen werden.

Begründung:

Während es in dem Fall eines ,,unabwendbaren Zufalls" berechtigt sein mag, gewisse Fristen von der Wiedereinsetzung auszunehmen, gilt das jedenfalls nicht für den Fall ,,höherer Gewalt". Beispielsweise sollte Art. 121, Abs. 1 auch anwendbar sein, wenn die rechtzeitige Zahlung der in Art. 59, Abs. 3 vorgesehenen Gebühr, die rechtzeitige Einreichung der in Art. 85, Abs. 1 und Art. 93, Abs. 2 vorgesehe-

9 Proposal:

In line 2 the words "three" to be replaced by the word "two" and in lines 3 and 4 the words "it must set out the grounds on which it is based." replaced by the words "and within four months from the notification the grounds on which it is based must be filed".

Grounds:

The term for filing the appeal is to be short so that it can be clarified as soon as possible whether the procedure is finished or is to be continued. A sufficient term for submitting the grounds lies in the interest of the Office with respect to careful preparation.

Article 108, paragraph 2

10 Proposal: In line 2 the words "its receipt" to be replaced by the words "receipt of the grounds".

Grounds:

The Patent Office department will only be able to decide on a legal remedy for the appeal when the grounds are submitted.

Article 120, paragraph 2

11 Proposal: In line 2, the expression "three months" is to be replaced by "two months".

Grounds:

In the interest of a reliable watching of the terms it is desired that the two terms mentioned in this paragraph are of the same length.

Article 121, paragraph 5

12 Proposal: The paragraph should be deleted without replacement.

Grounds:

Whilst it may be justified in the case of an "unavoidable occurrence" to exempt certain terms from the reinstatement, this does not apply in the case of "force majeure". For example, Article 121, paragraph 1, should also be applied if the prompt payment of the fee provided in Article 59, paragraph 3, or the prompt filing of the documents

Page 20

Original: Deutsch German (1) Allemand (2)

UNEPA

Union Europäischer Patentanwälte

COMMENTS BY

UNEPA Union of European Patent Agents

L'UNEPA

Union des Conseils en brevets européens

Artikel 86 Absatz 3

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

Artikel 87

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

Artikel 92 - Regel 51 Absatz 2

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

Artikel 107

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

Artikel 115 - Regel 69 Absatz 2

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

Artikel 118 - Regel 70 Absatz 2

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

Article 86 (3)

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

Article 87

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

Article 92 - Rule 51 (2)

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

Article 107

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

Article 115 - Rule 69 (2)

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

Article 118 - Rule 70 (2)

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

Page 22

Original: Englisch English Anglais

STELLUNGNAHME DES CNIPA Committee of National Institutes of Patent Agents

COMMENTS BY CNIPA Committee of National Institutes of Patent Agents

PRISE DE POSITION DU CNIPA Committee of National Institutes of Patent Agents

Page 23

einem Dritten gewährt, auch demjenigen zuzuerkennen, der vom Patentinhaber eine Warnung erhalten hat, und der deswegen eine Klage gegen letzteren erhebt mit dem Antrag, daß das Gericht feststelle, der Kläger habe keine Patentverletzung begangen (negative Feststellungsklage).

Artikel 107

15 Aus praktischen Gründen ist es wünschenswert, daß die Beschwerde innerhalb von zwei Monaten einzulegen ist (formelle Beschwerde) und daß außerdem eine weitere Frist von vier Monaten besteht, innerhalb der die Beschwerde zu begründen ist.

Artikel 120(2)

16 Es erscheint wünschenswert, für beide in Absatz (2) vorgesehenen Fristen zwei Monate festzulegen.

Artikel 124(3)

17 Die Frist von einem Monat für die Entrichtung der Zusatzrecherchengebühr erscheint zu kurz; sie sollte zwei Monate betragen.

Artikel 128 (5)

18 Zu den Angaben, die das Europäische Patentamt Dritten gegenüber machen kann, sollten hinzugefügt werden:

- Prioritäten, falls der Anmelder sie geltend macht, - PCT-Ursprung, falls es sich um eine PCT-Anmeldung handelt.

Artikel 130(3)

Für den Fall, daß das Europäische Patentamt den Zentralbehörden für den gewerblichen Rechtsschutz von Staaten, die nicht Vertragsstaaten sind, Auskünfte erteilt, sollten diese den Beschränkungen des Artikels 128 unterliegen. Folglich sollte die Bezugnahme in Artikel 130 Absatz (3) nur den Artikel 128 Absatz (1) erfassen.

Artikel 131 (1)

20 Es scheint, daß dieser Artikel sich teilweise mit dem Artikel 130 überschneidet.

Artikel 135

21 In der englischen und französischen Fassung dieses Artikels kommt an keiner Stelle der Begriff ,,Umwandlung" vor. Aus Gründen der Klarheit erscheint dies jedoch wünschenswert.

Article 104 to third parties should also be granted to any person who has received notice from the patent proprietor and as a result brings an action against the latter requiring the court to declare that he has not committed an infringement.

Article 107

15 For practical reasons it would be desirable for the appeal to be filed within two months (formal appeal) and for an additional time limit of four months to be provided within which the grounds on which the appeal is based must be stated.

Article 120, paragraph 2

16 The two time limits laid down in paragraph 2 should each be of two months.

Article 124, paragraph 3

17 The period of one month for payment of the additional search fee seems to be too short; it should be extended to two months.

Article 128, paragraph 5

18 The following should be added to the data which the European Patent Office may communicate to third parties:

- any priorities claimed by the applicant, - the PCT origin in the case of a PCT application.

Article 130, paragraph 3

19 Where the European Patent Office supplies information to the central industrial property office of any State which is not a party to this Convention, such information should be subject to the restrictions laid down in Article 128. The reference in Article 130, paragraph 3, should therefore only be to Article 128, paragraph 1.

Article 131, paragraph 1

20 This Article seems to duplicate partially what has already been stated in Article 130.

Article 135

21 The concept of "conversion" is nowhere contained in the English and French versions of this Article. In the interests of clarity this term should be included.

UNICE

Union der Industrien der Europäischen Gemeinschaft

UNICE

Union des Industries de la Communauté européenne

L'UNICE

Union des Industries de la Communauté européenne

Page 25

werden, wenn die Worte „teneur", „terms" und „Inhalt" gestrichen würden oder zumindest - in der französischen Fassung - das Wort „teneur" durch das Wort „contenu" ersetzt würde. Bei Annahme des von COPRICE vorgezogenen Vorschlags erhielte Artikel 67 Absatz 1 Satz 1 folgende Fassung: Der Schutzbereich des europäischen Patents und der europäischen Patentanmeldung wird durch die Patentansprüche bestimmt."

