Art98eTPEPC1973

Métadonnées

• Nom affiché : Art98eTPEPC1973
• Numéro d'article : 98
• Dossier / langue : English
• Tag langue : #English
• PDF original : Articles/English/Articles 076-100/Article 098 (English version)/Art98eTPEPC1973.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. 98 MPO Verōffentlichung der europäischen Patentschrift

Entwurf, der dem nebenstehenden Dokument zugrunde liegt	Art. Nr. im Entwurf/ Dokument	Dokument, in dem der Art. behandelt wird	Fundstelle im Dokument
Vorschl.d.Vors.	9ob	IV/4860/61	S. 44
IV/4860/61	9ob	IV/3076/62	S. 157
VE 1962	103	2632/IV/64	S. 77
VE 1965 (Ue)	96a	BR/12/69	Rdn. 22/23
VE 1970	98	BR/60/70	Rdn. 10

Dokumente der MDK

E 1972	97	M/19	S. 172
"	97	M/22	S. 262
"	97	M/23	S. 294
"	97	M/30	S. 4
"	97	M/146/R 4	Art. 98
"	97	M/PR/I	S. 49/50
"	97	M/PR/G	S. 201

5. Filing and requirements of the European patent application (Articles 73-84 and Rules 24-37)

During its discussion of Article 73, the Main Committee was faced with the question of which office of the European Patent Office the European patent application should be filed at. In the interests of the applicant, it gave him the choice of Munich or The Hague and amended Article 73, paragraph 1(a) and Article 74, paragraph 1, accordingly.

In connection with the requirements of the application under Article 76, the Main Committee examined the need to file the abstract. It considered that if this were not done, there would be a loss of information and therefore maintained this requirement. It also decided to prescribe the compulsory publication of the abstract with the search report under Article 92.

Closely connected with the substantive requirement of disclosing the invention under Article 81 was the problem of making special provisions for European patent applications covering micro-organisms. It was not contested that the relevant provision, Rule 28, should lay down that micro-organisms which are not available to the public should be deposited with a recognised culture collection no later than at the time of filing the application, that the micro-organism should be adequately described in the application, and that the culture collection should be identified either in the application itself or within a short time thereafter. It was also agreed that the disclosure of the micro-organism should be subject to certain measures to protect the applicant. Views differed, however, on the latest time at which the micro-organism should be made available to the public. Contrary to the draft of Rule 28, which provided for this to be not later than the date of publication of the application, it was proposed that the applicant should not be obliged to make the micro-organism available to the public until the time of the grant of the patent, at which point the provisional protection would be lost. The main arguments put forward in defence of this standpoint were that the approach contained in the draft laid an unfair burden on such applicants in comparison to inventors in other fields of technology by requiring the subject-matter of the invention to be deposited, and that the applicant was forced to reveal know-how, thus making it easier for his invention to be copied at a time when it was not yet definite whether or not the application would lead to the grant of a patent.

Those who advocated the approach set out in the draft argued that the public could be considered to be sufficiently informed about the subject-matter of the invention only if the micro-organism were made available to the public at the time of the publication of the application; furthermore, it was only by such a disclosure that the micro-organism could be comprised in the state of the art under Article 52, paragraph 3, with the result that this was the only means whereby duplication of patents could be avoided and legal uncertainty in relation to national patent applications could be removed.

After detailed consideration of the various arguments for and against the two approaches, the Main Committee decided by a majority to retain the solution proposed in the draft and to lay down that the micro-organism should be made available to the public at the latest at the date of publication of the European patent application. At the same time, it added provisions to Rule 28 which gave the applicant far-reaching guarantees against misuse of the disclosed micro-organism during the existence of the provisional protection conferred by the application and the definitive protection of the European patent. These guarantees consisted in requiring that any third party who had access to a sample of the culture would have to make certain undertakings vis-à-vis the culture collection or the applicant for or proprietor of the patent in respect of the ways in which he used the culture. On the other hand, the Main Committee decided, in the same way as in respect of Article 67, not to adopt a procedural rule which would have obliged a third party who used a micro-organism disclosed by the applicant to prove that the culture concerned was not that described in the application, even though the reversal of the burden of proof would have reinforced the legal position of the applicant even further. It was also made clear in Rule 28 that the built-in safety clauses in favour of the applicant did not prejudice any national provisions concerning compulsory licences or uses in the interest of the State. The details governing the deposit, storage and availability of cultures were left to agreements to be concluded between the President of the European Patent Office and the recognised culture collections.

6. Questions of priority (Articles 85-87/Rule 38)

Apart from the amendment to Article 85, paragraph 5, already dealt with above in the chapter on "language questions", the provisions of Articles 85-87 concerning priority led to few amendments. It may be mentioned that the extension of the priority right to States which are not members of the Paris Convention, in accordance with an amendment decided upon by the Committee in the interests of the Contracting States, will apply only if international reciprocity is granted not only in relation to European but also in relation to national applications by Contracting States.

7. Procedure up to grant (Articles 88-97/Rules 39-55)

In so far as individual provisions of Articles 88-97 and the corresponding Rules 39-55 concerning the procedure up to grant have already been discussed in connection with language questions, identification of the inventor and the abstract, reference should be made to the appropriate Chapters 1 , 3 and 5.

During the discussion of Articles 93/94 the Committee confirmed the specified period within which requests for examination may be filed and also the possibilities for extending the time limits, both of which are the result of well thought out compromises. The Committee refused in particular to lay down in Article 94 an absolute right for third parties to request examination in the event of the Administrative Council extending a time limit. The need for such a right for third parties depends largely on the length of time by which the period is extended.

