Art69eTPEPC1973

Métadonnées

• Nom affiché : Art69eTPEPC1973
• Numéro d'article : 69
• Dossier / langue : English
• Tag langue : #English
• PDF original : Articles/English/Articles 051-075/Article 069 (English version)/Art69eTPEPC1973.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. 69 MPÜ Schutzbereich

| Entwurf, der dem nebenstehenden Dokument zugrunde liegt | Art. Nr.

   im 
   Entwurf/ 

Dokument	Dokument, in dem der Art. behandelt wird	Fundstelle im Dokument
d Vorschl.d.Vors.	21a	d IV/2767/61	S.31,32,52
d Vorschl.d.Vors.	9od	d IV/4860/61	S. 44
d IV/2767/61	21a	d IV/3076/62	S. 147
d IV/4860/61	9od	d IV/3076/62	S. 157
d Vt Mai 1962	21	d 6551/IV/62	S. 13,14
Vt 1962	21	d 10818/IV/63	S. 32,33
d Vt 1965	21	BR/7/69	Rdn. 44/45
BR/70/70	20	BR/94/71	Rdn. 80
Vt 1971 (Ue)	20	BR/135/71	Rdn. 102
Vt 1971 (Ue)	20	BR/168/72	Rdn. 54
Vt 1971 (Ue)	20	BR/169/72	Rdn. 35
VE 1971 (Ue)	20	BR/177/72	Rdn. 23
BR/88/71	20	BR/125/71	Rdn. 23
BR/184/72	67	BR/209/72	Rdn. 66

Dokumente der MDK

1. 1972	67	M/13	S. 82  cm^84
"	67	M/16	S. 138 am 140
"	67	M/18	S. 162 am 164
"	67	M/19	S. 170
"	67	M/20	S. 202

Artikel 90 d

Wirkung des endgültigen europäischen Patents

Das endgültige europäische Patent tritt mit der Bekanntmachung der Bestätigung gemäß Artỉkel 90 a Abs. 3 an die Stelle des vorläufigen europäischen Patents.

Page 4

also nicht auf den buchstäblichen Bereich des Patentanspruchs beschränkt, sondern schließt alle Ausführungsformen ein, welche den wesentlichen Kern des im Patentanspruch ausgedrückten Erfindungsgedankens benutzen.

Artikel 21 a des Arbeitsentwurfs sieht die Lösung zu c) vor, indem er sich an das schweizerische Patentgesetz (Artikel 50 und 51) anlehnt.

Es ist offensichtlich, daß, gleichgültig, welche der vorgenannten Lösungsmöglichkeiten man wählt, eine mehr oder weniger große Unterschiedlichkeit der Auslegung des europäischen Patents innerhalb der Vertragsstaaten in Kauf genommen werden muß.

Es wird zu späterer Zeit zu prüfen sein, ob es nicht systematisch richtiger ist, Artikel 21 a in den 8. Abschnitt der vorläufigen Gliederung (Verfahren bei Patentverletzungen) zu übernehmen, sofern man in diesem Abschnitt auch die materiellen Vorschriften über die Verletzung europäischer Patente zusammenfassen will.

Page 5

sachlichen Schutzbereichs beim euivpäischen Patentgericht, Beteiligung des Europäischen Patentamts am Verletzungsstreit, können zunächst aus der Erörterung ausscheiden. Sie sind im Zusammenhang mit späteren Vorschriften des Entwurfs zu behandeln.

An dieser Stelle dürfte nur die Beschränkung der Auslegung des europäischen Patents auf die Ansprüche und andere Unterlagen zu behandeln sein (vgl. Studie Haertel, S. 67 Buchstabe e). Dabei ist zunächst zu unterstellen, dass für die europäische Patentanmeldung die Aufstellung von Patentansprüchen vorgeschrieben werden wird (vgl. hierzu Studie Haertel, Anhang S. 10 Abschnitt II). Der Studie Morf folgend, lassen sich dann folgende drei Möglichkeiten unterscheiden: a) Ansprüche, Beschreibung und Zeichnung werden in gleicher Weise nebeneinander zur Auslegung des europäischen Patents herangezogen. b) Nur die Ansprüche werden für die Auslegung des Patents herangezogen.

Die Beschreibung kann lediglich herangezogen werden, soweit es sich um die Aufklärung von unklaren oder mehrdeutigen Ausdrücken des Patentanspruchs handelt. c) Eine Mittellösung zwischen a) und b).

Der Patentanspruch ist zwar für die Auslegung massgebend. Er hat ein Übergewicht. Jedoch kann die Beschreibung zur Auslegung des Patentanspruchs herangezogen werden. Der Schutzumfang des Patents ist

Zu Artikel 21 a

Schutzumfang des europäischen Patents

1. Materialien :

a) Studie Haertel, S. 30 Abschnitt VI., S. 67 Buchst.e) b) Bericht von Morf über "Die Tragweite der Beschreibung und des Patentanspruchs" für den Sachverständigenausschuß für Patentfragen des Europarats (Dokument des Europarats EXP/Brev. (60) 4 vom 14.10. 1960) - im folgenden Studie Morf genannt - .

2. Bemerkungen :

Die nationalen Gesetze der Staaten des Gemeinsamen Markts enthalten keine ausdrücklichen Vorschriften über die Auslegung des einzelnen Patents. Grundsätze für die auslegung finden sich nur in der Rechtspraxis und in der Rechtsprechung. Diese Grundsätze sind von Staat zu Staat unterschiedlich.

Diese Rechtslage führt zu keinen nennenswerten Schwierigkeiten, soweit es sich um die auslegung nationaler Patente handelt. Eine andere Lage ergibt sich jedoch für das europäische Patent, weil nach den Beschlüssen des Koordinierungsausschusses die Verletzungsklagen durch die nationalen Gerichte entschieden werden sollen und damit die Anwendung der unterschiedlichen nationalen Auslegungsgrundsätze zu einer unterschiedlichen Auslegung des europäischen Patents von Staat zu Staat führt.

Für das europäische Patentrecht ergibt sich daher die Notwendigkeit zu prüfen, welche Maßnahmen im europäischen Recht vorgesehen werden können, um eine möglichst einheitliche Auslegung des europäischen Patents in allen Vertragsstaaten zu erreichen. Die in der Studie Haertel (S. 62 ff.) zu diesem Zweck erwogenen prozessualen Möglichkeiten, wie Konzentrierung der gerichtlichen Zuständigkeit innerhalb der Vertragsstaaten, Anrufung eines europäischen Patentgerichts als Rechtseinheitsinstanz für europäisches Recht, besondere Klage auf Feststellung des

Artikel 21 a
Schutzumfang des europäischen Patents

Für den sachlichen Schutzbereich des europäischen Patents ist der Inhalt des Patentanspruchs maBgebend. Zur Auslegung des Patentanspruchs kann die Beschreibung herangezogen werden.

Kurt Haertel

Bonn, den 14. März 1961

VERTRAULICH !

Erster Arbeitsentwurf eines Abkommens

über ein europäisches zatenrecht

Artikel 11 bis 29

Page 9

Artikel 20

Der Text wird in beiden Altornativen angenommen.

Artikel 21

Der Text wird vorläufig in Erwartung eines Vorschlages der BeneluxStaaten angenommen.

Artikel 21 a

Der Text wird angenommen.

Artikel 22

Der Text wird angenommen; der Ausdruck "droit d'utilisation antérieure" wird ersetzt durch den Ausdruck "droit fondé sur une utilisation antérieure".

In dem begleitenden Bericht wird dargelegt werden, warum die verwandten Begriffe "persönliches Besitzrecht" und "Vorbenutzungsrecht" gleichzeitig beibohalten wurden.

Artikel 23 bis 26

Der Text dieser Artikel liegt noch nicht vor.

Artikel 27

Der Text wird angenommen.

Artikel 28

Der Text der Absätze 1 und 2 wird angenommen.

Zu Absatz 3 wird auf Wunsch der deutschen Delegation hinzugefügt "es sei denn, dass die Anmeldung des Hauptpatents vor der Einreichung der Anmeldung des Zusatzpatents veröffentlicht worden ist".

Page 10

Einige Delegationen halten diese Formel für zu eingehend und wünschen, dem Richter eine gewisse Auclugungffreiheit zu lassen.

Herr Fressonnet erklärt sich bereit, einen passenderen. Text vorzulegen.

Die Arbeitsgruppe billigt abschliessend den ersten Satz von Artikel 21 a), der dem Redaktionsausschuss überwiesen wird.

Herr Fressonnet wird für den zweiten Satz eine neue Fassung vorschlagen.

Erörterungen zu Artikel 22 des Vorentwurfs

Der Präsident weist darauf hin, dass es drei Lösungsmöglichkeiten gibt, um das Vorbenutzungsrecht zu regeln.

1. Die Voraussetzungen des Vorbenutzungsrechts werden in der Konvention geregelt. 2. Die Konvention sieht vor, dass das Vorbenutzungsrecht von der nationalen Gesetzgebung geregelt wird. Das. Vorbenutzungsrecht erstreckt sich jedoch auf das Gesamtgebiet des. Gemeinsamen Marktes. 3. Wie in der vorstehenden Lösung ist das Vorbenutzungsrecht durch die nationale Gesetzgebung geregelt, aber dieses Recht beschränkt sich auf das Gebiet des Staates, auf dessen Gesetzgebung es beruht.

Page 11

Herrn Do Kuyser hält der Präsident entgegen, dass gegen seinen Vorschlag psychologische Bedenken sprächen. Die Aufzählung von Minimalrechten würde nicht zur Schaffung eines neuen Rechtes beitragen.

Der Präsident stellt fest, dass nur eine Minderheit der Arbeitsgruppe sich für die Redaktion seines Vorschlages für Artikel 21 ausgesprochen hat. Diese Minderheit besteht auch auf der Notwendigkeit einer Angleichung der nationalen Gesetze, um die bestehenden Unterschiede zu beseitigen. Der Präsident schlägt vor, dass Artikel 21 in seiner derzeitigen Form bis zu einer anderen Lösung beibehalten wird.

Er bittet die Delegationen der Bonelux-Staaten der Arbeitsgruppe bei der nächsten Sitzung einen Entwurf für Artikel 21 vorzulegen. Dieser Entwurf soll die verschiedenen nationalen Schutzwirkungen berücksichtigen und auf einen Maximalschutz abstellon; anderenfalls würde das europäische Patent wegen eines zu schwachen Schutzes seine Anziehungskraft gegenüber bestimmten nationalen Patenten verlieren.

Die Arbeitsgruppe billigt die Entscheidungen des Präsidenten.

Erörterungen zu Artikel 21 a) des Vorentwurfs

Der Präsident erklärt, dass die Numerierung dieses Artikels nur auf materielle Schwierigkeiten zurückzuführen ist. Er habe die Bedeutung der Auslegung des europäischen Patentes nicht verringern wollen. Er weist darauf hin, dass der von ihm vorgeschlagene Text eine Kittellösung darstellt. Die Patentansprüche sind für die Auslegung des Patentes massgeblich, aber zur Klärung von Ausdrücken in den Ansprüchen kann auf die Beschreibung Bezug genommen werden.

Die Arbeitsgruppe billigt den Grundsatz der in Artikel 21 a) enthaltenen Lösung.

Herr Fressonnet würde vorziehen klarzustellen, wie die Auslegung zu geschehen hat und schlägt daher vor, den zweiten Satz von Artikel 21 a) durch den Text von Artikel 4, Abs. 3 (EXP/brev. Dok. 61/3 des Europarates) zu ersetzen.

Page 12

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Brüssel, den 3. Mai 1961

VURTRAULICE

Ergebnisse der ersten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Batente" vom 17. bis 28. April 1961 in Brüssel

Erörterungen zu Artikel 90 b) des Vorontwurfs

Herr De Muyser regt an, in der Ausfortigung des ondgultigen Patentes den Stand der Technik anzugeben.

Die Gruppe billigt diese Anregung, da in der Ausfortigung ältere Rechte angegeben sein können, die im Nouheitsbericht nicht erwähnt sind. Sie hält es jedoch für zwockmässig, eino derartige Bestimmung für die Durchführungsverordnung vorzubohalton.

Artikel 90 b) wird gebilligt und an den Redaktionsausschuss überwiesen.

Erörterungen zu Artikel 90 c) des Vorontwurfs Herr De Muyser ist der Ansicht, dass Absatz 3 dieses Artikels in dor Durchführungsverordnung stchen müsste.

Herr Roscioni hält diese Bestimmung für.überflüssig, weil sie keine Rechtsfolgen auslöse. Dagegen müsse dio Löschung des vorläufigon europäischen Patents im europäisehen Register bei Erteilung des ondgültigen Patentes vorgeschricben werden.

Die Gruppe wird diose Frage im Zusammenhang mit don Bestimmungen über das Register des europäischen Amtes erörtern; sie überweist den Artikel an den Redaktionsausschuss.

Erörterungen zu Artikel 90 d) des Vorontwurfs

Die Gruppe weist auf die rechtliche Wirkung der Bestätigung hin. Auf Grund einer Fiktion tritt die rechtliche Wirkung des ondgultigon Patents bereits mit der Veröffentlicbung des vorläufigen Patents ein.

Der Artikel wird genohmigt und an den Redaktionsausschuss überwiesen.

VERTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der zwoiten Sitzung der Arboitsgruppe "Patente" vom 3. bis 14. Juli 1961 in Brüssel

Page 15

Artikel 21 a Sachlicher Schutzbereich des europäischen Patents

Der sachliche Schutzbereich des europäischen Patents wird durch den Inhalt der Patentansprüche bestimmt. Jedoch dienen die Beschreibung und die Zeichnungen zur Klärung der Tragweite der Patentansprüche.

Page 16

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Brüssel, den 3. Mai 1961

VURTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der ersten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 17. bis 28. April 1961 in Brüssel

Page 17

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

Artikel 85 wird dem Redaktionsausschuß überwiesen.

Artikel 86 Der Redaktionsausschuß wird beauftragt, zu prüfen, ob Dritte auch bezüglich der Voraussetzung einer neuen Erfindung das Widerspruchsrecht be-

Page 18

Artikel 21 a

Der RedaktionsausschuB wird beauftragt, den Wortlaut mit dem StraB–burger Entwurf in Einklang zu bringen.

Artikel 22 Die Klammern werden gestrichen.

Artikel 27 Wird dem RedaktionsausschuB überwiesen.

Artikel 28 Der Vorsitzende fragt, ob die Arbeitsgruppe die Klammern in Abs. 3 zu streichen wünsche. Es gehe darum, ob das Zusatzpatent eine unabhängige neue Erfindung verlange, wenn die Anmeldung des Hauptpatents vor der Anmeldung des Zusatzpatents bekanntgemacht worden sei.

Mehrere Delegaticzen sind der Ansicht, das Vorliegen einer unabhängigen Erfindung sei nicht notwendig, da das Zusatzpatent wegen des Erlöschens mit dem Hauptpatent von kurzer Dauer sei.

Herr Pfanner hält diese Voraussetzung dagegen für notwendig. Wenn man sie streiche, könne dadurch der technische Fortschritt gehemmt und die Mo–polisierung gefördert werden.

Die Arbeitsgruppe beschlieBt, vor der Münchener Sitzung zu dieser Frage keine Stellung zu nehmen und beauftragt die deutsche Delegation mit der Vorbereitung eines Vermerks für diese Sitzung.

Es wird beschlossen, die letzten Klammern in Abs. 3 zu streichen. Bei Absatz 4 wird beschlossen, die Klammern um das Wort "Verzicht" zu streichen.