10 Artikel 93 - Prüfungsantrag - und 94 - Verlängerung der Frist zur Stellung des Prüfungsantrags

Hinsichtlich dieses wichtigen Artikels sollten nach Ansicht von COPRICE zwei Zeiträume unterschieden werden:

1. Während der Übergangszeit muß der Verwaltungsrat über eine große Ermessensfreiheit verfügen, um die Frist für die Stellung des Prüfungsantrags zu verlängern und auf diese Weise zu vermeiden, daß die europäischen Patentanmeldungen nicht fristgerecht oder nicht zufriedenstellend bearbeitet werden können. Zu diesem Zweck könnte in Artikel 94 Absatz 1 den Gründen, die den Verwaltungsrat zur Verlängerung der Frist ermächtigen, der Begriff des allgemeinen Interesses hinzugefügt werden. 2. Für die Zeit nach der Übergangszeit könnte eine rasche Prüfung - die wohl vorzuziehen ist eingeführt werden; COPRICE unterschätzt jedoch nicht gewisse Vorteile einer aufgeschobenen Prüfung. Auf alle Fälle hält es COPRICE übereinstimmend für wünschenswert, daß die Prüfung der Patentierbarkeit, wenn sie erst einmal aufgenommen worden ist, rasch vonstatten geht. Schließlich sei darauf hingewiesen, daß das Europäische Patentamt den Artikel 161 Absatz 1 betreffend die stufenweise Ausdehnung des Tätigkeitsbereichs des Europäischen Patentamts zur Anwendung bringen kann.

11 Artikel 98 - Einspruch

Die in diesem Artikel vorgesehene Frist von neun Monaten erscheint zu lang. COPRICE schlägt vor, im Hinblick auf eine möglichst weitgehende Verkürzung des Verfahrens, das - wie eingangs dargelegt - sehr lang und kompliziert ist, die betreffende Frist von neun auf sechs Monate zu verkürzen.

12 Artikel 107 - Frist und Form

Es wird vorgeschlagen, die in diesem Artikel vorgesehene Frist in folgende zwei Zeitabschnitte aufzuteilen:

- zwei Monate für das Beschwerdeverfahren, - zwei zusätzliche Monate für die Begründung und die Entrichtung der Gebühren. "teneur", "terms" and "Inhalt" or at least by replacing the word "teneur" by "contenu" in the French text. If the former proposal were adopted, the 1st part of Article 67, paragraph 1, would read as follows: "The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the claims."

10 Article 93 - Request for examination - and Article 94 - Extension of the period within which requests for examination may be filed

COPRICE considers that a distinction should be made between two periods in this important Article:

1. During the transitional period the Administrative Council must have broad discretionary powers to extend the period within which requests for examination may be filed. This is in order to avoid a situation where European patent applications cannot be examined in due time or in a satisfactory manner. To this end in Article 94, paragraph 1, the concept of public interest could be added to the grounds on the basis of which the Administrative Council may extend the period. 2. During the definitive period a system of rapid examination could be established, and this would appear preferable; however, COPRICE does not underestimate the fact that there may be certain advantages in deferred examination. In any event it is the unanimous wish of COPRICE that, once an examination as to patentability has been started, it should be carried out quickly. Finally, it is pointed out that the European Patent Office will be able to avail itself of the provisions of Article 161, paragraph 1, relating to the progressive expansion of its field of activity.

11 Article 98 - Opposition

The period of nine months laid down in this Article would seem to be excessive. In order to shorten as much as possible the procedure which, as pointed out at the beginning of this note, is very long and complicated, COPRICE proposes that the period in question should be reduced from nine to six months.

12 Article 107 - Time limit and form of appeal

It is proposed that the period laid down in this Article should be sub-divided into two parts:

- two months for instituting appeal proceedings - two additional months for the submission of the grounds on which the appeal is based and for the payment of the fees.

Page 26

Original: Französisch French Français

M/16 30. März 1973 30 March 1973 30 mars 1973

COPRICE

Comité pour la Protection de la propriété industrielle dans la Communauté économique européenne

COPRICE

Comité pour la Protection de la propriété industrielle dans la Communauté économique européenne

COPRICE

Comité pour la Protection de la propriété industrielle dans la Communauté économique européenne

Page 27

45 Es wird daher vorgeschlagen, den ersten Satz des Art. 93(2) wie folgt abzufassen: „(2) Ein Prüfungsantrag kann durch den Anmelder bis zum Ende von sechs (6) Monaten nach dem Datum eingereicht werden, an dem der Recherchenbericht gemäß Art. 91(3) dem Anmelder übersandt wurde. Die Frist zur Einreichung des Antrages soll jedoch in keinem Fall vor 24 Monaten nach dem Einreichdatum oder der am weitesten zurückliegenden Prioritätsfrist ablaufen. "

46 Regel 51 würde dann überflüssig werden und wäre zu streichen.

47 Da das IIB in das Europäische Patentamt eingegliedert wird, wird angenommen, daß einer Übersendung nach Art. 91(3) die Maßnahme einer Zustellung gemäß Art. 118 zukommen würde.

Beitritt des vermeintlichen Patentverletzers

48 Es wird vorgeschlagen, im französischen Text Art. 104(1), Zeile 3 von oben, die Worte „contre le" durch ,,sur la base du" zu ersetzen, um diese Stelle klarer zu formulieren.

Frist und Form der Beschwerde, Art. 107

49 Die Gesamtfrist von drei (3) Monaten für die Einreichung einer Beschwerde samt einer Beschwerdebegründung wird oft als zu kurz angesehen werden, insbesondere dann, wenn umfangreiche Dokumente zu übersetzen und an überseeische Anmelder zusammen mit Erklärungen und Vorschlägen weiterzuleiten sind. Andererseits haben die übrigen Beteiligten, wie auch die Öffentlichkeit, ein natürliches Interesse daran, so rasch wie möglich zu erfahren, ob die Entscheidung des Patentamts bekämpft wird oder nicht.

50 Es wird daher vorgeschlagen, die Gesamtfrist in eine erste Frist zum Einreichen einer Formalbeschwerde und eine zweite Frist zur Vorlage der Beschwerdebegründung aufzuspalten. Die erste Frist soll nicht weniger als zwei (2) Monate betragen, und es wird vorgeschlagen, daß dann die zweite Frist auf zwei (2) Monate festgesetzt werden könnte, ohne eine übermäßige Störung oder Verzögerung zu verursachen.

Entscheidung über die Beschwerde

51 Es wird gerne zur Kenntnis genommen, daß Art. 110(1) nunmehr die Bestimmung enthält, daß ,,die Beschwerdekammer im Rahmen der Zuständigkeit der Stelle tätig wird, die die angefochtene Entscheidung erlassen hat". Da im Erteilungs- und Einspruchsverfahren die Entscheidung, die mit der Beschwerde angefochten wird, entweder von der Prüfungsabteilung oder von der Einspruchs-(Anmel-de-)Abteilung gefällt worden sein muß, und da beide

45 It is therefore suggested to amend the first sentence of Art. 93(2) so as to read: "(2) A request for examination may be filed by the applicant up to the end of six (6) months after the date on which the search report has been communicated to him under Art. 91(3). However, the time limit for filing the request shall in no case expire earlier than 24 months after the filing date or earliest priority date. "

46 Rule 51 would then become superfluous and should be cancelled.

47 It is presumed that since the IIB is to be incorporated in the European Patent Office, transmission under Art. 91(3) would acquire the status of a communication under Art. 118.

