 |
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION 
|
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION
|
|
BLOGROLL OPML:
|
|
|
|
Search in IPJUR.COM
|
BLOG@IP::JURPatent Attorney Axel H Horns' Blog on Intellectual Property Law.
Saturday, February 28, 2004Results of UK Consultation on Proposed New Trade Mark Rules.In 2003, the UK Patent Office conducted a Consultation on Proposed New Trade Mark Rules. The formal consultation document was placed on the Patent Office web-site on 29 September 2003. Now the Office has published a Summary of Responses and the Trade Mark Registry's Conclusions
Friday, February 27, 2004WIPO launched new Database on Protection of State Emblems, and Names, Abbreviations and Emblems of International Intergovernmental Organizations.Article 6ter of the Paris Convention is applicable to the States party to the Paris Convention as well as to all the Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), whether or not party to the said Convention through the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). The purpose of Article 6ter is to protect armorial bearings, flags and other State emblems of those States and Members identified above, as well as official signs and hallmarks indicating control and warranty adopted by them.
Now WIPO has launched a new database for searching all armorial bearings, flags and other State emblems of the States party to the Paris Convention and of the Members of the WTO, as well as the names, abbreviations and other emblems of international intergovernmental organizations which have been the subject of communications by the International Bureau of WIPO to the States party to the Paris Convention.
Wednesday, February 25, 200410th Meeting of the OAMI Users’ Group.The Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle (AIPPI) has published a Report authored by Martin Sick Nielsen on the 10th Meeting of the OAMI Users’ Group held on February 16, 2004 in Alicante, Spain. The Report conveys a wealth of valuable information for all who have to deal with the OHIM. An interesting fact is that, according to the Report, in 2003 the number of CTM applications increased by more than 25%, in particular due to a very high number of applications filed in October 2003 (> 12,000 applications). Obviously this effect was caused by the end of the  "grandfathering period" on October 31, 2003.
FICPI website revived.Activists at theFédération Internationale des Conseils en Propriété Industrielle (FICPI) have eventually managed to revive their website which had been virtually defunct since spring 2003 or so. Now the news section brings some interesting links, for example concering some FICPI resolutions passed by the Executive Committee that met in Singapore from February 01-03, 2004.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004COREPER on Intellectual Property Politics.Within the context of the preparation for the Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry and Research) Council meeting on 11 March 2004, COREPER will deal on itsnext session on Wednesday 25 and Friday 27 February 2004 with the Community patent as well as with the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Monday, February 23, 2004PCT 2003: Japan more active than Germany.TheWIPO reports that the number of international patent applications filed in 2003 using the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), exceeded 110,000 for the third consecutive year, with users from the United States of America topping the list. Applicants from Japan clinched the second place over Germany, for the first time in over a decade.
Strange Procedures: Directive on Measures and Procedures to ensure the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights.Strange things seem to happen with regard to the Directive on Measures and Procedures to ensure the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. Although to public databases maintained by the European Parliament stubborly say that the Directive was not ontoday's agenda for the JURI meeting and will reach the plenum in two days, there are reports e.g. by Paul Meller saying that the European Parliament has postponed a vote on that controversial law on intellectual property enforcement until early March, following drawn out negotiations with the European Commission and member state governments, and FFII indicated that JURI had dealt with that matter just today.
There must be some reason for such undue legislative harum-scarum activism. It looks as if that matter was even dealt with quasi "off-agenda" in JURI. Paul Meller writes: [...] The Commission is resisting signing up to an agreement that would stretch the reach of the law to all infringements of intellectual property such as patents, copyright and trademarks, according to people close to the Commission. Why does the administration of the European Parliament allow that such important changes of the political agenda are not even properly reflected throughout the various public databases which should serve as a means for a proper information of the public?
Saturday, February 21, 2004First Reading in the European Parliament on the Directive on Measures and Procedures to ensure the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights.On February 25, 2004 thePlenary Session of the European Parliament will deal with the report of Janelly Fourtou on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights [COM(2003) 46 - C5-0055/2003 - 2003/0024(COD)]. The deadline for amendment proposals has already lapsed on Thursday 19 February, 12:00. The COREPER compromise proposal is available with Document 6376/04; however, the modalities of the introduction of this Document into the proceedings of the European Parliament are unknown to me so far.
Friday, February 20, 2004News on the patentabilty of computer-implemented inventions.In myearlier posting I had indicated that there was a then "LIMITE" classified  Working Document 5570/04 of the EU Presidency under the title "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions - Presidency compromise proposal". Now this paper has been partially released, and the public may have access to the the content of said Document 5570/04, with the exception of the parts reflecting the positions of the delegations. Hence, it looks as if the Irish EU Presidential proposal comes somewhat near to the content of Document 14017/02 conveying a "common approach" of COREPER dated November 08, 2002. Most of the amendments of the first reading of the European Parliament inspired by the FFII e.V. have been removed.