" Patente "

Brüssel, den 22. Mai 1962 VERTRAULICH

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

Page 20

Brüssel, den 12. Juli 1961

Artikel 90 d Wirkung des endgültigen europäischen Patents

Mit der Bestätigung gemäss Artikcl 90 a ter Absatz 2 wird das vorläufige europäische Patent in ein endgültiges europäisches Patent umgewandelt. Die Bestätigung bestimmt rückwirkend den sachlichen Schutzbereich des europäischen Patents im Sinne des Artikels 21 a:

Page 21

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Brüssel, don 18. Juli 1961

VERTRAULICH

Ergabnisso dor zwoiton Sitzung dor Arboitsgruppe "Patente" vom 3. bis 14. Juli 1961 in Brüssel

Artikel 21 (21a + 904)

Sachlicher Schutzbereich des europäischen Patents (1) Der sachliche Schutzbereich des europäischen Patents wird durch den Inhalt der Patentanspriche bestimmt. Jedoch dienen die Beschreibung und die Zeichnungen zur Klarstellung der Tragweite der Patentanspriche. (2) Die Bestätigung des vorläufigen europäischen Patents als endgültiges europäisches Patent bestimmt rückwirkend den sachlichen Schutzbereich des europäischen Patents.

Page 23

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" Redaktionsausschuss

Brüssel, den 26. Mai 1962

STRENG VERTRAULICH

   v ∘ r  e ṅ t ẇu̇ṙ

eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

Page 24

die Beschreibung und die Zeichnungen nur dann zum Zuge kämen, wenn die Patentansprüche nicht deutlich abgegrenzt seien. Nach dem Vorentwurf hingegen könnten die Beschreibung und die Zeichnungen auch dann berücksichtigt werden, wenn die Patentansprüche selbst zwar klar abgegrenzt seien, die Beschreibung und die Zeichnungen dagegen weiter reichen.

Nach Aussprache stimmte die Gruppe für Beibehaltung der gegenwärtigen Fassung des Vorentwurfs.

Der Vorsitzende ersuchte die deutsche Delegation, den fraglichen Satz so zu formulieren, daß er den Sinn des französischen Textes genauer wiedergibt.

Der zweite Absatz dieses Artikels wurde aus dem früheren Artikel 90 d übernommen, der dafür fortfällt. Der Artikel wurde angenommen. Artikel 22 (22) und 23 (27)

Beide Artikel wurden mit einigen formalen Änderungen angenommen. Artikel 24 (28)

Die Aussprache über diesen Artikel wurde bis zur Fertigstellung einer französischen Übersetzung der deutschen Aufzeichnung über Zusatzpatente zurückgestellt.

Artikel 25 (23), 26 (25), 27 (24 a), 28 (25 a), 29 (24) und 30 (26 a) Diese Artikel behandeln das Europäische Patent als Gegenstand des Vermögens. Sie wurden vom Redaktionsausschuß auf Grund von Beschlüssen der Gruppe aufgestellt.

Der Vorsitzende sieht in Artikel 25 Absatz 5 der gegenwärtigen Fassung insofern ein Problem, als danach im Falle des Rechtsübergangs auch der nicht gutgläubige Dritte geschützt wird, sobald er die Eintragung veranlaßt hat. Will man aber einen bösgläubigen Dritten überhaupt schützen? Das skandinavische Recht steht hier sehr richtig auf dem Standpunkt, daß die Eintragung nur dann wirksam wird, wenn der Dritte zur Zeit dieser Eintragung gutgläubig war. Diese Lösung wurde von der Gruppe angenommen. Die Frage, welcher Zeitpunkt für die Beurteilung des guten Glau-

Artike1 20 (21)

Die Sitzung wurde um 10.10 Uhr durch den Vorsitzenden eröffnet. Dieser legte der Gruppe die zweite Fassung von Artikel 20 (21) zur Prüfung vor. Herr van Benthem erklärte, Absatz 4 beruhe auf einem Beschluß der Gruppe, wonach dieser Artikel eine Bemerkung über diejenigen Handlungen berücksichtigen soll, die vorgenommen werden, nachdem der Patentinhaber den Gegenstand des Patents in Verkehr gebracht habe. Artikel 29 (24) enthalte eine entsprechende Bestimmung über ein Erzeugnis, das der Lizenznehmer rechtmäbig in Verkehr gebracht habe. wegen Absatz 7, der die Anwendung des nationalen Rechts im Falle einer Patentverletzung betrifft, schloß sich die Gruppe der Auffassung des Präsidenten an, wonach dieser Absatz nur insoweit zum Zuce komme, als Absatz 2 keine Anwendung findet. In absatz 8 müsse es anstelle von "Artikel 174" heißen: "Artikel 175".

Anschließend fand eine Aussprache über die Frage statt, ob der Text der zweiten Fassung des Artikels nicht in mehrere Artikel unterteilt werden solle. Die Gruppe beschloß, die Reihenfolge der ersten und zweiten Fassung umzustellen. Gleichzeitig soll der gegenwärtige Text der zweiten Fassung in die Artikel 20 a, 20  b, 20 c usw. unterteilt werden. Der Redaktionsausschuß wird diese anderungen durchführen.

Der Artikel wurde dem hedaktionsausschuß mit diesen Hinweisen übergeben.

Artikel 21 (21 a + 90 d) Die Gruppe prüfte den zweiten Satz des ersten Absatzes: "Jedoch dienen die Beschreibung und die Zeichnungen zur Verdeutlichung der Tragweite der Patentansprüche" und verglich ihn mit dem Straßburger Entwurf, wonach Beschreibung und Zeichnungen zur Auslegung der Patentansprüche dienen. Nach Ansicht des Vorsitzenden ist die Fassung des Vorentwurfs geschmeidiger als die des Straßburger Entwurfs. Sie unterscheide sich insofern wesentlich von letzterem, als nach dem Straßburger Entwurf die

Page 26

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 31. Juli 1962 Vertraulich

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

Page 27

(2) The provisions of Article 5ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property shall not apply to the vessels or aircraft or land vehicles of the Contracting States for the purposes of exercising the rights conferred by a European patent. (3) Paragraph 1 shall not apply to provisional European patents except as provided for in Article 176.

Note : The majority of the Study Group declared its support for the 1st Variant. Article 21. Extent of the protection conferred by a European patent (1) The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent shall be determined by the terms of the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. (2) The confirmation of a provisional European patent as a final European patent shall determine retroactively the extent of the protection conferred by the European patent.

Article 22. Right of personal possession and right based on prior use Any person who, if a national patent had been granted in respect of an invention in one of the Contracting States, would have had a right based on prior use of that invention or on personal possession of that invention, shall enjoy, in that State, the same rights in respect of a European patent for the same invention.

Article 23. Term of European patent

A European patent shall cease to be valid on a date not later than twenty years from the date of filing the application.

Article 24. European patents of addition

(1) European patents of addition shall be granted for the improvement of an invention protected by a European patent upon application being made subsequent to that for the parent patent and prior to the publication, pursuant to Article 85, of the parent patent. (2) A European patent of addition may be granted only to the proprietor of the parent patent. (3) The invention which forms the subject of the patent of addition shall not be subject to the requirement of an inventive step within the meaning of Article 13, in relation to the invention which forms the subject of the parent patent. (4) A European patent of addition shall expire at the same time as the parent European patent. Nevertheless, if the present European patent expires as a result of cancellation, revocation or surrender, the patent of addition shall become an

Page 28

BOARD OF TRADE

Translation of a Draft Convention relating to a European Patent Law

LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE FIVE SHILLINGS NET

Page 29

Einige Delegationen sind der Ansicht, daß das Wort "erläutern" zweideutig scin könnte; andere Delegationen halten es für gleichbedeutend mit "Verdeutlichung der Tragweite". Zweifellos dürfte aber der Ausdruck der Konvention von Straßburg den des Brüsseler Abkommens einbeziehen. Die derzeitige Fassung wird mit dem Vorbehalt einer späteren Erörterung aufrechterhalten. Auf Wunsch von Herrn Fressonnot wird die Gruppe bei der Prüfung der Ausführungsordnung die Frage prüfen, ob es nicht wünschenswert sei, in letzterer zu klären, was man unter Patentansprüchen versteht. Außerdem wird der Redaktionsausschuß die Bemerkungen der beteiligten Kreise prüfen und insbesondere feststellen, ob diese nicht auch eher unter die Ausführungsordnung als unter das Abkommen fallen.

Der Vorsitzende bittet anschließend die Gruppe, ein Verfahrensproblem im Zusammenhang mit dem Antrag der UNICE zu prüfen. Zunächst gibt er bekannt, daß die Staatssekretäre ihre Zustimmung dazu gegeben haben, daß die Gruppe die beteiligten Kreise anhört. Die Staatssekretäre haben der Gruppe volle Handlungsfreiheit gegeben. Nach Ansicht des Vorsitzenden sollte man die beteiligten Kreise erst dann anhören, wenn die Prüfung ihrer Bemorkungen abgeschlossen ist, d.h. nicht vor Ende der nächsten für Januar 1964 vorgesehenen Sitzung.

Mit Zustimmung der Gruppe beschließt der Vorsitzende, das Schreiben der UNICE in diesem Sinne zu beantworten. Sollten in der Folge andere Verbände ebenfalls Anträge auf Anhörung stellen, könne die Gruppe über das zu verfolgende Verfahren entscheiden.

Die vorläufigen Berichte dieser Sitzung werden den Delegierten im Laufe der nächsten Woche zugehen. Änderungen können bis zum 18. November vorgenommen werden.

Der Vorsitzende dankt den Delegierten und erinnert sie daran, daß die nächste Sitzung der Gruppe in Brüssel vom 20. bis 31. Januar 1964 stattfinden wird und am 20. Januar um 15.00 Uhr beginnt.

Die Sitzung wird um 12.30 Uhr geschlossen.

Page 30

1. Ist es wünschenswert, in Artikel 20 b näher anzugeben, welches nationale Recht anwendbar ist? 2. Wenn ja, welche Vorschriften des nationaler Rechts sollen angewendet werden?

Artikel 20 c Herr Froschmaier verliest einen Vorschlag der UNION, nach deren Ansicht eine positive Definition des Rechtes aus dem vorläufigen Patent klarer wäre. Der Vorsitzende teilt diese Auffassung nicht, da forbehaltlich des Artikels 176 das Recht aus dem vorläufigen europäischen Patent das gleiche ist wie das aus dem endgültigen Patent. Ein einfacher Hinweis genüge folglich.

Die Gruppe teilt diese Auffassung. Artikel 20 - zweite Fassung Keine Bemerkungen. Artikel 21 Herr Froschmaier verliest die Vorschläge der internationalen Verbände. Diese sind insbesondere redaktioneller Art. Sie bezwecken eine möglichst klare Definition des Begriffs "sachlicher Schutzbereich des Patents".

Nach einem Gedankenoustausch verweist der Vorsitzende darauf, daß zwei Probleme im Zusammenhang mit diesem Artikel zu unterscheiden sind:

1. Die deutsche und französische Fassung muß hinsichtlich der Worte "teneur" und "Inhalt" abgestimmt werden. Diese Aufgabe wird dem Redaktionsausschuß übertragen. 2. Soll Absatz 1 wörtlich die entsprechende Vorschrift des Konventionsentwurfs des Europorates übernehmen? Der Entwurf des Europarates bezieht sich auf Zeichnungen, die "zur Erläuterung der Ansprüche" dienen, während der Vorentwurf des Abkommens in Absatz 1 von Artikel 21 von Zeichnungen "zur Verdeutlichung der Tragweite der Patentansprüche" dienen. Der Unterschied zwischen diesen beiden Ausdrücken wird anschließend erörtert.

Page 31

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Ergebnisse der 11. Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 22. bis 24. Oktober 1963 in Brüssel

SITZUNGSBERICHT

Page 32

nur deutscher Text

Artikel 21 Sachlicher Schutzbereich des ouropäischen Patents (1) Der sachliche Schutzbereich des ouropäischen Patents wird durch den Inhalt der Patentansprüche bestimmt. Die Beschreibung und die Zeichnungen sind jedoch zur Vordentlichung der Tragweite der Patentansprüche heranzuziehon. (2) ^+Die Bestätigung des vorläufigen europäisehen Patents als endgültiges europäisches Patent bestimmt rückwirkond den sachlichen Schutzbereich des ouropäischen Patents.

Page 33

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente"

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

Vertraulich

Inderungen des Vorentwurfs eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

(Artikel 1 bis 175)

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

Page 34

of the application, i.e. the claims, the specification and, where appropriate, the drawings.

Article 21 - Extent of the protection conferred by a European patent 44. For paragraph 1 the Working Party adopted the text of Article 8, paragraph 3, of the 1963 Strasbourg Convention. 45. The question arose of whether, in accordance with the general aims of the Convention, this Article, which applied to the European patent after grant, should not be deleted.

The Working Party nevertheless considered that it was necessary to insert this Article into the Convention, since an applicant can only draw up his claims for a European patent application if he knows exactly what the principles for their interpretation are.

Article 22 - Right of personal possession and right based on prior use 46. The Working Party did not consider it necessary to retain this provision of the 1965 Draft.

Term, patents of addition

Article 23 - Term of European paient 47. See note in document B R / 6 / 69.

Page 35

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

Brussels, 29 July 1969 BR/7/69

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

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

I

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

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

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

(1) See annexed list of participants in the meeting of the Working Party.

Page 36

Article 20 (former Article 21) Extent of the protection conferred by a European patent (1) The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent shall be determined by the terms of the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. (2) The grant of a European patent shall determine retroactively the extent of the protection conferred by the European patent application.

Note to Article 20 (1) : This paragraph corresponds to Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Strasbourg Convention.

Page 37

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 38

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

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

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

BR/94 e/71 aut/KM/prk

Page 39

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

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

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

Should an earlier European application form an obstacle to the grant of a European patent under Article 11, paragraph 3 even where the inventor is the same person in both cases? 2 so-called Self-collision (FICPI) 7

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

Page 40

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

Brussels, 6th April 1971 B R / 94 / 71

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

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

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

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

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

Page 41

Rechte aus der europäischen Patentanmeldung nach Veröffentlichung (1) Die europäische Patentanmeldung gewährt dem Anmelder vom Tage ihrer Veröffentlichung gemäß Artikel 85 an einstweilen den Schutz nach Artikel 18. (2) Jeder Vertragsstaat kann mit Wirkung für sein Hoheitsgebiet vorsehen, daß die europäische Patentanmeldung keinen Schutz gemäß Artikel 18 gewährt. In diesem Fall har er zumindest vorzusehen, daß der Anmelder für die Zeit von der Veröffentlichung der europäischen Patentanmeldung an von demjenigen, der den Gegenstand der Anmeldung in diesem Vertragsstaat unter Voraussetzungen benutzt hat, die nach dem nationalen Recht im Falle der Verletzung eines nationalen Patents sein Verschulden begründen würden, eine nach den Umständen angemessene Entschädigung verlangen kann. (3) Artikel 20 Absatz 2 ist auf die Absätze 1 und 2 anzuwenden. (4) Jeder Vertragsstaat, in dem nicht eine der in Artikel 34 Absatz 1 genannten Sprachen Amtssprache ist, kann vorsehen, daß der einstweilige Schutz gemäß den Absätzen 1 und 2 erst von dem Tag an eintritt, an dem der Öffentlichkeit eine Übersetzung der Patentansprüche in eine seiner Amtssprachen unter den nach nationalem Recht vorgesehenen Voraussetzungen zugänglich gemacht worden ist, oder an dem eine Übersetzung der Patentansprüche in eine seiner Amtssprachen demjenigen übermittelt worden ist, der den Gegenstand der Anmeldung in diesem Vertragsstaat benutzt. (5) Mit dem Eintritt der Rechtskraft der Zurückweisung der europäischen Patentanmeldung oder mit dem Tag der Zurücknahme der europäischen Patentanmeldung gelten die in den Absätzen 1 und 2 vorgesehenen Wirkungen der europäischen Patentanmeldung als von Anfang an nicht eingetreten. Das gleiche gilt im Falle der Zurücknahme der Benennung eines Vertragsstaats für die Wirkungen der europäischen Patentanmeldung in diesem Vertragsstaat.

Artikel 20

Sachlicher Schutzbereich des europäischen Patents (1) Der sachliche Schutzbereich des europäischen Patents wird durch den Inhalt der Patentansprüche bestimmt. Die Beschreibung und die Zeichnungen sind jedoch zur Auslegung der Patentansprüche heranzuziehen. (2) Die Erteilung des europäischen Patents bestimmt rückwirkend den sachlichen Schutzbereich der europäischen Patentanmeldung.