Intervention of the Assumed Infringer

48 For clarity it is proposed in the French text of Art. 104(1), line 3 to replace the words "contre le" by "sur la base du".

Time Limit and Form of Appeal, Art. 107

49 The total time limit of three (3) months for filing an appeal setting out the grounds on which it is based will frequently be felt too short, particularly when extensive documents have to be translated and communicated to overseas applicants accompanied by comments and recommendations. On the other hand, any other parties to the case, as well as the general public have a natural interest in knowing as soon as possible whether the decision of the Patent Office is contested or not.

50 It is therefore suggested to split up the total time limit into a first time limit for filing a Notice of Appeal and a second time limit for setting out the grounds on which the appeal is based. The first time limit should not be less than two (2) months, and it is suggested that the second time limit could then, without causing undue disturbance or delay, be fixed at two (2) months.

Decision in respect of Appeals

51 It is noted with satisfaction that Art. 110(1) now contains the provision that "the Board of Appeal may exercise any power within the competence of the department which was responsible for the decision appealed". Since in the granting and opposition procedures the decision appealed must have been taken either by the Examining Division, or by the Opposition Division, and since both have the power of accepting amendments, it seems to

FICPI

Fédération Internationale des Conseils en Propriéte Industrielle

FICPI

Fédération Internationale des Conseils en Propriété Industrielle

PRISE DE POSITION DE LA

FICPI Fédération Internationale des Conseils en Propriété Industrielle

Page 29

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 30

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.

[^0]

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)

[^0]: Vgl. Regeln 65 (Inhalt der Beschwerde) und 70 (Feststellung eines Rechtsverlusts)

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 34

112. FICPI and EIRMA drew attention to the difficulty raised by the reference made in Article 107a, paragraph to the notification provided for in Article 97, paragraph 1. In fact, it was possible for the applicant to express his disapproval of the grant of the patent on the basis of the envisaged text, an eventuality to which paragraph 2 of Article 97 referred expressly. A literal interpretation of these provisions could then lead to the applicant having to supply, under Article 107a, the translation of a patent, although he had stated his disapproval of the text.

Article 108 (Decisions subject to appeal) 113. Having established that Article 108, paragraph 2, excluded appeals against interim decisions, UNEPA expressed regret at this exclusion since it considered that such a possibility enabled a saving of time in a significant number of cases.

Article 111 (Time limit and form of appeal) 114. IAPIP argued firstly in favour of an additional time limit for payment of the appeal fee, and secondly for an extension, upon request of the person making the appeal, of the time limit for submitting an additional written statement. On this point, it was supported by UNEPA and FICPI.

In reply to a question from the Conference, CNIPA, FICPI and UNEPA stated that they could support a ruling laying down one month for the lodging of an appeal and three months for submission of an additional written statement. EIRMA on the other hand was in favour of a three month overall period.

Page 35

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

Article 108 (Decisions subject to appeal)

131. The suggestion by one organisation that appeals against interim decisions should be permitted was rejected by the Conference.

The proposal of some delegations that such an. appeal could be made if an Examining or Opposition Division authorised it, was also rejected by majority vote of the Conference.

Article 111 (Time limit and form of appeal)

132. In the light of the remarks of the non-governmental organisations, the Conference instructed the Drafting Committee to amend this irticle to the effect that the appeal should be lodged, setting out the grounds on which it was based, within a period of three months from the date of notification of the decision appealed against and that the fee for appeal should be paid within that same period. There would no longer be an extra period for submission of an additional written statement.

Irticle 112 (Interlocutory revision)

133. Taking into account the amendment to irticle 111, the Conference decided to limit the period laid down in paragraph 2 of irticle 112 to one month.

Irticle 115 (Decision in respect of appeals)

134. With regard to this irticle the Conference dealt particularly with the problem raised by FICPI of what should be the exact scope of an appeal before a Board of

Page 37

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

Brussels, 15 March 1972 BR / 168 / 72

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

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

Parts 1 and 3

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

Page 38

Article 107 (Publication of a new specification) 143. The Working Party discussed whether or not it would be necessary to refer to Article 97a as well as Article 100 in paragraph 4. After the Drafting Committee had studied the question, it was finally agreed that paragraph 4 should remain unchanged, as the reference to Article 97a was implicit in the statement that Article 100 was to be applicable.

Article 108 (Decisions subject to appeal) 144. The Working Party considered that the concept of the "final decision" as contained in paragraph 2 also covered the case of a decision from the Opposition Division that a patent could be maintained on condition that the patentee made certain amendments to it.

Article 111 (Time limit and form of appeal) 145. As instructed by the Conference, the Working Party examined the question of the fixing of the time limit by the Board of Appeal for the production of an additional written statement. Although some delegations were not prepared to envisage an extension of the maximum period prescribed in the final sentence of Article 111, the Working Party decided to postpone its decision on the matter until the interested circles had made known their wishes in a concrete form at the next hearing.

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).

Artikel 111

Frist und Form Die Beschwerde ist innerhalb einer Frist von zwei Monaten nach Zustellung der Entscheidung schriftlich beim Europäischen Patentamt einzulegen und zu begründen. Die Beschwerde gilt erst als eingelegt, wenn die in der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Übereinkommen vorgeschriebene Beschwerdegebühr entrichtet worden ist. Ein ergänzender Schriftsatz, in dem die Begründung der Beschwerde näher erläutert wird, kann innerhalb einer Frist von einem Monat nach der Einlegung der Beschwerde eingereicht werden.

Artikel 112

Abhilfe (1) Erachtet die Stelle, deren Entscheidung angefochten wird, die Beschwerde für zulässig und begründet, so hat sie ihr abzuhelfen. (2) Wird der Beschwerde innerhalb einer Frist von zwei Monaten nach ihrem Eingang nicht abgeholfen, so ist sie ohne sachliche Stellungnahme unverzüglich der Beschwerdekammer vorzulegen. (3) Absatz 1 ist nicht anzuwenden, wenn dem Beschwerdeführer ein anderer an dem Verfahren Beteiligter gegenübersteht. In diesem Fall ist die Beschwerde unverzüglich nach ihrem Eingang der Beschwerdekammer vorzulegen.

Artikel 113

Prüfung der Beschwerde (1) Ist die Beschwerde zulässig, so erforscht die Beschwerdekammer den Sachverhalt von Amts wegen; diese Prüfung ist weder auf das Vorbringen noch auf die Anträge der Beteiligten beschränkt. (2) Die Beschwerdekammer braucht neue von den Beteiligten vorgebrachte Tatsachen und Beweismittel nicht zu berücksichtigen, die nicht in der Beschwerdebegründung oder in der Erwiderung auf die Beschwerde enthalten sind. (3) Die Beschwerdekammer kann die Prüfungsstelle um die Erteilung ergänzender Auskünfte über den Stand der Technik ersuchen.

Artikel 114

- gestrichen - (siehe Artikel 140).

