Art114eTPEPC1973

Métadonnées

• Nom affiché : Art114eTPEPC1973
• Numéro d'article : 114
• Dossier / langue : English
• Tag langue : #English
• PDF original : Articles/English/Articles 101-125/Article 114 (English version)/Art114eTPEPC1973.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. 114 MPO Ermittlung von Amts wegen

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.	96	IV/6514/61	S. 4,5
IV/6514/61	96	IV/3076/62	S. 158157
VE 1962	110	6498/IV/64	S. 42
VE 1964 (AO)	159, Nr. 89	BR/60/70	Rdn. 50=22 63
VE 1964 (AO)	159 Nr. 89	BR/68/70	Rdn. 41
VE 1965 (Ue)	110	BR/12/69	Rdn. 50-52
VE 1970 (Ue)	113	BR/87/71	Rdn. 75
BR/70/70	101b	BR/87/71	Rdn. 9
VE 1971 (Ue)	113	BR/135/71	Rdn. 25
BR/88/7#1	101b	BR/125/71	Rdn. 66
BR/88/71	113	BR/125/71	Rdn. 70
8 R / 184 / 72	113 Dokumente der MDK
E 1972	113	M/40	S. 3
"	113	M/58/I/II	S. 1
"	113	M/88/I/R 3	S. 12
"	113	M/141/I/R 12	S. 2
"	113	M/146/R 5	Art. 114
"	113	M/PR/I	S. 56 54/55
"	113	M/PR/G	S. 202/203
			5. 163, 186/187

Page 3

Ad Article 96

Examen du recours

1. Documents : a) Loi suisse sur les brevets, article 107 en corrélation avec l'article 103, paragraphe 1; b) loi néerlandaisc sur los brevets, article 24 A, paragraphe 2, 2ème phrase; c) loi autrichienne sur les brevets, § 39 a, alinéa 1; d) loi allumande sur les brevets, texte du 9 mai 1961, § 41 b, alinéa 1.

2. Remarques :

L'avant-projot de Convention considère que la procédure de recours n'est qu'une prolongation de la procédure en première instance. Comme la première instance est soumise au régime de l'instruction d'office, dans lequel les parties ne peuvent, en principe, déclencher par leurs requêtes que cortainos mesures d'office, ce système a été maintenu en seconde instance. Par conséquent, la procédure de recours se distingue elle aussi essentiellıment d'une procédure judiciaire de droit civil, celle-ci revêtant la forme d'une procédure opposant deux parties.

Le principe de l'instruction d'office est énoncé en tête do cet article. Il s'ensuit que même lorsque lo recours no porte quo sur une partie rolativement pou importante du la décision, la chambre de rocours peut réoxaminor la requête dans sa totalité; unc "réformatio in pojus" est donc possible. Par conséquent, si un titulaire du brevet fait appel du fait quo son brevet ouropéen provisoire a été annulé on partie lors de l'examon, la chambre de recours peut, sur la baso des pièces déjà mentionnés mais aussi de colles qui n'ont pas encore été

Page 4

Article 96

Examen du recours

1) La Chambre de recours examine d'office les faits. Elle n'est pas liée par les arguments et les offres de preuves des participants. 2) La Chambre de recours n'a pas à tenir compte de faits nouveaux ou de preuves nouvelles qui ne sont pas contenus dans l'exposé des motifs du recours ou dans la réplique au recours. 3) La Chambre de recours peut requérir la section d'examen de soumettre un rapport complémentaire sur la nouveauté de l'invention.

Page 5

Kurt Haertel

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

Articles 91 à 100

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

IV/1.5I4/6I F.

Sur une intervention de M. Van Benthem, relative au rapport complémentaire, le Président expose qu'il n'est pas souhaitable d'avoir recours a l'Institut international de La Haye. Tout d'abord le b.roau d'examen de l'Jffice européen peut effectuer cette secherche supplémentaire sur base de sa d.cumentation et de la documentation d' in Cffice voisin à examen préalable. Ensuite, le recours à l'Institut international risque d'entraîner de nouveaux frais. Enfin, l'intervention de cet Institut entraînerait des retards dans la procédure d'examen.

L'article 95 est transmis au Comité de rédaction. La séance est levée à 1 C heures 15 .

Page 7

Discussion de l'article 94 de l'avant-projet de Convention.

Le groupe unanime estime que cette disposition n'a pas pour effet d'interrompre la procédure d'examen lorsqu'une requête en participation a été rejetée. Cela permettrait aux concurrents du demandeur de retarder con graablement l'examen. La décision concernant l'effet suspensif dépendra, pour chaque cas particulier, de l'appréciation du bureau d'examen.

M. Van. Berthem se demande s'il ne faut pas prévoir expressément d'une décision ne sera définitive q: 'après écoulement du délai de recours.

A cet effet, le groupe charge le Comité de rédaction d'examiner une disposition générale devrait être insérée dans la Convention.

L'article 94 es transmis au Comité de rédaction.

Discussion de l'article 95 de l'avant projet de Convention.

Avec la précision que le délai prévu à l'alinéa 2 commence à courir à partir de l'introduction du recours, l'article est transmis au Comité de rédaction.

Discussion de l'article 95 de l'avant projet de Convention.

Après une discussion approfondie, le Président souligne que le principe de l'examen d'office n'implique pas l'examen du fond dans les cas où le recours n'est pas recevable à raison de vices de forme. En outre, la Chambre de recours peut donner suite au recours, sur base de ses propres constatations, même si les motifs invoqués par le requérant ne sont pas valables. Une telle faculté lui est ouverte par la deuxième phrase de l'alinéa 1 Enfin, la Chambre de recours peut aller au-delà de ce que le requérant a demandé dans son recours.

Etant donné que la Chambre de recours est libre d'apprécier les faits nouveaux, elle ne sera pas obligée de les faire figurer dans sa décis (cf. article 96, alinéa 2). IV / s .5 I 4 / IIF.