Article 19

Rights conferred by a European patent application after publication (1) A European patent application shall, from the date of its publication under Article 85, provisionally confer upon the applicant such protection as is conferred by Article 11 . (2) Any Contracting State may stipulate, in respect of its own territory, that a European patent application shall not confer such protection as is conferred by Article 18. In this event, such State shall ensure at least that, from the date of publication of a European patent application, the applicant can claim appropriate compensation from any person using the subject-matter of the application in the said State in circumstances where that person would be liable under national law for infringement of a national patent. (3) Article 20, paragraph 2, shall apply to the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2. (4) Any Contracting State which does not have as an official language any of the languages specified in Article 34, paragraph 1, may stipulate that provisional protection in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall not be effective until such time as: either a translation of the patent claims has been made available to the public in the manner prescribed by national law in one of its official languages, or a translation of the patent claims into one of its official languages has been communicated to any person using the subject-matter of the application in the said State. (5) Once the refusal of a European patent application has become final, or once a European patent application has been withdrawn, the European patent application shall be deemed never to have had the effects set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above. Where the designation of a Contracting State is withdrawn, the same shall apply in respect of the effects of the European patent application in that State.

Article 20

Extent of the protection conferred by a European patent (1) The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent shall be determined by the terms of the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. (2) The grant of a European patent shall determine retroactively the extent of the protection conferred by the European patent application.

Page 42

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

ZWEITER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

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

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

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

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

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

Page 43

In the light of these arguments, the German delegation withdrew its proposal.

Article 21 (Patents of addition) 103. The Working Party had been given a mandate by the Conference to examine the advisability of retaining the system of patents of addition in view of the fact that it would have no bearing on fees in the system set out in Articles 11 and 13. It was agreed that patents of addition should not be included. It was consequently decided to delete Article 21 and the provisions of the Convention and Implementing Regulations which dealt with patents of addition (Article 88, paragraph 4, Article 129, paragraph 3, Re. Article 21, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Re. Article 34, No. 7, Re. Article 59, No. 1, paragraph 1(k), (n) and (o), Re. Article 130, No. 1, and Re. Article 145, No. 11, paragraph 1(c). In the light of this decision, two other provisions of the Implementing Regulations had to be amended: Re. Article 34, No. 8 and Re. Article 66, No. 1, paragraph 2.

Article 22 (Unitary character of the European patent application in proceedings before the European Patent Office) 104. As the problems concerning this provision were closely bound up with those raised by Articles 15 and 16, the Working Party decided to defer discussion of them until such time as a final text for these Articles has been adopted.

Article 23 (Transfer of a European patent application) 105. As a note to Article 23 stated that provisions would have to be made to inform the European Patent Office of any change of ownership of the European patent during the opposition period or during opposition proceedings, the Working Party discussed the drafting of such provisions.

Page 44

documents as they stood on the priority date (description, claims, drawings), excluding any subsequent amendments or additions, would be considered. The Working Party also considered that this interpretation was sufficiently clearly implied in the text and that there was therefore no need to amend it before the interested circles had stated their position on the matter.

Article 20, paragraph 1 (Extent of the protection conferred by a European patent) 102. The German delegation pointed out that in the English text particularly and in the two other versions to a lesser extent, the wording of this provision was too narrow. The present text could indeed be interpreted so as to limit the protection to the litteral content of the claims, excluding their substance. Moreover, the word "nevertheless" would seem to indicate that the description and drawings would only be used by way of exception. It proposed that the wording of paragraph 1 would be made more flexible if it were to read: "... shall be determined by the claims. The description and ...".

In opposition to this proposal, it was said that the text in question was aligned on a provision of the Strasbourg Convention and was the result of a compromise between, amongst others, the German and United Kingdom delegations, being part of a version that had been even more precisely worded than the version eventually adopted. It was also pointed out that the proposal would result in a provision of such a general nature as to render it more or less superfluous.

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 OctrooIread; and after his departure, that of Mr. LABRY, Embassy Counsellor at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (France).

Page 46

In conclusion, the Conference instructed Working Party I to examine means of clarifying the interpretation of Article 20 along the lines of the middle course recommended by the interested circles, either by an addition to that Article, or by a declaration of intent. It was noted that if the latter formula were adopted, it should be brought to the notice of the interested circles in order to allay anxieties which Article 20 in its present form seemed to arouse.

Article 21 (European patents of addition) 55. The Conference noted that almost all the organisations were in favour of retaining patents of addition. Several organisations even asked that such patents might be granted during the whole period of validity of the parent patent. 56. Two delegations supported this last request. On the other hand, several delegations were against this possibility, noting that if it were adopted it would lead to a substantial amendment of the rule set out in Article 13 which excludes a later application from the requirement of involving an inventive step in comparison with an application already filed on condition that the latter has not yet been published. This condition ought to be abolished specifically for patents of addition. 57. The opinions of the Conference were divided with regard to the retention of Article 21 as it appears in the 1971 published text.

Page 47

Article 20 (Extent of the protection conferred by a European patent) 54. The Conference noted a general trend which emerged from the hearing with the interested circles towards a system of interpretation of claims situated half way between the "strict" British system and the "liberal" German system.

The Conference did not feel able to support the proposal to delete the words "Inhalt", "terms" and "teneur" in paragraph 1, nor the proposal to seek words in the three languages which corresponded more closely to one another. That would in fact lead to an amendment of a provision which corresponded with an identical provision in the Strasbourg Convention of 1963.

The Conference then examined two other proposals with a view to defining a middle-of-the-road interpretation: the proposal of some organisations ( BR / 165 / 72 ) to make an addition to the second sentence of Article 20 and the suggestion to leave the present text unaltered while leaving the task of reasonable interpretation to jurisprudence.

One delegation declared in favour of an addition to the text of Article 20 as proposed by some organisations. Another delegation, however, recommended retention of the present text and suggested drafting a declaration of intent which could be adopted by the Diplomatic Conference.

Page 48

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

Brussels, 15 March 1972 BR / 168 / 72

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

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

Parts 1 and 3

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

Page 49

Finally, the ICC, CEIF, COPRICE, FICPI, UNEPA and UNICE submitted a joint text (BR/165/72) intended to supplement the second sentence of Article 20 in such a way that, even though it would not be possible to arrive at uniform legal practice on this point, a certain flexibility would be introduced, while the margin of discretion of the courts in the Contracting States would be reduced.

UNICE and CEIF suggested that a special rule should be laid down for "obvious equivalents".

Article 21 (European Patents of addition) 36. Nearly all the organisations came out in favour of maintaining patents of addition.

Apart from their usefulness from the point of view of fees, patents of addition would obviate the filing of an initial application comprising speculative claims. As many inventions developed gradually, it was in the public interest to know which improvements would not be disclosed, if there were no possibility of obtaining patents of addition.

The COPRICE, which called for deletion of the last sentence in Article 13, pointed out that in such an eventuality patents of addition would have to be maintained so as to allow the patentability of improvements which did not in themselves constitute an inventive step. The same organisation remarked that in practice, if a licence were granted in respect of a patent, the licence agreement entailed the automatic grant of licences in respect of subsequent patents of addition.

Page 50

Article 20 (Extent of the protection conferred by a European patent) 35. A number of organisations (IAPIP, CEIF, FICPI, EIRMA and UNEPA) proposed deletion of the words "Inhalt", "terms" and "teneur" in paragraph 1. CEIF, for its part, further proposed replacing the word "determined" by "defined".

The observation was male that these terms had different meanings and as a result there would be different interpretations of a European patent if it were subject to national revocation or infringement proceedings, bearing in mind in particular that current practices varied, for example the "liberal" German practice, and the "strict" British practice.

Among the suggestions put forward to mitigate this disadvantage (power of the Board of Administration to set out principles of interpretation: FICPI; setting up of a Court to interpret the Convention: IAPIP, CPCCI), the majority of the organisations supported the definition of a middle road in the Convention or in the Implementing Regulations.

The ICC drew attention to the utility of a rule of interpretation, given that in the national context it was advisable for the judge to have a certain margin of discretion, because what may be evident at the time of an action for infringement may not have been evident at the moment when the patent was granted. CNIPA shared this point of view, although stated that it was not in favour of great latitude of interpretation.

Page 51

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

Brussels, 15 March 1972 B R / 169 / 72

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

of the

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

Part II

Hearing of the non-governmental international organisations on the Second Preliminary Draft of a Convention establishing a European System for the Grant of Patents (Luxembourg, 26 January to 1 February 1972)

Page 52

As a result of this amendment the provisional protection accorded to the applicant now extends to the date when full protection enters into force under Article 18. 22. The Working Party also improved the wording of Article 18 by specifying that full protection came into effect from the date of publication of the notification of the grant of the patent.

Article 20 (Extent of the protection conferred by a European patent) 23. The Working Party considered the question of how best to take into account the wish expressed by the interested circles that interpretation of the European patent fall somewhere between the "liberal" concept formulated by the German courts and the "restrictive" concept applied in the United Kingdom. The Working Party examined two avenues of approach: an amendment to Article 20 or a declaration of intent to be adopted in this connection by the Diplomatic Conference.

The Working Party finally decided against amending the present text of Article 20 which, moreover, corresponded to Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Strasbourg Convention; instead it followed the suggestion made by the United Kingdom delegation and adopted the text of a declaration of intent for possible adoption by the Diplomatic Conference (cf. BR/176/72, page 7).

Page 53

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

Brussels, 13 April 1972 BR / 177 / 72

- Secretariat -

R E P O R T

on the 11th meeting of Working Party I held in Luxembourg from 28 February to 3 March 1972

1. Working Party I held its 11th meeting in Luxembourg from 28 February to 3 March 1972 with Dr Haertel, President of the Deutsches Patentamt in the Chair.

Representatives of the Commission of the European Communities, the IIB and WIPO attended the meeting as observers. The Representatives of the Council of Europe sent apologies for absence. Those present at the 11th meeting are listed in Annex I to this report. 2. Working Party I acopted the provisional agenda as contained in BR/GT I/143/72; it was agreed that Articles 153 and 154 would be dealt with by the Co-ordinating Committee at its next meeting scheduled for 15 to 19 May 1972. The provisional agenda is contained in Annex II to this report. 3. The Drafting Committee of Working Party I was chaired by Mr van Benthem, President of the Octrooiraad.

The results of the Drafting Committee's work were circulated under reference BR / 176 / 72.

Page 54

Article 20 Extent of the protection conferred by a European patent (1) The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent shall be determined by the terms of the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. (2) The grant of a European patent shall determine retroactively the extent of the protection conferred by the European patent application.

Note to Article 20 (1): This paragraph corresponds to Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Strasbourg Convention.

Page 55

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 -

Page 56

Article 17 (Right of the inventor to be mentioned as such) 21. The Conference decided to retain the text of this Article. It considered that the new Article 69a and the corresponding amendments made to Articles 77, paragraph 2(g), and 78, paragraph 6, largely solved the problems raised by the designation of the inventor.

CHAPTER III

Effects of the patent

Article 19 (Rights conferred by a European patent application after publication) 22. Working Party I was instructed to re-examine a proposal from the interested circles that paragraph 2 should be amended to align it on Article 29, paragraph 1, of the POT.

Article 20 (Extent of the protection conferred by a European patent) 23. Working Party I is to re-examine this Article, with particular reference to the concordance of the texts in the three languages.

Page 57

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 58

Article 67 (20) Extent of protection (1) The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the terms of the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. (2) In the case of a European patent application, claims to be considered under paragraph 1 shall be ... Additionally, the European patent as granted or as amended in opposition proceedings, shall determine retroactively the extent of the protection conferred by the application.

Note to Article 67: It is suggested that the Diplomatic Conference should adopt the following declaration in respect of Article 67: "Article 67 should not be interpreted in the sense that the extent of the protection conferred by a European patent is to be understood as that defined by the strict, literal meaning of the wording used in the claims, the description and drawings being employed only for the purpose of resolving an ambiguity found in the claims. Neither should it be interpreted in the sense that the claims serve only as a guideline and that the actual protection conferred may extend to what, from a consideration of the description and drawings by a person skilled in the art, the patentee has contemplated. On the contrary, it is to be interpreted as defining a position between these extremes which combines a fair protection for the patentee with a reasonable degree of certainty for third parties."

Page 59

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

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 24 April 1972 BR / 184 / 72

DRAFT CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS (Text drawn up by the Conference Drafting Committee 8 to 24 March and 10 to 20 April 1972)

Page 60

provisional protection conferred by the application is to be determined by the claims last filed and published. It was noted that in the final analysis the extent of protection was always determined retroactively by the terms of the claims contained in the granted patent; nevertheless, the provision contained in the first sentence was of interest to the States allowing judgements to be passed before grant of the patent in actions instituted on the basis of a patent application.

Article 105

The Committee accepted the proposal consisting in providing for an immediate appeal against certain decisions which did not terminate proceedings as regards one of the parties, as this would help the proceedings to run smoothly. Nevertheless, this was only to be a possibility left to the discretion of the authority which took the decision.

Rules 52 and 88

The Committee agreed that it should be provided in Rule 88, paragraph 2, that the applicant could on his own initiative amend the description and drawings, in addition to the claims, after receiving the European search report and before receiving the first communication from the Examining Division.

The Committee also decided by a majority that a similar addition should be made to Rule 52, paragraph 1, as different treatment did not seem justified in the very

Page 61

- 29 -

(e) Joint proposal from the German, United Kingdom, French and Netherlands delegations for Article 110 (BR/GT I/166/72)

64. The Committee noted its broad agreement on the proposal submitted by the four above-mentioned delegations, which was aimed at avoiding a situation whereby the Opposition Divisions, national courts or Revocation Boards provided for in the Second Convention would be bound by the decisions of the Board of Appeal taken during grant proceedings. Nevertheless, the Committee approved an amendment to the effect that the department to which a matter is remitted is to be bound by the order of the decision of the Board of Appeal and the reasoning behind that decision.

(f) Examination of the proposals submitted by the United Kingdom delegation (BR/GT I/165/72)

Article 19

65. The Committee noted its agreement to the proposed deletion of paragraph 2(b) of this Article. However, it decided by a majority not to adopt the two other proposals that paragraph 2(a) and paragraph 3(c) should be amended to the effect that the presence of more than one legally qualified member should not be compulsory on the Boards of Appeal.

Article 67

66. The Committee gave its agreement to the proposal that it should be stated in paragraph 2, first sentence, that, until the European patent is granted, the extent of the

BR/209 e/72 ley/KJ/prk

Page 62

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

Brussels, 6 June 1972 BR/209/72

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the

second meeting of the Co-ordinating Committee

held in Brussels from 15 to 19 May 1972

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

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

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

BR/209 8/72 100/72/prk

Page 63

(4) Les effets de la demande de brevet européen prévus aux paragraphes 1 et 2 sont réputés nuls et non avenus lorsque la demande de brevet européen a été retirée, ou est réputée retirée, ou a été rejetée en vertu d'une décision passée en force de chose jugée. Il en est de même des effets de la demande de brevet européen dans un Etat contractant dont la désignation a été retirée ou est réputée retirée.

Article 66

Effets de la révocation du brevet européen La demande de brevet européen ainsi que le brevet européen auquel elle a donné lieu sont réputés n'avoir pas eu dés l'origine, totalement ou partiellement, les effets prévus aux articles 62 et 65 , selon que le brevet a été révoqué en tout ou en partie au cours d'une procédure d'opposition.

Etendue de la protection

(1) L'étendue de la protection conférée par le brevet européen ou par la demande de brevet européen est déterminée par la teneur des revendications. Toutefois, la description et les dessins servent à interpréter les revendications. (2) Pour la période allant jusqu'à la délivrance du brevet européen, l'étendue de la protection conférée par la demande de brevet européen est déterminée par les revendications déposées en dernier lieu contenues dans la publication prévue à l'article 92 . Toutefois, le brevet européen tel que délivré ou modifié au cours de la procédure d'opposition détermine rétroactivement cette protection pour autant que celle-ci n'est pas étendue.