Artikel 115

Entscheidung über die Beschwerde (1) Entspricht die Beschwerde nicht den Artikeln 108, 110 und 111 oder den Vorschriften der Ausführungsordnung zu diesem Übereinkommen, so verwirft die Beschwerdekammer sie als unzulässig.

Article 111

Time limit and form of appeal An appeal must be lodged in writing at the European Patent Office within a period of two months from 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 lodged until after the payment of the fee for appeal prescribed by the Rules relating to Fees adopted pursuant to this Convention. An additional written statement setting out the grounds of appeal in greater detail may be submitted within a period of one month after the lodging of the appeal.

Article 112

Interlocutory revision (1) If the authority whose decision is contested considers the appeal to be admissible and well founded, it shall rectify its decision. (2) If the appeal is not allowed within a period of two months following its receipt, it shall be remitted to the Board of Appeal without delay, and without comment as to its merit. (3) The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply where the appellant is opposed by another party to the proceedings. In this case the appeal shall be remitted to the Board of Appeal as soon as it is lodged.

Article 113

Examination of appeals (1) If the appeal is admissible, the Board of Appeal shall examine the facts; this examination shall not be restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought. (2) The Board of Appeal may disregard fresh facts or evidence submitted by the parties concerned which were not included in the statement of grounds of appeal or in the reply to the appeal. (3) The Board of Appeal may ask the Examining Section for further information concerning the state of the art.

Article 114

- deleted - (Cf. Article 140).

Article 115

Decision in respect of appeals (1) If the appeal does not comply with Articles 108, 110 and 111 and with the provisions of the Implementing Regulations to this Convention, the Board of Appeal shall reject it as inadmissible.

Page 41

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

ZWEITER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

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

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

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

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

ainsi que PREMIER AVANT-PROJET DE RÉGLEMENT D'EXÉCUTION DE LA CONVENTION INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

PREMIER AVANT-PROJET DE RÉGLEMENT RELATIF AUX TAXES

Page 42

(w) Articles 152 to 154 - Professional representation, compulsory representation and suthorisation The question of representation should be discussed later (see point 78 above). (x) Article 159 - Period within which a request for examination may be made during a transitional period Should the Administrative Council's option be maintained of shortening the period for making the request for examination, the length of which still has to be specified for a transitional period? /article 159, paragraph 1, second sentence 7 (CPCCI, FICPI) 81. Item 6 on the agenda: Discussion of procedure for the 4th Meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference from 20 to 30 April 1971

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

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

The reports of the delegations of Working Party I and of the General Rapporteur on amendments to the pablished First Preliminary Draft of 1970, which were to be submitted to the Conference, should reach the Secretariat by

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

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

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

Page 44

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

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

Page 45

(m) Articles 66 to 68

Questions on organisation of the procedure: see under (o) on Articles 77 and 78. (n) Article 74 - Effect of priority right Should there be a reference in Article 74 to Article 21, paragraph 1? See under (g) on Article 21. (o) Article 77 - Examination of the European patent application for formal and obvious deficiencies

Article 78 - Notification and refusal of the application (i) Who should be responsible for carrying out the formal examination provided for in Article 77, paragraph 1: the EPO, the national receiving Office (in the case of Article 64, paragraph 1(b)), or the IIB? Which parts of the formal examination should be undertaken by which authorities if the work is divided up among them? (ICC, CNIPA, CEIF, EIRMA, UNICE) (ii) Should the EPO carry out alone the examination for obvious deficiencies provided for in Article 77, paragraph 2, or should the IIB undertake a share of this examination, e.g. examination of unity of invention?(1) (ICC, CNIPA, CEIF, EIRMA, FICPI, UNICE) (iii) Should not the EPO only enter the proceedings when the IIB has drawn up the search report? (ICC, CNIPA, CEIF, EIRMA, UNICE) (iv) Would it be advisable to organise co-ordination of the EPO departments responsible for the novelty search with the IIB departments, which were preparing the search reports? (UNICE) (1) The majority of the Working Party refused to abandon altogether the examination for obvious deficiencies. BR / 94 e / 71 ·aut / KM / prk

Page 46

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

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

Page 47

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

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

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

Page 48

80. Apart from the textual amendments referred to under point 79, the Working Party decided to undertake no immediate amendment to the Preliminary Draft on the basis of the observations made by the international organisations, but to adopt the procedure set out under point 77 (recommendation to the Inter-Governmental Conference). The points on which the Working Party recommends acceptance or rejection of the proposals made by the international organisations can be found in the above-mentioned document BR / 100 / 71. The only problems set out below are those for which the Working Party is to recommend further examination. (a) Article 9 - Patentable inventions

Possible new text for Article 9, paragraph 2, especially sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) (observations by CEIF and UNICE); (b) Article 11, paragraphs 2 and 3 - Novelty

Should the expression "contents of earlier applications for European patents" in Article 11, paragraph 3 be aligned more closely on the Strasbourg Convention of 27.11 .1963 , by being replaced by "contents of applications for European patents, which have earlier filing dates ..."? (FICPI) (c) Article 11, paragraph 3 - Novelty

Should an earlier European application form an obstacle to the grant of a European patent under Article 11, paragraph 3 even where the inventor is the same person in both cases? [So-called Self-collision (FICPI) 7

The Swedish delegation was asked in this connection to establish by the next meeting whether real difficulties had arisen in the Scandinavian countries in this context.

Page 49

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

Brussels, 6th April 1971 BR/94/71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the 7th meeting of Working Party I held at Luxembourg from 26 to 29 January 1971

Item 1 on the agenda (1) : Opening of the meeting and adoption of the provisional agenda

1. The Working Party held its seventh meeting at Luxembourg from Tuesday 26 to Thursday 28 January 1971 with Dr. HAERTEL, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair.

The meeting was attended by representatives of the Commission of the European Communities, WIPO/OMPI and the International Patent Institute (2). The representative of the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe sent his apologies for being unable to attend. 2. The Drafting Committee, under the Chairmanship of the President of the Netherlands "Octrooirasd", Mr J.V. VAN BENTHEM, held its meetings directly after the deliberations of the Working Party, and also on the morning of 29 January 1971. (1) For the provisional agenda (BR/GT I/101/71), see Annex I. (2) For the list of those attending the meeting of the Working Party, see Annex II. BR/94 e/71 son/KM/prk

Page 50

in the First Preliminary Draft Convention in addition to the cases provided for here.

Article 111 of the First Preliminary Draft Convention

29. The Sub-Committee wondered whether it would be useful to specify the relationship existing between Articles 111 and 145 of the Convention (BR/88/71) by means of a provision in the Implementing Regulations. This provision would stipulate that an appeal could be considered as being made even without payment of the fee provided for under Article 111 where the decision being contested is obviously the result of a substantial procedural violation. The majority of the Sub-Committee was not in favour of laying down such a measure. It considered in fact, that this text would contradict the principle contained in Article 145 and that moreover such a provision would involve considerable uncertainty since the person making the appeal would have to evaluate whether or not the decision being questioned is obviously the result of a substantial procedural violation.