8. Opposition procedure (Articles 98-104/Rules 56-64)

The provisions concerning opposition procedure gave rise to very little discussion. A proposal to delete the opposition fee in Article 98, paragraph 1, on the ground that the opponent was to be considered as a person helping to establish the legal facts of the matter, was rejected by the majority. If the fee were to be dispensed with, dilatory opposition would be encouraged. Furthermore, the interests of the opponent are his main incentive and lastly, pursuant to Article 114, any person who wishes to help to establish the legal facts of the matter may present, free of charge, observations concerning the patentability of an invention in respect of which an application has been filed. By a vast majority the Committee also refused to shorten to six months the nine-month opposition period laid down in Article 98, paragraph 1, which had been adopted as a compromise solution at an earlier stage in the negotiations.

In Article 98 and in Rule 61 the Committee added new provisions which also make possible the filing of notice of opposition and consequently the continuation of opposition proceedings when the proprietor has completely surrendered the European patent or when it has lapsed for all the

Minutes of the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole

1. The Committee of the Whole, which was established by the Plenary of the Conference and comprised all the Government delegations (see Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure) ^a, was, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Rule 14, chaired by Dr. Kurt Haertel (Federal Republic of Germany), President of the German Patent Office and Chairman of Main Committee I. Mr. François Savignon (France), Director of the French Industrial Property Office and Chairman of Main Committee II, was First Vice-Chairman; Mr. Edward Armitage (United Kingdom), Comptroller-General of the United Kingdom Patent Office and Chairman of Main Committee III was Second Vice-Chairman. 2. In accordance with Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure, the terms of reference of the Committee of the Whole were to take decisions on proposals from the Gernal Drafting Committee on drafts established by Main Committees I, II and III and on proposals submitted to it directly and to forward the drafts approved by it to the Plenary of the Conference for adoption. 3. The Committee of the Whole met under the direction of the Chairman from 1 to 4 October 1973. 4. At the meeting on 1 October 1973, the Committee of the Whole received the reports of Main Committees I and II. Main Committee I's report was approved without debate (see Section I below). 5. At its meeting on 2 October 1973, the Committee of the Whole discussed Main Committee II's report. The discussion and subsequent approval of the report are dealt with below in Section II. At the same meeting, it heard and approved Main Committee III's report (see Section III below); it also discussed the results of the proceedings of the General Drafting Committee (M/146 R/1 to R/15 and M/151 R/16). These discussions are covered in Section IV below. 6. On 3 October 1973, the Committee of the Whole received and approved the report of the Credentials Committee (see Section V below). The problems of a European School and the European Patent Office building in Munich were then dealt with (see Sections VI and VII). 7. At its last meeting on the morning of 4 October 1973, the Committee of the Whole discussed the organisation and work programme of the Interim Committee. These discussions are presented in Section VIII below. It finally considered a proposal from the Yugoslav delegation for a Resolution on technical assistance (Section IX) and a Recommendation regarding the status and remuneration of certain employees (Section X).

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

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

II. Report on the work of Main Committee II

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

[^0]Patent Office. The text of the report as adopted by the Committee of the Whole is given in Annex II. The discussions concerning the proposals for amendments to the report are summarised in the following paragraphs. 10. As regards the section of the report concerning the Protocol on Centralisation, the Netherlands delegation, commenting on the first sentence in point 16 , stated that the obligations of the European Patent Office towards the Member States of the International Patent Institute had simply been clarified rather than extended. However, the French and United Kingdom delegations maintained that the obligations had in fact been extended since the original text had only referred to tasks at present incumbent upon the Institute whereas now tasks entrusted to the IIB after the signing of the Protocol were expressly covered. While disagreeing with this view, the Netherlands delegation did not insist on an amendment. 11. The Netherlands delegation proposed, also with regard to point 16 , that the last sentence should state that the EPO would also undertake searches for Member States of the IIB which had not submitted any applications for search before the entry into force of the Convention. This would make provision for those States which, up to the time in question, had submitted no applications for search to the IIB although they were entitled to do so.

The Committee of the Whole agreed to amend the part of the report concerned as follows: ^∘. . . the Office will also assume this responsibility in respect of a Member State of the Institute which prior to the entry into force of the Convention, has agreed to submit national applications to the Institute for search." 12. The Committee of the Whole adopted a proposal from the Swedish delegation that the idea proposed by the Scandinavian countries at the beginning of point 22 be worded as follows: "Consideration was given to the idea, proposed by the Scandinavian countries, that such work might be entrusted to national offices, possessing the minimum documentation, whether or not they possessed the other qualifications, required of an International Searching Authority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty." It also approved an addition at the end of the third sentence in this point to the effect that national offices would have to "fully" qualify as Searching Authorities. 13. The Austrian delegation suggested that in the English version of point 22 , in the middle of page 14 , the words "some search work" be used so as not to prejudge the question of the amount of such search work, which had deliberately been left open. The text would therefore read: "difficulties resulting from a renunciation under Sation L2, to entrust some search work to national offices whose language is ..."

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

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

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

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

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

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING

UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM

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

Page 6

Procedure required a two-thirds majority of the Government Delegations to be in favour of it. Enquiry showed that this was not the case. 378. In the ensuing vote, nine delegations were in favour of and three were opposed to the Netherlands delegation's proposal. Four delegations abstained.

The Chairman noted that the proposal was therefore adopted on condition that the period of three months laid down in Article 96, paragraph 4 (Article 97, paragraph 5), be extended to five and the period of one month laid down in Rule 52 (51), paragraph 4 , be extended to three*. 379. After the discussion had been closed and a vote taken on Article 96 (97), paragraph 2 and Rule 52 (51), paragraph 4, the Swiss delegation made a proposal at a subsequent meeting that the matter be discussed again with the intention of having the provision which hitherto had been in the Convention transposed to the Implementing Regulations (M/92/I). It said that it no longer wished to call into question the decision reached by the Main Committee to the effect that translations of claims into the two other official languages should be provided by applicants and published by the European Patent Office without examination. Its only desire was that this arrangement be laid down in the Implementing Regulations rather than in the Convention.