Bemerkung zu Artikel 67:

Es wird angeregt, daß die Diplomatische Konferenz zu Artikel 67 folgende Erklärung beschließt: ,,Artikel 67 ist nicht in der Weise auszulegen, daß unter dem Schutzbereich des europäischen Patents der Schutzbereich zu verstehen ist, der sich aus dem genauen Wortlaut der Patentansprüche ergibt, und daß die Beschreibung sowie die Zeichnungen nur zur Behebung etwaiger Unklarheiten in den Patentansprüchen anzuwenden sind. Ebensowenig ist Artikel 67 dahingehend auszulegen, daß die Patentansprüche lediglich als Richtlinie dienen und der Schutzbereich sich auch auf das erstreckt, was sich dem Fachmann nach Prüfung der Beschreibung und der Zeichnungen als Schutzbegehren des Patentinhabers darstellt. Die Auslegung soll vielmehr zwischen diesen extremen Auffassungen liegen und einen angemessenen Schutz für den Patentinhaber mit ausreichender Rechtssicherheit für Dritte verbinden."

Note to Article 67:

It is suggested that the Diplomatic Conference should adopt the following declaration in respect of Article 67: "Article 67 should not be interpreted in the sense that the extent of the protection conferred by a European patent is to be understood as that defined by the strict, literal meaning of the wording used in the claims, the description and drawings being employed only for the purpose of resolving an ambiguity found in the claims. Neither should it be interpreted in the sense that the claims serve only as a guideline and that the actual protection conferred may extend to what, from a consideration of the description and drawings by a person skilled in the art, the patentee has contemplated. On the contrary, it is to be interpreted as defining a position between these extremes which combines a fair protection for the patentee with a reasonable degree of certainty for third parties."

Remarque concernant l'article 67:

Il est suggéré que la Conférence diplomatique adopte la déclaration suivante: «L'article 67 ne doit pas être interprété comme signifiant que l'étendue de la protection conférée par le brevet européen est déterminée au sens étroit et littéral du texte des revendications et que la description et les dessins servent uniquement à dissiper les ambiguillés que pourraient recéler les revendications. Il ne doit pas davantage être interprété comme signifiant que les revendications servent uniquement de ligne directrice et que la protection s'étend également à ce que, de l'avis d'un homme de métier ayant examiné la description et les dessins, le titulaire du brevet a entendu protéger. L'article 67 doit, par contre, être interprété comme définissant entre ces extrêmes une position qui assure à la fois une protection équitable au demandeur et un degré raisonnable de .ertitude aux tiers.»

Page 64

(4) Die in den Absätzen 1 und 2 vorgesehenen Wirkungen der europäischen Patentanmeldung gelten als von Anfang an nicht eingetreten, wenn die europäische Patentanmeldung zurückgenommen worden ist, als zurückgenommen gilt oder rechtskräftig zurückgewiesen worden ist. Das gleiche gilt für die Wirkungen der europäischen Patentanmeldung in einem Vertragsstaat, dessen Benennung zurückgenommen worden ist oder als zurückgenommen gilt.

Artikel 66

Wirkung des Widerrufs des europäischen Patents Die in den Artikeln 62 und 65 vorgesehenen Wirkungen der europäischen Patentanmeldung und des darauf erteilten europäischen Patents gelten in dem Umfang, in dem das Patent im Einspruchsverfahren widerrufen ist, als von Anfang an nicht eingetreten.

Artikel 67

Schutzbereich (1) Der Schutzbereich des europäischen Patents und der europäischen Patentanmeldung wird durch den Inhalt der Patentansprüche bestimmt. Die Beschreibung und die Zeichnungen sind jedoch zur Auslegung der Patentansprüche heranzuziehen. (2) Für den Zeitraum bis zur Erteilung des europäischen Patents wird der Schutzbereich der europäischen Patentanmeldung durch die zuletzt eingereichten Patentansprüche, die in der Veröffentlichung nach Artikel 92 enthalten sind, bestimmt. Jedoch bestimmt das europäische Patent in seiner erteilten oder im Einspruchsverfahren geänderten Fassung rückwirkend den Schutzbereich der Anmeldung, soweit dieser Schutzbereich nicht erweitert wird. (4) The European patent application shall be deemed never to have had the effects set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above when it has been withdrawn, deemed to be withdrawn or finally refused. The same shall apply in respect of the effects of the European patent application in a Contracting State the designation of which is withdrawn or deemed to be withdrawn.

Article 66

Effect of revocation of the European patent The European patent application and the resulting patent shall be deemed not to have had, as from the outset, the effects specified in Articles 62 and 65, to the extent that the patent has been revoked in opposition proceedings.

Extent of protection

(1) The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the terms of the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. (2) For the period up to grant of the European patent, the extent of the protection conferred by the European patent application shall be determined by the latest filed claims contained in the publication under Article 92. However, the European patent as granted or as amended in opposition proceedings shall determine retroactively the protection conferred by the European patent application, in so far as such protection is not thereby extended.

PROJET DE CONVENTION

INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS 1973

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

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

CONFERENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH

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

VORBEREITENDE DOKUMENTE

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

PREPARATORY DOCUMENTS

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

DOCUMENTS PRÉPARATOIRES

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

Page 67

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

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

15 Artikel 14, Regel 2 Absatz 1

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

16 Artikel 16

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

17 Artikel 17, 18 und 31 Absatz 1 Buchstabe a

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

18 Artikel 67 Absatz 2

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

19 Artikel 74, Regel 25 Absatz 1a

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

20 Artikel 76, Regel 24 Absatz 2

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

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

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

15 Article 14; Rule 2, paragraph 1

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

16 Article 16

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

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

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

18 Article 67, paragraph 2

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

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

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

20 Article 76; Rule 24, paragraph 2

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

FEMIPI

Europäischer Verband der Industrie-Patentingenieure

FEMIPI

European Federation of Agents of Industry in Industrial Property

PRISE DE POSITION DE LA

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

Page 69

Erster Teil MATERIELLES PATENTRECHT

Artikel 67 Absatz 2 - Schutzbereich

1 Nach diesem Artikel bestimmt sich der einstweilige Schutz, der durch eine europäische Patentanmeldung verliehen wird, durch die Patentansprüche in der zum Zeitpunkt der Veröffentlichung nach 18 Monaten bestehenden Form.

Sind die Patentansprüche während der Prüfung nicht erweitert worden, so bestimmt sich der einstweilige Schutz rückwirkend durch die Patentansprüche in der bei der Erteilung bestehenden endgültigen Form.

Sind die Patentansprüche während der Prüfung dahingehend geändert worden, daß der Schutzbereich erweitert wird, so bleibt der einstweilige Schutz bis zum Zeitpunkt der Erteilung der Schutz, der sich aus den Patentansprüchen in der bei der Veröffentlichung nach 18 Monaten bestehenden Form ergibt.

Es ist nicht ausdrücklich vorgesehen, welche Regelung für den Fall gilt, daß im Laufe des Prüfungsverfahrens die anfänglichen Patentansprüche zurückgezogen und durch andere ersetzt werden, die solche Bestandteile der Beschreibung decken, die anfänglich nicht beansprucht wurden. Hierbei handelt es sich sehr wohl um eine Änderung, die im Laufe des Verfahrens vorgenommen wird. Es würde begrüßt, wenn sichergestellt würde, daß diese Änderung ebenfalls als eine Änderung gilt; die zu einer Erweiterung des anfänglichen Schutzbereichs im Sinne des Artikels 67 Absatz 2 führt, selbst wenn es sich in Wirklichkeit eher um ein Nachschieben handelt. Enthalten die endgültig gewährten Patentansprüche keinen Bestandteil der anfänglichen Patentansprüche, so sollten letztere keinen einstweiligen Schutz gewähren.

Regel 25 Absatz 1 Buchstabe a

2 Nach der Regel 25 Absatz 1 Buchstabe a darf der Anmelder nach dem ersten Bescheid der Prüfungsabteilung offenbar von sich aus keine Teilanmeldung einreichen.

Die Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft von 1883 in der Lissaboner Fassung schreibt in Artikel 4 Buchstabe G Absatz 2 folgendes vor: „Der Anmelder kann auch von sich aus die Patentanmeldung teilen, wobei ihm für jede Teilanmeldung als Anmeldezeitpunkt der Zeitpunkt der ursprünglichen Anmeldung und gegebenenfalls das Prioritätsvorrecht erhalten bleiben. Jedem Verbandsland steht es frei, die Bedingungen festzulegen, unter denen diese Teilung zugelassen wird."

Einige Vertragsstaaten belassen den Anmeldern die Möglichkeit, ihre Anmeldung während der gesamten

Article 67, paragraph 2 - Extent of protection

1 Under the terms of this Article, provisional protection obtained by an application for a European patent is determined by the claims in the form as given at the time of publication after 18 months.

When during examination the claims have not been extended, claims as given in the final grant retroactively determine provisional protection.

When during examination the claims have been amended so as to extend protection, provisional protection until the time of grant remains as derived from the claims in the form as given at the time of publication at 18 months.

There is no explicit statement as to the extent of protection applicable when during examination the initial claims are withdrawn and replaced by a new set of claims covering elements of the description that had not been claimed initially. This does of course concern a case of amendment during the procedure. One would wish assurance that this will also be considered a case of extension of initial protection under Article 67, paragraph 2, even if the actual change is a shift rather than an extension. If the claims as finally granted contain no element whatever of the initial claims, the latter would not give rise to any provisional protection.

Article 74 - European divisional applications

Rule 25, paragraph 1(a) 2 Under Rule 25, paragraph 1(a), it seems that no divisional application can be filed by the applicant of his own volition, after the first communication from the Examining Division.

The Convention of the Union of Paris of 1883, with the Lisbon revision, stipulates in Article 4G, paragraph 2, that "The applicant may also, of his own volition, divide the patent application, maintaining for each divisional application the date of the original application, and where applicable the right of priority. Each country of the Union shall have the faculty to determine conditions under which such division is allowed." (not quoted from original text).

Some Contracting States leave applicants the faculty to divide their application throughout the examin-

Page 70

Original: Französisch French (1) Français

M/22 5. April 1973

5 April 1973 5 avril 1973

CIFE

Rat der Europäischen Industrieverbände

CEIF

Council of European Industrial Federations

PRISE DE POSITION DU

CIFE Conseil des fédérations industrielles d'Europe (1) English translation submitted by CEIF

Page 71

vorläufigen Prüfung beauftragte Behörde im Sinne des Kapitels II des PCT-Vertrags tätig wird, ist es wünschenswert, daß in der Prüfungspraxis beim Europäischen Patentamt die gleichen Kriterien hinsichtlich der Erfindungshöhe angewandt werden. Es wird deshalb empfohlen, eine neue (zwischen den Regeln 23 und 24 einzufügende) Regel anzunehmen, die der PCT-Regel 65 entspricht.

Artikel 67

13 Die Erklärung, die nationalen Gerichten als Leitlinie dienen soll und deren Annahme der Konferenz empfohlen wird, wird begrüßt.

Artikel 68 Absatz 3

14 Der englische und der französische Text weichen von der deutschen Fassung hinsichtlich der genauen Bedeutung des Wortes ,,enger" ab.

Artikel 76 - Regel 29

15 Es wird bedauert, daß durch die Verwendung des Wortes „Wherever" im englischen Text die Abfassung der Patentansprüche strengen Regeln unterworfen wird. Dieses Wort wird zwar in der Regel 6.3 des PCT-Vertrags benutzt, doch läßt dieser Vertrag eine Neufassung der Patentansprüche in der nationalen Phase zu, um dadurch dem nationalen Recht des Landes zu entsprechen, in dem über die Verletzung befunden wird. Der Anmelder muß die Möglichkeit haben, seine Ansprüche unter Berücksichtigung künftiger Verletzungsklagen abzufassen, wenn er ermutigt werden soll, das europäische Patentsystem zu benutzen. In den Patentansprüchen sollte der Schutzumfang bestimmt werden (Artikel 67). Sie dürfen nicht zur Festlegung des Stands der Technik dienen, wie es in der Regel verlangt wird.

16 In der deutschen Fassung werden die Worte ,festzulegen" und „Festlegung" benutzt; sie sollten mit dem in Artikel 82 verwendeten Wort ,,angeben" in Einklang gebracht werden.

Artikel 86 Absatz 1 - Regel 38 Absatz 2

17 Obgleich anerkannt ist, daß eine Priorität zum Zeitpunkt der Anmeldung beansprucht werden muß, besteht stets die Möglichkeit von Schreibfehlern bei der Angabe des Datums und des Landes. Diese werden möglicherweise erst bei der Einreichung der Prioritätsunterlage oder anläßlich der Formalprüfung beim Patentamt entdeckt. Angesichts der Regel 41 wird um Bestätigung darum gebeten, daß die Regel 89 auch für die Berichtigung solcher Fehler gilt.

Preliminary Examining Authority under Chapter II of PCT; it is desirable that, in the practice of examination at the European Patent Office, the criteria for inventive level be identical. It is recommended therefore that a new Rule be adopted (between Rules 23 and 24) equivalent to Rule 65 of PCT.

Article 67

13 The declaration, to be used by National Courts as a guideline and recommended for adoption by the Conference, is welcomed.

Article 68 (3)

14 The English and French texts differ from the German text in respect of the exact meaning of the word "enger".

Article 76 - Rule 29

15 It is regretted that the use of the word "Wherever" in the English text implies strict rules for drafting claims. Although this word appears in Rule 6.3 of PCT, that Treaty allows redrafting of claim in the national phase to suit the national legislation of the country in which infringement will be determined. The applicant must have freedom to draft his claims with an eye to future infringement suits, if he is to be encouraged to use the European Patent System. The claim should define the extent of protection (Article 67). It is not the right place to define prior art, as is required by the Rule.

16 In the German text, the words "festzulegen" and "Festlegung" are used, but these should be reconciled with the word "angeben" appearing in Article 82.

Article 86 (1) - Rule 38 (2)

17 Although it is accepted that a claim to priority should be made at the date of filing, there always exists the possibility of clerical errors in date and country. This may only be discovered when the priority document is to be filed or upon formal examination at the Patent Office. In the light of Rule 41, confirmation is sought that Rule 89 is applicable to the correction of such errors.

Page 72

Original: Englisch English Anglais

M/20 2. April 1973

2 April 1973 2 avril 1973

CNIPA

Committee of National Institutes of Patent Agents

COMMENTS BY

CNIPA Committee of National Institutes of Patent Agents

PRISE DE POSITION DU

CNIPA Committee of National Institutes of Patent Agents

Artikel 16

1 Es besteht Veranlassung, die französische Fassung des Textes zu verbessern, um klar hervortreten zu lassen, daß die Eingangsstelle ihre Befugnis verliert, wenn die beiden in Artikel 16 aufgeführten Elemente vorliegen.

Artikel 18 (2)

2 Der Artikel sieht vor, daß in der Einspruchsabteilung ein Prüfer mitwirken kann, der in dem Verfahren zur Erteilung des europäischen Patents mitgewirkt hat. Es ist wünschenswert zu präzisieren, daß dieser Prüfer in der Einspruchsabteilung weder Präsident noch Berichterstatter sein kann.

Artikel 31 (1) a)

3 Gemäß diesem Artikel kann der Verwaltungsrat entscheiden, daß die Prüfungsabteilungen aus einem einzigen technisch vorgebildeten Prüfer bestehen. Allgemein gesehen wünscht die U.N.I.C.E. eine Besetzung der Prüfungsabteilungen mit drei technisch vorgebildeten Prüfern.

Artikel 52 (5)

4 Die jetzige Fassung könnte dazu führen, daß eine Substanz, die in der Humanmedizin Verwendung gefunden hat, für die Veterinärmedizin nach der Doktrin der ,,ersten Indikation" nicht mehr patentierbar wäre und umgekehrt. Um dieses sicherlich nicht beabsichtigte Ergebnis zu vermeiden, wäre es wünschenswert, Artikel 52 (5) zu präzisieren.

Artikel 58 (1)

5 Die Vorschrift würde an Klarheit gewinnen, wenn die darin behandelten zwei Fragen ihren Platz in zwei getrennten Absätzen finden würden.