Page 8

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL "Brevets"

Bruxelles, 13 novembre 1961 Confidentiel

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

Page 9

Bruxelles, le 27 septembre 1961

Article 96 Examen du recours (1) Si le recours est recevable, la Chambre de recours procède à l'examen d'office des faits; cet examen no se limite ni aux arguments et aux offres de preuve des participants ni aux prétentions sur lesquelles le recours se fonde, pour autant que celles-ci n'impliquent pas une modification de la demande de brevet européen ou du brevet européen provisoire de la part du déposant ou du titulaire. (2) La Chambre de recours poutine pas tenir compte de faits nouveaux ou de preuves nouvelles qui ne sont pas contenus dans l'exposé des motifs du recours ou dans la réplique au recours. (3) La Chambre do recours pout requérir de la section d'examen un rapport complémentaire sur la nouveauté de l'invention.

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL

"Brevets"

Bruxelles, 13 novembre 1961 Confidentiel

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

Page 11

site sur reprend le sente le Elle récisé léo par cir uno pas encore édac-ranrents publique position roupe iuel t itivé pout xo tili- ntuel- ropo- il

L'article 85 est transmis au Comitś de rédaction.

Article 86

Le Comité de rédaction est chargé d'examinor si les tiers peuvent également intorvenir en ce qui concerne la condition d'activité inventivo. Article 88

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

Article 88 a

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

L'article 89 est adopté.

Article 90

Lo paragraphe 2 est supprimé.

Article 90 a

Le paragraphe 4 est supprimé.

Article 90 a bis

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

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

Article 90 g

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

Les articles 91 à 98 sont adoptés.

Page 12

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 22 mai 1962. Confidentiel

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

Page 13

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. Examinaticn of appeals

(1) If the appeal 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 14

BOARD OF TRADE

Translation of a Draft Convention relating to a European Patent Law

LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE FIVE SHILLINGS NET

Page 15

intenté. A la suite d'une intervention de K. Roscioni, le Président précise qu'il ne peut y avoir de révisions préjudicielles que lorsqu'il n'y a pas de tiors qui participe à la procédure.

A la suite d'un échange de vues, le groupe charge le Comité de revoir la rédaction de l'article 109 afin que cette dernière précision y figure très clairement.

A la suite d'une'intervention de M. Gajac, le groupe charge également le Comité de rédaction de voir s'il est possible de préciser davantage la notion de "tiers" qui figure au 3 de l'article.

Article 110 Cet article traite de l'examer. du recours. Au sujet du 3, M. van Benthem propose d'y prévoir également la faculté de demander un avis complémentaire à l'Institut international des brevets de La Haye. En effet, une telle faculté a été préve au cours de la première instance (voir article 94).

Le groupe estimant une telle addition logique, confie au Comité de rédaction le soin de modifier le paragraphe 3 en ce sens. Enfin, au sujet du paragraphe 2, le Royaume-Uni remarque que celui-ci se réfère à la réplique au recours, mais qu'il n'y a pas de disposition antérieure visant cette réplique. Il est remarqué que le Règlement d'exécution donne satisfaction à cette observation.

Article 111 Cet article déclare que la Chambre des recours décide s'il y a ou non procédure orale. M. Fressonnet demande s'il y a souvent procécure orale devant les Offices allemancs ou néerlandais. Il lui est répondu qu'en vertu de la loi, il y a toujours procédure orale en cas de recours. Mais que de telles procédures allongent considérablement les délais. L'Union et l'UNICE se prononcent contre le texte de l'article 111. Le groupe "Marques" a également décidé qu'il y aurait procédure orale si une partie le demandait. Le groupe décide de maintenir

Page 16

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

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

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

COMPTES RENDUS

Observations tardives

L'office européen des brevets peut ne pas tenir compte des observations qui n'ont pas été formulées en temps utile.

4419 / I V / 63 . F

Groupe de travail " BREVETS "

Bruxelles, le 20 janvier 1964 CONFIDENTIEL

A vant - r o i e t

de règlement d'application de la convention relative à un droit européen des brevets

Page 19

61. During the discussion of this entire irticle, it was stressed that interruption of proceedings could have repercussions on time limits culy in so far as the parties and not third parties, were concerned. Thus the interruption would have no effect on the nine-month opposition period. If a third party lodges opposition within this time limit, such opposition will be valid. Nevertheless, proceedings may only begin after the cause of the interruption has ceased to exist. The same will apply to a request for examination submitted by a third party. It was also stated that the 18-month period laid down for publication of the application could not be suspended. The text of the provision will state this explicitly. 62. In addition, the Sub-Committee considered that when the cause of the interruption had ceased to exist, time limits should come into full force again. The text in this respect should be reviewed, for it sometimes uses the term "interruption" and sometimes the term "suspension". Finally, the Sub-Committee agreed on the necessity of drawing the close attention of the government legal experts to paragraph 4, which deals with interruption in the case of bankruptcy. This paragraph has been drawn up in very general terms in order to take into account the differences between natio 1 legislations on this matter. Certain delegations however feared that drafting this provision in such broad terms would have the effect of causing delays which would adversely affect the resumption of proceedings.

Re. irticle 159, No. 8 - Belated Observations 63. No comments.

Page 20

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

Brussels, 16 November 1970 BR/60/70

- Secretariat -

MINUTES of the 3rd meeting of Working Party I Sub-Committee on "Implementing Regulations" (Luxembourg, 20-23 October 1970)

I

1. The third working meeting of the Sub-Committee instructed by Working Party I to draw up draft Implementing Regulations to the Convention was held at Luxembourg, from Tuesday 20 to Friday 23 October 1970, with Mr. FRESSONET, 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 BIRPI and the International Patents Institute (IIB) (1).

(1) See the list of participants in Annex I.

Page 21

be re-examined, and also to maintain conformity with the text of the First Preliminary Draft Convention (see BR/48/70, page 24).

Re. Article 155, No. 1 - Calculation of time limits 39. The Sub-Committee agreed to amend the text of this already adopted provision (see B 3 / 59 / 70 ) so that there should be no possible ambiguity in paragraph 2. It should be clear that in the case of a notification, the period will begin as from the date of receipt of the document notified (see also point 43).