Re. Article 120, No. 1 - Transmittal of the international application to the European Patent Office

30. This Article specifies the period of time within which a national office must transmit any international PCT application which has been filed with it to the European Patent Office so that the latter may complete its duties as regards transmittal within the required time, in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations under the PCT (Rule 22.1(a)).

Page 51

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

Brussels, 1st April 1971 BE / 84 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the 5th meeting of the "Implementing Regulations" Sub-Commitee of Working Party I (Luxembourg, 12 - 14 January 1971)

I

1. The fifth meeting of the "Implementing Regulations" Sub-Committee was held in Luxembourg from 12 to 14 January 1971, with Mr FRESSONNET, Deputy Director, French Industrial Property Institute, in the Chair.

In addition to the national delegations represented in the Sub-Committee, the meeting was attended by representatives of WIPO/OMPI and the International Patent Institute. (1) 2. The Drafting Committee met each day, under the Chairmanship of Mr NEERVOORT, Secretary of the Octrooiraad, following the Sub-Committee's meetings. (1) See the list of participants in Annex I.

Page 52

Article 111 (former Article 108) Time-limit and form of appeal

An appeal must be lodged, in writing, at the European Patent Office within a period of two months from the date of issue of the decision appealed from; it must set out the grounds on which it is based. An appeal shall not be deemed to be lodged until after the payment of the fee for appeal prescribed by the Rules relating to fees adopted pursuant to this Convention. An additional written statement setting out the grounds of appeal in greater detail may be submitted within a period of one month after the lodging of the appeal.

Page 53

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

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 21 December 1970 BR / 70 / 70

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

Page 54

Article 107 - Persons entitled to appeal and to take part in appeal proceedings 45. No comment.

Article 108 - Time limit and form of appeal 46. The Working Party examined the question, whether the time limit for lodging an appeal should be extended beyond the prescribed 2 months. In this case it would be necessary to do away with the additional period for setting out the grounds of appeal. However, the Working Party saw no need to extend the time limit for lodging an appeal since, in accordance with Article 110, the Board of Appeal is not restricted to the arguments or contentions of the parties concerned when examining the facts.

Article 109 - Interlocutory revision 47. In connection with paragraph 1, it was noted that the wording of this provision does not exclude the replacement of a member of the authority whose decision is contested by another examiner if this should be necessary. 48. In paragraph 2, the Working Party considered a period of 2 months to be required in order to give the authority whose decision is contested enough time to re-examine its own decision. The Working Party did not follow the suggestion that this paragraph should be incorporated in the Implementing Regulations.

Page 55

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

Brussels, 18 December 1969 BR / 12 / 69

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

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

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

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

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

Page 56

Article 108 Délai et forme

Le recours doit être formé par écrit auprès de l'Office européen des brevets dans un délai de deux mois après la signification de la décision, il doit être motivé. Le recours n'est considéré comme formé qu'après le versement de la taxe de recours prescrite par le reglement relatif aux taxes pris en exécution de la présente convention. Un mémoire ampliatif, explicitant les motifs du recours, peut être produit dans un délai d'un mois après la formation dudit recours.

Confidential

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

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

Page 58

Artikel 108 FxFrist únã Farm

Die Beschwerde ist innerhalb einor Frist von zwei Monaten nach Zustellung der Entscheidung schriftlich beim Zuropäischen Patentamt einzulogen und zu begründon. Die Beschwerde gilt orst als eingelegt, wenn die in der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Abkommon vorgeschriebene Beschwerdegebühr entrichtet worden ist. Ein ergänzender Schriftsatz, in dem die Begründung der Beschwerde näher erläutert wird, kann innerhalb einer Frist von einem Monat nach der Einlogung der Beschwerde eingereicht worden.

Page 59

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente"

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

Vertraulich

   V E 1965(U_e)

Änderungen des Vorentwurfs eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht (Artikel 1 bis 175)

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

Page 60

Quant à le Chamore des recourss, quand elle aura à se pronorcer sur le recours, elle sera er possession du némoire ampiatif cui devra être déposé dans u: céiai d'un mois à partir de :'introduction du recours. Dais ces conditions, elle sora suffisamment éclairée pour pouvoir prendre sa décision. M. Pfanner s'étant rallié à la proposition de M. Fressonnet, le groupe décide de prévoir un délai de deux mois dans lequel le recours devra être introctuit et motivé. La motivation pourra être succincte. En outre, il sera prévu la faculté d'introduire dans un délai d'un mois après le dépôt du recours un mémoire ampliatif expliquant 1 (moyens énumérés dans la motivation. Cette décision du groupe ne supprime pas l'application du 2 ce l'article 110. Il résulte de ce texte que des moyens autres que ceux énumérés dans la motivation peuvent être présentés devant la Chambre desrecours. Il est bien entendu que dans ce cas la Chambre desrecours pourra ne pas en tenir compte.

Le groupe décide encore qu'étant donné les nouveaux délais prévus, il n'y a pas lieu de permettre une prolongation de ces délais. Le groupe se réserve enfin la possibilité de revoir plus tard l'ensemble de la question des délais et notamment la question de la concordance des délais prévus dans le projet "Brevets" et ceux prévus dans le projet "Marques".

Le Comité de rédaction est chargé de modifier l'article 108 en fonction des décisions prises. Il est à noter que le groupe n'a pu retenir la proposition de l'UNICE tendant à prévoir un délai supplémentaire de deux mois pour la motivation du recours.

Article 109 Cet article traite de la révision préjudicielle par l'instance dont la décision est attaquée. M. van Exter pose la question de savoir ce qui adviendra si par la suite de l'application de l'artícle 109, la décision qui intervient ne donne pas satisfaction à la partie qui introduit le recours. Il lui est répondu que, dans ce cas, tuisqu'on se trouve devant une nouvelle décision de la division d'examen, un nouveau recours peut être

Page 61

de la motivation de ce rícours. La délégation allemande propose un mois en se référant au délai prévu par l'avant-projet de convention "ièrques".

La délégation française propose ceux mois tandis que la délégation néerlandaise propose trois mois. La majorité du groupe se prononce en faveur d'un délai de deux mcis pour l'introduction du recours.

Le Président demande ensuite au groupe d'examiner la question du délai pour. la motivation du recours, indépendamment de la question de savoir si ce délai pourra faire l'objet d'une prolongation. H. Freesornet propose de ne pas prevcir un délai supplémentaire pour la motivatior du recours. La motivation devrait, selon lui, se faire dans le délai de deux mcis prévi pour l'introduction du rucours. Il ajoute que cette motivation pourrait se limiter à l'énoncé des moyens. Elle pourrait donc être assez brève. Il propose en outre ce prévoir un délai supplémentaire d'un mois pendant lequel le requérant surcit la faculté de déposer un mémoire ampliatif. Ce mémoire pourrait permettre au requérant d'expliquer, de développer les moyens énumérés dans la motivation. Il ajoute encore que la division d'examen aurait à se prononcer dans les deux semaines qui suivent l'introduction du recours par application de l'article 109. La division d'examen n'aura pas à attendre le mémoire ampliatif pour se prononcer.