Artikel 67 (2)

6 Wenn diese Bestimmung das Problem des vorläufigen Schutzes im Falle der Einschränkung und der Erweiterung der Ansprüche löst, so scheint es, daß das Problem des vorläufigen Schutzes im Falle einer Verlagerung (shifting) der Ansprüche offen bleibt. In letzterem Fall ist ein vorläufiger Schutz nach den ersten Ansprüchen nicht gerechtfertigt. In dieser Hinsicht scheint eine Präzisierung wünschenswert.

Article 16

1 The French text should be improved in order to make it clear that the Receiving Section will cease to be responsible once the two conditions mentioned in Article 16 are both fulfilled.

Article 18, paragraph 2

2 This Article provides that the Opposition Division may include one examiner who has taken part in the proceedings for grant of the European patent. It should be specified that this examiner may be neither the Chairman nor the rapporteur of the Opposition Division.

Article 31, paragraph 1(a)

3 Under this Article the Administrative Council may decide that any Examining Division may be composed of only one technical examiner. In general UNICE would wish the Examining Divisions to be composed of three technical examiners.

Article 52, paragraph 5

4 The present wording could lead to a substance used in human medicine no longer being patentable for veterinary medicine and vice-versa under the "first disclosure" rule. To avoid this effect, which is certainly not intended, the wording of Article 52, paragraph 5 , should be clarified.

Article 58, paragraph 1

5 This provision would be rendered clearer if the two questions which it covers were dealt with in two separate sub-paragraphs.

Article 67, paragraph 2

6 Although this provision solves the problem of provisional protection in cases of a limitation or extension of the claims, it would appear that the problem of provisional protection in the case of a shifting of claims remains open. In the latter case provisional protection on the basis of the claims first filed would not be justified and this point should therefore be clarified.

Page 74

Original: Französisch (1) French (2) Français

M/19 2. April 1973 2 April 1973 2 avril 1973

UNICE

Union der Industrien der Europäischen Gemeinschaft

COMMENTS BY

UNICE Union des Industries de la Communauté européenne

PRISE DE POSITION DE

L'UNICE Union des Industries de la Communauté européenne (1) Deutsche Ubersetzung der Stellungnahme und der Anlage 2 vorgelegt von UNICE (2) Annex 3 to these Comments submitted by UNICE in English

Page 75

GEN KONFERENZ durch ein Verfahren ergänzt werden, das die effektive Harmonisierung der Auslegung der europäischen Patente durch die nationalen Gerichte sicherstellt. Die STÄNDIGE KONFERENZ ist sich bewußt, daß auf einem Gebiet, auf dem die souveränen Rechte der Staaten auf dem Spiel stehen, eine Lösung schwierig ist und sich wahrscheinlich im Übereinkommen in der Phase der Ausarbeitung, in der sich der Entwurf befindet, nicht erreichen läßt. Ihres Erachtens sollte jedoch jetzt schon nach einer allgemeinen Lösung gesucht werden, indem - wie im Entwurf von 1962 - die Konsultation des Europäischen Patentamts vorgesehen oder sogar ein gemeinsames Gericht in Aussicht genommen wird, das als regulierender Gerichtshof tätig wird.

Artikel 93 - Prüfungsantrag

10 Die STÄNDIGE KONFERENZ stellt mit Befriedigung fest, daß nach dem Entwurf für die Einreichung des Prüfungsantrages eine kurze Frist vorgesehen ist. Sie meint jedoch, daß eine Frist von zwölf Monaten realistischer wäre und somit den Rechten der Betreffenden besser Rechnung tragen würde als eine Frist, die sechs Monate nach Veröffentlichung des Hinweises im Europäischen Patentblatt, daß der Bericht über den Stand der Technik veröffentlicht worden ist, abläuft. Diese Fristverlängerung, so geringfügig sie ist, rechtfertigt es, Dritten das Recht einzuräumen, die Prüfung zu beantragen. Es ist wünschenswert, eine Möglichkeit beizubehalten, die in vielleicht wenigen, jedoch wichtigen Fällen zum Zuge kommt, zumal die Bestimmungen hierfür bereits formuliert sind und im Vorentwurf enthalten waren.

Artikel 94 - Verlängerung der Frist zur Stellung des Prüfungsantrags

11 Die STÄNDIGE KONFERENZ vertritt die Auffassung, daß die dem Verwaltungsrat nach Artikel 161 eingeräumte Möglichkeit, die Erteilung europäischer Patente in der Anfangszeit auf bestimmte Gebiete der Technik zu beschränken, ausreicht, um eine stufenweise Aufnahme der Tätigkeit des Patentamts zu ermöglichen. Es ist Sache des Verwaltungsrates, in dem von ihm selbst festgelegten Rahmen die Möglichkeiten des Patentamts dem Bedarf der Industrie anzupassen. Eine Verlängerung der Fristen wegen materieller Unzulänglichkeit des Patentamts dürfte daher nicht zweckmäßig sein. Dies gilt auch für jede im allgemeinen Interesse vorgenommene Verlängerungsmaßnahme, da dieser Begriff undeutlich ist und der Verwaltungsrat allein über die Anwendung einer solchen Maßnahme zu entscheiden hätte.

12 Sollte diese Bestimmung beibehalten und auf der anderen Seite ungeachtet des Antrags der STÄNDIGEN KONFERENZ in Artikel 93 nicht die Möglichkeit für Dritte vorgesehen werden, den Prüfungsantrag zu stellen, so müßte ihnen diese Möglichkeit given in the Convention, there should be a mechanism for harmonising the interpretation of European patents by national courts. The STANDING CONFERENCE is fully aware that in a matter involving the sovereign rights of States it would be difficult to find a solution and that the latter cannor be achieved in the Convention at the present stage of drafting. It would however point out that a general solution must be sought as of now either by providing, as in the case of the 1962 Draft, for consultation with the European Patent Office or by arranging for the intervention of a common regulating court.

Article 93 - Request for examination

10 The STANDING CONFERENCE is pleased to note that the Draft has adopted a short period for the filing of requests for examination. It however feels that a period of twelve months would be more realistic and would take greater account of the rights of the parties concerned than a period expiring six months after the European Patent Bulletin mentions the publication of the search report on the state of the art. Such an extension of the period, whilst only being a moderate one, would justify third parties being entitled to file requests for examination. An option of this nature which may only apply to cases which, although limited in number, are important, should be adopted particularly since the provisions governing such intervention have already been drawn up and were contained in the Preliminary Draft.

Article 94 - Extension of the period within which requests for examination may be filed

11 The STANDING CONFERENCE considers that the possibility accorded to the Administrative Council under Article 161 to restrict the grant of European patents to certain areas of technology to begin with is sufficient to allow for the gradual build-up of the activities of the European Patent Office. In so far as it will be defining these areas itself, it is for the Administrative Council to adapt the resources of the Office to the needs of industry. It would therefore not appear desirable to extend periods on the grounds of the inadequacy of the Office. This applies to any extension "in the general interest" in view of the vagueness of this concept and the fact that the Administrative Council will be the sole judge of whether an extension should be made.

12 If this provision is nevertheless retained and if, in addition, in spite of the wishes of the STANDING CONFERENCE, Article 93 does not provide for the possibility for third parties to file requests for examination, this possibility should be accorded

Page 76

6 Nach Auffassung der Mehrheit der Delegationen in der STÄNDIGEN KONFERENZ ist davon auszugehen, daß dieser Konflikt nur die Patentansprüche in der'Form betrifft, in der sie zu dem Zeitpunkt bestehen, an dem sich der Konflikt ergibt. Obgleich die Patentansprüche bis zur Erteilung des Patents geändert werden können, dürfte diese Lösung wohl am klarsten sein und zugleich der rechtlichen Aufgabe der Patentansprüche gemäß Artikel 67 am ehesten entsprechen. Diese Regel gilt für die Fälle der Selbstkollision.

Artikel 67 - Schutzbereich

7 Die STÄNDIGE KONFERENZ befürwortet den aus dem Straßburger Übereinkommen übernommenen Grundsatz, wonach der Schutzbereich des Patents durch den Inhalt der Patentansprüche bestimmt wird. Sie möchte jedoch darauf hinweisen, daß die in den drei Fassungen des Entwurfs - deutsch, englisch, französisch - verwendeten Begriffe nicht dieselbe Bedeutung haben und somit dazu beitragen könnten, daß sehr voneinander abweichende traditionelle Auslegungen in den betreffenden Staaten beibehalten werden. Da die Auslegung des europäischen Patents den nationalen Gerichten übertragen wird, besteht die Gefahr, daß diese, selbst wenn sie den Artikel 67 dem Buchstaben nach einhalten, in ihrer gewohnten Verfahrensweise fortfahren. Daraus folgt, daß ein und dieselbe Tätigkeit eines Konkurrenten eines Patentinhabers je nach Land als Verletzung angesehen werden kann oder auch nicht, da die Gerichte den Schutzbereich der Ansprüche unterschiedlich definiert haben. Dieses Verhalten ist vorstellbar. Es steht jedoch im Widerspruch zu der ,,maximalen" Tendenz, der die STÄNDIGE KONFERENZ zugestimmt hat, die seit der Ausarbeitung des ersten Vorentwurfs vorherrschte und sich in wichtigen Punkten durchgesetzt hat. Es wäre im übrigen bedauerlich, wenn eine tatsächlich zu Trugschlüssen verleitende Übersetzung zu einem solchen Verhalten Anlaß geben würde.

8 Die STÄNDIGE KONFERENZ ersucht daher darum, daß die drei Fassungen des Übereinkommens vereinheitlicht werden; die einfache Streichung des strittigen Begriffs ist unzureichend, da sie die Auslegungsunterschiede fortbestehen lassen würde. Die STÄNDIGE KONFERENZ hält es für unbedingt erforderlich, daß außerdem im Übereinkommen selbst oder allenfalls in der Ausführungsordnung ein Grundsatz für die Auslegung der Patentansprüche aufgestellt wird. Dieser Grundsatz, der zwar zur Sicherheit recht genau sein müßte, dürfte sich nicht auf die wortwörtliche Anwendung der Patentansprüche beschränken, müßte auf der anderen Seite aber, ohne so weit zu gehen wie die deutsche Rechtsprechung, die die erfinderische Tätigkeit einbezieht, den wesentlichen Inhalt der Patentansprüche erfassen.

9 Ein im Übereinkommen festgelegter klarer Auslegungsgrundsatz sollte nach Ansicht der STÄNDI-

6 The majority of delegations of the STANDING CONFERENCE is of the opinion that this conflict should be considered as relating only to the claims in the form in which they existed on the date on which the conflict arose. Although claims may be amended up until the grant of the patent, this solution would appear to be both the clearest and the most consistent with the legal function of claims, as defined in Article 67. This rule would also be applicable'io cases of self-collision.

Article 67 - Extent of protection

7 The STANDING CONFERENCE supports the principle, contained in the Strasbourg Convention, that the extent of the protection conferred by a patent is determined by the terms of the claims. However, it would point out that the expressions used in the three - English, French, German versions of the Draft do not have the same meaning and are likely to encourage the adherence by the States in question to traditions of interpretation which are very different from one another. Since national courts will be responsible for the interpretation of the European patent, there is a danger that, even if they observe the letter of Article 67, they will persist in their previous habits. This would mean that one and the same activity of a competitor of a patent proprietor may or may not be deemed to constitute an infringement depending on the country since the courts have different definitions of what is meant by the extent of the claims. This is a situation which might conceivably arise. It is however contrary to the "maximum" approach, applied since the drafting of the First Preliminary Draft with the support of the STANDING CONFERENCE, which was necessary on some important points. In addition it would also be regrettable if this situation arose as the result of an erroneous translation.

8 The STANDING CONFERENCE therefore requests that the three versions of the Convention should be standardised; it will not be enough to simply delete the expression at issue since this would still leave room for differences of interpretation. The STANDING CONFERENCE considers that the Convention itself or, failing this, the Implementing Regulations, should lay down a principle for the interpretation of claims. This principle, whilst being sufficiently precise to be clear, should not be confined to a literal interpretation of the claims but, without going so far as to include the inventive idea as in the case of German jurisprudence, should cover the actual substance of the claims.

9 The STANDING CONFERENCE considers that in addition to a clear principle of interpretation being

Page 77

Original: Französisch French Français

M/18 2. April 1973 2 April 1973 2 avril 1973

STELLUNGNAHME DER

StKIHK Ständige Konferenz der Industrie- und Handelskammern der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft

COMMENTS BY

CPCCI Standing Conference of the Chambers of Commerce and Industry of the European Economic Community

PRISE DE POSITION DE LA

CPCCI Conférence Permanente des Chambres de Commerce et d'Industrie de la Communauté Économique Européenne

Page 78

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

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

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

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

11 Artikel 98 - Einspruch

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

12 Artikel 107 - Frist und Form

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

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

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

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

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

11 Article 98 - Opposition

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

12 Article 107 - Time limit and form of appeal

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

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

Page 79

Die in Artikel 50 Abs. 2 enthaltene Aufzählung ist recht zufriedenstellend und berücksichtigt die Vorschläge der interessierten Kreise. Artikel 50 Abs. 3 stellt eine nützliche Ergänzung des vorangehenden Absatzes dar.

7 Artikel 52 Abs. 5 könnte noch klarer gefaßt werden, damit deutlich wird, daß selbst eine spätere neue Anwendung eines Stoffes oder Stoffgemisches patentierbar ist.

8 Artikel 52 Abs. 3 und 54

In diesen Absätzen ist für das europäische Patent das ,,whole content approach"-Prinzip gewählt worden. Nach diesem Grundsatz muß die Neuheit, nicht aber die erfinderische Tätigkeit sogar gegenüber europäischen Patentanmeldungen fortbestehen, die früher eingereicht wurden, selbst wenn sie geheim sind. Abgesehen von der praktischen Schwierigkeit, das Neuheitsprinzip völlig von dem Prinzip der erfinderischen Tätigkeit zu trennen, meint die Mehrheit des COPRICE, daß das ,,prior claim approach"Prinzip klarer und gerechter ist. Dieser Grundsatz hat in mehrere Rechtsvorschriften, die in jüngster Zeit in Kraft getreten sind, insbesondere in das französische Recht Eingang gefunden. Er ist das Ergebnis einer Entwicklung, die seit der Unterzeichnung des Straßburger Übereinkommens eingetreten ist. In diesem Übereinkommen ist bekanntlich das ,,whole content approach"-Prinzip gewählt worden, doch wird die Ansicht vertreten, daß die spätere Entwicklung, die hingegen dazu geführt hat, daß in die Rechtsvorschriften mehrerer Staaten das ,,prior claim approach"-Prinzip Eingang gefunden hat, im europäischen Übereinkommen sanktioniert werden könnte. Die Minderheit hebt hervor, daß die Anwendung des ,,prior claim approach"-Prinzips folgende Konsequenzen hat: Gehört zum Stand der Technik, der einer zweiten europäischen Patentanmeldung entgegengehalten wird, eine im Zeitpunkt der zweiten Anmeldung noch nicht veröffentlichte erste europäische Patentanmeldung, so kann dieser Stand der Technik mit Gewißheit erst bei der Erteilung des ersten europäischen Patents bestimmt werden, weil der Inhalt der Patentansprüche erst zu diesem Zeitpunkt definiert werden kann. Dies hat für den Anmelder des zweiten Patents und für Dritte eine Ungewißheit zur Folge, die mehrere Jahre lang andauern kann. Durch die Anwendung der ,,whole content approach"-Regel entfällt dieser Nachteil, weil der Inhalt der ersten europäischen Patentanmeldung von der Einreichung dieser Anmeldung an feststeht.

9 Artikel 67 Abs. 1

Der Inhalt dieses Artikels könnte klarer gefaßt

6 Article 50, paragraphs 2 and 3 and Article 52, paragraph 5

The list given in Article 50, paragraph 2, is quite adequate and takes account of the suggestions made by the interested circles. Article 50, paragraph 3, constitutes a useful addition to the previous paragraph.

7 Article 52, paragraph 5, could be clarified even further so as to emphasise that even a further new use of a substance or composition may be patented.