Ro. Article 159, No. 7 - Interruption of proceedings

40. This provision had been adopted at the end of the previous meeting (see B 3 / 60 / 70, point 60 et seq.), but it had not been possible for the Drafting Committee to complete its wording. See also point 8 of the present Minutes.

Re. Article 159, No. 8 - Belated observations 41. Same comment as made under point 40 .

Re. Article 161, No. 1 - General provisions on notifications 42. Then adopting this provision the Sub-Committee decided not to use a system of notification by deposit in pigeonholes, so as to avoid giving an unfair advantage to patent agents and consultants having their offices in the town where the European Patent Office is situated.

Page 22

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

Brussels, 23 December 1970. BR / 68 / 70

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the 4th meeting of Working Party I Sub-Committee on "Implementing Regulations". (Luxembourg, 23-27 November 1970)

I.

1. The fourth meeting of the Sub-Committee instructed by Working Party I to draw up draft Implementing Regulations to the Convention was held at Luxembourg, from Monday 23 to Friday 27 November 1970, with Mr. FRESSONNET, Deputy Director, French Industrial Property Institue, in the Chair.

In addition to the national delegations represented in the Sub-Committee, the meeting was attended by WIPO and the International Patent Institute (1). (1) See the list of participants in Annex I.

Article 110

Examer de recours (1) Si le recours est recevable, la chambre de recours procêde a l'examen d'office des faits; cet examen ne se limite ni aux moyens invoqués ni aux demandes formées par des participants. (2) ^+la chambre de recours peut ne pas tenir compte de faits nouveaux ou de preuves nouvelles produits par les participants et qui ne sont pas contenus dans l'exposé des motifs du recours ou dans la réplique au recours. (3) La chambre de recours peut requérir de [l'Institut International des Brevets de la Haye 7 ou de la section d'examen un avis documentaire additionnel sur l'état de la technique.

Remarque: Pour le paragraphe 3, voir remarque sous article 78.

Confidentiel

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

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

Page 25

a time limit for the payment of an additional fee, and to provide that the application shall be deemed to be withdrawn if the additional fee is not paid within the period fixed.

On the other hand, the Working Party agreed that the appellant should not have to pay a fee when he is not responsible for an additional report on the state of the art having to be obtained. The Working Party was of the opinion that this point must be regulated either in Article 165 or elsewhere. 52. In paragraph 3, the Working Party wished to make it clear that under certain circumstances further information may be required which does not necessitate an additional report on the state of the art as such, but can be provided by the Examining Sections. The Working Party amended this paragraph accordingly.

Article 111 - Hearings on appeal

53. The Working Party was asked whether there should not always be a hearing on appeal in appeal proceedings. The iorking Party certainly recognized that the appeal proceedings were of a judicial nature, but did not consider that a compulsory hearing should be prescribed in every case, particularly when none of the parties wanted a hearing.

Page 26

49. The Working Party wished to prescribe that an appeal should be remitted to the Board of Appeal immediately, only where parties to the proceedings are opposed to each other, and not where several parties (for example, a majority of applicants) have similar interests. It amended the first sentence of paragraph 3 accordingly.

Article 110 - Examination of appeals

50. In the discussion of paragraph 2, it was considered whether the submission of fresh facts or evidence should not be excluded in all cases, but the Working Party thought it would be better to leave it to the judgment of the Board of Appeal whether such submissions are to be taken into consideration. If one were to forbid new facts and evidence being taken into account, one would in fact be contradicting paragraph 1 to a certain extent, whereas paragraph 1 does not restrict the Board of Appeal to submissions made by the parties.

51. The Working Party agreed to include in paragraph 3 a provision corresponding to Article 94, paragraph 4, for the case in which an additional report on the state of the art becomes necessary on account of amendments to the claims made by the applicant. It therefore decided to introduce

Page 27

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

Brussels, 18 December 1969 BR / 12 / 69

- Secretariat -

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

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

The Comission 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 rapportours :

- 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

Artikel 113 (früher Artikel 110)

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 heweismittel 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 oder beim Internationalen Patentinstitut in Den Haag einen ergänzenden Bericht über den Stand der Technik einholen. Stellt die Beschwerdekammer. fest, daß der ergänzende Bericht mit Rücksicht auf Änderungen der Patentansprüche notwendig ist, die der Anmelder vorgenommen hat, so fordert sie den Anmelder auf, innerhalb einer Frist von einem Monat die in der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Übereinkommen vorgeschriebene Zusatzgebühr zu entrichten. Wird die Gebühr nicht rechtzeitig entrichtet, so gilt die Anmeldung als zurückgenommen.

Artikel 114 (früher Artikel 111)

Mündliche Verhandlung Eine mündliche Verhandlung findet entweder auf Antrag eines Beteiligten oder, sofern die Beschwerdekammer dies für sachdienlich erachtet, von Amts wegen statt.

Artikel 115 (früher Artikel 112)

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. (2) Ist die Beschwerdekammer nach der in Artikel 113 Absatz 1 vorgesehenen Prüfung der Auffassung, daß der Beschwerde nicht stattgegeben werden kann, so weist sie die Beschwerde als unbegründet zurück. (3) Kann der Beschwerde ganz oder teilweise stattgegeben werden, so hebt die Beschwerdekammer die angefochtene Entscheidung ganz oder teilweise auf. Sie kann entweder selbst das Verfahren bis zu der in Artikel 97 Absatz 1 einschließlich vorgesehenen Mitteilung fortsetzen oder über die Erteilung des europäischen Patents entscheiden oder, wenn sie dies angesichts des Stands des Verfahrens für notwendig hält, die Angelegenheit zur weiteren Entscheidung an die Stelle zurückverweisen, die die angefochtene Entscheidung erlassen hat. (4) Verweist die Beschwerdekammer die Sache zur weiteren Behandlung an die Stelle zurück, die die angefochtene Entscheidung erlassen hat, so hat diese ihrer weiteren Entscheidung in dieser Sache die Entscheidung der Beschwerdekammer zugrunde zu legen. Ist die angefochtene Entscheidung von der Prüfungs-

Article 113 (former Article 110)

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 arguments or contentions of the parties concerned. (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, or may obtain an additional report on the state of the art from the International Patent Institute at The Hague. If the Board of Appeal finds that the additional report is necessary because of amendments to the claims made by the applicant, it shall invite the applicant to pay within one month, the additional fee prescribed by the Rules relating to fees adopted pursuant to this Convention. If the additional fee has not been paid within the period fixed, the application shall be deemed to be withdrawn.

