A consultation process among the member states of the European Patent Organisation is currently taking place. The March 2006 meeting of the Administrative Council will give the Council the opportunity to mandate the European Patent Office to prepare a 'strategy package' that could be adopted by June 2006.
The enlarged debate needs to be conducted in an open and transparent manner. To this end, the Council Chairman is making the documents under discussion available to the interested public and to the numerous parties involved in the process (see Documentation).
To facilitate the broadest possible consultation, the Council Secretariat has set up the following address for those who wish to submit their views:
Submissions should be in electronic form only and in one or more of the Organisation's official languages (English, French and German). In submitting their views in this way, the contributors authorise the Organisation to publish them on this site and to refer to the source. They also accept that the Organisation reserves the right not to publish every contribution.
The delegations behind this document are of the opinion that it is both possible and necessary to start assembling the elements needed to build a network of cooperating patent offices in Europe. The principles and suggestions in this document show a possible way forward in this respect. We invite the Office and all Member States to a constructive dialogue and cooperation in order to develop this matter further and in more concrete terms."
All of them represent "smaller" countries, no one of the "big three" (DE, UK, FR) appears to be in the boat. The group refers to Document CA/94/05 dated May 31, 2005, and titled "Joint statement on the European patent network" saying:
"[...]Madrid, 26th 2005
Delegates from Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, The Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom, as members of the informal Council's Working Group met in Amsterdam on April 22, 2005 and Madrid on May 26, 2005.
Main focus point of this meeting was the strategic debate on co-operation between EPO and National Offices together in the European Patent Network. The delegates discussed the following principles and facts and agreed among themselves as follows:
1. The European Patent Office's (hereinafter, the EPO) specific role as the sole European Authority for granting European Patents must be maintained and reinforced. However, the delegates shared their concerns about the functioning of the EPO. These concerns are: EPO's financial situation, decreasing productivity, cost-effectiveness, functioning of MAC, quality of patents and patent examination, present lack of timeliness and high cost of patents.
2. The participants, bearing in mind the magnitude of these problems are of the opinion that EPO should concentrate itself on its core business e.g. patent granting. It should decrease its expanding involvement in training and education activities for third parties as well as in promotion and marketing business. These activities divert EPO from its key role and impacts the role of the National Patent Offices (hereinafter, NPOs) negatively. To optimize the proper functioning of the patent system in Europe and to increase its competitiveness a closer co-operation is necessary between the National Offices and the EPO. To summarize this, EPO should: a. Stick to its core business. b. Recognize and accept the specific responsibility of the NPOs c. Recognize and accept NPO?s role as part of the overall patent network. d. Accept and obey the principle of subsidiarity in relation to the contribution of the NPOs.
3. The European Patent Convention together with the Protocol on Centralization are the backbones of the Organization. They should stay unchanged. However, this does not impede future adaptations.
4. The participants also emphasized that the political role of the AC should be strengthened and the AC should concentrate its work on the above mentioned strategic issues. Also EPO?s role in the trilateral discussions requires additional attention of the AC.
5. To reach the Lisbon goals EPO together with the NPOs have to co-operate as much as possible. They together can contribute a lot to reach this goal by taking advantage of each others competences and to avoid duplication of work as much as possible.
6. The network model could be based on the following interlinked principles: a. Free choice for applicants. b. No compulsory outsourcing c. No automatic utilization by EPO of the work of NPOs d. Equal Treatment of all member States e. Introduction and assurance of equal quality standards.
[...]"
Now, the smaller group of Delgations concludes:
"[...] The above delegations reaffirm their desire to have the political agreement expressed in CA/94/05 turned into practical implementation. We also consider that CA/128/05 does not provide the proposals in this respect which the Council has asked for. Furthermore, CA/128/05 draws conclusions which in our view are based on wrong or incomplete premises. Details in support of our view can be found in documents CA/5/06 and CA/6/06. The comments in these documents are summarized below:
- CA/128/05 seems to reduce the benefits of cooperation to a minimum. This is particularly true for Annex 3 to CA/128/05, where the Office, instead of submitting a proposal, has put forward a number of arguments against the ideas expressed in CA/94/05. We find that there are indeed several possibilities for the Member States Offices to cooperate closely with the EPO in order to increase effectiveness within the Organisation.