Article 3 of the original draft by the Commission requiring that Member States shall ensure that a computer-implemented invention is considered to belong to a field of technology remains deleted.
With regard to Articles 4 and 4a, provision is made that Member States shall ensure that a computer-implemented invention making a technical contribution constitutes a necessary condition of involving an inventive step. A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable. In Article 5, the problem of "computer product claims" is tackled by requiring that a claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless that program would, when loaded and executed in a computer, programmed computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application. The common approach of 2002 had required in its Article 6 that the rights conferred by patents granted for inventions within the scope of this Directive do not affect acts permitted under Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs by copyright, in particular under the provisions thereof in respect of decompilation and interoperability whereas the present compromise more precisely but limiting mentiones Articles 5 and 6 of that Directive 91/250/EEC only.
Article 5 of the Directive 91/250/EEC reads: 1. In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts referred to in Article 4 (a) and (b) shall not require authorization by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction. Article 6 of the Directive 91/250/EEC reads: 1. The authorization of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of Article 4 (a) and (b) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met: (a) these acts are performed by the licensee or by another person having a right to use a copy of a program, or on their behalf by a person authorized to to so; (b) the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been readily available to the persons referred to in subparagraph (a); and (c) these acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary to achieve interoperability. I do not completely understand what that actually means. Has Article 6 of the draft Directive to be read in conjunction with Article 5 Para. 1 of the Directive 91/250/EEC to the effect that no patent infringement can be assumed where a software is licensed with regard to copyright? This sounds absolutely correct if the copyright licensor is identical with the patent bearer - but what will happen if the copyright licensor is different from the patent assignee? Perhaps Recital 18 might be seen as an attempt to restrict this effect to patent rights of the copyright holder - but that can hardly be deduced from the wording of Article 6. Anyway, it is absolutely clear that the FFII is furious about the Irish attempt to avoid any definition for the concepts of "technical contribution", "technical character", "field of technology" or the like. The original draft issued by the Commission as well as the compromose draft of the Irish Presidency describe a certain "patentability test" as a well-defined method of applying a concept of "technicality" (which is not defined in the Directive) to any given claim. What the activists of the FFII had recognised was that as long as the concept of "technicality" was left for definition to the Patent Offices as well as to the Courts, the outcome of such test was not completely predetermined in a political sense. Hence, what the FFII activists had proposed and later on succeeded to lobby through the European Parliament was the idea to rigidly clamp the concepts of "technology" or "technicality" to a world and a context that would fit much more the reality of the first industrial revolution in the nineteenth century than that of the Information Society in the twenty-first century.
It seems to be quite clear that the Council as well as the Commission refuse to provide any fixed definition of "technicality". This will surely prevent us from being bombed back to the world of the nineteenth century as intended by the FFII but it might render the entire Directive fruitless in view its ultimate goal to provide legal certainy. If the Directive should eventually be enacted more or less as proposed by the Irish Presidency I expect that the legal disputes before the Patent Offices and Courts will continue, fueled by different approaches to the concepts of "technology", "technicality", "technical contribution" etc. pp. A particular problem of the Draft of the Irish Presidency is posed by certain references to the European Convention, in particular in Recital 7b stating that the aim of the Directive is not to amend the European Patent Convention but to prevent different interpretations of its provisions. Such arguing is highly problematic in view of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requiring in Article 31 Para. 1 that a treaty (here: the EPC) shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. The EU is simply not entitled to interfere with the interpretation of the EPC unless, after havong joined the EPO, it contributes actively to the further development of the EPC and the related Implementation Regulations.
The discussion will be continued behind closed doors on March 02, 3004 in Brussels.
Thursday, February 19, 2004epoline-OLF Software is a Delphi Project tied to Microsoft Windows Platforms.In myearlier posting I had reported about the open source approach taken by the EPO with regard to their epoline OLF software. Yesterday I talked to a software engineer who had inspected the source code more in detail. In fact, the software is written in a special flavour of Pascal, namely Delphi brought to market by Borland. Interestingly, there is also a Linux-compatible variant of Delphi available called Kylix. But the option to port the epoline software to Linux is effectively blocked by an immense number of calls to Microsoft-specific APIs in the epoline OLF code.