Article 114 (former Article 111)

Hearings on appeal A hearing on appeal shall take place at the request of any party to the proceedings or at the instance of the Board of Appeal if it considers this to be expedient.

Article 115 (former Article 112)

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. (2) If, following the examination specified in Article 113, paragraph 1, the Board of Appeal considers that the appeal cannot be allowed, it shall dismiss it as unfounded. (3) If the appeal is allowable in whole or in part, the Board of Appeal shall annul the decision attacked, in whole or in part. The Board may either continue the proceedings up to and including the communication provided for in Article 97, paragraph 1, or decide on the grant of the European patent, or if, having regard to the state of the proceedings, it should consider such action necessary, it may remit the matter for further decision to the authority responsible for the decision in question. (4) If the Board of Appeal remits the matter for action by the authority which issued the decision in question, such authority shall ensure that its final decision in the matter conforms with that of the Board of Appeal. If the decision in question emanated from the Examining Section, the Examining Division shall also be bound by the decision of the Board of Appeal.

Si le rece s articles 1 exécution d cours le rejeit Si la cha rvu à l'artie ut être fait d adé.

S'il peut itie, la cham décision atta procédure ju ragraphe 1, is brevet euro at de la pr nner à l'inst:

Si la cham? tonner deva quée, celle l'affaire à c. attaquée é, samen est ég ecours.

Page 29

REGIERUNGSKONFERENZ ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS

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

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

ERSTER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

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

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

Page 30

75. Article 113 : Examination of appeals

The Working Party amended paragraph 3 in view of the new provision set out in Article 137. Given the terms of that provision and of the note thereto, the Working Party decided to delete the note to Article 113 (3). 76. Article 122 : International search report

Paragraph 2 of this provision was deleted in view of the new provision set out in Article 137. Consequently, the note to Article 122, paragraph 2, was deleted. 77. Article 130 : Payment of renewal fees

The Swedish delegation withdrew its request to provide for a fee, per designated State, for the renewal of the application. 78. Article 137 : Supplementary report on the state of the art

The adoption of this new provision, which synthesises the provisions of the Preliminary Draft relating to the supplementary report on the state of the art, enabled the Working Party to delete Articles 82, paragraph 3, 93, paragraph 2, part of paragraph 3 of Article 113, and Article 122, paragraph 2.

Page 31

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

Brussels, 28 February 1971 B R / 87 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

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

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

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

Page 32

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

Page 33

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

Brussels, 21 December 1970 BR / 70 / 70

- Secretariat -

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

Page 34

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

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

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

Page 35

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

Brussels, 28 February 1971 B R / 87 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

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

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

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

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 Artikein 108, 110 und 111 oder den Vorschriften der Ausführungsordnung zu diesem Übereinkommen, so verwirft die Beschwerdekammer sie als unzulässig.

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.

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 37

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

sowie

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

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

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

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

Page 38

It was laid down in the new paragraph 4 that a request may be made for a decision by the Opposition Division reviewing the decision of the registry. As a fee was laid down for such a request, Article 2 of the Rules relating to Fees had to be extended accordingly (Article 2, No. 138, of the Rules relating to Fees). 25. The provisions listed below were amended without discussion; the amendment consisted almost exclusively in replacing the term "Examining Section(s)" by the term "Receiving Section". (a) Second Preliminary Draft of the Convention:

Art. 55, para. 1, Art. 56, para. 1, Art. 58, para. 2, Art. 108, para. 1, Art. 113, para. 3, Art. 140, para. 2, Art. 147, para. 1; (b) First Preliminary Draft of the Implementing Regulations:

Re. Art. 53, Nos. 1 and 1a, Re. Art. 54, Nos. 1 and 2. Article 68 - Date of filing 26. The Chairman had proposed the following rule for according a filing date in sub-paragraph (c): where the application mentions drawings which are referred to in the description or the claims and where the drawings are not filed with the application itself, the date of filing would be the date on which the drawings actually reach the European Patent Office; the presence of the drawings would thus be a requirement for awarding a filing date.

Page 39

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

Brussels, 17 November 1971 BR / 135 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

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

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

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

Page 40

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

Page 41

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

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 15th February 1971 BR/88/71

FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONVENTION ESTABLISHING

A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Stage reached on 29 January 1971 -

BR/88 e/71

Page 42

65.

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

Article 101b (Examination of opposition) 66.

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

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

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

Page 43

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

Brussels, 7 July 1971 BR / 125 / 71

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

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

Page 44

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.

Page 45

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

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 15th February 1971 BR/88/71

FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONVENTION ESTABLISHING

A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Stage reached on 29 January 1971 -

BR/88 e/71

Page 46

CHAPTER IV

Appeals

Article 108 (Decisions subject to appeal)

68. The Austrian delegation reserved the right to submit a proposed amendment to paragraph 3, since it foresaw difficulties if the right of appeal was not allowed where the sole subject of the appeal was the allocation of costs of proceedings. This observation did not, however, affect its agreement to the provision of paragraph 4.

69. The Conference decided that the minimum amount of costs of proceedings referred to in paragraph 4 which would be the subject of appeal, ought to be fixed by the Implementing Regulations and not by the Convention. This would make it easier to adjust the amount in future years, since all that would be required would be a decision taken by the Administrative Council pursuant to Article 35aa, paragraph 1(c) (BR/118/71, Page 3).

Article 113 (Examination of appeals)

70. The Norwegian delegation extended its reservation regarding Article 101 b, paragraph 2, to paragraph 2 of this Article. (cf. point 18 above).