De son côté, K. Pfanner propose un délai supplémentaire d'un mois pour la motivation du recours. Ce délai lui paraît justifié étant donné la complexité de la matière. Un tel délai a également été prévu par l'avantprojet de convention sur les marques. Le groupe discute ensuite longuement ces deux propositions.

Au cours du débit, le Président se déclare on favour de la proposition de K. Fressonnet. Son principal avantage réside dans la rapiditi. Cette rapidité résulte au fait que le recours est introduit et motivé dans un délai de deux mois et que la division d'examen se prononce à son sujet quinze jours après la réception du recours. Une brève motivation suffit pour que la division d'examen se prononce puisqu'elle connaît le dossier. De plus, il ne faut pas se cacher que dans la majorité des cas cette instance ne modifiera pas sa décision.

Page 62

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

Le Président remarque cu'il s'agit ià d'un problème rédaction. nel. 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. Elle signifie qu'une décision sur la répartition des frais prise is.ément 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 perscrises adrises 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 titulaire du brevet et les tiers au sens de l'article 96, 2.

Le Président observe que d'autres tiers peuvent interverir, 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 ia signification de la décision et il doit être dûment motivé, prévoit le texte. Afin co 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 63

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 tenue à Munich du ler au 12 juin 1964

COMPTES RENDUS

Page 64

dern worde. Yenn die Beschwerdokammer sich zu der Beschwerde zu äußern habe, sei sie im Besitz des ausführlichen Schriftsatzes, der binren eines Monats nach Binreichung der Beschwerde vorgelogt worden müsse. Untar diesen Umständen verfüge sie über genügend Angaben, um ihre Entscheidung treffen zu können.

Nachdem sich Herr Pfanner dem Vorschlag von Herrn Frossonnet angeschlosson hat, beschlieBt die Gruppe, eine Frist von 2 Monaten für die Binreichung und Begründung der Beschwerdo vorzusehen. Die Bogründung kann kurz sein. AuBordem wird die Möglichkeit vorgesohon, binnen eines Monats nach Bnireichung dor Beschwerdo einen ausführlichon Schriftsatz zu don in der Begründung aufgezählten Beschwerdegründen vorzulogen. Diese Entscheidung der Gruppe bedoutot jedoch nicht, daB Artikel 110 Absatz 2 nicht angewondot wird. Eiernach können der Beschwerdekammer in der Begründung nicht aufgeführte noue Tatsachen oder Bowsismittel vorgelogt worden. In diesem Fallo ist die Beschwerdokammer selbstvorständlich abor nicht verpflichtet, dieso zu berücksichtigon.

Die Gruppe beschlieBt woitorhin, daB in Anbetracht dieser neuen Friston kein Grund für cine Vorlăngorung der Frist bosteho. Sio behält sich schließlich die Möglichkeit vor, später die Friston und insbesondere die Frage der Uboroinstimmung der im Patentontwurf und im Markonontwurf vorgoschonen Friston in ihrer Gesamtheit zu überprüfon.

Der RedaktionsausschuB wird beauftragt, Artikel 108 gemäB den getroffenen Entscheidungen zu ändorn. Es ist darauf zu vorwoison, daB die Gruppe den Vorschlag der UNICD bezüglich oinor zusätzlichon Frist von 2 Monaten für die Beschwerdobogründung nicht annehmen konnte.

Artikel 109

Dieser Artikel behandelt die Abhilfo durch die Stolle, deren Entscheidung angefochten wird.

Herr van Bxtor wirft die Frage auf, was goschohen würde, wonn dio gemäß Artikel 109 getroffene Entscheidung die Partoi, die dio Beschwerdo cingelogt hat, nicht bofriodigt. Nach Ansicht der Gruppe kann in diosom Fallo eine noue Beschwerde cingeroicht worcon, da oine noue Entscheidung der Prüfungsabteilung vorliogo. 6498 / I V / 64-D

Page 65

die Sinlogun; dor Beschwerde unabhăngis von dor Frere ihrer Bo:ründung zu prüfen.

Die doutsoho Dologation schlăgt untor Hinwois auf dio Bostimmungen im Vorontwurf dos Markenabkommens die Frist von einem Monat vor.

Die franzősischo Dolegation schlăgt 2 Tonato vor, während dic niedorländischo Dolomation 3 Monate boantragt. Die Kehrheit dor Gruppe spricht sich für cino Frist von 2 Monaton zur Hinlogung dor Beschwerdo aus.

Der Vorsitzondo bittot darauffin dic Gruppe, dio Prüfung der Frist für die Begründung dor Beschwerdo unabhăngig von der Frage, ob dioso Frist vorlăngert worden kann oder nicht, zu prüfon.

Horr Fressonnot schlăgt vor, koino zusătzliche Frist für dio Bogründung dor Boschwordo vorzusehen. Soinor Ansicht rach sollte dio Begründung binnon der für dio Zinlogung der Boschwerdo vorgesohonon Frist von 2 Nonaton orfolgon. Br fügt hinzu, dab man sich auf cino Aufzählun: dor einzolnon Bsschworderründe boschrănkon können. Dio Begründung könno also rocht kurz soin. AuBordom schlăgt or vor, cine zusătzlicho Frist von cinom Yonat vorzusehen, innerhalb wolchor dor Antragsteller dio Mö̧lichkeit habo, cinon zusführlichon Schriftsatz einzureichen. Diosor Schriftsatz soll os ihm ornö̆lichon, die in dor Begründung gonannten Argumonto zu orlăutorn und zu ontwickoln. Br fügt hinzu, daB dio Prüfungsabteilung gemăB Artikel 109 binnon 2 Tochon nach Zingang dor Boschwerdo Stellung zu nohman hat. Dio Prüfungsabteilung braucho don Zingang dos orlăutornden Schriftsatzos nicht abzuwarton, um Stollune zu nohmon.

Horr Pfannor soinorsoits schlăgt cino zusătzlicha Frist von oinom Yonat für dio Begründung dor Bsschwerdo vor. Dioso Frist schoine ihm in Anbotracht der Vielschichtigkeit der Materio borochtigt. Dioso Frist soi auch im Vorontwurf dos Markenabkommens vorgosohon. Dio Cruppo behandelt anschlioBond ausführlich dioso boidon Vorschläge.