The Main Committee recommended, by nine votes to two with five abstentions, that this problem be discussed again within the limits proposed by the Swiss delegation. 380. The Swiss delegation based its proposal for the transposition of the accepted requirements to the Implementing Regulations on the contention that the Administrative Council must have the power to amend the regulations now laid down should it emerge that it did not achieve the sought-after goal of reliably informing third parties of the scope of the European patent. 381. The French delegation supported the Swiss delegation's proposal. 382. The Netherlands delegation remarked in this connection that it would be risky also to transfer to the Implementing Regulations, as a corollary to the Swiss proposal, the penalty of deemed withdrawal applicable in cases of failure to supply translations in time. The goal sought after could also be achieved if in Article 31 (33), paragraph 1, the Administrative Council were given the power to amend Article 96 of the Convention in the desired manner, as the Swiss delegation itself had indicated in its document M/92/I. 383. The United Kingdom delegation thought that an attempt should be made to keep the penalty in the Convention itself if it were at all possible. 384. The Main Committee accepted the reasoning behind the Swiss proposal and referred it to the Drafting Committee with the instruction that the penalty of deemed withdrawal of an application in the event of non-provision of translated patent claims in due time was to be provided for in the Convention if possible**. 385. The Swiss delegation asked what was meant by paragraph 2(c) : before the grant of a patent could be decided, must renewal fees due and additional fees due be paid, or renewal fees not yet due, plus additional fees? 386. The Chairman understood this provision to mean that only renewal fees and additional fees that were already due had to be paid before the grant of a patent was decided, while fees falling due after the grant of a patent had been decided were payable to national patent offices.

Article 97 (98) - Publication of a European patent

387. The UNICE and CEIF delegations expressed the wish that on publication of a European patent the documents

• See points 2273 et seq.
  • See Article 97, paragraph 5, of the Convention and Rule 51, paragraph 4, of the Implement Regulations.

referred to by the examiners be cited. This rule, which had moreover proved its worth in many countries, would permit third parties to form their own judgments as to the legal validity of patents and would also help to establish the state of the art. The publication of the search report would not suffice for these purposes since search reports could omit documents which were important in the grant of a patent and adduce others which were unimportant.

388. The Netherlands delegation felt that this wish was justified, but that there was no need to amend Article 97 for it to be fulfilled; under Rules 50 (49) and 54 (53), the President of the European Patent Office could prescribe the inclusion of such data in the specification. 389. The Chairman noted the Main Committee's view that under the Implementing Regulations the President of the European Patent Office should prescribe that documents which were important in the grant of a patent be cited in the publication of a European patent.

Article 98 (99) - Opposition

390. The Norwegian delegation, supported by the Swedish delegation, requested that the opposition fee be done away with; it wanted the opposition procedure to be regarded as a useful addition to the examination procedure (see M/60/I, page 3). 391. The French delegation opposed this request. It saw a great danger that, if no fee were payable, notice of opposition would all too often be filed which was unfounded. Interested circles in France thought that, on the contrary, the opposition fee had to be fixed high enough to prevent the filing of unfounded opposition. 392. The Swiss delegation supported these comments. It also pointed out that under Article 114 (115) any third party could present observations after the publication of a patent. Furthermore, the opposition procedure was far more than an extension of the examination procedure; it was a procedure in the interest of the patentee's competitors in the same way as revocation proceedings. 393. The United Kingdom delegation supported the arguments of the French and Swiss delegations. 394. In the ensuing vote four delegations were in favour of and ten opposed the Norwegian delegation's request; three delegations abstained. 395. The UNION delegation proposed that the period allowed for filing opposition be shortened from nine months to six. It was in the interest of both the patentee and the public for the legal situation to be ascertained as soon as possible. A period of three months would be too short since the patent had still to be translated into other languages, but nine months was definitely too long. 396. The EIRMA delegation supported these remarks and added that because of the Main Committee's decision regarding Article 96, paragraph 4 (Article 97, paragraph 5) (see point 378 above), the period allowed for filing opposition should start two months later than hitherto provided. And if one took into consideration the fact that appeals could still be filed against the period fixed for filing opposition, it must be admitted that the uncertainty whether a patent held good or not could last far too long. 397. The COPRICE and CEIF delegations also supported the proposal that the period allowed for filing opposition be shortened. 398. The Chairman recalled that the problem of the period allowed for filing opposition had already been debated several times. Nine months had been arrived at as follows: one consideration was that many States whose national languages

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE

FOR THE SETTING

UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM

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

Page 8

Article 98 Publication of a specification of the European patent

At the same time as it publishes the mention of the grant of the European patent, the European Patent Office shall publish a specification of the European patent containing the description, the claims and any drawings.

Page 9

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

- 1973 -

Munich, 30 September 1973 M/ 146/2 4 Original: English/French/German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: General Drafting Committee

Subject: Convention: Articles 84 to 111

Page 10

12. Some members of CEEP however consider that if the provisions at present laid down in Article 94 are retained, the maximum length for the provisionally extended period should be laid down as should a time limit after which the period may not be extended. 13. Article 97

It would be very desirable for the specification of the European patent to contain not only the description, the claims and any drawings, but also a list of the documents cited in the course of the procedure.

14. Article 104, paragraph 1

Concerns the French text only.

15. Article 128

The paragraphs of this Article would be clearer if the terminology relating to concepts at different levels and with opposite meanings were more precise. Thus, whereas paragraph 1 lays down a restriction on making files relating to European patent applications which have not yet been published available for inspection, and paragraphs 2 and 3 provide for exceptions to this restriction (these exceptions providing for cases where files may be made available for inspection), paragraph 4 , on the other hand, lays down the general principle of files relating to published applications or to patents being made available for inspection and this principle is subject to exceptions (providing for cases where files may not be made available for inspection as in the case of the restriction in paragraph 1). In particular the "exceptions" provided for in paragraph 4 could better be described as "restrictions", as is the case in Article 130, paragraph 3, Article 131, paragraph 1, and Rule 99, paragraph 3. 16. In addition the exceptions (or restrictions) in paragraph 4 on the inspection of files relating to a published application or to a patent would seem to be confined in the Implementing Regulations

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 (CREP)

Subject: Comments relating to the Draft Convention establishing a European System for the Grant of Patents

21 Artikel 76, Regel 27 Absatz 1d

Die derzeitige Formulierung ,... außerdem sind gegebenenfalls die vorteilhaften Wirkungen ... anzugeben" wäre bei erschöpfender Auslegung unangemessen; es ist wünschenswert, diese Auflage auf die Angabe einiger vorteilhafter Wirkungen zu beschränken.