Page 47

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

Brussels, 7 July 1971 B R / 125 / 71

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

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

Page 48

Article 113 (101b + 113) Ex officio examination (1) In proceedings before it, the European Patent Office shall examine the facts ex officio; it shall not be restricted in this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought. (2) The European Patent Office may disregard facts or evidence which are submitted late by the parties concerned.

Page 49

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

Brussels, 24 April 1972 BR / 184 / 72

- Secretariat -

DRAFT CONVENTION
ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM
FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

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

GEMEINSAME VORSCHRIFTEN

Kapitel I Allgemeine Vorschriften für das Verfahren Artikel 112 Rechtliches Gehör (1) Entscheidungen des Europäischen Patentamts dürfen nur auf Gründe gestützt werden, zu denen die Beteiligten sich äußern konnten. (2) Bei der Prüfung der europäischen Patentanmeldung oder des europäischen Patents und bei den Entscheidungen darüber hat sich das Europäische Patentamt an die vom Anmelder oder Patentinhaber vorgelegte oder gebilligte Fassung zu halten.

Artikel 113

Ermittlung von Amts wegen (1) In den Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt ermittelt das Europäische Patentamt den Sachverhalt von Amts wegen; es ist dabei weder auf das Vorbringen noch auf die Anträge der Beteiligten beschränkt. (2) Das Europäische Patentamt braucht Tatsachen und Beweismittel, die von den Beteiligten verspätet vorgebracht werden, nicht zu berücksichtigen.

Artikel 114

Einwendungen Dritter (1) Nach der Veröffentlichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung kann jeder Dritte Einwendungen gegen die Patentierbarkeit der angemeldeten Erfindung erheben. Die Einwendungen sind schriftlich einzureichen und zu begründen. Der Dritte ist am Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt nicht beteiligt. (2) Die Einwendungen werden dem Anmelder oder Patentinhaber mitgeteilt, der dazu Stellung nehmen kann.

Vgl. Regel 71 (Form der Bescheide und Mitteilungen)

Chapter I

Common provisions governing procedure

Article 112

Basis of decisions (1) The decisions of the European Patent Office may only be based on grounds or evidence on which the parties concerned have had an opportunity to present their comments. (2) The European Patent Office shall consider and decide upon the European patent application or the European patent only in the text submitted to it, or agreed, by the applicant for or proprietor of the patent.

Article 113

Ex officio examination (1) In proceedings before it, the European Patent Office shall examine the facts ex officio; it shall not be restricted in this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought. (2) The European Patent Office may disregard facts or evidence which are not submitted in due time by the parties concerned.

Article 114

Observations by third parties (1) Following the publication of the European patent application, any person may present observations concerning the patentability of the invention in respect of which the application has been filed. Such observations must be filed in writing and must include a statement of the grounds on which they are based. That person shall not be a party to the proceedings before the European Patent Office. (2) The observations referred to in paragraph 1 shall be communicated to the applicant for or proprietor of the patent who may comment on them.

Cf. Rule 71 (Form of communications from the European Patent Office)

Mündliche Verhandlung

(1) Eine mündliche Verhandlung findet entweder auf Antrag eines Beteiligten oder, sofern das Europäische Patentamt dies für sachdienlich erachtet, von Amts wegen statt.

Article 115

Oral proceedings (1) Oral proceedings shall take place either at the instance of the European Patent Office if it considers this to be expedient or at the request of any party to the proceedings.

MÜNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ

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

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

CONFERENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

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

VORBEREITENDE DOKUMENTE

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

PREPARATORY DOCUMENTS

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

DOCUMENTS PRÉPARATOIRES

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

Page 52

14. Articlo 63 The conma in lins 2, paragrafh 1, should be delctou. 15. Paragraph 3 should reac "....deemed to be void ab initio in that State". 16. Article 68 In line 3, paragraph 2, "determine" should be amended to read: "constitute the basis for determining". 17. Article 72 The word "Contracting" in the penultimate line should be deleted. 18. Article 111 In paragraph 1(a), "ex officio" should be amended to read "of its own motion". 19. Article 113 The title should be amended to read "Examination by the European Patent Office of its own motion" and in paragraph 1, "ex officio" should be amended to read "of its own motion". 20. Article 121 In line 2, paragraph 5, "specified" should be amended to read "referred to" since the time limit of Article 74(3) is in fact not specified in that Article but in the Implementing Regulations. 21. Article 131 In paragraph 1, the word "for" in line 1 should be deleted and the first sentence should read, "....Contracting States shall on request give assistance....opening files for inspection". 22. Article 139 "prior right" should be amended to read "prior art". 23. Article 146 Paragraph 1, last sentence, should be amended to read: "Article 37, paragraphs 3 and 4, and Article 39 shall apply mutatis mutandis". 24. Article 156 In sub-paragraphs (3)(a) and (b) "is to" should be anended to read "shall".

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Brussels, 13 August 1973 M / 40 Original: English

PREPARATORY DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: The United Kingdom Government

Subject: Proposed amendments concerning the Draft Convention, the Draft Implementing Regulations, the Draft Protocol on Recognition and the Draft Protocol on Privileges and Immunities

Page 54

The French delegation submits herewith a number of purely drafting amendments to be made to the French text of the Draft Convention and the Draft Implementing Regulations (N/1 and N/2):

ARTICLE 50.-

Paragraph 3: Only concerns French text.

ARTICLE 62.-

Note: Only concerns French text.

ARTICLE 81.-

Only concerns French text.

ARTICLE 85.-

Paragraph 1: Only concerns French text.

ARTICLE 113.-

Paragraph 2: Only concerns French text.

ARTICLE 167.-

Paragraph 3: "... il a effectué une déclaration en vertu du paragraphe 1. Cette nouvelle déclaration prend effet ..."

("... it has made a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1. Such new declaration shall take effect ...")

(It would seem necessary to make this amendment in the three languages. To refer to "a notification pursuant to paragraph 1" in incorrect, since the declaration referred to in paragraph 1 may be made either in the instrument of ratification or accession or in subsequent notification. Hence reference should be to the declaration in general and not merely to that contained in the notification. To avoid any ambiguity, it should be made clear that the declaration at the beginning of the second sentence of paragraph 3 is the "new" declaration made under that paragraph).