Im Laufe dor Diskussion spricht sich dor Vorsitzondo für don Vorschlag von Horrn Fressonnot aus. Dor wesontlinhsto Vortoil liojo in soinor Schnolligkoit. Dioso soi das 2 rzobnis ior Tatsache, dab dio Bsschwerdo binnon cinor Frist von 2 Nonaton cingologt und begründot worio, und dab dio Prüfungsabteilung sich 2 Wochen nank Zingang dor Boschwordo kiorzu äuBora. Zino kurze Begründung gonügo für dio Prüfungsabteilung, da sio dio Akto konno. AuBordom dürfo man nicht übersohen, daB dioso Instanz in don moiston Fällon ihre Intschoidun: nicht än-

Page 66

che, orwähe die deutsche Fassung nur die Zntscheidung über die Kosten. Der Vorsitzende bemerkt, daß os sich um ein rodaktionelles Problem handle. In sachlicher Hinsicht worde diese Frage durch Artikel 164 gelöst, woraus hervorsohe, daß cine Beschwerde auf diescm Gebiet immer oine Teilung der Kosten zur Folge habe. Dio Cruppo beschlicßt, den RedaktionsausschuB damit zu beauftrason, Ubereinstimmung zwischen den beiden Fassungen von Absatz 3 herzustellen. Danach befaßt sich die Gruppe mit der Frage, ob dor zweite Satz von Absatz 3 wirklich orforderlich ist. Br bedoutot, daB oino Entscheidung über die Kosten des Vorfahrens für sich allein nicht Gegenstand oiner Beschwerde bilden kann. Dor RedaktionsausschuB wird auch mit der Prüfung oeser Frage beauftragt.

Artik6l 106

Keine Bemerkungen.

Artikel 107

Dioser Artikel behandelt die Beschwerdeberechtigton. Nach Auffassung des Vereinigten Königreichs müßto der Ausdruck "quiconque" dahingehend orläutert wordon, daB darunter der Inhaber des Patents und Dritte im Sinne des Artikels 96 Absatz 2 zu verstehen sind.

Der Vorsitzende bemerkt, daB auch andere Dritte in Botracht kommen, z.B. Diche Personen, die die Veröffentlichung oiner Ikte boantragt haben. Die Bedeutung des Ausdrucks "quiconque" hängt von dem Verfahren ab, um das os sich handelt. Dio Gruppe ist folglich dor Auffassung, daB es unnötig, ja sogar gefährlich wäre, den Ausdruck "diejenigen, die an dem Verfahren teilgonommon haben" zu ändern.

Artikel 108

Dioser Artikel behandelt Frist und Form der Beschwerde. Dio Beschwerde ist nach diesem Artikel innerhalb einer Frist von 2 Monaten nach Zustollung der Zntscheidun schriftlich einzulegen und zu begründen. Zur Brloichtorung der Diskussion schlägt der Vorsitzende dor Cruppo vor, zunächst die Frist für 6493 / I V / 54-3

Page 67

SITZUNGSBERICET

Page 68

Article 108. Time-limit and form of appeal An appeal must be lodged, in writing, at the European Patent Office within a period of two months from the date of the decision appealed from; it must set out the grounds on which it is based. An appeal shall not be deemed to be lodged until after the payment of the fee for appeal prescribed by the Regulations relating to fees adopted pursuant to this Convention.

Article 109. Interlocutory revision

(1) If the authority whose decision is contested considers the appeal to be admissible and well-founded, it shall rectify its decision. It may order the fee for appeal to be refunded. (2) If the appeal is not allowed within the two weeks following its receipt, it shall be remitted to the Board of Appeal without delay, and without comment as to its merit. (3) The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply when third parties participate in the proceedings.

Article 110. Examinatiza of appeals

(1) If the appzal is admissible, the Board of Appeal shall examine the facts; this examination shall not be restricted to the arguments and evidence of the parties concerned nor to the contentions on which the appeal is based, provided that these contentions do not involve amendment of the application for a European patent, or of the provisional European patent, by the applicant or the proprietor respectively. (2) The Board of Appeal may disregard fresh facts or evidence which were not included in the statement of grounds of appeal or in the reply to the appeal. (3) The Board of Appeal may require a supplementary report from the Examining Section on the novelty of the invention.

Article 111. Oral proceedings

The Board of Appeal, when it considers such procedure suitable, may, either at its own instance or at the request of a party, deliver a decision following oral proceedings.

Article 112. Decision in respect of appeals

(1) If the appeal does not comply with the requirements of Articles 105, 107 and 108, or with those of the Implementing Regulations of the present Convention, the Board of Appeal will reject it as inadmissible. (2) If the Board of Appeal, following the examination specified in Article 110, paragraph 1, considers that the appeal cannot be allowed, it will dismiss it as unfounded. (3) If the appeal is allowable in whole or in part, the Board of Appeal will annul the decision attacked, in whole or in part. The Board may either decide upon the matter itself or if, having regard to the state of the proceedings, it should consider such action necessary, it may remit the matter to the authority responsible for the decision in question, for the necessary action to be taken.

Page 69

BOARD OF TRADE

Translation of a Draft Convention relating to a European Patent Law

LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE FIVE SHILLINGS NET

Page 70

Article 99 Cette disposition toit être soumise à l'cxamen des experts des Ministères de la Justice. Le Comiré de rédaction formulera une remarque à cot effct.

L'article 100 est adopté.

Article 101

A la majorité, le groupe décide de supprimer cot article. Il semble prématuré d'essaycr de définir les critères de l'intérêt public de la Communauté européenne. On pourrai: éventuellement revenir sur unc pareillc disposition lors de la lère révisica de la Convention. Lo Comité de rédaction est chargé d'examiner si la disposition do 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 suppriméc.

Page 71

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

Artikel 90 g

Der in Abs. 4 eingeklammerte Satz wird wegen der Bestimmung in Art. 164 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 73

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

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

Page 74

Bruxelles, le 26 septembre 1961

Article 93 Délai et forme

Le recours doit être formé par écrit auprès do l'Office européen des brevets dans un délai de deux mois après la signification de la décision; il doit être dûment motivé. Le recours n'est considéré comme formé qu'après le versement de la taxe de recours prescrite par le règlement relatif aux taxes pris en exécution de la présente Convention.

Page 75

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL "Brevets"

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

Page 76

Brüssel, den 26. September 1961

Artikel 93 Frist und Form

Die Beschwerde ist innerhalb einer Frist von zwei Monaten nach Zustellung der Entscheidung schriftlich beim Europäischen Patentamt einzulegen und zu begründen. Dio Beschwerde gilt erst als eingelegt, wenn die in der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Abkommen vorgeschriebene Beschwerdegebühr entrichtet worden ist.

Page 77

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 78

Discussion de l'article 93 de l'avant projet de Convention.

Répondant à une question de M. De Huyser au sujet de la possibilité d'une prorogation d'un délai de recours sur demande, le Président indique qu'une prorogation d'un délai de recours n'est pas possible. Seule une prorogation pourrait être accordée pour la motivation du recours. Une telle solution n'est pas souhaitable étant donné que la Chambre de recours ne peut statuer sans connaitre la motivation.

M. Van Benthem propose de porter le délai de recours à trois mois.

Après une discussion, le groupe ne retient pas cette proposition, sous réserve de revenir dans la suite à la question des délais en général.

Le groupe marque son accord sur le fond de l'alinéa 2 de l'article 93.

M. Van Benthem demande si la Convention prévoit un recours contre la constatation que le recours est considéré comme non formé par suite du nonpaiement de la taxe.