- The Convention contains two fundamental provisions, namely, that the Office is supervised by the Council, and that the President of the Office is responsible for its activities to the Council. With reference to CA/94/05, this implies that the Council takes the main decision on outsourcing and the criteria to be applied and the Office reports to the Council on the implementation.
- The strategy debate is conducted between states and not between offices. Blurring these lines can conceal that, under the present EPC legal framework, the political control of the European Patent Organisation lies with the Contracting States. In addition, we continue to subscribe to the relevant passage in CA/94/05 on the European patent network concerning the role of the Council: 'the political role of the AC should be strengthened and the AC should concentrate its work on 'strategic issues''.
- Contracting states have retained their competence to grant national patents for their own territories. Therefore, the EPC is based on the co-existence of European patents with national patents, and presupposes a certain interaction between the EPC and national laws as well as the European Patent Office and the national patent institutions.
- The reference in CA/128/05 to the work done in the NPOs is a poor and depreciative description of what is performed by many NPOs and not in accordance with facts.
- Further, the Office generally seems to consider existing procedures and standards as obstacles instead of looking at possibilities for amending or revising them in order to accommodate the objective of making use of work carried out by the NPOs. An example of this is the difficulties and debate which have resulted from the Office?s inflexible and in our view also wrong interpretation of written opinions. It is thus necessary for the Office to take account of the written opinions produced by NPOs on patentability if duplication of work as expressed by the Council is to be avoided.
- Under the scheme proposed in CA/61/05, any concerns about 'sovereignty issues' can be allayed and, in our opinion, completely disposed of. Under that scheme, in full line with the generally accepted definition of subcontracting, work (e.g. search) would be performed by NPOs on behalf and in the name of the Office, i.e. with its full responsibility and under its full control.
- We cannot see any reason to call the legal basis, i.e. the prevailing interpretation of Article 33(4) EPC, into question. This article has at several occasions been considered the legal basis for working agreements with NPOs or sub-contracting. We see no argument in support of changing the established interpretation of the use of Article 33(4) EPC as legal basis for outsourcing.
- CA/128/05 refers to a 'not purely theoretical risk', namely that, as a result of outsourcing, the Examining Division could be challenged for acting ultra vires to the extent it has based its decision on work done outside the Office. We are of the view that, under the scheme described in CA/61/05, this question becomes wholly irrelevant for the reasons set out in that document as well as in the remark above about 'sovereignty issues'. In our opinion, there are no provisions which would empower the Boards of Appeal to use a particular working agreement decided by the President and the Council as a reason for challenging a decision taken by the examining division.
- A similar concern is also raised by the Office concerning the possibility of European patents being revoked on the ground 'that the requirements of the EPC have not been satisfied'. However, the grounds for revoking a European patent are defined in a clear and exhaustive manner in Article 138 EPC. The fact that the Office's decision to grant the European patent was based on outsourced work is not identified as a ground for revocation. Therefore, we do not think that there is any problem whatsoever regarding revoking of EPO decisions on the ground that part of the examination was subcontracted.
[...]"
A very fundamental debate, indeed. It is, however, a good sign that such documents are now eventually put on a web server so that General Public can have free access to them. But, at the end of the day, care should be taken not to dismember the EPO. Self-serving national interests should be kept under control.
Throughout the EU, enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights seems to be very much en vogue in our days. See for example Document 5921/06 from the General Secretariat of the European Council addressed to the Working Party on Customs Union (Legislation and Policy) concerning a Draft Council Resolution on a Customs Response to latest trends in Counterfeiting and Piracy. The paper welcomes
"[...] - the concrete actions to improve customs controls, in particular via the increased exchange of risk management techniques and information, and to strengthen international co-operation, notably with main exporting countries and relevant international organisations;
- the need to build and promote a strong customs-business partnership, based on commitment from both sides, in tackling the problem of counterfeit goods;
- the approach taken to tackling the growing problem of fake goods, in particular those which pose a health and safety risk, via a comprehensive EU Action Plan building on the Communication?s concrete actions; [...]"
and invites the EU Commission to
"[...] - present appropriate proposals to support the implementation of the approach set out in the Communication, paying special attention to enhancing the information exchange both between customs and between customs and operators involved in combating counterfeiting and piracy;
- to report on the implementation of the Communication and the actions set out therein as part of the annual report foreseen in Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/20032; [...]"