RULE 14.-

Only concerns French text.

Page 55

EPR 1006/72

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 11 September 1973

M/58/1/II

Original: French

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

From us by: French delegation

Subject: Proposals for amendments to the Draft Convention and the Draft Implementing Regulations

Page 56

Article 113 Examination by the European Patent Office of its own motion (1) In proceedings before it, the European Patent Office shall examine the facts of its own motion; it shall not be restricted in this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought. (2) Unchanged from 1972 published text.

Page 57

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 DRAFT 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 113

Ex officio examination (1) In proceedings before it, the European Patent Office shall examine the facts of its own motion; it shall not be restricted in this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought. (2) Only concerns French text.

Page 59

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 27 September 1973 M/141/I/R 12 Original: English/French/German

TEXTS DRAWN UP BY THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE OF MAIN COMMITTEE I AT THE MEETING ON 27 SEPTEMBER 1973

Articles of the Convention: Articles 81 113 134

Implementing Regulations: Rules 38 54 58 61 63 67

Article 113 114

Examination by the European Patent Office of its own motion (1) In proceedings before it, the Buronean Patent Office shall examine the facts of its own motion; it shall not be restricted in this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments orovided by the parties and the relief sought. (2) The European Patent Office may disregard facts or evidence which are not submitted in due time by the parties concerned.

Page 61

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 30 September 1973 M/ 146/R 5 Original: English/French/German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: General Drafting Committee

Subject: Convention: Articles 112 to 139

Page 62

520. The IAPIP delegation wondered whether paragraph 1 might be so interpreted that, in taking a decision, the European Patent Office could consider facts or evidence which were unknown to the parties concerned.

In reply, the Chairman referred to Article 112 (113), whereby the European Patent Office could base its decisions only on grounds or evidence on which the parties concerned had had an opportunity to present their comments. 521. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the French delegation concerning paragraph 2(M / 58 / I / II).

Article 115(116) - Oral proceedings

522. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the Luxembourg delegation concerning this Article (M/9, point 21). 523. The Netherlands delegation, supported by the Italian delegation, proposed that Article 115 should be modified in such a way that the European Patent Office was not required to grant an application for more than one set of oral proceedings on the same question and could refuse to hold further proceedings (M/52/I/II/III, page 28). The present version provided no assurance against abuse of the right of request. 524. The Austrian delegation considered that any amendment of the provision should make clear that the higher body would not be entitled to refuse oral proceedings because, say, they had already been held before the lower body. 525. In the view of the FICPI delegation, it would be better to speak of "proceedings on the same subject-matter" rather than of "proceedings on the same issue", for it ought to remain possible to examine one and the same issue, for example inventive step, on the basis of different facts in several sets of proceedings. 526. The Main Committee adopted the Netherlands proposal and referred it to the Drafting Committee with a request to take account of the comments on drafting. 527. At a subsequent meeting, the Main Committee discussed the draft submitted by the Drafting Committee whereby the European Patent Office would be entitled to refuse a request for further oral proceedings in the same body, if the basic facts on which the proceedings were based remained unchanged. 528. At the request of the United Kingdom delegation, supported by the Netherlands delegation, the Main Committee made it clear that the right so to refuse applied only if the parties concerned also remained unchanged.

Article 116(117) - Taking of evidence

529. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning paragraph I, sub-paragraph (g) (M/11, point 30). 530. The Main Committee also referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the Luxembourg delegation concerning paragraphs 4 to 6(M / 9, point 22 ). 531. The Swiss delegation proposed that paragraphs 5 and 6 should be so supplemented that the court in the country of residence of the person giving evidence could also be requested to take evidence following a warning by the judge that false statements were punishable (see M/54/I/II/III, page 18). Under Swiss procedural law, there was no oath in certain federal cantons, but instead the judge gave a warning of this nature and it was therefore essential for Switzerland that the Convention should be supplemented to this effect. 532. The Netherlands delegation supported this proposal since, under Netherlands law also, it was not always possible to demand an oath, and in certain cases an assurance had to suffice instead. 533. The United Kingdom delegation thought that it would be difficult to draft a text which took full account of the varying legal situation in all the Contracting States. It would be satisfied by a statement in the Conference minutes to the effect that persons giving evidence could make their statements in the form prescribed by the Contracting State concerned. 534. The FICPI delegation proposed that this provision should be worded to the effect that evidence could be confirmed either under oath or by means of a written statement comparable to an oath. 535. Finally, the Main Committee referred the Swiss proposal to the Drafting Committee with a request to examine and improve paragraphs 5 and 6 in the light of the discussions. 536. At a subsequent meeting, the Swiss delegation suggested that paragraphs 5 and 6, as formulated in the meantime by the Drafting Committee, should be amended, in German in any case, in order to convey that the form of statement permissible instead of an oath was binding on the person giving evidence. 537. This suggestion was referred to the Drafting Committee.

Article 118(119) - Notification

538. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the Luxembourg delegation (M/9, point 23).

Article 120 (121) - Further processing of the European patent application

539. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the United Kingdom delegation concerning paragraph 1(M / 64 / I, page 1). 540. The FICPI delegation said it had taken the German version of paragraph 1 to mean that a patent application could be further processed if it was to be or had been refused following failure to observe a time limit set by the European Patent Office or if - following failure to observe a time limit set by the European Patent Office or a contractual time limit it was deemed to be withdrawn. It requested confirmation of its interpretation, particularly as the English version seemed to be more restrictive. 541. The Chairman replied that, in his view, it emerged clearly from the German version that further processing was permissible only when there had been failure to observe a time limit set by the European Patent Office. The same was obviously true in the case of an application which was deemed to be withdrawn. He considered that all three versions concurred on this point. 542. The FICPI delegation then suggested that the number of instances in which further processing was permissible where there was failure to observe a time limit should be extended in keeping with the FICPI delegation's understanding thereof.

This would cover only limited cases of time limits, but as regards practice they would be particularly important: e.g. the time limit for filing documents. Not to do so would in practice signify a degree of severity that was surely not intended by the authors of this provision. 543. The Chairman pointed out that it had been the Inter-Governmental Conference's deliberate intention - on the model of Scandinavian law, moreover - to limit this provision to the time limits laid down by the European Patent Office.