22 Artikel 80, Regel 30

Es wird vorgeschlagen, die Worte „besonders angepaßtes" zu streichen, da diese Forderung unbegründet erscheint.

23 Artikel 86 Absatz 3

Es sollte klargestellt werden, daß nicht nur für ein und dieselbe Anmeldung, sondern auch für ein und denselben Patentanspruch dieser Anmeldung mehrere Prioritäten in Anspruch genommen werden können.

24 Artikel 90, Regel 41 Absatz 2

Die in dieser Regel enthaltene unangemessene Auflage sollte durch die Möglichkeit ersetzt werden, innerhalb einer begrenzten Frist nach der Einreichung der Anmeldung die beanspruchten Prioritäten anzugeben oder die sich hierauf beziehenden Angaben zu berichtigen.

25 Artikel 92, Regeln 49, 50 und 52

Es wird festgestellt, daß für die Rücknahme einer Anmeldung keine Bestimmung eigens vorgesehen ist, obwohl sich das Recht hierzu aus der Regel 49 Absatz 2 ergibt.

Die Bestimmung in Regel 50 Absatz 3 ist nach Ansicht des FEMIPI so wichtig, daß sie in Artikel 92 aufgenommen werden sollte.

26 Artikel 97

Es wird empfohlen, in der Patentschrift auch die von den Prüfern im Verlauf des Verfahrens genannten Unterlagen aufzuführen.

27 Artikel 104

Es wird vorgeschlagen, dem Dritten, der vom Patentinhaber eine Aufforderung zur Unterlassung erhalten und eine Klage zur Feststellung eingereicht hat, daß keine Patentverletzung vorliegt, dieselben Rechte eingeräumt werden wie dem beitretenden Patentverletzer.

21 Article 76; Rule 27, paragraph 1(d)

The present wording "... and state the advantageous effects, if any, of ..." would, if interpreted as requiring an exhaustive list, be much too excessive; this provision should be limited to a requirement for certain advantageous effects to be specified.

22 Article 80; Rule 30

It is suggested that the phrase "specifically designed" should be deleted since it would seem to constitute an unjustified requirement.

23 Article 86, paragraph 3

It should be stated that multiple priorities may be claimed not only in respect of one and the same application but also in respect of one and the same claim of that application.

24 Article 90; Rule 41, paragraph 2

The excessive requirement laid down under this Rule should be replaced by the possibility of indicating the priorities claimed or of correcting statements concerning the latter within a specific period from the filing of the application.

25 Article 92; Rules 49, 50 and 52

It is pointed out that there is no express provision relating to the withdrawal of an application, although the right to withdrawal is implicit in Rule 49, paragraph 2.

In addition, the provision of Rule 50, paragraph 3, is of such great importance in the view of FEMIPI, that it should be inserted in Article 92.

26 Article 97

It is recommended that the patent specification should also mention the documents cited by the examiners during the procedure.

27 Article 104

It is suggested that any third party against whom a suit is brought by the patentee and who has filed a declaratory action to confirm that there has been no infringement, should have the same rights as the intervening infringer.

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 14

Artikel 96 Absatz 2 Buchstabe b 32 Die Erteilungsgebühr und die Druckkostengebühr sollten zusammengefaßt werden.

Artikel 97 - Veröffentlichung des europäischen Patents

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

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

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

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

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

Artikel 120 Absatz 2 - Weiterbehandlung der europäischen Patentanmeldung

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

Artikel 124 Absatz 3 - Ergänzender europäischer Recherchenbericht

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

Artikel 128 Absatz 5 - Akteneinsicht

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

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

Article 96, paragraph 2(b)

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

Article 97 - Publication of a European patent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 124, paragraph 3 - Supplementary European search report

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

Article 128, paragraph 5 - Inspection of files

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

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

Page 15

Original: Französisch French (1) Français

CIFE

Rat der Europäischen Industrieverbände

CEIF

Council of European Industrial Federations

PRISE DE POSITION DU

CIFE Conseil des fédérations industrielles d'Europe

Artikel 73 (1)

7 Die U.N.I.C.E. glaubt verstanden zu haben, daß es zulässig sein wird - wenn das nationale Recht es gestattet -, Patentanmeldungen bei dem Haager Zweig des Europäischen Patentamtes einzureichen. Dies scheint nicht klar aus dem Entwurf hervorzugehen; es ist wichtig, daß dies der Fall ist.

Artikel 86 (2) und (3)

8 Es ist vorgesehen, daß der Anmelder für eine europäische Patentanmeldung mehrere Prioritäten in Anspruch nehmen kann. Jedoch scheint es notwendig zu präzisieren, daß für einen Anspruch mehrere Prioritäten gefordert werden können.

Artikel 88 (2)

9 Der letzte Satz von Absatz 2 könnte in seiner Form verbessert werden. Anstelle des Satzteiles: ,,so wird die Anmeldung nicht als europäische Patentanmeldung behandelt" könnte es heißen: ,,so gilt die Anmeldung als nicht gestellt".

Rücknahme einer Anmeldung

10 Es scheint, daß es im Abkommensentwurf keine Vorschrift gibt, die ausdrücklich vorsieht, daß der Anmelder seine Anmeldung zurücknehmen kann, obwohl Regel 49 eine solche Möglichkeit voraussetzt.

Artikel 92 (2)

11 Nach der Regel 50 (3) sind außer den ursprünglichen Patentansprüchen auch die neuen oder geänderten Patentansprüche zu veröffentlichen, sofern diese vor Abschluß der technischen Vorbereitungen für die Veröffentlichung vorliegen. Es erscheint der U.N.I.C.E., daß diese Vorschrift in das Abkommen selbst eingefügt werden sollte.