Moreover, there is a lot of confidential ado ongoing concerning criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (Proposal for a Council framework decision to strengthen the criminal law framework to combat Intellectual Property offences), eg. here, here and here.
Is the inventive step requirement for patentable inventions in the United Kingdom right for inventors, the public at large, and the UK economy?
Are too many "trivial patents" being granted?
Or are innovation and competitiveness best served by easy patenting with low hurdles?
These questions are addressed in the following public consultation. A feedback form is also provided for any responses and should be returned to the Patent Office by 31 May 2006.[...]"
"Greece deposited its instrument of ratification of EPC 2000 on 13 December 2005. As this was the fifteenth Contracting State to ratify the Convention, this will enter into force two years after that date, or three months after the ratification by the last Contracting State, if earlier.
16 Contracting States have yet to ratify and have only two years in which to do so, or according to Article 172(4) EPC they will cease to be party to the EPC as from that time.
So, Germany appears to have two years time starting with December 13, 2005, for ratifying EPC2000 or she will automatically cease to be party to that treaty.
New German "Bill for Improving the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights" Ante Portas.
There are off-line rumours afloat that in the German Ministry of Justice the draughtsmen have completed their work on a first Draft "Bill for Improving the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights" for casting the EU Directive 2004/48/EG titled "Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights" into national German law. The new Bill would, if passed by the German parliament, affect the enforcement of German Patents, Utility Models, Trade Marks, Designs as well as Copyrights.
An important topic of EU Directive to be implemented is the "Right of information". According to Article 8 thereof, provision is as follows:
"1. Member States shall ensure that, in the context of proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right and in response to a justified and proportionate request of the claimant, the competent judicial authorities may order that information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services which infringe an intellectual property right be provided by the infringer and/or any other person who:
(a) was found in possession of the infringing goods on a commercial scale;
(b) was found to be using the infringing services on a commercial scale;
(c) was found to be providing on a commercial scale services used in infringing activities;
or (d) was indicated by the person referred to in point (a), (b) or (c) as being involved in the production, manufacture or distribution of the goods or the provision of the services.
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall, as appropriate, comprise:
(a) the names and addresses of the producers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and other previous holders of the goods or services, as well as the intended wholesalers and retailers;
(b) information on the quantities produced, manufactured, delivered, received or ordered, as well as the price obtained for the goods or services in question. [...]"
There might well be some aspects of explorative actions be present in the Bill. It appears in particular to give a great deal of attention to the implementation of these provisions of the EU Directive. In particular, the Bill is said to provide a clause to the effect that if this right of information can be satisfied only by utilisation of telecommunications traffic data in the sense of Sect. 3 No. 30 of the German Act on Telecommunications, such traffic data can be requested from telecommunications providers and exploited provided a warrant has been issued by a competent court upon request of the respective rights holder. Interestingly, such clause is said to be not only mooted for copyright enforcement proceedings but also for patent, utility model as well as trade mark based cases.
There is no doubt that, in general, the "Right of Information" as described in the EU Directive is a necessary, proved and tested legal tool for combating piracy. However, there can be too much of a good thing. Especially, it appears not to be clearly excluded that the Draft Bill would, inter alia, allow traffic data of ordinary Internet users be accessed not only for copyright enforcement purposes (already fiercely under dispute) but also for patent and trade mark enforcement cases, provided a competent court issues the required warrant. Perhaps such undertaking in the context of patent, utility model, and trade mark law might be seen as somehow overbroad and, hence, inappropriate. The German Draft Bill stresses that the enforcement of this "Right of Information" shall be limited to cases where providing such information is not disproportionate in the individual case - whatever that might mean in practice under such circumstances.
Furthermore, a right to recall infringing goods from distribution chains is arranged for.