He noted that no Government Delegation was prepared to adopt the FICPI suggestion. 544. The United Kingdom delegation proposed that both the

Page 63

the applicant filed an appeal against the invitation to pay the additional search fee and then failed to observe a time limit. In such a case, only the appeal should be deemed to be withdrawn. 498. Summing up, the Chairman noted the Main Committee's view that Article 109, paragraph 3, should be restricted to appeals in the proceedings for grant which related to the application. 499. At a later meeting, the Main Committee discussed the following redraft of paragraph 3 submitted by the Drafting Committee: "If the applicant fails to reply in due time to an an invitation under paragraph 2, the European patent application shall be deemed to be withdrawn". 500. At the request of the Austrian delegation, the Main Committee noted that paragraph 3 was not intended to cover appeals in opposition proceedings; this should be clear from the use of the word "applicant" as against "proprietor of the patent". 501. So that paragraph 3 should not be applied to cases which, in its view, were unjustified - e.g. the refusal of a request for the entry in the European Patent Register of the transfer of rights with respect to the application, the Austrian delegation proposed that it should be supplemented as follows: "If, in proceedings against a decision of the Receiving Section or the Examining Division in the proceedings for grant, the applicant fails to reply..." (otherwise unchanged). 502. The Swiss delegation supported the substance of this proposal and suggested that an explicit reference be made to decisions relating to the grant of the patent. 503. The United Kingdom delegation, while recognising that the Austrian delegation had a point, considered that it would be exceedingly difficult so to draft paragraph 3 as to cover all appeals against decisions in the proceedings for grant, and to exclude appeals against other decisions. It therefore suggested that, since Article 120 (121) laid down the applicant's entitlement - against payment of a fee - to request the further processing of an application deemed to be withdrawn, there was no need for a detailed enumeration of the appeals to which paragraph 3 would not apply. 504. In principle, the Netherlands delegation supported the United Kingdom delegation's view, but suggested that it should be made clear that the application would not be deemed to be withdrawn if the applicant had filed an appeal against a decision of the Legal Division. It considered that, with this exception, many of the cases which the Austrian delegation justifiably wished to exclude could, in this way, be excluded. 505. The Austrian delegation thought that the Netherlands suggestion would certainly help to improve the version of paragraph 3 proposed by the Drafting Committee, but would not exclude all the cases which should be excluded. By contrast, the reference to the possibility of the further processing of the application under Article 120 was inapposite, since in certain cases it was unthinkable to uphold the view, as far as the applicant was concerned, that his application was deemed to be withdrawn, and these cases therefore had to be excluded a priori. 506. The Main Committee then put the Austrian proposal to the vote, as the most far-reaching one. 9 delegations voted in favour, 9 against and there were 2 abstentions. 507. The Netherlands delegation now formulated its earlier suggestion (see point 504) as a proposal.

All delegations but one voted in favour of the proposal, whereupon it was adopted by the Main Committee.

Article 110(111) - Decision in respect of appeals

508. The FICPI delegation asked whether the applicant could submit an amendment of a statement of claims in appeal proceedings. This question could be of great significance in practice, as was demonstrated by the following example. Suppose an applicant filed an application with a principal and a secondary claim, and the principal claim were refused by the Examining Division. Could the applicant then base himself on the secondary claim in the appeal body? If so, he would have some chance of success with his amended statement of claim in the appeal body, even if the Board confirmed the rejection of the principal claim. If not, he ought not even to risk an appeal, but would have to limit himself to the secondary claim in the examining procedure. 509. In the view of the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Convention established that secondary claims could also be submitted to the appeal body. This procedure corresponded, moreover, with practice under German patent law. 510. The Chairman noted that the Main Committee was of the same view.

Article 111 (112) - Decision or opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal

511. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a United Kingdom drafting proposal for paragraph 1(M/40, point 18). 512. The IAPIP delegation expressed the wish that the parties concerned should also be allowed to take part in proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal under paragraph 1(a). 513. The Netherlands delegation, which concurred, nonetheless felt that its wish was already satisfied by virtue of Article 115 (116), paragraph 4, whereby oral proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal were generally public. 514. The Chairman pointed out that Articles 112 et seq. (113 et seq.) applied to all bodies of the European Patent Office and therefore also to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. In his view, this meant that the Enlarged Board of Appeal could not take any decisions without the parties concerned being able to give their views on the matter, and that the Enlarged Board of Appeal was obliged to conduct oral proceedings, if one of the parties concerned so requested. 515. The French delegation considered that, under Article 111 as it stood at present, the applicant for or proprietor of the patent was not entitled to participate in proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal, although he could initiate them, and therefore could not request oral proceedings either. Only the Enlarged Board of Appeal could so order. 516. The Chairman noted that the Inter-Governmental Conference had previously inclined to the view that in proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 111, paragraph 1(a), all parties concerned should be given the right to be heard and to request oral proceedings. 517. The Main Committee referred this issue to the Drafting Committee, requesting it to examine and if need be clarify it.

At a subsequent meeting, it adopted the version proposed by the Drafting Committee embodying the wish of the IAPIP delegation*. 518. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the Luxembourg delegation concerning paragraph 2 (M/9, point 20).

Article 113(114) - Ex officio examination

519. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the United Kingdom delegation concerning paragraph 1(M/40, point 19).

• See Article 112, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING

UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM

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

Page 65

that Article 156, paragraph 3, was to be interpreted as an authorisation for the Administrative Council to provide for the levy of a search fee for each and every international patent application, irrespective of whether additional searches within the meaning of this provision should be carried out in the individual cases.