8 Article 52, paragraph 3 and Article 54

These clauses apply the "whole content approach" to the European patent. This approach requires there to be novelty but not an inventive step even with respect to European patent applications filed on a prior date, and even if they are secret. Apart from the practical difficulty of completely separating the principle of novelty from that of the inventive step, the majority of COPRICE considers that the "prior claim approach" is clearer and more equitable. This approach has been adopted in several laws which have recently entered into force, particularly in France. It represents a development which has taken place since the signing of the Strasbourg Convention. It is true that that Convention adopted the "whole content approach" but it is felt that subsequent developments which have led, instead, to the "prior claim approach" being adopted in several national laws could be applied in the European Convention. A minority of COPRICE point out that the application of the "prior claim approach" would have the effect that if a second European patent application is opposed on the grounds of the state of the art and the latter comprises a first European patent application which had not been published upon the date of the second application, the state of the art can only be defined with certainty when the first European patent is granted since it is only then that the terms of the claims can be defined. This will give rise to uncertainty, which could last over several years, on the part of the applicant for the second patent and on the part of third parties. This difficulty is removed by the application of the "whole content approach" since the content of the first European patent application is determined when the application is filed.

9 Article 67, paragraph 1

This Article could be clarified by deleting the words

COPRICE

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

COMMENTS BY

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

PRISE DE POSITION DU

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

Page 81

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 82

tet ist, die für seine Erfindung eingereicht werden. Diese Ziele lassen sich höchst einfach verwirklichen, wenn - wie im nordischen Recht - bei der Einreichung der Patentanmeldung der Erfinder genannt werden und eine vom Erfinder unterzeichnete Abtretungsurkunde vorgelegt werden muß. Die Erfahrungen haben gezeigt, daß auch Anmelder aus nichtnordischen Ländern diese einmal aufgestellten Bedingungen ohne weiteres erfüllen. Die schwedische Regierung hofft, daß diese Auffassung - die auf eine Stärkung des Patentwesens hinausläuft auf der Diplomatischen Konferenz allgemeine Anerkennung finden wird.

5 Die schwedische Regierung schlägt daher vor, dem Artikel 58 Absatz 2 eine Einschränkung folgenden Wortlauts hinzuzufügen: ,sofern der Anmelder, falls ihm der Erfinder die Erfindung übertragen hat, eine vom Erfinder ausgestellte Abtretungsurkunde vorgelegt hat." Artikel 90 sollte dann so geändert werden, daß dieser Punkt in die Prüfung einbezogen wird. Wird die Urkunde nicht vorgelegt, obgleich Gelegenheit zur Beseitigung dieses Mangels gemäß Artikel 90 Absatz 2 gegeben war, so sollte die Anmeldung als zurückgenommen gelten. Aus diesem Vorschlag ergibt sich, daß die Erfindernennung unabhängig davon, welche Länder in der Anmeldung benannt werden, zwingend vorgeschrieben werden müßte und daß dieselbe Sanktion wie hinsichtlich der Abtretungsurkunde gelten müßte.

6 Sollte diese Regelung nicht hinreichend unterstützt werden, so schlägt die schwedische Regierung als Alternative vor, eine ähnliche Lösung wie für das Erfordernis der Erfindernennung (Artikel 79 und Artikel 90 Absatz 5) auch für die Frage der Erbringung des Nachweises darüber, daß die Erfindung dem Anmelder abgetreten worden ist, zu treffen; die Anmeldung gilt für die benannten Vertragsstaaten, die einen solchen Nachweis für nationale Patentanmeldungen vorschreiben, als zurückgenommen, wenn diesem Erfordernis nicht entsprochen worden ist.

7 Sicherlich werden das im Übereinkommensentwurf vorgesehene Erteilungsverfahren und das hohe fachliche Niveau des Europäischen Patentamts ausreichende Gewähr dafür bieten, daß Patente nicht zu Unrecht erteilt werden. Indes werden nach Auffassung der schwedischen Regierung die Öffentlichkeit und die Konkurrenten nur dann hinreichend geschützt sein, wenn für sie klar ist, was sie tun dürfen, ohne durch ein Patent behindert zu werden. Die schwedische Regierung ist daher der Ansicht, daß der Entwurf der Erklärung zu Artikel 67 einen zu großen Spielraum zur Bestimmung des Schutzbereichs einräumt. Bei der Vorarbeit zur nordischen Patentgesetzgebung wurde ganz besonders betont, daß der Patentinhaber nicht in der Lage sein dürfte, aus Unklarheiten in den Patentansprüchen Nutzen objectives are most easily achieved if - as in the Nordic legislation - the inventor must be named and the presentation of an assignment signed by the inventor is compulsory when a patent application is filed. Experience has shown that these conditions once established are easily complied with also by applicants from outside the Nordic countries. The Swedish Government hopes that these views which are actually aimed at strengthening the patent system - will gain general recognition at the Diplomatic Conference.

5 The Swedish Government therefore proposes to add to Article 58, paragraph 2, a proviso of the following wording: "provided that the applicant when the invention is obtained from the inventor has submitted a deed of assignment executed by the inventor". Article 90 should then be amended to include this item for examination. If the deed is not submitted although an opportunity to correct a deficiency in this respect has been given in accordance with Article 90, paragraph 2, the application should be deemed to be withdrawn. It follows from this proposal that the mention of the inventor should be compulsory regardless of the countries designated in the application and that the same sanctions should apply as those mentioned above with respect to the deed of assignment.

6 If this solution does not gain sufficient support, the Swedish Government alternatively proposes that a solution along the same lines as that governing the requirement to identify the inventor (Articles 79 and 90 , paragraph 51), should apply also to the question of submitting evidence that the invention has been assigned to the applicant, i.e. in the case of non-compliance the application shall be deemed to have been withdrawn in regard to any designated state requiring such proof in respect of national applications.

7 It is recognised that the administrative procedures and the high competence of the European Patent Office as foreseen in the Draft Convention provide sufficient security against the grant of patents which are not justified. In the view of the Swedish Government, however, the general public and competitors are not sufficiently protected, unless they can clearly see what they are free to practise without the hindrance of a patent. For this reason the Swedish Government considers that the draft declaration in respect of Article 67 provides too wide a margin for determining the scope of protection. In the preparatory work to the Nordic patent legislation it was strongly emphasised that the patentee should not be able to profit from obscurities in the patent claims. The description and the

Page 83

Original: Englisch English Anglais

STELLUNGNAHME

DER SCHWEDISCHEN REGIERUNG

COMMENTS

BY THE SWEDISH GOVERNMENT

PRISE DE POSITION DU GOUVERNEMENT SUÉDOIS

ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS 1973

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

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

CONFÉRENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE MUNICH POUR L'INSTITUTION D'UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS (1973)

(Munich, 10 septembre - 6 octobre 1973)

STELLUNGNAHMEN

zu den vorbereitenden Dokumenten herausgegeben von der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

COMMENTS

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

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

Page 85

account. In this connection it is dangerous to compare, as the last line of Article 65, paragraph 2, does, the infringement of a national patent with the infringement of a patent application which has not yet been examined. Finally, it should be pointed out that a contractual settlement would enable cases of continued use of the invention by the other person concerned to be dealt with. 7. Article 65, paragraph 3

Concerns the French text only. 8. Article 67, paragraph 2

In the opinion of some members of CEEP, the text seems to relate only to the possibility of an amendment of the extent of the claims; it can, however, happen that the nature of the definition of the invention is completely changed (e.g. the definition may originally relate to a product and later to a process). 9. Article 68, paragraph 4

For similar reasons to those stated in the comments on Article 65, paragraph 2, the last two lines should be replaced by the phrase "pursuant to a settlement reasonable in the circumstances". 0. Article 88, paragraph 2

The second part of the last sentence would appear to be ambiguous: does this provision mean that the application will be deemed not to have been filed (or forwarded)? If this is the case it could be stated that the application may be converted into a national patent by the State in question. 11. Article 94

CEEP is of the opinion that it should not be possible to extend the period within which requests for examination may be filed beyond the six months laid down in the Draft Convention.

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Brussels, 23 May 1973 M / 30 Original: French

PREPARATORY DOCUMENT

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

Page 87

be issued not by the Examining Divisions but by the Boards of Appeal.

Article 31

4. According to paragraph 1 (a) the AC may decide that an Examining Division shall consist of a single examiner. This means that patent applications can be refused by a single examiner if the AC takes such a decision. This system does not seem to give sufficient legal security to the applicants. A decision to refuse a patent application should in any case be taken by a collegial body or at least by two examiners. We therefore propose to add the following sentence to paragraph 1 (a): "Such an amendment shall include a provision still requiring a collegial body for refusing a patent application."

Article 67

5. The declaration to Article 67 should be amended to make it clear that the patentee should not be able to profit from obscurities in the patent claims. The reasons for this amendment are given in the document M 13. The following should therefore be added to the end of the declaration. ", avoiding that the patentee should be able to profit from obscurities in the patent claims."

Article 94

6. To safeguatd the interests of third parties the Swedish delegation proposes the following wording of paragraph 2. "If the AC extends the period third parties shall be entitled to make request for examination. The AC shall determine the appropriate rules in the Implementing Regulations."

Article 128

7. To safeguard the interest of third parties the files of European patent applications must be open to inspection as soon as possible after the 18 months period. Pursuant to Article 128, however, inspection cannot take place until the patent application is published according to Article 92. Thus if the publication is delayed due to technical difficulties the possibility of inspection is correspondingly delayed. During previous discussions it has been said that third parties anyway do not know anything about the patent applications until they are published according to Article 92. However, paragraph 5 of Article 128 provides for information to third parties at an early date concerning the existence of the patent applications. Therefore the wording of paragraphs 1 and 4 should be amended in the following way. (1) The files relating to European patent applications shall not be made available for inspection, without the consent of the applicant, until 18 months after the filing date or, if priority is claimed, after the date of priority. (4) The European patent application and the files relating to such an application and the resulting European patent may subsequent to the period of 18 months after filing or, if priority is claimed,

Page 88

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 10 September 1973 M/53/I/II Original: English

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: Swedish delegation Subject : Proposals for amendments to the draft texts

Page 89

Article 67, paragraph 2

Proposal: Replacement of the phrase "is not thereby extended", at the end of paragraph 2, by the phrase "corresponds with the patent".

Reason: The wording "is not thereby extended" covers only the eventuality of a limitation and that of an (inadmissible) extension, but not the eventuality of a shifting or displacement of the extent of protection consequent upon an amendment of a claim (see M/19 No. 6, M/22 No. 1, M/23 No. 18, M/30 No. 8).

Our suggestion is designed to make it clear that retroactivity is forthcoming only if and to the extent that there is consistency (correspondance) between the claims of the application and those of the patent.

Page 90

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 10 September 1973

M/54/I/II/III

Original: German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: The Swiss delegation

Subject: Proposals for amendments to the draft texts

Page 91

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

ARTICIE 50.- Paragrapn 3: Only concerns French text. ARTICIE 67.- Note: Only concerns French text ARTICIE 81.- Oaly concerns French text ARTICLE 86.- Paragrapn 1: Only concerns French text ARTICIE 113.- Paragranh 2: Only concerns French text ARTICIE 167.- Paragranh 3: "... il a effectué une déclaration en vertu du paragranhe 1. Cette nouvelle déclaration prend effet ..." ("... it has made a declaration pursuant to paragranh 1. Such new declaration shall take effect ...") (It would seem necessary to make this amendment in the three lanfures. To refer to "a notification pursuant to nargaranh 1" ( in incorrect, since the declaration referred to in nargaranh 1 -n: he made either in the instrument of ratification or accossion or :a mubsequent notification. Hence reference should be to the declaration in general and not merely to that contained in the ratification. To avoid any ambiguity, it should he made clear the the declaration at the beginning of the second sentence of mararanh 3 is the "new" declaration made under that nargaranh).

TUE 14.-

Only concerns French text.

Page 92

CIR 1006173

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

Team: un by: French delegation

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

Rule 51 Paragraph 2

The proposal made under No. 34 of the Comment M/21 UNEPA is withdrawn in view of Article 120.

Rule 69 Paragraph 2

The proposal made under No. 35 of the Comment M/21 UNEPA is withdrawn in view of Article 120.

NOTES

1. The greater part of the above proposals is essentially in line with proposals made in Comments delivered by others. However, the above proposals do contain further desirable amendments.

The UNEPA agrees, without further proposal for amendment, with a great number of proposals contained in Comments delivered by others. These are particularly the following proposals:

Article 67 Article 86 Paragraph 1 Article 105 Paragraph 1 Article 141 Article 157 Paragraph 2

Article 162 Rule 107 Rule 108

M/18 No. 7, 8 M/32 No. 16 M/14 No. 6 M/14 No. 10 M/14 No. 13 M/19 No. 23 M/32 No. 23 M/11 No. 7 M/15 No. 15 M/15 No. 21.

Page 94

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 11 September 1973 M/62/I/II Original: German/English/French

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT.

Drawn up by : Union of European Patent Agents (UNEPA) Subject : Additional comments

Page 95

Article 67

Proposal: Article 67 to be supplemented by an Article 67a or by two further paragraphs worded as follows:

"(3) If the invention concerns a manufacturing process for a product, the protection shall also extend to the products directly obtained thereby

(4) If the invention concerns a manufacturing process for a new product, every product of the same nature shall in the designated Contracting States be deemed to have been obtained by the same manufacturing process until proof of the contrary is supplied."

Reason: Although inventions of chemicals will be patentable under the Convention, it will not always be possible, particularly in the plastics industry, to define the product independently of the process for its manufacture. The applicant will therefore either opt for protection of the process or - if so allowed by the practice of the European Patent Office - define the material in terms of its method of manufacture.

Experience in most of the prospective Contracting States shows that such protection is only effective, especially as regards imports from countries where there is no patent protection, if it also comprises the products directly obtained by a protected manufacturing process (irrespective of whether or not the claim for the process is followed by a further patent claim for the product of the process) and if concurrently in respect of every designated State the Convention reverses the burden of proof in the case of new materials.

Our proposal is designed to supplement the Convention to this effect.

Page 96

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 11 September 1973

M/67/I

Original: German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

From up by: Swiss delegation

Subject: Article 67 of the Convention

Extent of protection

(1) The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the terms of the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. (2) For the period up to grant of the European patent, the extent of the protection conferred by the European patent application shall be determined by the latest fided claims contained in the publication under Article 93. However, the European patent as granted or as amended in opposition proceedings shall determine retroactively the protection conferred by the European patent application, in so far as such protection is not thereby extended.

Page 98

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 30 September 1973 M/146/R 3

Original: English/French/German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: General Drafting Committee

Subject: Convention: Articles 55 to 83

Page 99

official languages instead of only the language of the proceedings.

2. Patentability (Articles 50-55)

The provisions of substantive law on patentability were not amended as to substance. The exceptions listed in Article 50, paragraph 2, were confirmed by the Main Committee as basic principles of the Convention. Certain drafting improvements however now make it completely clear that the various types of subject-matter, acts and activities listed are only excluded as such from patentability and that therapeutic and diagnostic methods are not patentable on the grounds that they lack industrial application.

The exception to patentability laid down in Article 51 in respect of inventions the publication of which would be contrary to "ordre public" or morality was reinforced by a duty to examine on the part of the European Patent Office (see Rule 34).

An improved wording of Article 52, paragraph 5, now ensures the patentability of known chemicals for such uses in therapeutic and diagnostic methods as do not form part of the state of the art. In this connection the Main Committee was also of the opinion that only a first use, irrespective of whether it is with regard to humans or animals, fulfils the requirements of this provision.

With respect to non-prejudicial disclosure the Main Committee amended Article 53 to provide that an abusive disclosure in relation to the person entitled shall not be prejudicial if it occurred no earlier than six months before the filing of the application. This amendment means that, taking into account the concept of novelty contained in Article 52, paragraphs 3 and 4, cases of abusive disclosure after the date of filing of the application by the person entitled are dealt with in the same way as a disclosure within six months preceding the date of filing of the European patent application. The Main Committee decided not to extend the definition of the international exhibitions referred to in Article 53 not only because such an amendment would diverge from the Strasbourg Convention but also because exhibition priorities as such are a dangerous instrument for the applicant.