Artikel 96 (2) und (3)

12 Es erscheint zweckmäßig, die Druckkostengebühr und die Erteilungsgebühr zu einer einheitlichen Gebühr zusammenzufassen.

Artikel 97

13 Es ist wünschenswert, daß die Patentschrift auch die Dokumente angibt, die die Prüfer zitiert haben.

Artikel 104

14 Es scheint logisch, die Rechte, die Artikel 104

Article 73, paragraph 1

7 UNICE thought that it had been agreed that where the law of a Contracting State so permits, patent applications could be filed at the branch of the European Patent Office at The Hague. The Draft does not seem to make this point clear; however it is important that this should be the case.

Article 86, paragraphs 2 and 3

8 These paragraphs provide that the applicant may claim several priorities in respect of one and the same European patent application. However it should be stated that several priorities may also be claimed in respect of one and the same claim.

Article 88, paragraph 2

9 The form of the last sentence of paragraph 2 could be improved. The phrase "the application shall not be dealt with as a European patent application" could be changed to read: "the application shall be deemed not to have been filed".

Withdrawal of applications

10 It would appear that there is no provision in the Draft Convention which expressly provides that applicants may withdraw their applications, although Rule 49 presupposes such a possibility.

Article 92, paragraph 2

11 Under Rule 50, paragraph 3, not only the original claims but also the new or amended claims must be published in so far as the latter are available before the termination of the technical preparations for publication. UNICE is of the opinion that this provision should be included in the Convention itself.

Article 96, paragraphs 2 and 3

12 It would appear desirable to combine the fees for grant and printing in a single fee.

Article 97

13 The patent specification should also indicate the documents cited by the examiners.

Article 104

14 It would seem logical that the rights accorded under

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) Deutscbe Übersetzung der Stellungnabme und der Anlage 2 vorgelegt von UNICE (2) Annex 3 to these Comments submitted by UNICE in English

Page 18

Artikel 97 Veröffentlichung des europäischen Patents Das Europäische Patentamt gibt gleichzeitig mit der Bekanntmachung des Hinweises auf die Erteilung des europäischen Patents eine Patentschrift für das europäische Patent heraus, in der die Beschreibung, die Patentansprüche und gegebenenfalls die Zeichnungen enthalten sind.

[^0]Article 97 Publication of a European patent At the same time as it publishes the mention of the grant of the European patent, the European Patent Office shall publish a specification of the European patent containing the description, the claims and any drawings.

Cf. Rules 18 (Publication of the mention of the inventor), 19 (Rectification or cancellation of the designation of an inventor), 54 (Particulars to be included in the specification), 55 (Certificate for a European patent) and 88 (Different claims, description and drawings for different States)

[^0]: Vgl. Regeln 18 (Bekanntmachung der Erfindernennung), 19 (Berichtigung oder Widerruf der Erfindernennung), 54 (Angaben auf der Patentschrift), 55 (Urkunde über das europäische Patent) und 88 (Unterschiedliche Ansprüche, Beschreibungen und Zeichnungen für verschiedene Staaten)

MUNCHNER DIPLOMATISCHE KONFERENZ
ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS 1973

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

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE
FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS, 1973

(Munich, 10 September to 6 October 1973)

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

(Munich, 10 septembre - 6 octobre 1973)

VORBEREITENDE DOKUMENTE

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

PREPARATORY DOCUMENTS

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

DOCUMENTS PRÉPARATOIRES

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

Page 20

Article 97 - Grant of the European patent 9. The Sub-Committee did not adopt a proposed Article governing summons of the applicant by the Examining Division. It considered that a general provision should be included in the Convention combining all the provisions relating to hearings and oral proceedings.

A note has been attached to the Article in question in the Implementing Regulations, to draw the attention of Working Party I to this problem.

Article 98 - Publication of a European patent 10. The Sub-Committee agreed first of all that the Implementing Regula tions need not list the particulars to be entered on the specification, but should entrust the task to the President of the European Patent Office as had been done for particulars to be given in the publication of the application (Re. Article 85, No. 1).

The Sub-Committee then decided to combine the two provisions in one single Article. This text has been numbered Re. Article 85, No. 1, for the sake of convenience and is accompanied by a note.

Re. Article 99, No. 1 - Certification of copies of the European patent certificate 11. No comments.

Page 21

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

Brussels, 16 November 1970 BR/60/70

- Secretariat -

   Amendment 
       lee  0 R / 68 / 70  numer 
       MINUTES

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

I

1. The third working meeting of the Sub-Committee instructed by Working Party I to draw up draft Implementing Regulations to the Convention was held at Luxembourg, from Tuesday 20 to Friday 23 October 1970, with Mr. FRESSONET, Deputy Director, French Industrial Property Institute, in the Chair.

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

Erteilung des europäischen Patents

(1) Ist die Prüfungsabteilung der Auffassung, daB die europäische Patentanmeldung und die Erfindung, die sie zum Gegenstand hat, den Erfordernissen dieses Übereinkommens genügen, so teilt sie dem Anmelder und gegebenenfalls dem Dritten, der den Prüfungsantrag gestellt hat, mit, in welcher Fassung sie das europäische Patent zu erteilen beabsichtigt. Der Anmelder wird dabei aufgefordert, innerhalb einer Frist von einem Monat die Gebühren für die Erteilung und für die Druckkosten gemäß der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Übereinkommen zu entrichten. (2) Werden die Gebühren für die Erteilung und für die Druckkosten nicht rechtzeitig entrichtet, so gilt die europäische Patentanmeldung als zurückgenommen. (3) Sind die Gebühren für die Erteilung und die Druckkosten sowie die nach den Artikeln 129 und 130 bereits fälligen Gebühren bezahlt, so erteilt die Prüfungsabteilung das europäische Patent für die gemäß Artikel 67 benannten Vertragsstaaten. Die Entscheidung wird dem Anmelder und gegebenenfalls dem Dritten, der den Prüfungsantrag gestellt hat, mitgeteilt. (4) Die Erteilung des europäischen Patents wird in das europäische Patentregister eingetragen und im Europäischen Patentblatt bekanntgemacht.