When considering particular proposals concerning IPR enforcement, General Public should however note that already today anti-piracy clauses are present in the law. For example, the German Patents Act provides some strict anti-piracy clauses:
"[Sect. 140a]
(1) In the cases covered by Section 139, the injured party may require destruction of the product that is the subject matter of the patent and that is in the possession of the infringer or is his property unless the infringing nature of the product can be removed in some other way and its destruction would be disproportionate in the individual case for the infringer or the owner. The first sentence shall also apply in the case of a product that has been directly manufactured by means of a process that is the subject matter of the patent. (2) The provisions of subsection (1) shall apply mutatis mutandis to devices that are the property of the infringer and that are used or intended exclusively or almost exclusively for the unlawful manufacture of a product. "
"[Sect. 140b]
(1) Any person who uses a patented invention in contravention of Sections 9 to 13 may be required by the injured party to give information as to the origin and distribution channels of the product used, without delay, except where disproportionate in the individual case. (2) The person required to give information under subsection (1) shall give particulars of the name and address of the manufacturer, the supplier and other prior owners of the product, of the trade customer or of the principal, as also in respect of the quantity of products that have been manufactured, dispatched, received or ordered. (3) In those cases where infringement is obvious, the obligation to provide information may be imposed by an injunction in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure. (4) Such information may only be used in criminal proceedings or in proceedings under the Law on Minor Offences against the person required to give information, or against a dependent person under Section 52(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of an act committed before the information was given, with the consent of the person required to give the information. (5) Further claims to information shall remain unaffected."
"[Sect. 142]
(1) Any person who, without the necessary consent of the patentee or the holder of the supplementary certificate of protection (Sections 16a and 49a)
makes or offers, puts on the market, uses or imports or stocks for these purposes a product which is the subject matter of a patent or a supplementary certificate of protection (Section 9, second sentence, item 1) or
uses or offers for use within the territory to which this Law applies a process which is the subject matter of a patent or a supplementary certificate of protection (Section 9, second sentence, item 2), shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine.
The first sentence, item 1, shall also apply if there is a product which has been directly produced by a process which is the subject matter of a patent or a supplementary certificate of protection (Section 9, second sentence, item 3). (2) Where the offender acts by way of trade, he shall be liable to imprisonment of up to five years or a fine. (3) The attempt to commit such an offence shall be punishable. (4) Offences under subsection (1) shall only be prosecuted on complaint unless the prosecuting authorities deem that ex officio prosecution is justified in view of the particular public interest. (5) Objects implicated in an offence may be confiscated. Article 74a of the Penal Code shall apply. Where the claims referred to in Section 140a are upheld in proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to compensation of the injured party (Sections 403 to 406c), the provisions on confiscation shall not be of application. (6) If a penalty is pronounced, the Court shall, at the request of the injured party and if the latter can show a justified interest, order publication of the judgement. The nature of the publication shall be laid down in the judgement."
Apart from blatant piracy cases, those criminal sanctions appear to be little used throughout German IP practice.
"[ Sect. 142a]
(1) A product that infringes a patent protected under this Law shall be subject, at the request of the holder of the rights and against his security, to seizure by the customs authorities, on import or export, in those cases where the infringement is obvious. This provision shall apply in trade with other Member States of the European Economic Community only insofar as controls are carried out by the customs authorities. (2) Where the customs authorities order a seizure, they shall advise the person entitled to dispose and also the petitioner thereof without delay. The origin, quantity and place of storage of the product, together with the name and address of the person entitled to dispose, shall be communicated to the petitioner; the secrecy of correspondence and of mail (Section 10 of the Basic Law) shall be restricted to that extent. The petitioner shall be given the opportunity to inspect the product where such inspection does not constitute a breach of commercial or trade secrecy. (3) Where no opposition to the seizure is made, at the latest within two weeks of service of the notification under the first sentence of subsection (1), the customs authorities shall order confiscation of the seized product. (4) If the person entitled to dispose opposes seizure, the customs authorities shall inform the petitioner thereof without delay. The petitioner shall be required to declare to the customs authorities, without delay, whether he maintains the request under subsection (1) in respect of the seized copies.
If the petitioner withdraws his request, the customs authorities shall lift the seizure without delay.
If the petitioner maintains his request and submits an executable court decision ordering the impounding of the seized copies or the limitation of the right to dispose, the customs authorities shall take the necessary measures.