The PatTrAS software issued by the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) has been coded in a much more compatible and platform-independent way. It is written in Java and seems to run quite well on a Linux computer having a Java Runtime Environment installed.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004COREPER Compromise Proposal for Directive on Measures and Procedures to ensure the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights.TheIrish EU Presidency has published Document 6376/04 exhibiting the text of a proposal for a Directive on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights as agreed by COREPER following its meeting on 11th and 13th February 2004 with a view to reaching agreement with the European Parliament at first reading.
Erik J. Heels on ITIn hisblog, patent attorney Erik J. Heels has published a nice article on converting an attorney's office IT infrastructure from a Microsoft-only platform to a more open, multi-platform environment. I think this task should be more facilitated by Patent and Trade Mark Offices not de facto imposing their "customers" a Microsoft-only software interface for electronic filing and other eGovernment projects.
Sunday, February 15, 2004CEC Report on Competition in Professional Services has been published.The Secretary-General of the European Commission has published withDocument 6237/04 a paper issued by the Commission of the European Communities "COM(2004) 83 final - Report on competition in professional services" which surely is also relevant with regard to the regulated professions of Patent Attorneys, Patent Agents, Trade Mark Agents and the like. Some quotations from the Executive Summary:
[...] The Lisbon European Council in March 2000 adopted an economic reform programme with the aim of making the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. Professional services have an important role to play to improve the competitiveness of the European economy, as they are inputs for the economy and business, so their quality and competitiveness have important spill over effects. Professional services are also important because of their direct import for consumers. In particular, the paper again quotes that the Commission also earlier had examined the code of conduct of the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office. It had found that a number of restraints were purely deontological rules and as such outside the scope of Article 81 but that the restriction on comparative advertising could only be temporarily maintained after exemption under Article 81(3).
Friday, February 13, 2004ECJ: BABY-DRY, DOUBLEMINT and beyond. Two new cases decided.There are two new interesting trade mark law cases which have been published by theEuropean Court of Justice (ECJ). The Decision C-363/99 concerning nine questions on the interpretation of Articles 2 and 3 of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks posed by the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage (Regional Court of Appeal, The Hague). The key findings of the ECJ in this case were:
1. Article 3 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark registration authority must have regard, in addition to the mark as filed, to all the relevant facts and circumstances. The Decision C-265/00 concerning three questions on the interpretation of Articles 2 and 3(1) of First Council First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks posed by the Benelux-Gerechtshof (Benelux Court of Justice). The key findings of the ECJ in this case were:
Article 3(1)(c) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark consisting of a neologism composed of elements, each of which is descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, is itself descriptive of the characteristics of those goods or services for the purposes of that provision, unless there is a perceptible difference between the neologism and the mere sum of its parts: that assumes that, because of the unusual nature of the combination in relation to the goods or services, the word creates an impression which is sufficiently far removed from that produced by the mere combination of meanings lent by the elements of which it is composed, with the result that the word is more than the sum of its parts. Seen via IPKat. These new Decisions are in a formal sense compatible with the Decision on C-383/99 P (BABY-DRY) but we shall wait and see how this new Decisions taken in conjunction with the DOUBLEMINT-Decision will affect the everyday practise of the OHIM and the various national Patent and Trade Mark Offices throughout the EU Member States. I am somewhat in doubt. According to the DOUBLEMINT-Decision, a sign must therefore be refused registration under that provision if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods or services concerned. What, if in general practice of the Offices, this rule takes precedence over other possible tests? The German case law (before DOUBLEMINT?) showed a tendency to assume the registrability of a sign if it exhibits a multiude of meanings even if one of the possible meanings is clearly descriptive.
Thursday, February 12, 2004AIPLA is concerned over U.S.-PTO moving to eServices too fast.There seems to be a dispute over aplan announced by the U.S.-PTO to cease supplying copies of cited U.S. patent references with office actions, and pilot to evaluate the alternative of providing electronic access to such U.S. patent references. The The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) has filed a statement saying that they support and appreciate the efforts of the PTO to convert its operations to an electronic environment by adopting procedures and practices that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of patent operations. AIPLA further supports the concept of a pilot program to test and refine new practices before they are implemented on an Office-wide scale. However, although they generally support the efforts of the PTO contained in the subject notice to convert its operations to an electronic environment, the comments they have received from their members suggest that it is premature to implement the plan without further study, improvements to the system, and a longer period of time to prepare.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive taken off EU Parliament's Agenda.There is areport saying that the controversial Intellectual Property rights (IPR) enforcement directive was withdrawn from the Parliament's February 09, 2004 plenary agenda because of fears that the Council might reject it; see also my earlier posting as well as this here. (Via Richard Swetenham's QuickLinks). There is a "LIMITE" non-public paper (Document 6052/04) of the EU Presidency addressed to the Permanent Representatives Committee (COREPER Part 1) concerning the preparation of agreement at the first reading in the EU Parliament.