Artikel 98 (früher Artikel 96a)

Veröffentlichung des europäischen Patents (1) Das Europäische Patentamt gibt gleichzeitig mit der Bekanntmachung der Erteilung des europäischen Patents eine Patentschrift für das europäische Patent heraus, die die Beschreibung, die Patentansprüche und gegebenenfalls die Zeichnungen enthält. (2) In der Patentschrift werden die Vertragsstaaten bezeichnet, für die das europäische Patent erteilt ist. (3) In der Patentschrift wird der Zeitpunkt angegeben, bis zu dem ein Einspruch gemäß Artikel 101 eingelegt werden kann.

Artikel 99 (früher Artikel 96b)

Urkunde über das europäische Patent (1) Sobald die Patentschrift herausgegeben worden ist, stellt das Europäische Patentamt dem Patentinhaber die Urkunde über das europäische Patent aus, der als Anlage die Patentschrift beigefügt ist. (2) In der Patenturkunde wird bescheinigt, daß das europäische Patent für die in der Patentschrift beschriebene Erfindung der in der Urkunde benannten Person für die in der Patentschrift bezeichneten Vertragsstaaten erteilt worden ist.

Grant of the European patent

(1) If the Examining Division is of the opinion that the application and the invention to which it relates meet the requirements of this Convention, it shall inform the applicant and, where applicable, the third party who made the request for examination, of the form in which it intends to grant the European patent. The applicant shall at the same time be requested to pay, within a period of one month, the fees prescribed for grant and printing by the Rules relating to fees adopted pursuant to this Convention. (2) If the fees for grant and printing are not paid in due time, the European patent application shall be deemed to be withdrawn. (3) When the fees for grant and printing and the fees already due under Article 129 and Article 130 have been paid, the Examining Division shall grant the European patent for the Contracting States designated in accordance with Article 67. The decision shall be communicated to the applicant and where applicable to the third party who made the request for examination. (4) The grant of a European patent shall be entered in the Register of European patents and published in the European Patent Bulletin.

Article 98 (former Article 96a)

Publication of a European patent (1) At the same time as it publishes the grant of the European patent, the European Patent Office shall publish a specification of the European patent containing the description, the claims and any drawings. (2) The Contracting States for which the European patent has been granted shall be designated in the specification. (3) The specification shall contain an indication of the time limit for opposing the grant of the patent under Article 101.

Article 99 (former Article 96b)

Certificate for a European patent (1) As soon as the patent specification has been published, the European Patent Office shall issue to the proprietor of the patent a certificate for a European patent, to which the specification shall be annexed. (2) The certificate shall certify that the European patent has been granted, in respect of the invention described in the patent specification, to the person named in the certificate, for the Contracting States designated in the specification.

Page 23

REGIERUNGSKONFERENZ ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHRENS

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

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

ERSTER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

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

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

Page 24

20. The Working Party provided in paragraph 1b that the grant of the patent should also be subject to the payment of the renewal fees already due under Articles 119 and 120, in order to prevent the patent being granted although the applicant has shown no interest in maintaining the application. 21. In addition, the Working Party considered it to be sufficient in paragraph 1b that the decision should be communicated to the applicant and where applicable to the third party who made the request for examination. Other persons having an interest in the decision, perhaps because they have raised objections to the grant of the patent in an earlier stage of the procedure, can obtain their information from the European Patent Bulletin or, where appropriate, from inspection of the files.

Article 96a - Publication of a European patent 22. As noted by the Working Party, Article 96a does not lay down any time limit for publishing the specification subsequent to the decision on the grant of the patent (Article 96, paragraph 1b).

The European Patent Office will therefore have to delay publishing the grant of the European patent, as provided for in Article 96, paragraph 2, until the specification has been printed. 23. Paragraph 3 has been inserted for the reasons mentioned under point 21.

Page 25

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

Brussels, 18 December 1969 BR / 12 / 69

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

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

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

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

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

Opposition

(1) Dans un délai de trois mois après la date de la publication de l'avis visé à l'article 96, paragraphe 2, toute personne peut faire opposition, auprès de l'office européen des brevets, à la confirmation du brevet européen provisoire. L'opposition doit être formée par écrit et motivée. Elle n'est réputée déposéè qu'après versement de la taxe prévue par le reglement relatif aux taxes pris en exécution de la présente convention. La taxe n'est pas due lorsque l'opposition est faite par le tiers qui a formulè la requête en examen. (2) Les tiers qui ont fait opposition conformément au paragraphe 1 participent, avec le titulaire du brevet, à la procédure d'examen. (3) La division d'examen communique au titulaire du brevet les oppositions formées et l'invite à prendre position sur celles-ci dans un délai à déterminer par elle. La prise de position du titulaire du brevet est commniquée aux tiers participants.

V E 1965

CROUPS DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 22 Janvier 1965 2.335/IV/65-F

Confidentiel

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

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

Page 28

Artikel 96a

Einspruch

(1) Innerhalb einor Frist von droi Monaten nach dem Tag der Bekanntmachung gemäB Artikel 96 Absatz 2 kann jedermann beim Europäischon Patentamt gegen die Bestätigung des vorläufigon europäischen Patents Einspruch einlegen. Der Einspruch ist schriftlich einzureichon und mit Gründen zu versehen. Der Einspruch gilt orst als eingolegt, wenn die in der Gebührenordnung zu diosom abkommen vorgosehone Gebühr ontrichtot worden ist. Eine Gebühr für den Einspruch ist nicht zu ontrichten, wenn der Einspruch von dem Dritten oingolegt wird, der den Prüfungsantrag gostollt hat. (2) Diejenigen Dritten, die Einspruch gemäB Absatz 1 oingelogt haben, sind nobon dem Patentinhaber am Prüfungsvorfahren beteiligt. (3) Die Prüfungsabteilung teilt dem Patentinhaber die eingogangonen Einsprüche mit und fordert ihn auf, innerhalb einer von ihr zu bestimmenden Frist dazu Stellung zu nehmen. Die Stellungnahme des Patentinhabers wird den übrigen Beteiligten mitgoteilt.