Where neither of the cases referred to in items 1 and 2 is applicable, the customs authorities shall lift the seizure on the expiry of two weeks after service of the notification to the petitioner under the first sentence; where the petitioner can show that a court decision according to item 2 has been requested, but has not yet been received, the seizure shall be maintained for a further two weeks at most. (5) Where the seizure proves to have been unjustified from the beginning and if the petitioner has maintained the request under subsection (1) in respect of the seized product or has not made a declaration without delay (second sentence of subsection (4)), he shall be required to compensate the damages that seizure has occasioned to the person entitled to dispose. (6) The petition under subsection (1) is to be submitted to the Regional Finance Office and shall be effective for two years unless a shorter period of validity has been requested; the request may be repeated. The cost of official acts related to the request shall be charged to the petitioner in accordance with Section 178 of the Fiscal Code. (7) Seizure and confiscation may be opposed by the legal remedies allowed by the fixed penalty procedure under the Law on Minor Offences in respect of seizure and confiscation. The petitioner shall be heard in the review proceedings. An immediate appeal shall lie from the decision of the Local Court; it shall be heard by the Provincial High Court. [...]"
For trade mark and copyright matters similar provisions are more often utilised than for patent-based cases.
In any case, the provisions of the Directive 2004/48/EC as well as of the new German Bill should be judged against the current status of the legislature but not against any much earlier state where no anti-piracy provisions had been available at all.
"As planned IPR enforcement experts met on 12 October 2005 at the Patent Office in London (Harmsworth House) to discuss how to take forward the action set out in the G8 statement on "Reducing IPR piracy and counterfeiting through more effective enforcement" concluded at Gleneagles in July 2005.
The Foreign Affairs Sous Sherpas (FASS) have endorsed the conclusions of the 12 October meeting. To follow up the first meeting, we together with the incoming G8 Russian Presidency have drafted a number of project recommendations. The intention is that some of the projects will be undertaken directly by the G8 IPR enforcement experts in coordination with WIPO, WTO, WCO, Interpol, and OECD. But for others, the plan is to invite other inter-governmental specialist groups to take forward the work.
These recommendations are due to be considered by a further meeting of the IPR enforcement experts under the Russian Presidency, which is likely to take place in March. To prepare for this further meeting, we will hold a further co-ordination meeting with business and IPR interests. We intend to hold this meeting at 14:30 on Thursday, 23 February in our London Office (Harmsworth House). If you would like to attend this meeting please contact Kevin Llewellyn via E-mail at Kevin.llewellyn@patent.gov.uk or at the address below. [...]"
European Parliament Committee: Hearing on European Patent Policy.
noticias.inforeports on a hearing held by a Committee of the the European Parliament:
"At a public hearing on intellectual property rights held on Tuesday by the Legal Affairs Committee, experts agreed that the current European patenting system is too costly for firms and could be hampering competition instead of boosting innovation. At the same time several speakers expressed doubt about using criminal law to enforce intellectual property rights. [...]"
For those who can read and understand German texts, here is another report from Heise's Newsticker. My scepticalness against criminal sanctions on acts of patent infringement is already documented here in the context of a statement presented by CIPA. And, last not least, it is high time for the French Government to initiate the ratification of the London Agreement in order to reduce translation costs.
All media seem to be full of reports concerning Blackberry patent troubles. Recently BlackBerry Cool reported that Research In Motion had provided an update following a ruling in the Research In Motion UK Limited versus InPro Licensing S.a.r.l. litigation in the Federal Patents Court in Munich, Germany, saying that the Court has ruled in favor of RIM by deciding that all patent claims in InPro's German-designated European Patent EP 0892947 B1 are invalid. InPro retains the right to appeal the decision to the German Federal Supreme Court.
According to the patents register of the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, the German part DE 697 19 963 T1 of the said European Patent EP 0892947 B1 had been transferred from the applicant, Lextron Systems, Inc., to InPro Licensing S.a.r.l., Luxembourg, in 2003.
Please note that the German Federal Patents Court in Munich never decides on patent infringement cases. They are competent for grant appeal, opposition, and nullification cases only. Of course, if a patent on which an infringement lawsuit pending elsewhere is based is revoked by the Federal Patents Court, then the infringement case is expected to collapse unless the Supreme Court in Karlsruhe overturns the Federal Patents Court's decision in favour of the patentee.
The revocation of the German part of the said European Patent does not directly affect the validity thereof in the other countries designated in the patent.