Probably they want to avoid a mess like that which had happened in conjunction with the draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions ...
Sunday, February 08, 2004The schedule of the Council of the European Union (Competitiviness) for Intellectual Property issues.In Document 5928/04 on a meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market of the European Parliament with Ms. Mary HARNEY, President of the Council of the European Union (Competitiviness configuration), in Brussels on 21 and 22 January 2004, the General Secretariat of the Council gives us a clue about the schedule of the Council of the European Union (Competitiviness) for Intellectual Property issues during the Irish Presidency:
"[...] After making these general remarks, Ms. HARNEY made more specific comments on individual legislative files of particular interest to the Committee: Moreover, that paper says that, in the exchange of views that followed, Mr. LEHNE (PPE-DE/DE) pointed out that the Council wants to reach an agreement about the European patent, but he expressed his concern about the high cost of the translations, which is a disadvantage for medium size enterprises. It seems to be quite clear that the Irish Presidency is determined to tackle the problems with the Draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. This matter will not be put on ice. Moreover, from Document 5615/04 we learn that, within the context of the "Lisbon Strategy", the Community Patent is set to be finalised before the end of term of the European Parliament, provided a political consensus can be reached. Other matters, in particular the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Community patent as far as the jurisdiction proposal and the Munich Convention (EPC) are concerned, as well as the patentability of computer-implemented inventions are said to be due before mid-term review in March 2005.
Saturday, February 07, 2004European Economic and Social Committee on IP Enforcement Directive.TheOpinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights (COM(2003) 46 final - 2003/0024 (COD)) has been published in the Official Journal.
The EESC concludes as follows: "[...] 3.1. The Committee supports the objective pursued and endorses the principle of horizontal harmonisation of measures to combat piracy and counterfeiting, which is on the rise in both third countries and Member States, and is damaging to the legitimate interests of consumers, companies and individual authors; as Community law currently stands, the Committee considers the form of a horizontal directive, as proposed, to be appropriate. It would however make a number of comments and suggestions regarding the text referred to it for an opinion. Hence, the EESC clearly seems to be worried that the Directive might be somewhat excessive with regard to certain aspects of the subject-matter under scrutiny.
Friday, February 06, 2004U.S.: Draconian Penalties for supplying wrong WHOIS Data?Kieren McCarthy wrote inThe Register:
"[...] Senator Lamar Smith of Texas - chairman of the Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee - yesterday produced from nowhere extensions to the 1946 Trademark Act that would make giving false contact information for a domain name a civil and criminal offence. [...] The extensions to the Trademark Act would make the provision of misleading contact details when registering a domain an offence. Not only that but a 'willful' offence - which in American law means three-times normal payout. Also, anyone 'acting in concert with the violator' or 'maintaining or renewing such registration' would also be guilty. In the case of a trademark infringement on the domain 'the maximum imprisonment otherwise provided by law for a felony offense shall be increased by 7 years'. The intention for this legislation is clearly peer-to-peer sharing networks, but by making the provision so wide, it is pulling in millions of normal Internet users and businesses. Not to mention registrars. [...]" The text of the Bill can be fetched from the GPO.
The whole measure seems to me somewhat excessive. BTW, would a non-US domain holder e.g. of a .COM domain be imprisoned at the occasion of his next visit to the U.S. if he has forgotten to indicate his recent move to another location to the domain registrar?
Wednesday, February 04, 2004Lords Hansard on UK Patent Bill.In two earlier postings1 and 2, I had reported about a Bill pending in the UK parliament that aims to enable the UK Patent Office to provide an independent non-binding opinion on patent validity or infringement to settle disputes over patent rights without parties having to resort to expensive litigation.
Now, the minutes of the second reading have been published in the Lords Hansard.