11. Information to the public of official authorities, legal and administrative co-operation (Articles 127-132, Rules 93-100)

Only a few amendments were made to these provisions. The inspection of files under Article 128 was supplemented so as to provide more precise information for the general public; thus, before the publication of the European patent application, not only the date of filing may be made known to third parties, but also the date. State and file number of any application of which the priority is claimed. The provisions of Articles 130/132 were drafted more generally so that the European Patent Office could make agreements concerning exchanges of information and exchanges of publications not only with States which were not a party to the Convention and with international patent granting authorities, such as WIPO, but also with any other organisations, especially documentation centres such as INPADOC. It was also specified at the same time that the substantive content of applications which had not yet been published could not be the subject of such exchanges of information. In addition, the Administrative Council was authorised in Article 130, paragraph 3, to make provisions in respect of exchanges of information with the last-named organisations which derogated from the restrictions on the inspection of files, in so far as the confidential treatment of the information was guaranteed.

While dealing with the provisions of Article 131, the Main Committee discussed a proposal which, in the light of the procedure laid down in the Protocol on Recognition, aimed to supplement the prescribed legal co-operation between the European Patent Office and the Contracting States by an obligation for the Contracting States to provide legal assistance amongst themselves. This interesting idea was rejected generally because the proposed extension was considered to be an intrusion into international legal aid between Contracting States and also an obligation which far exceeded the purpose of the Convention. A further idea to allow the European Patent Office to intervene as an international notification authority in certain proceedings concerning European patents, also found little approval.

12. Representation (Articles 133-134, 162/Rules 101-103, 107)

The provisions of the Convention and the Implementing Regulations concerning representation before the European Patent Office were already discussed with the organisations concerned during the earlier stages of the negotiations and were, as far as possible adapted to their proposals and wishes. Fortunately this situation meant that the principles established by the Inter-Governmental Conference were no longer questioned as to their substance. In particular, the principle that during a transitional period the representatives' status would basically be controlled by the national law of Contracting States and afterwards by European law, remained uncontested. The general principles concerning representation in Article 133 were also unchanged. The Main Committee generally considered that these principles should also be valid for the transitional period. The Committee also specified that legal persons could be represented not only by their employees - as laid down in paragraph 3 of Article 133 - but also by their departments. Such representation by their departments is regarded as a matter of course, is understood from paragraph 1 of Article 133 and does not need to be expressly laid down.

However, material for discussion was provided by the following points: the uninterrupted change from the transitional period to the permanent arrangements, in particular with reference to the continued effects of national requirements, the reasons for the deletion of professional representatives from the list, questions concerning place of business and other individual problems. The following is a report on the main questions:

(a) Conditions of admission

The Main Committee again discussed the question raised in the earlier negotiations concerning possession of the nationality of a Contracting State as a condition of entry on the list of professional representatives. The majority concluded that this condition should be laid down in Article 162 not only in respect of the permanent solution, but also in respect of the transitional period, in order to avoid the improper acquisition of representation rights after the publication of the Convention. The status quo was taken into account in so far that failure to have the nationality of a Contracting State would not prevent entry on the list, if the representative had a place of business or employment and the right of representation in a Contracting State on 5 October 1973, i. e. at the time of the signing of the Convention.

(b) Restrictions on authorisation to represent

The question arose as to whether restrictions on representation arising from national law should also be valid in respect of proceedings before the European Patent Office during the transitional period. The Committee unanimously considered that such restrictions based on specific rules of national law, in particular on the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany, are not justified in respect of European proceedings. The corresponding provisions of Article 162, paragraphs 2 and 6 , were therefore deleted.

(c) Questions concerning place of business

Article 134 provided that the representatives entered on the list were entitled to establish a place of business in the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands for the purpose of practising their profession before the European Patent Office. In view of proceedings before national authorities carrying out duties on behalf of the European Patent Office, as provided for in the Protocol on Centralisation, the Main Committee supplemented Article 134 accordingly. Professional representatives should consequently also be able to establish a place of business in the Contracting States concerned. There was also discussion of a provision which would have expressly granted the right to practise a profession to a professional representative, his associates, employees and colleagues and the right of establishment to these persons including their families. It was said in reply to the advocates of such a provision, who considered it to be a necessary adjunct to the right of residence, that this would be to bring a "foreign body" into the Convention and might possibly conflict with existing agreements in the field of public law. The Committee thereupon rejected the proposed supplement, but noted on the other hand that the stipulated right to a place of business in accordance with Article 134, paragraphs 3 and 4, would be meaningful only if its recognition were dealt with sensibly. A

Page 66

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 rurest 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

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 l's report was approved without debate (see Section I below). 5. At its meeting on 2 October 1973, the Committee of the Whole discussed Main Committee II's report. The discussion and subsequent approval of the report are dealt with below in Section II.

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

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

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

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

II. Report on the work of Main Committee II

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

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

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

The Committee of the Whole agreed to amend the part of the report concerned as follows: "... the Office will also assume this responsibility in respect of a Member State of the Institute which prior to the entry into force of the Convention, has agreed to submit national applications to the Institute for search." 12. The Committee of the Whole adopted a proposal from the Swedish delegation that the idea proposed by the Scandinavian countries at the beginning of point 22 be worded as follows: "Consideration was given to the idea, proposed by the Scandinavian countries, that such work might be entrusted to national offices, possessing the minimum documentation, whether or not they possessed the other qualifications, required of an International Searching Authority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty." It also approved an addition at the end of the third sentence in this point to the effect that national offices would have to "fully" qualify as Searching Authorities. 13. The Austrian delegation suggested that in the English version of point 22, in the middle of page 14, the words "some search work" be used so as not to prejudge the question of the amount of such search work, which had deliberately been left open. The text would therefore read: "difficulties resulting from a renunciation under Setion 1.2, 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

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING

UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM

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

Page 69

complétée sera soumisc à un examen approfondi par plusicurs membres de l'instance do recours hautement qualifiés et spécialisés dans le domaine général de la technique considérée. Cette procédure sera appliquée surtout dans les cas où lo requérant ne maintiendra, dans la procédure de recours, qu'une soule rovendication ou un petit nombre de revendications. En pareille hypothèse, il est concevable que les rafporteurs de l'Institut international des brovets n'aient pas, à l'époque où ils ont établi le rapport sur la nouveauté, accordé aux revendications restantes toute l'importance qu'elle ont revêtue par la suite.