In discussing Article 54 a proposal for supplementing this provision to the effect that any technological advance proven by the applicant should be taken into account in deciding whether there has been an inventive step was rejected, mainly because it was feared that too much weight might be given to this factor.

3. Position of the inventor (Articles 58, 59, 60, 79, 90 and Rules 17, 19, 26, 42)

The Main Committee gave detailed consideration to a proposal to give the inventor a better and stronger legal position in the system set up by the Convention than that afforded by the drafts. The main proposal sought to compel the applicant to designate the inventor at the time of filing the application and at the same time to prove his entitlement to the invention by producing a certificate of transfer drawn up by the inventor or some other conclusive document.

It was not contested that the rights of the inventor should be adequately protected in the Convention. The Main Committee therefore decided unanimously that in respect of all European patent applications, irrespective of which States were designated in them, the filing of a statement identifying the inventor should be a compulsory requirement, with the result that if it were not complied with, the application would be deemed to be withdrawn. However, the Main Committee rejected the proposal to require the production of proof that the applicant was the inventor's successor in title for three main reasons: there would be difficulties in obtaining such a document in individual cases; it could not be produced where the transfer took place in the due course of law; and finally it would put the European Patent Office in the extremely difficult situation of having to apply the national law of the Contracting States in examining such documents. Similarly, an alternative proposal, to require proof of being the inventor's successor in title only where the national law of at least one of the designated Contracting States required such proof in respect of national patent applications, could not be adopted as this would have caused the same difficulties. In order that the rights of the inventor should nevertheless be protected, the Main Committee finally adopted a compromise solution whereby, if the applicant were not the inventor or not the sole inventor, he would be obliged to file a statement, which would be an integral part of the designation of the inventor indicating the legal basis of his acquisition of the invention. In addition, this designation of the inventor by the applicant would be notified to the inventor, thus allowing him where necessary to invoke his rights in due time. Corresponding amendments were made to Articles 79 and 90 and to Rules 17, 19, 26 and 42.

4. Effects of the European patent and the European patent application (Articles 61-68)

The main subject of discussion in this respect was Article 67 which defines the protection conferred by the European patent and the European patent application.

The Main Committee adopted by a majority a provision which also occurs in the Draft of the Second Convention for the Community patent, whereby the protection conferred on a process is extended to the products directly obtained by that process. This provision, which was inserted in Article 62 and which is already known in the laws of several Contracting States, takes account of the fact that in certain branches of industry, such as the plastics industry, it is not always possible to define a material without reference to its means of production. At the same time, a similar majority of the Main Committee rejected a proposal that this extended protection be reinforced in the case of an invention relating to the manufacture of a new product by assuming, to the benefit of the proprietor of the patent, that any product of the same nature would be considered to be obtained by the protected process. This proposal to reverse the burden of proof was countered by the argument that it would constitute too great an inroad into the national law of the Contracting States.

Main Committee I also considered, in respect of Article 67, paragraph 2, that the concept of extending the protection conferred by the European patent application included the case of a shift in the protection as a result of an amendment to the claims. With regard to the interpretative statement proposed by the Inter-Governmental Conference in respect of Article 67, it considered that this should be officially adopted unamended by the Diplomatic Conference and should be annexed to the Convention in the form of a declaration.

As regards the right to continue to use the invention, which a third party who has been operating in good faith may invoke under Article 68, paragraph 4(b), where the proprietor of the patent has corrected the translation of the specification, the Main Committee decided by a majority to depart from the draft by providing that this right could be exercised without payment, by analogy with the comparable situation dealt with in Article 121, paragraph 6.

Page 100

delegation was, however, also prepared to put on one side any objections it might have as regards the system and to adopt such rules in the First Convention, if this should be the wish of the majority of delegations and of the interested circles. It did not believe that such a detailed provision would make the Convention unacceptable to most of the delegations. 147. The Irish and Swedish delegations said they would oppose the proposal since it related to infringement proceedings, which were a matter for national law. 148. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany described the proposed reversal of the burden of proof as valuable for the continuation of the protection afforded by the patent. Nonetheless, it clearly related to law on infringement proceedings and, as such, should be seen as an extension of the maximum solution. If the proposal were put to the vote, it would abstain. 149. The UNICE delegation considered that the proposed reversal of the burden of proof was essential if effective patent protection were to be achieved. 150. The CEIF delegation said that a treaty on the scale of the European Patent Convention should also comprise rules on the reversal of the burden of proof for the enforcement of process claims such as were rightly found in many national laws. A super-regional solution to this localised problem would ease many difficulties as regards proof and would thus represent an important step towards the harmonisation of national legal provisions and judgments in the area of patent infringement.

The Swiss proposal was therefore a very welcome one. It should also be noted that - in view of the provisions on reservations envisaged for Article 166 (167) - proprietors of pharmaceutical patents would, for many years, be dependent on protection of the process. Such protection was far less effective against a third party infringing a patent than was protection of a substance. Irrespective of any objections as regards the system, the proposal should therefore be adopted as a pragmatic solution. 151. The UNION delegation likewise supported the Swiss proposal. 152. The EIRMA delegation described the proposal as an essential complement to the system, which was needed to ensure that the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, and also other branches of industry, received appropriate patent protection. It did not consider that the danger of industrial espionage evoked by the United Kingdom delegation was a real one. Finally, it could not understand why there were certain objections, as regards the system, to the Swiss proposal, since most of the States represented at the Conference had the self-same rules under their own law. 153. The delegation of the International Chamber of Commerce supported the EIRMA's view, adding that, without the proposed paragraph 4 , the rules already adopted in paragraph 3 in the interests of the proprietor of the patent would fail to have any real effect. 154. The Austrian delegation considered the Swiss proposal to be the logical consequence and necessary corollary of paragraph 3, which had already been adopted. On the other hand, it recognised that it would entail encroachment on national law, which might cause difficulties for certain States. It suggested that it might be possible to provide for certain derogations for such States. 155. The IAPIP delegation supported the Swiss proposal. It too saw it as an essential complement to paragraph 3. However, it felt that the proposal was worded far too generally, since it covered all new products, including, for example, mechanical ones. 156. The United Kingdom delegation pointed out that, if the proposal were adopted, it would entail amendments to British law. Such a procedure would be complicated, and would take many months. In view of the fact that the proposal had been put forward only at the very last minute, it could not vote in favour of it. 157. The Swiss delegation countered the objections raised as follows: the question of how the process used by the alleged infringer of the patent was to be kept secret would have to be settled by the national courts. In Switzerland, there were no difficulties in this respect. If the wording of the proposal were too general, it would be prepared to restrict it to substances or compositions. In any case, the wording of its proposal could certainly be improved. Finally, the question of reservations would, if necessary, be dealt with in Main Committee II, whereas Main Committee I was responsible only for settling the fundamental aspects of the problem. 158. Before the vote, the Chairman pointed out that the draft Convention for the European Patent for the Common Market at present contained no provision corresponding to the Swiss proposal and that, like certain national laws, it would therefore have to be supplemented if the said proposal were adopted. The proposal was to be seen as an extension of the "maximum" solution, indeed an extension into the field of procedural law, whereas hitherto, "maximum" solutions had been adopted for substantive legal questions only. Finally, it should be pointed out that the adoption of paragraph 4 might make it rather difficult for certain States to accede to the Convention. 159. In the ensuing ballot, 6 delegations voted in favour of the Swiss proposal and 10 against it. 2 delegations abstained.

Article 68 (70) - Authentic text of a European patent application or European patent

160. A United Kingdom drafting proposal for paragraph 2 (M/40, point 16) was referred to the Drafting Committee*. 161. The FICPI delegation asked whether the words "in proceedings before the European Patent Office" meant that the rule in paragraph 2 did not apply to revocation proceedings before national patent offices under Article 138. 162. The United Kingdom delegation referred to Article 138, paragraph 1(c), whereby a European patent could be revoked in a Contracting State if its subject-matter extended beyond the content of the application as filed. Any party suing for revocation in national proceedings had, therefore, to be free to demonstrate that, for example, the English version of the text of the patent contained an element not to be found in the original application in Dutch and, conversely, the defendant in revocation proceedings had to be able to demonstrate either that the English version contained no new element or that any new elements it might contain were justifiable. 163. The Chairman pointed out that the organisation of revocation proceedings would be governed by the national law of the individual Contracting States. 164. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee the Swiss delegation's suggestion that the English and French versions of paragraph 3 should be amended to correspond to the German text (M/54/I/II/III, p. 14). 165. At a subsequent meeting, the Main Committee discussed this point after the Drafting Committee - contrary to the Swiss suggestion - had amended the German to correspond to the English and French versions. 166. The Swiss delegation stressed how, in its view, only the original German version made sense, providing as it did solely for the eventuality of more limited protection of the patent application or patent in the language of the translation than in the language of the proceedings. At present, on the basis of the original English and French texts which it considered erroneous, provision was also made for the eventuality where

[^0] [^0]: * A further problem relating to paragraph 2 raised by the Belgian delegation is discussed below under points 586-594.

Page 101

nothing to prevent the same result from being achieved by the formulation of the claims under the European procedure. 129. The delegation of the International Chamber of Commerce stated that it fully supported the aim which the Swiss delegation was pursuing, namely to harmonise as much as possible national rules. However, it had doubts about the form and place in the Convention of the proposed provision. In particular, it saw a contradiction with the principle laid down in paragraph 1 whereby the extent of protection of the patent was determined by the claims. In order to achieve the desired aim in accordance with the system of the Convention, the claims would, in such cases, have to be formulated in such a way that the products directly obtained by the process were also covered, and the European Patent Office would have to be obliged to allow these claims. Provision could be made for the latter either in the Convention or in the Implementing Regulations.

Furthermore, the delegation had similar doubts about the provision in the Second Convention which had the same content as the proposed paragraph 3. 130. In reply to the last comment the Chairman pointed out that so far none of the nine EC States considered that Article 67 (69), paragraph 1, conflicted with rules on the extent of protection such as the Swiss delegation proposed. No such doubts had been expressed about Article 29, sub-paragraph (c), of the Draft Second Convention. 131. The EIRMA delegation welcomed the Swiss proposal; it was unable to agree with the reservations of the representative of the International Chamber of Commerce. The possibility of being able to make claims, in which the products were defined in terms of their method of manufacture, was of great importance to the chemical and pharmaceutical industry and also, for example, to the electronics industry. If this proposal were adopted, a well-balanced compromise could perhaps also be reached as regards Article 166 (167) in the case of certain Mediterranean countries. 132. The Yugoslav delegation was not in favour of the Swiss proposal. In its opinion, it would mean protection for patents for inventions which were not yet completed since, if the inventor were able to produce further derivates of the chemical product, he could describe these in the invention and include them in the claims. 133. The UNION delegation did not support this view and drew attention to the fact that under the Swiss proposal only the products obtained directly from the process were to be protected: it was clearly a question of what resulted from the process invented.

The delegation also referred to the origin of the proposed provision: at the end of the last century it had proved necessary in Germany to protect not only processes for manufacturing a product but also - to protect against imports from abroad the products manufactured by such protected processes.

The UNION delegation approved the proposal as a welcome step towards harmonisation over and above the Second Convention. 134. The CEIF delegation described the Swiss proposal as being very estimable. In its opinion, the International Chamber of Commerce's objections concerning the legal form should not be overestimated. The delegation supported the statements of the EIRMA and the UNION. 135. The delegations of the IAPIP, the COPRICE, the Standing Conference of the Chambers of Commerce and Industry of the European Economic Community, and of the UNICE also supported the Swiss proposal. 136. In the final vote 10 delegations voted in favour of the Swiss proposal and 5 against it with 3 delegations abstaining*. 137. The Netherlands delegation raised the question of

[^0]whether plants and animals should not be excluded from the proposed provision in so far as they were already excluded from protection under Article 51 (53), sub-paragraph (b).

No delegation seconded this proposal. 138. The Swiss delegation, seconded by the Austrian delegation, also wanted a new paragraph 4 added to Article 67 (69): it described the paragraph as a desirable added protection of the substance provided for in the new paragraph 3(M / 67 / I). In order to make the protection of the applicant who opted for a process patent effective, it would be appropriate to oblige the competitor of the applicant to provide proof that a product had not been manufactured under the protected process, in so far as new products were concerned. Such a rule existed in most of the prospective Contracting States and it was desirable and justifiable to make this a binding provision in respect of the European procedure too. In its view the problem of micro-organisms, which still had to be discussed, could also be solved more easily, if provision were made for a kind of reversal of the burden of proof. 139. The Italian delegation agreed with the substance of the proposal, but expressed a reservation regarding its wording. 140. The Spanish delegation said it was opposed to the proposal. No such provision on legal procedure should be included in the Convention, since the latter left provisions of this kind to be laid down by national legislation. It did not, however, wish to deny that a similar provision might well find a place in a Convention such as that which the EC States proposed to conclude. 141. In the view of the United Kingdom delegation, the question here was one of patent infringement, and everything relating thereto came under national law. Such a provision might, furthermore, prove rather dangerous, inasmuch as certain industrial undertakings might try to make use of proceedings against their competitors, who would bear the burden of proof, to engage on a "fishing expedition" into their state of development. There was also the subsidiary point that the proposed provision was worded too generally since, in the last resort, every product was new. The provision was presumably intended to cover compositions only. 142. The Finnish delegation shared the view that such provisions were a matter for the law of the individual Contracting States. It also doubted whether reversal of the burden of proof would be a fair way of dealing with every conceivable case. 143. The Yugoslav delegation had no objections to the actual content of the Swiss proposal. However, it too considered that, legal procedure being an area for national law, it should not be dealt with by the Convention. 144. The Greek delegation felt that the problem of patent infringement which the proposed provision was intended to settle should be left to national law. 145. The French delegation did not deny that the proposed rules would affect the procedures of the Contracting States. It would nonetheless be prepared to agree to the proposal, provided that there were minor drafting changes. 146. The Netherlands delegation pointed out that the Swiss proposal would be of particular significance for those countries which were not envisaging the introduction, within the framework of the Convention, of any protection of substances for chemical and pharmaceutical products. It was doubtful whether the proposed provision would have any significance for countries which imposed absolute protection of substances. In the Netherlands, where protection of substances was certainly not yet absolute, the reversal of the burden of proof had not worked out badly in practice.

Such a rule seemed reasonable and was, in any case, desirable in the context of the Second Convention. The Netherlands

[^0]: * The proposed provision became Article 64, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

Page 102

sentence proposed was inconsistent with the first sentence which stated that the description and drawings should be used to resolve any ambiguity. 107. Similarly, the EIRMA delegation stated that it was not in favour of the proposed addition. 108. In the opinion of the delegation of the Standing Conference of the Chambers of Commerce and Industry of the European Economic Community, the Swedish proposal would mean that the claims could no longer be interpreted at all. It thought that this would be regrettable and should be avoided. The European patent and especially its claims must be capable of being interpreted reasonably by the courts in the Contracting States. The Swedish proposal therefore should be rejected. 109. The UNION delegation thought that any amendment would tend to upset the general balance of the declaration, and that would be undesirable. 110. The IFIA delegation stressed the great importance for competitors of claims that are clearly stated, especially for private inventors and for relatively small undertakings. According to the present text of the declaration the claims were not to be taken literally nor merely as guidelines either. This gave rise to major problems especially for the private inventor. 111. Before a vote was taken on the proposed addition, the Swedish delegation stated that industrial and patent agent circles in Sweden attached great importance to the requested addition. 112. When the vote was taken 4 delegations were in favour of the Swedish proposal and 10 delegations against with 3 delegations abstaining. 113. As regards the form the declaration would take the Main Committee agreed that it should be annexed to the Convention - perhaps as a Protocol". 114. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the French delegation concerning the note to Article 67 (69) (M/58/I/II). 115. The Swiss delegation proposed substituting the clause "in so far as such protection corresponds with that of the patent" for "in so far as such protection is not thereby extended" at the end of paragraph 2 (M/54/I/II/III, page 13). This was to make clear that retroactivity would apply only if and to the extent that the claims of the application coincided with those of the patent. A change in the protection consequent upon an amendment of a claim (shifting) should therefore also be excluded. 116. The Netherlands and Austrian delegations supported this proposal. 117. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany and that of the United Kingdom did not consider the proposed amendment necessary. In their opinion, a shift in protection would also represent a widening of such protection and therefore retroactivity would be excluded. 118. In the opinion of the UNICE delegation it would not be justified for the provisional protection conferred retroactively by the application to be granted in respect of a new element which was claimed as the result of a shift. If this was the aim of the Swiss proposal, it should be rejected.