German court files are not generally open to public inspection. Hence, in the first place, it depends on the parties of the lawsuit as to whether or not they will publish the full text of the decision as to be delivered later this year by the Court. Otherwise, the judges of the Court are free to publish the decision on their own initiative in a slightly anonymised version, most probably off-line in the Official collection of case law edited and published by the Court or elsewhere off-line in one of the dedicated German magazines for Intellectual Property law. However, it is not clear whether they actually intend to do so. Anyway, it might take quite a long time until details appear on the Internet. Let's wait and see.
"[...] There are big problems with patents, especially software patents. It takes too long to get patent protection, particularly for fast-moving high-tech industries. Protection often goes beyond what is needed to prevent competitors from usurping new techniques, lasting about two decades and blocking even those who independently invented the technology. And the current limited examination - dictated by application fees - often doesn't give the examiner time to find and consider important "prior art," so that questionable patents are granted.
But scrapping software patents altogether is not the solution. Instead, I propose that a new form of intellectual property be considered that gives reduced benefits in exchange for speedy protection.
[...]
However, because the innovation patent appears simply to trade off a reduced term for a lower standard of patentability, and petty patents often exclude technologies such as software where they could have the greatest benefit, they should not be adopted as a way of addressing software patent problems.
Instead, a new "limited patent" should be developed that grants protection from the moment the technology is first used in commerce. The primary purpose of the limited patent would be to provide immediate protection for technology that - once on the market - could otherwise be copied by a competitor before regular patent protection could be secured. Inventions not actually available in the marketplace would not be protected.
Protection would last for four years, enough time to establish a market and about the time required to process a regular patent application today. That would allow inventors to have immediate protection against knockoffs of a technology even as they try to get broader protection by meeting the more stringent requirements for a conventional patent. It would also encourage further innovation, because new features could get their own four-year protection. [...]"
Despite his rejection of "Petty Patents", apparently Mr. Hollaar's proposal has some features in common with the "Utilitry Model" available since long e.g. in Germany or Austria. It is a kind of a register patent with a requirement of novelty. Some argue that for Utility Models in practice the requirement of an "inventive step" is watered down more than with regard to examined patents. Their term is limited; in Germany it lasts 10 years at maximum.
Due to some histrorical reasons, method claims are not eligible to Utility Model protection in Germany; however, this could be changed if a political majority is formed.
And, of course, protection conferred by a German Utility Model starts with registration, not with first use in commerce.
The essence of the independent invention defense is known to the German Patent law as so-called "Vorbenutzungsrecht", i.e. a German patent has no effect against a person who, at the time of the filing of the application, had already begun to use the invention in Germany, or had made the necessary arrangements for so doing. Such person is entitled to use the invention for the needs of his or her own business in his or her own plant or workshops or the plant or workshops of others. This right can only be inherited or transferred together with the business. If the applicant or his predecessor in title has, before applying for a patent, disclosed the invention to other persons and reserved his rights in the event of a patent being granted, a person learning of the invention as a result of such disclosure cannot invoke measures which he has taken within six months after the disclosure (Sect. 12 para. 1 of German Patents Act).
I am inclined not to plainly buy the alleged benefits of Mr. Hollaar' proposal.
As explained earlier I do not share partialities against patent holders not directly working their patents. In my view there is no sound basis for discriminating patentees giving licenses to third parties (instead of producing in own factories).
And, furthermore, despite the fact that Utility Models are comparatively inexpensive they merely fill a certain niche of our contemporary Intellectual Property business; larger parts of the industry appear to prefer a somewhat more expensive examination of patent applications in order to learn on whether or not their inventions are really valuable (Yes, I know, this can work only if the Patent Offices do their work sufficiently well). Register patents might cause the risk of legal uncertainy for the general public.
Mooting of sector-specific Intellectual Property laws evokes the danger of creating a very fragmented and complex situation where difficult borderine decisions have to be taken on the correct association of an invention to a certain sector of Intellectual Property protection.
I am a friend of reforms making sure that Patent Offices are enabled to do their job well, thereby in a reasonable timespan of examination work preventing grant of patents on inventions not deserving legal monopoly status in view of their lack of novelty or in view of their obviousness.
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:
EPO website: 
here in the context of a statement presented by CIPA. And, last not least, it is high time for the French Government to initiate the ratification of the 