After the debate had been opened by Lord Sainsbury of Turville, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry; Government Spokesperson for Trade and Industry, Lord Lyell said:
"[...] The noble Lord tried to be persuasive - and probably was quite persuasive - about Clause 12 and the opinions of the Patent Office. He suggested that there should be simplicity for small and medium-sized firms. I much admired the Patent Office in 1977 and much admire it now. However, giving opinions can be perilous or even dangerous, and certainly somewhat difficult. The Minister drew attention to the fact that Clause 12 states that: Then Earl Attlee responded:
"[...] Clause 12 provides for the Patents Office to give an opinion on validity and any infringement of a patent. I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Lyell about the clause. I can see the mischief regarding the extremely high cost of litigation?one reason for that is that patent lawyers need to be technocrats as well. I can understand how the Patent Office, because of its wide experience, can give an opinion on the validity of a patent, but infringement will be a new area of activity for the Patent Office. The new procedure is designed to save the costs of litigation and I have been told that it might cost in the order of GBP 150 to GBP 300. But one would be lucky to have an hour of the services of a good patent lawyer for that much money, so I am not quite convinced that the new procedure will help. Will the Minister give some idea of the costs and the time scale involved in the Patent Office giving an opinion? That opinion may be useful as a sanity check to parties in a dispute, but the Minister will have to convince the House that there is further utility in the clause." I'm really curious to learn whether or not that Clause 12 will be amended in Parliament ... OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy on Patent Policy.TheFinal Communique of the Meeting of the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy at Ministerial Level, 29-30 January 2004, gives some interesting statements on general patent policy. The Ministers concluded that "Patent regimes play an increasingly complex role in encouraging innovation, diffusing scientific and technical knowledge, and enhancing market entry and firm creation. As such, they should be subject to closer scrutiny by science, technology and innovation policy makers". Ministers invited the OECD to further develop its activities in the following areas, subject to the availability of resources, in particular but not limited to the field of Examining the role of IPR systems in fostering innovation, knowledge diffusion and competition: Investigating the ability of technology markets to disseminate patented inventions and identifying effective policy measures for promoting them, notably as regards SMEs; Examining national policies regarding exemptions for research use of patented inventions and assessing their effect on the conduct of scientific research; Reviewing the effect of various forms of intellectual property protection for software on access to software-related knowledge and follow-on innovation; Developing good licensing practices for biotechnology patents. A statement as excerpted below was concluded:
"[...] Adapting IPR regimes Although the Ministers obviously refrained from openly criticising the patent system in general, there seems to be some growing preparedness to re-scrutinise this field of IP law in view of its macro- and microeconomic implications. Mr Erkki Liikanen on patent policy.Mr Erkki Liikanen, Member of the European Commission, responsible for Enterprise and the Information Society, in: "Creating a predictable legal environment for competitive and innovative electronic communications in the European Union", Public hearing on remedies under the new regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, Brussels, 26th January 2004.
"[...] We need to balance the interest that consumers have in additional competition today versus the incentive that investors have to make risky investments in an unproven area. This is a trade-off that society often faces in areas such as patents. [...]" What might that mean e.g. with regard to the Commission's position on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions? Would Mr. Bolkestein endorse such statement of his colleague?
Monday, February 02, 2004International Herald Tribune on CII patenting.Mikael Pawlo has spotted an article on CII patenting written by Jennifer Schenker in the International Herald Tribune.
Unfortunately this article confusingly speaks of "software patents". "Software" cannot be patented in Europe and will not be patentable in any forseeable future. What today (and, I hope, also in future) in fact can be patented (under some restrictive circumstances) are computer-implemented inventions (CII), i.e. an invention that needs a programmed device for to be implemented or that might be implemented by utilising a programmable device. Patents on CII are directed to a certain functionally that can be expressed by a piece of software written to run on a specific processor. And, ah, yes, computer software can be involved in a patent infringement case. If a piece of software is run on the specific processor, the emerging functionality might well fall under the scope of protection of a patent claim. The present calamities in the public dabate over so-called "software patents" do not originate from patented software but from infringing embodiments of a patented computer-implemented (or even implementable!) invention. Hence, amending the material criteria of patentabilty in patent law as attempted by the FFII is not a very selective instrument: Only if patents on each and every computer-implementable invention would be completely banned the FFII activists could be sure that no one tinkering with some piece of software is safe with regard to patent infringement. However, such policy would mean that the entire high-tech electronics industries would be cut off the patent system. CEC to research the impact of the accession of the European Community to the Hague Agreement on International DesignsThe EU Commission has released aQuestionnaire on the impact of the accession of the European Community to the Hague Agreement on International Designs. Here is an excerpt from the paper:
"[...] The European Community meets the conditions to become party to the Geneva Act (1999) of the Hague Agreement, which entered into force on December 23, 2003. The modalities for responding to the questionnaire are published here.
New (hidden) developments in computer-implemented inventions (CII) patentability deliberations.There is a newWorking Document 5570/04 of the EU Presidency under the promising title "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions - Presidency compromise proposal ". Currently it is classified "LIMITE", and we have to wait until we can see ... Nevertheless, a copy of this document might have been leaked via a national Government and a Member of a certain national Parliament to the FFII; see e.g. here.
|