Le Président lui répond que, dans ce cas, un recours en droit devrait être possible devant le tribunal européen des brevets.

Au sujet du paiement total de la taxe, problème soulevé par M. De Huyser, le Président rappelle que ces questions seront tranchées dans le règlement d'exécution. Celui-ci peut prévoir qu'un manque négligeable de la somme globale n'entraîne pas l'application de l'alinéa 2.

Quant à l'incidence des jours fériés sur l'écoulement des délais, le Président dit q e cette question sera réglée par un article spécial. Il en sera ainsi pour tous les délais prévus par la Convention.

L'article 93 est transmis au Comité de rédaction. (4)

Page 79

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

Zrorterungen zu Artikel 93 des Vorentwurfs des Abkommens

Auf die Frage von Herrn De Huyser, ob die Beschwerdefrist auf Antrag verlängert werden könne, erklärt der Präsident, dass eine Verlängerung nicht möglich ist. Nur die Begründungsfrist könne verlängert werden. Eine solche Verlängerung sei jedoch nicht zweckmässig, da die Beschwerdekammer ohne Kenntnis der Begründung nicht entscheiden könne.

Herr Van Benthem schlägt vor, die Beschwerdefrist auf drei Monate zu verlängern.

Nach einer Aussjrache lässt die Gruppe diesen Vorschlag fallen; sie behält sich jedoch vor, später auf die Frage der Fristen im allgemeinen zurückzukoumen.

Die Gruppe erklärt sich mit Artikel 93 Absatz 2 in sachlicher Hinsicht einverstanden.

Herr Van Benthem stellt die Frage, ob des Abkommen ein Rechtsmittel gegen die Feststellung vorsehe, dass die Beschwerde wegen Wichtentrichtung der Gebühr als nicht eingelegt gelte.

Der Präsident antwortet hierauf, in diusem Fall müsse ein Rechtsmittel vor dum europäischen Patentgericht möglich sein.

Auf eine Bemerkung von Herrn De Huyser über die vollständige Entrichtung der Gebühr weist der Präsident darauf hin, dass diese Frage in der Gebührenordnung behandelt wird. Diese kann die Nichtanwendung von Absatz 2 vorsehen, wenn ein unbedeutender Betrag an der Gesamtsumue fehlt.

Die Auswirkung der Feiertage auf den Ablauf der Fristen wird in einem besonderen Artikel geregelt. Das gilt für alle Fristen des Abkommens.

Artikel 93 wird an den Redaktionsausschuss übermiesen.

Page 81

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 82

Ad Article 93

Délai et forme

1. Documents : 2. Romarques :

L'article 93 de l'avant-projet de Convention traite des conditions de forme du recours et, en particulier, du paiement des taxes. De même que pour les rocours formés dans lo cadre des procédures nationales correspondantes des Etats contractants, il est prescrit que le recours doit être formé et motivé par écrit.

Dans l'intérêt de la sécurité du droit, il est nécessaire de prescrire un délai pour la formation du recours. Il convient de choisir un délai qui tienne compte de la nature particulière de la procédure devant l'Office européen des brevets. Le droit néerlandais prévoit pour la formation du recours devant l'Office néerlandais des brevets un délai de trois mois, le droit suisse et le droit autrichien un délai de deux mois, le droit allemand un délai d'un mois. Pour les recours formés devant l'Office européen des brevets, il semble suffisant de prévoir un délai de deux mois.

Le paragraphe 2 traite du versement de la taxe de recours qui est nécessaire pour réduire le nombre des recours arbitraires. Cette disposition reprend la système prévu à l'article 85, paragraphe 1, deuxième phrase, pour le versement de la taxe de requête incidente.

La constatation qu'un recours formé cst considéré comme non avenu faute de paiomunt de la taxe de recours dans les délais prévus devra être signifiée au requérant par une décision qui pourra ello-même faire l'objet d'un recours. Il no semble pas nécessaire d'énoncer co principe dans la Convintion même. Il y aura lieu de décider par la suite s'il convient de prévoir une dislosition à cot uffet dans le règlement d'exécution de la Convention.

Page 83

Article 93

Délai et forme

1) Le recours doit être formé et motivé par écrit auprès de l'Office européen des brevets dans un délai de deux mois après la signification de la décision. 2) La taxe de recours préyue par le règlement relatif aux taxes annexé à la présente Convention doit être acquittée dans le délai fixé au paragraphe 1. Si la taxe de recours n'est pas acquittée dans ledit délai, le recours est considéré comme non formé.

Page 84

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 85

Zu Artikel 93 Frist und Form 1.) Materialien: 2.) Bemerkungen:

In Artikel 93 des Arbeitsentwurfs werden die formellen Erfordernisse der Beschwerde, insbesondere auch die Gebührenzahlung behandelt. Entsprechend den.Erfordernissen für Beschwerden in entsprechenden nationalen Verfahren in den Vertragsstaaten wird verlangt, daß die Beschwerde schriftlich einzulegen und auch zu begründen ist.

Im Interesse der Rechtssicherheit muß für die Einlegung der Beschwerde eine Frist vorgéschrieben werden. Es soll eine Frist gewählt werden, die der Eigenart des Verfahrens vor dem Europäischen Patentamt Rechnung trägt. Das niederländische Recht sieht für die Einlegung der Beschwerde vor dem niederländischen Patentamt eine Frist von drei Monaten vor, das schweizerische und das österreichische Recht eine Frist von zwei Monaten und das deutsche Recht eine solche von einem Monat. Es erscheint ausreichend, für Beschwerden an dem Europäischen Patentamt eine Frist von zwei Monaten vorzusehen.

Absatz 2 befaßt sich mit der Entrichtung der Beschwerdegebühr, die erforderlich ist, um die Zahl der willkürlichen Beschwerden zu vermindern. Die Ausgostaltung dieser Bestimmung erfolgte in Weiterbildung des bisher gewählten Systems für die Zahlung der Anschlußgebühr gemäß Artikel 85 Abs. 1 Satz 2.

Die Feststellung, daß eine eingelegte Beschwerde mangels rechtzeitiger Gebührenzahlung als nicht erhoben gilt, wird dem Beschwerdeführer in einer wiederum beschwerdefähigen Entscheidung zugestellt werden müssen. Es erscheint nicht erforderlich diesen Grundsatz im Abkommen selbst festzulegen. Ob in die Ausführungsordnung zu diesem Abkommen eine entsprechende Bestimmung aufgenommen werden soll, wird später zu entscheiden sein.

Artikel 93

Frist und Form (1) Die Beschwerde ist innerhalb von zwei Monaten nach Zustellung der Entscheidung schriftlich beim Europäischen Patentamt einzulegen und zu begründen. (2) Innerhalb der in Absatz 1 genannten Frist ist die in der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Abkommen vorgeschriebene Beschwerdegebühr zu entrichten. Wird die Beschwerdegebühr nicht rechtzeitig entrichtet, so gilt die Beschwerde als nicht erhoben.

VERTRAULICH!

Erster Arbeitsentwurf des Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Artikel 91 bis 100

Page 88

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