Page 29

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" Vertraulich

   V E 1965(U_e)

Inderungen des Vorentwurfs eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

(Artikel 1 bis 175) + Beuncchingen (siehe gefr. 2. chine finisles. Artikeller)

Dieses Arbeitsdokument ersetzt das Arbeitsdokument 11. 155/IV/64-2 vom 2. Oktober 1964 (Artikel 7. bis 103).

Page 30

nécessaire de préciser que dans ce cas la procédure devrait tout de même être continuée.

Le groupe estime qu'il faudrait, en effet, régler ce problème en ajoutant par exemple après "si le brevet européen provisoire s'éteint" les mots : "à l'exception de l'expiration du délai de protection". Cette question est transmise au Comité de rédaction.

Article 100 Le groupe décide de reporter la discussion sur la question de l'effet rétroactif de la nullité à l'irticle 128.

Il constate ensuite que le texte actuel tient déjà compte des propositions faites par l'UNION et les experts du Royaume-Uni. Toutefois, le Comité de rédaction pourrait examiner s'il semble nécessaire de préciser le texte.

Article 101 Cet article est accepté. Article 102 La suggestion de l'UNION est rejetée. Article 103 Au sujet de la proposition du Royaume-Uni, le groupe pense que le texte en tient déjà suffisamment compte. Bien que l'avis de nouveauté ne sera pas imprimé dans le fascicule, il est prévu que ce fascicule mentionnera toutes les antériorités qui étaient considérées (voir numéro 1 à l'article 103 du règlement d'exécution).

Article 104 Pas de remarque. Le groupe termine ainsi, pour cette session, l'examen des articles. Le groupe convient de ce que les demandes de modification des comptes rendus proviscires de la douzième session devront parvenir au Secrétariat avant le 31 mars.

Pour la réunion du mois de juin à Munich, le Secrétariat rassemble- re en un document , toutes les modifications des articles intervenues jusqu'à ce jour afin de faciliter la discussion du règlement d'exécution qui pourrait être commencé lors de la quatorzième réunion.

Page 31

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

2632/IV/64-F-déf. Bruxelles, le 15 avril 1964 Confidentiel

Résultats de la douzième session du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 26 février au 6 mars 1964

COMPTES RENDUS

Page 32

forderlich, wonach in diesem Fall das Verfahren gleichwohl fortgesetzt werden müsse.

Die Gruppe ist der Ansicht, daß dieses Problem durch Hinzufügung z.B. der Worte "außer bei Ablauf der Schutzfrist" nach den Worten "erlischt des vorläufige europäische Patent" geregelt werden sollte. Die Frage wird an den RodaktionsausschuB überwiesen.

Artikel 100 Die Gruppe beschlieBt, die Erörterung der Frage der Rückwirkung der Nichtigkeit bis zur Besprechung von Artikel 128 zu verschieben.

Weiter stellt sie fest, daB der derzeitige Text bereits den Vorschlägen der Union und dor Sachverständigen des Vereinigten Königreichs Rechnung trägt. Der RedaktionsausschuB könne jedoch prüfen, ob nähere Erläuterungen im Text orforderlich sind.

Artikel 101 Dieser Artikel wird angenommen. Artikel 102 Der Vorschlag der Union wird zurückgewiesen. Artikel 103 Die Gruppe ist der Ansicht, daB der Artikel dem Vorschlag des Voreinigten Königreichs bereits genügend Rechnung trägt. Wenn auch der Neuheitsbericht in der Patentschrift nicht godruckt wird, ist doch vorgesehen, daB die Patentschrift alle früheren Rechte, die berücksichtigt worden sind, erwähnt (vgl. Nummer 1 zu Artikel 103, 1 der Ausführungsordnung). Artikel 104 Keine Bemerkungen. Damit beendet die Gruppe die Prüfung der Artikel für diese Sitzung. Die Gruppe beschlieBt, daB Anträge auf Änderung der vorläufigen Sitzungsberichte der zwölften Arbeitssitzung dem Sekretariat vor dem 31. März zugehen müssen.

Für die Sitzung in München im Monat Juni wird das Sekretariat in einem Dokument alle bis dahin vorgenommenen Änderungen der Artikel zusammenstellen, um die Erörterung der Ausführungsordnung zu erloichtern, mit der auf der 14. Sitzung begonnen werden könnte.

Page 33

ANBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Brüssel, den 15. April 1964 VERTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der 12. Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 26. Februar bis 6. Marz 1964 in Brüssel

SITZUNGSBERICHT

Page 34

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

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

Article 103. Publication of a final European patent

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

Article 104. Certificate of a final European patent

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

Article 105. Decisions subject to appeal

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

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

Article 106. Effect of appeals

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

Page 35

BOARD OF TRADE

Translation of a Draft Convention relating to a European Patent Law

LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE FIVE SHILLINGS NET

Page 36

L'article 85 est transmis au Comití de rédaction.

Article 86

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

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

Article 88 a

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

L'article 89 est adopté.

Article 90

Lo paragraphe 2 est supprimé.

Article 90 a

Le paragraphe 4 est supprimé.

Article 90 a bis

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

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

Article 90 g

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

Los articles 91 à 98 sont adoptés.

Page 37

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 22 mai 1962. Confidentiel

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

Page 38

Die niederländische Delegation soll dem Redaktionsausschuß einen Vorschlag unterbreiten über die eventuell in Abs. 1 aufzunehmende 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 beamen sollen.

Artikel 88 Wegen der Bestimmung des Art. 97 Abs. 4 muß Abs. 3 gestrichen werden. Artikel 88 wird angenommen.

