CONTENT SYNDICATION
*ATOM* FEED:

CONTENT SYNDICATION
RSS 0.91 FEED:

BLOGROLL OPML:

Search in IPJUR.COM

BLOG@IP::JUR

Patent Attorney Axel H Horns' Blog on Intellectual Property Law.

Disclaimer & About This Website

Visit the archives

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

European Patent Office Continues to Advocate Harmonisation in the Field of CII Patents.

"Munich/Strasbourg, 6 July 2005 - The European Patent Office (EPO) has followed with interest the vote of the European Parliament today and has taken note of the decision of the European Parliament not to accept the Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (CII) according to the Common Position of the Council. The proposed Directive is therefore deemed not to have been adopted. 'The objective of the directive would have been to harmonize the understanding of what constitutes a patentable invention in the field of CII', explained the President of the EPO, Professor Alain Pompidou.

The EPO carries out a centralised patent granting procedure for the 31 member states of the European Patent Organisation. 'Our Organisation was founded by almost the same countries as those which founded the European Union, and in the same spirit. The purpose behind the creation of the EPO was to make the patenting process in Europe more efficient by applying a single procedure on the basis of the European Patent Convention (EPC). In its practice, the EPO follows strictly the provisions of the Convention, which has been ratified by all member states of the Organisation', President Pompidou explained.

Under the EPC a well-defined practice on granting patents in the field of CII has been established: 'The EPC provides the general legal basis for the grant of European patents, whereas the objective of the directive would have been to harmonise the EU member states' rules on CII and the relevant provisions of the EPC. The EPC also governs our work in the field of CII, together with the case law of our judiciary, the Boards of Appeal of the EPO,' Mr Pompidou said.

As with all inventions, CII are only patentable if they have technical character, are new and involve an inventive technical contribution to the prior art. Moreover, the EPO does not grant 'software patents': computer programs claimed as such, algorithms or computer-implemented business methods that make no technical contribution are not considered patentable inventions under the EPC. In this respect, the practice of the EPO differs significantly from that of the United States Patent & Trademark Office."

"Jonas Öberg, vice-president of FSFE: "This reaffirms the 1973 European Patent Convention (EPC), which excludes software from patentability. The European Patent Office (EPO) has largely ignored this central convention and granted approximately 30.000 software patents in the past years: this must stop today! The EPO should not be allowed to further ignore European policies!"

Georg Greve explains the proposal of FSFE: "Much trouble was caused by the inability of the European Union to hold the European Patent Office responsible for acting against agreed-upon policies: unlike other parts of a democratic executive, the EPO is not liable for the decision it takes. We propose to establish an EPO supervision instrument that holds the EPO management liable for its decisions and prevents further patent system degradation."

1. The Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (CII Directive) was rejected on 6 July 2005 by the European Parliament during Second Reading. This follows fierce lobbying by opponents to the proposal, primarily from proponents of open source software, who believed that many companies would start to patent all their computer programs preventing the ready access to, use and exchange of source code upon which the open source business model relies.

2. Although a majority of Member States supported the general thrust of the original proposal and the Common Position, it was becoming increasingly likely that any text emerging from the European Parliament was likely to be either unworkable, or would move away from the original aim of maintaining the status quo.

3. The rejection of the Directive by the European Parliament means:
(a) the legislative process is terminated. The Directive will not proceed further.
(b) the law does not change
(c) the fierce debate has ensured that national offices (and the European Patent Office in particular) have examined their practices to ensure they are not being too liberal in granting patents
(d) the debate has also raised awareness amongst SMEs in particular of the patent system ? and the possibility of patenting their own inventions.

4. The original proposal was intended to clarify and harmonise the law within Europe. It was intended to maintain the status quo of permitting the patenting of certain types of inventions involving the use of computer programs, providing they made a 'technical contribution' and providing they also met the normal patentability requirements of being new, inventive and having industrial applicability.

5. The Directive was proposed, partly at UK prompting, because there was concern that divergences could arise between the practices of member states' national offices and courts. There was also the risk that, because the present legal position is essentially 'judge-made', a drift could develop in patenting practice towards the US 'patent all' approach to computer programs, which includes patenting business methods. This was not considered acceptable, given the conclusions of a consultation in the UK in 2000/2001, and that of a contemporaneous, but independent consultation carried out for the Commission. They both concluded broadly that computer programs - provided they made a technical contribution - should remain patentable, but business methods should remain unpatentable."

[Permalink]

 

---

 

As with all inventions, CII are only patentable if they have technical character, are new and involve an inventive technical contribution to the prior art.