Furthermore, it should also be considered whether the term "extension of the extent of protection" could be improved. 119. The FICPI delegation saw a certain amount of danger in the event of shifting being excluded. The applicant would have to try to make all claims as wide-ranging as possible from the outset. Otherwise, he could not receive any provisional protection retrospectively as regards the elements which were not claimed until a later date, even if they were covered by the original disclosure. If the procedure for publication of the

[^0]application were encumbered with claims which were in part superfluous this would not be a satisfactory solution for anyone. 120. The Main Committee concluded that, in the event of a shift in protection consequent upon amendment of a claim, provisional protection should not be granted retrospectively as regards the newly-claimed part.

The Ccmmintee referred to the Drafting Committee the Swiss proposal for examination whether it was necessary to amend paragraph 2, last sentence, in order to clarify the situation. 121. The Swiss delegation proposed including a new provision in a paragraph 3 or in a separate Article to the effect that, if the invention concerned a manufacturing process for a product, the protection would also extend to the products directly obtained thereby (M/67/I). It pointed out, for example, that it was often not possible in the field of chemistry to secure protection for a substance because the substance could not be defined independently of the method of manufacture. In such cases the applicant had to choose between a process claim with, if necessary, a further claim for the product and a claim for the product in which the product was defined in terms of its method of manufacture (product by process claim). In both cases the Convention would have to be supplemented in the way proposed, if the applicant was to be afforded protection in all the Contracting States, in particular as regards imports from countries where there was no patent protection. Furthermore, almost all the prospective Contracting States had such a provision in their patent law. 122. At the beginning of the discussion the Chairman pointed out that, in his opinion, Article 67 (69) could be applied only in those States which, under the terms of the Convention, had to grant full protection of a chemical substance on the basis of Article 50 (52). 123. The Italian and Austrian delegations supported the Swiss proposal. The Italian delegation thought that it was in line with'the maximum solution as set out in other parts of the Convention. 124. The United Kingdom delegation considered that the proposed rule did not concern the method of formulating the claims as much as the question of patent infringement, which came fully under national law. Indeed the EC States had also settled this matter in the Second Convention (Article 29, sub-paragraph (c) of the Draft Convention for the European Patent for the Common Market) in the way desired by the Swiss delegation. It added that it would abstain from voting on the proposal. 125. For the Netherlands delegation the proposal meant an extension of the maximum solution in so far as the effect of the patent in respect of the States designated was to be more closely defined. It had no hesitations about the proposal since the solution laid down in the Second Convention corresponded exactly to it. In addition, it considered that the Swiss proposal concerned not only the States which would table reservations under Article 166 (167). 126. The Netherlands delegation's view was also shared by the Finnish delegation. 127. The Swiss delegation said, in reply to some speakers' statements, that in its opinion the proposal did not mean an extension of the maximum solution in the sense of laying down in the Convention what constituted an infringement of a patent. The same effect could be achieved by laying down that, in addition to a process claim, a claim for the product obtained thereby was admissible, even it if did not contain any additional features. 128. The Chairman replied that, in his view, the Swiss proposal did in fact mean a widening of the Convention, since the matter had hitherto come under national law. There was

[^0]: - It was finally given the form of a Protnend with the title "Promond on the in terpretation of Articlero of the Convention"

Article 58 (60) - Right to a European patent

84. The problems connected with identification of the inventor are dealt with under Article 79 (points 227 et seq.). 85. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the division of paragraph 1 into two separate paragraphs (M/11, point 22). 86. At a subsequent meeting the Main Committee discussed, on the basis of a text submitted by the Drafting Committee, whether reference had to be made in the new paragraph 3 (previously paragraph 2) not only to paragraph 1 (previously paragraph 1, first and second sentences) but to paragraph 2 (previously paragraph 1, third sentence) as well. 87. The Swiss delegation considered it appropriate to refer to paragraph 2 (new) as well. 88. In the opinion of the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany reference definitely had to be made to paragraph 2 (new), since under paragraph 3 (new) the European Patent Office was meant to be freed from the task of verifying entitlement even where there were several applicants. 89. The Netherlands delegation, however, had doubts about the fictitious case mentioned in paragraph 3 (new), but was prepared to refer the matter to the Drafting Committee. 90. The Main Committee accordingly referred the question to the Drafting Committee for examination and for a decision.

Article 59 (61) - European patent applications by persons not entitled to apply

91. The problems connected with the mention of the inventor are dealt with under Article 79 (points 227 et seq.). 92. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a proposal from the Netherlands delegation concerning an amendment to the title of Article 59 (M/32, point 10) and a drafting proposal from the Member States of the European Communities concerning paragraph 1 (M/14, point 3). It also referred to it an oral drafting proposal from the Swiss delegation concerning the French text of the title, the introduction to paragraph 1 and paragraph 1 (b). 93. The Swiss delegation, seconded by the Austrian delegation, requested that in Article 59 (61), paragraph 2, reference should also be made to the first paragraph of Article 74 (76) (M/54/I/II/III, page 12). It primarily wanted to ensure that there could be no room for doubt that the person entitled to a European patent could designate only those States which had also been designated in the initial application by the person not entitled to apply. Secondly, it wanted to ensure that the new divisional application could be filed only in respect of subject-matter contained in the earlier application. Finally, the divisional application should also be filed directly with the European Patent Office and not be made through a national office. 94. After the United Kingdom and Netherlands delegations had pointed out with regard to the main problem that it was already laid down in Article 59, paragraph 1, that no Contracting States could be designated other than those originally designated, the Swiss delegation withdrew its request. It reserved the right to return to its other requests when Article 74 (76), paragraph 2, was discussed (see points 200 et seq.).

Article 61 (63) - Term of the European patent

95. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the United Kingdom delegation concerning paragraph 2 (M/40, point 13).

Article 62 (64) - Rights conferred by a European patent

96. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany withdrew a proposed addition to Article 62 (M/11, point 23). 97. The. Main Committee adopted this Article in the version resulting from the discussion of Article 67 (69), paragraphs 3 and 4 (see below, points 121 et seq., 138 et seq.).

Article 63 (65) - Translation of the European patent specification

98. The Main Committee referred to the Drafting Committee two drafting proposals from the United Kingdom delegation concerning paragraphs 1 and 3 (M/40, points 14 and 15).

Article 65 (67) - Rights conferred by a European patent application after publication

99. At the Irish delegation's request paragraph 3(b) was referred to the Drafting Committee for examination whether the words "the person" should be substituted for "any person" in the English text.

Article 67 (69) - Extent of protection

100. The Swedish delegation, seconded by the Finnish delegation, requested that the note to Article 67 (69) be drafted in such a way that the patentee should on no account be able to profit from any ambiguity in the patent claims (M/53/I/II, point 5; see also M/13, point 7). The present version of the proposed declaration was not quite satisfactory in this respect. It also wished to point out that great importance had been attached to the wording in this respect when drawing up a Scandinavian patent law. 101. The Netherlands delegation opposed the request. In its opinion this addition would not improve the text. It wished, however, to point out above all that the declaration had been very carefully drafted after lengthy discussions. 102. In the considered opinion of the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany the present text of the statement was very well-balanced. If the Swedish request were granted, a lack of balance, which nobody sought, might be created. It could therefore not support the proposed addition. 103. The United Kingdom delegation considered that the Swedish proposal might well be suitable for most cases of obscure claims but not for all. It was therefore not advisable to become committed to an interpretation of obscure claims in the way proposed. Furthermore, the delegation referred to the lengthy discussions there had been on this very declaration. It was therefore better to retain the present text. 104. The Swiss delegation said that it would be sorry if the present, very well-balanced text were amended. 105. The FICPI delegation stated that it was understandable that the Swedish delegation wanted, with its proposed addition, to afford the greatest possible certainty for competitors of the proprietor of the patent. However, the applicant could simply not be expected to foresee, in drawing up his claims, all the possibilities of infringement. If he did not foresee them, it would be to his disadvantage under the Swedish proposal. Considered in this way, the proposal was even likely to detract to a large extent from the European patent's appeal. 106. The delegation of the International Chamber of Commerce concurred in the statements of the Government delegations. In addition, it considered that the additional

Minutes of the Proceedings of Main Committee I

1. Main Committee I (see Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure*) set up by the Plenary of the Conference to deal with matters concerning patent law was chaired by Dr. Kurt Haertel, President of the German Patent Office (Federal Republic of Germany). Mr. Göran Borggård, Director-General of the Royal Swedish Patent Office (Sweden), was the first Vice-Chairman; Mr. Erkki Tuuli, Director-General of the Patent and Record Office (Finland), and Dr. Thomas Lorenz, Chairman of the Patent Office (Austria), were the other Vice-Chairmen. The Rapporteur was Lic. jur. Paul Braendli, Vice-Director of the Federal Intellectual Property Office (Switzerland) (see M/PR/K/1, points 19, 20 and 25; M/46/K, page 1 and M/55/K, page 2). 2. The duties of Main Committee I were based on Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure (M/34) and on a recommendation adopted by the Steering Committee of the Conference (M/56/I/II/III).

On this basis the Main Committee was responsible for Articles 14, 50-142,144,148-157,161,162 and 174 of the Draft Convention (M/1), Rules 1-7 and 13-107 of the Draft Implementing Regulations (M/2), the Draft Protocol on Recognition (M/3), the Recommendation on preparations for the opening of the European Patent Office (M/8) and the Recommendation on training staff for the European Patent Office (M/37). 3. Main Committee I met from 11 to 14 September, 17 to 21 September, 24 to 26 September and on 28 and 29 September 1973. 4. At its first meeting the Main Committee, on a proposal from its Chairman, set up a Drafting Committee. Modelled on the Drafting Committee of the Luxembourg Inter-Governmental Conference, this consisted of the delegations of the Federal Republic of Germany, France and the United Kingdom. The Chairman was Mr. J. B. van Benthem, President of the Octrooiraad and Head of the Netherlands delegation. 5. The Main Committee did not deal with the tasks assigned to it in exactly the same order as the Articles, Rules and other provisions but in the order which seemed most appropriate in the given circumstances. Thus it happened that one and the same provision was discussed on different occasions, for example if the problem in question was first passed to a Working Party and subsequently referred back to the Main Committee.

However, in this report each provision is dealt with only once. The reader should thus be able to obtain, in one place, all the information he wants on the discussion of a particular problem. Within the following Sections the provisions are dealt with in numerical order:

	points
A. General	8-10
B. Convention	11 et seq.
C. Implementing Regulations	2001 et seq.
D. Protocol on Recognition	3001 et seq.
E. Recommendation on preparations for the	4001 et seq.
opening of the European Patent Office
F. Recommendation on training staff for the	5001 et seq.
European Patent Office

6. If a provision was dealt with again in the Main Committee after being discussed in a Working Party or in the Drafting Committee, special mention is made of this below. On the other hand, if no mention is made, it is to be assumed that the Main Committee adopted the proposal of the Working Party or of the Drafting Committee. Purely drafting amendments which

[^0]are not based on written proposals are not mentioned as a general rule. 7. In this report the numbering of the Articles, Rules, paragraphs, etc. follows the text of the draft proposals (M/1 to M/8). Where it seems appropriate, the numbering in the signed text is given in brackets after the number of the provision concerned.

A. General

8. At the beginning of the first meeting the Chairman noted that the Steering Committee had approved two requests at its meeting on 10 September 1973, namely that Mr. Sheehan of the US Patent Office and Mr. van Empel, a former member of the Secretariat, might be admitted as listeners to the meetings of the Main Committees. However, under Rule 48 of the Rules of Procedure Main Committee I's consent was also necessary, before participation in its proceedings was allowed.

Main Committee I agreed that both the gentlemen mentioned could take part in its proceedings as listeners pursuant to Rule 48, paragraph 1. 9. The Chairman pointed out that under Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure only requests made in writing by the Government delegations could be discussed and voted upon. In principle, written requests had to be submitted by 5 p.m. on the day prior to the discussion. 10. The Chairman also stated that, pursuant to the Rules of Procedure, only Government delegations could make proposals, whereas representatives of any observer delegations could make oral statements under Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure. If observer delegations made proposals, the latter had to be taken over by a Government delegation and seconded by a second Government delegation. If this was not the case, the proposal was deemed to be rejected.

The Main Committee agreed with this interpretation.

Article 14 - Languages of the European Patent Office

11. The Main Committee forwarded to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the Netherlands delegation concerning paragraph 2 (M/32, point 2). 12. While discussing Article 122, paragraph 2 (see point 594), the Main Committee decided on a further amendment to paragraph 2. 13. The Main Committee forwarded to the Drafting Committee a drafting proposal from the Luxembourg delegation concerning paragraph 4(M/9, point 8). 14. The Main Committee decided that a proposal from the Netherlands delegation concerning paragraph 17 (M/52/I/II/ III, point 2), to the effect that an applicant must submit a translation of the claims in the other two official languages of the European Patent Office, would be discussed in connection with Article 96 (see under point 350). The Committee also adopted paragraph 7. 15. The Turkish delegation proposed amending paragraph 7 so that claims would have to be translated into all the official languages of the designated Contracting States.

It was pointed out to the delegation that the question of the translation of the European patent specification is dealt with in Article 63 (65), so that, for example, Turkey could request that the specification be translated into Turkish, if the European patent was to be effective in Turkey.

The Turkish delegation said it was satisfied with this explanation and withdrew its proposal.

[^0]: * The Rules of Procedure (M/34) had been previously adopted unanimously by the Plenary (see M/PR/K/1, point 10).

Page 105

Introduction ..... 7 Report on the meeting of the Plenary ..... 9 Opening Mecting (M/PR/K/1) Minutes of the proceedings of the Credentials Committee ..... 25 (M/PR/V) Minutes of the proceedings of Main Committee I ..... 27 (M/PR/I) Minutes of the proceedings of Main Committee II ..... 109 (M/PR/II) Minutes of the proceedings of Main Committee III ..... 155 (M/PR/III) Minutes of the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole ..... 163 (M/PR/G) Report on the meeting of the Plenary ..... 199 Final Meeting (M/PR/K/2) List of participants ..... 211

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING

UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM

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

Page 107

Art. 69 MPÜ

- 2 -

Entwurf, der dem nebenstehenden Dokument zugrunde liegt	Art. Nr. im Entwurf/ Dokument	Dokument, in dem der Art. behandelt wird	Fundstelle im Dokument
11972	67	M/22	S. 242
"	67	M/23	S. 292
"	67	M/30	S. 3
"	67	M/53/I/II	S. 22
"	67	M/54/I/II/III	S. 13
"	67	M/58/I/II	S. 1
"	67	M/62/I/II	S. 86
"	67	M/67/I	S. 1
"	67	M/146/R 3	Art. 69
"	67	M/PR/I	S. 37-39/37-39
"	6769	M/PR/G : Ni.th	S. 200/201

Zu Artikel 90 d

Wirkung des endgültigen europäischen Patents

1. Materialien: 2. Bemerkungen:

Bei der Bestätigung des vorläufigen europäischen 𝔉 𝔞 tents als endgültiges europäisches Patent soll die Kontinuität des Rechts und des Schutzes gewahrt werden. Dies will Artikel 90 d des Arbeitsentwurfs dadurch erreichen, daß er das endgültige Patent rückwirkend an die Stelle des vorläufigen Patents treten läßt. Damit wird erreicht, daß das endgültige Patent schon von der Bekanntmachung der Erteilung des vorläufigen Patents an Schutz genießt (Artikel 79). Diese Rückwirkung des endgültigen Schutzes tritt selbstverständlich mit den Beschränkungen ein, die sich aus dem im Prüfungsverfahren festgelegten Schutzumfang des endgültigen Patents ergeben.