Artikel 88 a Die französische Delegation besteht darauf, daß ihre Bemerkung dem Koordinationsausschuß vorgelegt wird.

Artikel 89 wird angenomnen.

Artikel 90 Absatz 2 wird gestrichen.

Artikel 90 a Absatz 4 wird gestrichen.

Artikel 90 a bis Die beiden Alternativen des Absatzes 2 werden bis zur Entscheidung der Arbeitsgruppe in der nächsten Sitzung beibehalten.

Der Redaktionsausschuß soll sich darüber äußern, welche Alternative er vorziehe.

Die Artikel 90 a, 90 a ter - 90 f werden angenommen.

Page 39

ARBEITSGRUPPE " Patente "

Brüssel, den 22. Mai 1962 VERTRAULICH

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

Page 40

Bruxelles, le 10 juillet 1961

Article 90 b Publication du brevet européen définitif

En même temps qu'il public la confirmation du brevet européen provisoire en brevet définitif, l'Office européen des brevet public un fascicule imprimé du brevet définitif contenant la description de l'invention y compris les dessins.

Page 41

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL "Brevets"

Bruxelles, le 18 juillet 1961

Confidentiel

Résultats de la deuxième session du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 3 au 14 juillet 1961

Page 42

Brüssel, den 10. Juli 1961

Artikel 90 b Veröffentlicbung des ondgultigen europaischen Patents

Das Europäische Patontamt gibt gleichzcitig mit der Bekanntmachung der Bestätigung des vorläufigen europäischea Patents als endgültiges europäisches Patent cinc gedruckte Patentschrift für das endgültige europäische Patent heraus, welche die Beschreibung der Erfindung einschliesslich der Zeichnungen enthält.

Page 43

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Brüssel, den 18. Juli 1961

VERTRAULICH

Ergebnisse der zweiten Sitzung der Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" von 3. bis 14. Juli 1961 in Brüssel

IV/4860/61-D

Page 44

Discussion de l'article 90 b) de l'avant-projet.

M. De Muyser suggère d'indiquer dans l'expédition du brevet définitif l'état de la technique.

Le gr.upe approuvo cette suggestion étant donné que l'expédition peut contenir des antériorités qui ne figurent pas dans.1'avis de nouveauté. Il. estime cependant qu'une telle disposition devrait figurer dans le règlement d'exécution.

L'article 90 b) est approuvé et transmis au Comité de rédaction.

Discussion de l'article 90 c) de l'avant-projet.

Au sujet de l'alinéa 3 de cet article, M. De Muyser estime que cette disposition devrait figurer dans le règlement d'exécution. M. Roscioni, au contraire, estime que cette règle est inutile puisqu'elle n'a pas de sanctions. Il faudrait plutôt prévoir que le brevet européen provisoire serait rayé sur le rejietre européen une fois le brevet définitif délivré.

Le groupe discutera cette question lors de l'examen des dispositions concernant le registre de l'Office européen et transmet l'article au Comité de rédaction.

Discussion de l'article 90 d) de l'avant-projet.

Le groupe souligne l'effet juridique de la confirmation. Par une fiction, le brevet définitif produit ses effets à partir du moment de la publication du brevet provisoire.

L'article est approuvé et transmis au Comité de rédaction.

Page 45

GROUPE DE TRAVAIL "Brevets"

Bruxelles, le 18 juillet 1961

Confidentiel

Résultats de la deuxième session du groupe de travail " Brevets " qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 3 au 14 juillet 1961

Erörterungen zu Artikel 90 b) des Vorentwurfs

Herr De Huyser regt an, in der Ausfertigung des ondgultigen Patentes den Stand der Technik anzugeben.

Die Gruppe billigt diese Anregung, da in der Ausfertigung ältero Rechte angegeben sein können, die im Nouheitsbericht nicht erwähnt sind. Sie hält es jedoch für zwockmässig, eino dorartige Bestimmung für die Durchführungsverordnung vorzubehalten.

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

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

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

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

Erörtorungen 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 endgultigon Patents bereits mit der Voröffentlichung des vorläufigen Patents ein.

Dor Artikel wird genohmigt und an den Redaktionsausschuss überwiesen.

Page 47

ARBEITSGRUPPE "Patente"

Brüssel, den 18. Juli 1961

VERTRAULICH

Ergobnisso der zwoiton Sitzung dor Arboitsgruppe "Patente" von 3. bis 14. Juli 1961 in Brüssel

Page 48

Ad Article 90 b

Expédition du brevet européen définitif

1. Documents : 2. Remarques :

Comme à l'article qui se rapporte au brevet européen provisoire, l'avant-projet prévoit aussi pour le brevet européen définitif la délivrance d'une expédition imprimée (article 77, paragraphe 1).

Page 49

-33- IV/3858/61-F

Article 90 b

Expédition du brevet européen définitif

In même temps qu'il publie la confirmation du brevet européen, l'Office européen des brevets jublie une expédition imprimée contenant la description de l'invention ainsi que les dessins.

Page 50

Kurt Haertol

V/3858/61-F
Orig.: D.

Bonn, le 29 mai 1961.

CONFIDENTIEL

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

Articles 61 à 90 f

Zu Artikel 90 b

Patentschrift des endgültigen europäischen Patents

1. Materialien:

2. Bemerkungen:

Ähnlich wie in Artikel 77 für das vorläufige europäische Patent sieht der Arbeitsentwurf auch für das endgültige europäische Patent die Ausgabe einer gedruckten Patentschrift vor (Artikel 77 Abs. 1).

Page 52

Artikel 90 b Patentschrift des endgültigen europäischen Patents

Das Europäische Patentamt gibt gleichzeitig mit der Bekanntmachung der Bestätigung für jedes endgültige. europäische Patent eine gedruckte Patentschrift heraus, welche die Beschreibung der Erfindung und die Zeichnungen enthält.

VERTRAULICH !

Erster Arbeitsentwurf
eines Abkommens
über ein europäisches Patentrecht.

Artikel 61 bis 90 f -100

Page 54

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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