What is the difference between a "technical contribution" and a usefull contribution?

--
Mvh. Carsten Svaneborg
http://gauss.ffii.org
 

# posted by zqex : 06 July, 2005 18:36

 

 

---

 

Herr Horns,

Das Europäische Parlament hat im Plenum klar und deutlich Reformen auf der Ebene der EPO angemahnt. Diese Debatte wird geführt werden. Und es will sich ein solches Verhalten der anderen EU-Institutionen nicht wieder gefallen lassen:

"Vous n'allez pas continuer a traiter le Parliament comme vous l'avait fait"
(Michel Rocard vor dem EU Parlament)

Insofern ist es auch gut, dass das Parlament und nicht die Kommission nach einem Parlamentsvotum wie angekündigt der Richtlinie den Todesstoss versetzte. Denn sonst wäre ein Präzedenzfall für das unmögliche Rollenverständnis der Kommission geschaffen worden. Das Verhältnis der Kommission zur Gewaltenteilung war auch Gegenstand meiner laufenden Petition zu "Better Lawmaking 2004", wo die Kommission diese Auslegung ihrer Beteiligung am Gesetzgebungsverfahren ankündigte. Ich fand die Ausführungen der Kommission in der Plenardebatte höchst bedenklich, weil sie eben diese Haltung bekräftigte. Parlamentarische Demokratie wird zur Farce, wenn die Exekutive die legislativen Funktionen für sich beansprucht. Der Spiegel sprach nicht ganz unzutreffend von der "minderen Demokratie" in der EU. Nach dem Scheitern des Verfassungsvertrages werden die Mängel in Sachen Gewaltenteilung in der Fachwelt stärker diskutiert.

Was die Sorgen zur europäischen Kontrolle durch den europäischen Gerichtshof betrifft haben wir ja noch das Gemeinschaftspatent, das von den Interessengruppen aus dem Patentwesen aufgrund dubioser Sprachgründe aus dem Ruder geworfen wurde. (Ja, der Patentanwaltsverband Ficpi sorgte sich allen Ernstes um die Sprachenvielfalt. Honi soit qui mal y pense)

Meiner Ansicht nach handelt es sich um das für Unternehmen wichtigere Projekt und es wird natürlich genau diese gewünschte Kontrolle und Harmonisierung durch die supranationalen juristischen Institutionen der EU herstellen.

Derartige Kontrolle war im bezug auf diese nun verworfene Richtlinie ein Scheinargument von ficpi, und sie können wohl kaum behaupten, dass sie diesem red herring Bedeutung in der Debatte beigemesssen haben.

//André
 

# posted by André Rebentisch : 07 July, 2005 03:44

 

 

---

 

> What is the difference between a
> "technical contribution" and a
> usefull contribution?

Well, I would say that not every useful contribution is also technical (think e.g. of the business method related patents in the U.S.)
 

# posted by Axel H Horns : 07 July, 2005 08:00

 

 

---

 

> Well, I would say that
> not every useful
> contribution is also
> technical

Given the expertice of a good patent lawyer, how difficult would it be to get a patent on a "usefull" contribution,
say when it is running on a "technical" computer?


> (think e.g. of the
> business method related
> patents in the U.S.)

EPO has granted about 2300 where the USPTO equivalent is in class 705
(DATA PROCESSING: FINANCIAL, BUSINESS PRACTICE, MANAGEMENT, OR COST/PRICE DETERMINATION)

I wonder if you cut through the retorics, if there is a significant difference.

(n.b. I have added a note to all granted patents on Gauss, wrt. showing B?/A? claims)

--
Mvh. Carsten Svaneborg
http://gauss.ffii.org
 

# posted by zqex : 07 July, 2005 16:08

 

Post a Comment

Visit the archives

< ? law blogs # >

Technorati Profile

BLOGROLL

Please read the Disclaimer & About This Website (Pflichtangaben gemäss TDG) section. Feel free to contact PA Axel H Horns via e-mail horns@ipjur.com. BEWARE: DO NOT SEND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNENCRYPTED VIA E-MAIL. USE OF ENCRYPTION SOFTWARE IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. PA AXEL H HORNS IS PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR ENCRYPTED E-MAIL MESSAGES USING PGP OR PGP COMPATIBLE FORMATS. THE PGP PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE HERE. THE GnuPG PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE HERE. Dipl.-Phys. Axel H Horns is Patentanwalt (German Patent Attorney), European Patent Attorney as well as European Trade Mark Attorney. In particular, he is Member of:
	VPP