http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/ BLOG@IPJUR.COM - Patent Attorney Axel H. Horns' Blog on Intellectual Property en Serendipity 1.3.1 - http://www.s9y.org/ Wed, 22 May 2013 22:56:41 GMT http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/templates/coffee_bar3/img/s9y_banner_small.png http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/ 100 21 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/186-Will-There-Ever-Be-Unanimity-On-An-EU-Patent.html#c1068 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/186-Will-There-Ever-Be-Unanimity-On-An-EU-Patent.html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=186 nospam@example.com (Vacanze croazia) I don't think so...... Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:29:15 +0200 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/186-guid.html#c1068 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/199-New-Developments-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect,-EU-Patent-Jurisdiction.html#c1062 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/199-New-Developments-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect,-EU-Patent-Jurisdiction.html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=199 nospam@example.com (Andre) The whole proposal is just a way to generate more revenue for the EPO, see the provisions where the EP gets no budget control over the fees. I wonder why Barnier does not push forward with substantive harmonisation of patent law It does not make much sense to go for unitary patent under enhanced cooperation instead of adopting a real compat proposal, now that Spain is in crisis they are forced to make concessions to the other member states. Enhanced cooperation is an anti-European path, it endangers European unity. Tue, 31 May 2011 13:02:28 +0200 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/199-guid.html#c1062 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/199-New-Developments-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect,-EU-Patent-Jurisdiction.html#c1061 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/199-New-Developments-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect,-EU-Patent-Jurisdiction.html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=199 nospam@example.com (Spain) the success of the cucumber salad depends on whether the cucumber salad were prepared in Spain or in Germany... Tue, 31 May 2011 08:50:50 +0200 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/199-guid.html#c1061 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/196-EU-Commission-A-Burst-Of-Activity-Concerning-Intellectual-Property-Politics.html#c1060 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/196-EU-Commission-A-Burst-Of-Activity-Concerning-Intellectual-Property-Politics.html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=196 nospam@example.com (patent litigation) I'm glad to know that efforts have continued in the quest to create a unified European patent court, despite initial setbacks. Most likely the establishment of such a court will require much more effort and many more years, but I believe that the end result will prove to be worth the wait. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZT-WQI3SfI&feature=related Tue, 31 May 2011 02:20:06 +0200 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/196-guid.html#c1060 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/199-New-Developments-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect,-EU-Patent-Jurisdiction.html#c1059 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/199-New-Developments-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect,-EU-Patent-Jurisdiction.html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=199 nospam@example.com (CC) And, in related news, Spain and Italy have announced that they are stepping to the ECJ against the reinforced cooperation in the matter of the unitary patent. The announcement will have made them only marginally more popular among the other delegations than if they had served a plate of fresh cucumber salad, I guess. Mon, 30 May 2011 18:16:26 +0200 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/199-guid.html#c1059 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/199-New-Developments-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect,-EU-Patent-Jurisdiction.html#c1058 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/199-New-Developments-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect,-EU-Patent-Jurisdiction.html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=199 nospam@example.com (Gibus) On https://www.unitary-patent.eu/content/regulation-implementing-enhanced-cooperation-area-creation-unitary-patent-protection proposed amendments to the Council have been reported on the Commission initial text. And Commission non-paper can be commented here: https://www.unitary-patent.eu/content/non-paper-commission-services-solutions-unified-patent-litigation-system One major issue with this non paper is that not only non-EU Member States will be excluded from the agreement, but the EU won't be a party of this agreement. There is also some critics from Philips' attorney, Leo Steenbeek, on EPLAW Patent Blog: http://www.eplawpatentblog.com/eplaw/2011/05/eu-commission-non-paper-solutions-for-a-unified-patent-litigation-system.html#comments Finally, it is interesting to see critics from Pagenberg, as pointed here, in the light of the conversation he had with Winfried Tilmann: http://www.eplawpatentblog.com/2011/April/Pagenberg%20New%20Hopes.doc Mon, 30 May 2011 02:38:49 +0200 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/199-guid.html#c1058 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/194-UK-Hargreaves-Review-on-Intellectual-Property-And-Growth-Released-Today.html#c1054 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/194-UK-Hargreaves-Review-on-Intellectual-Property-And-Growth-Released-Today.html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=194 nospam@example.com (patent litigation) Whatever the other arguable merits of the Report, at least it has an eye toward minimizing patent thickets and their adverse effects. Although I'm not certain to what extent it has hindered innovation, the increasingly complex web that's developed from all of the mobile patent enforcement actions in the U.S. is truly mind-boggling. What's more, it all seems rather wasteful, when one considers the fact that the likely result of all these lawsuits will be settlements and cross-licensing deals. http://www.generalpatent.com/media/videos/learn-more-about-general-patent-corporation Tue, 24 May 2011 00:52:23 +0200 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/194-guid.html#c1054 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-EU-Patent-Is-Dead!-Long-Live-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect..html#c1039 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-EU-Patent-Is-Dead!-Long-Live-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect..html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=193 nospam@example.com (Anonymous) Precisely. Another proof of the absolute lack of commitment of the Spanish government to the "English-only" proposal is that, under Spanish law, Spanish applicants actually are not allowed to file European patent applications directly in English: all direct European patent applications must go through the SPTO and be in Spanish or have a Spanish translation, so that the Ministry of Defence (which 30 years after joining NATO still apparently does not have any English-speaking officials) can ensure that your patent application for, say, a novel and inventive toothbrush, does not endanger the national security. Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:58:06 +0200 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-guid.html#c1039 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-EU-Patent-Is-Dead!-Long-Live-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect..html#c1038 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-EU-Patent-Is-Dead!-Long-Live-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect..html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=193 nospam@example.com (Kimiko Loko) I could not agree more with Anonymous (I am Spanish too). Moreover, an additional fact that shows that the Spanish government was pro the new monolingual system is the new plan of the Spanish Government to promote the Intellectual property in Spain (the so-called Plan PI). Such Plan, which is dated in July 2010, states that the SPTO would make effort to promote the use of Spanish in the International treaties as a "working language”, not the use of only English. " Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:04:31 +0200 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-guid.html#c1038 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-EU-Patent-Is-Dead!-Long-Live-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect..html#c1035 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-EU-Patent-Is-Dead!-Long-Live-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect..html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=193 nospam@example.com (Anonymous) Dear Mssrs. Rivoli and Yanez, I believe you still have to explain why you believe that Germany and France were guilty. Neither Italy nor Spain have ever made a serious proposal regarding the actual implementation of the "English-only" option. This option would have implied either taking the EU patent out of the EP patent, or deeply changing both the EPC and the organisation of the EPO. The current proposal is by far the most pragmatic, in terms of using the available legal and administrative resources. The Italian and Spanish "English-only" proposals were noisily announced, but extremely short in detail despite their wide-ranging implications. The obvious conclusion is that they were never seriously meant, but only aimed at muddying the waters. This impression is further confirmed by their many contradictory statements. The Spanish government in particular has defended the "English only" option while simultaneously proclaiming that only patents fully translated into Spanish will ever be enforceable in Spain. Moreover, quite significantly, neither Spain nor Italy have proposed the "English-only" option for Community trademarks. And it is also quite curious that, whereas Spain and Italy loudly accuse the EPO's trilingual regime of being "discriminatory" (despite having signed to it when they acceded the EPOrg), they wouldn't have the same objection against either the "English-only" option or a pentalingual regime like OHIM's (and this despite other languages, like Dutch, more significant in terms of patents than either Italian or Spanish, being left out). In any case, the right place to put the EPO on an English-only path would have been the negotiations for the EPC 2000. I definitely do not remember Italy or Spain pressing that point there. Nor have Italy or Spain made a first step towards simplifying life for patentees by signing the London Agreement. But finally, the proof is in the pudding: France and Germany have found agreement with another 23 countries. Italy and Spain can't even agree among themselves. You'll excuse me if I choose to remain anonymous: I happen to be Spanish myself. Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:28:19 +0200 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-guid.html#c1035 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-EU-Patent-Is-Dead!-Long-Live-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect..html#c1034 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-EU-Patent-Is-Dead!-Long-Live-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect..html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=193 nospam@example.com (Francesco Rivoli) I also would like to stress that Italy and Spain were (allegedly) ready to agree on an English system only. If we are frank, the english system only would have been much better than the EN-DE-FR system. So, I kindly ask Mr. Horns to review his statement that no agreement could be found because of Italy and Spain. In all honesty, no meaningful agreement could be found because of France and Germany. Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:39:47 +0200 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-guid.html#c1034 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-EU-Patent-Is-Dead!-Long-Live-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect..html#c1033 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-EU-Patent-Is-Dead!-Long-Live-European-Patent-With-Unitary-Effect..html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=193 nospam@example.com (Alvar Yanez) I must repeat that France and Germany are at least more responsible than Spain and Italy. Moreover, I understand that this is a limitation of the grant rights re most countries "a European patent with unitary effect may only be limited, licensed, transferred, revoked or lapse in respect of all the participating Member States." So I do not know if a unitary effect is good business for private inventor or small companies. Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:16:36 +0200 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/193-guid.html#c1033 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/192-EU-Patent-The-Smallest-Of-All-Perceivable-Solutions-Is-Coming.html#c1032 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/192-EU-Patent-The-Smallest-Of-All-Perceivable-Solutions-Is-Coming.html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=192 nospam@example.com (Steve Peers) In my view it would be legally feasible and practical to take the gist of the EEUPC proposal in the form of a treaty among (some or all) EU Member States only. The Court of Justice's main objection to the patent court idea was the involvement of third (non-EU) countries, whereas it had no objection to the idea of EU Member States creating a common court among themselves (ie the Benelux Court). Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:42:46 +0200 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/192-guid.html#c1032 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/192-EU-Patent-The-Smallest-Of-All-Perceivable-Solutions-Is-Coming.html#c1028 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/192-EU-Patent-The-Smallest-Of-All-Perceivable-Solutions-Is-Coming.html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=192 nospam@example.com (Andre) You are leaving out the obvious: EU substantive patent law is mostly missing, why don't they harmonise patent law within the EU framework first? And no, the EPC is not applicable unless similar provisions are transposed. Notably the EPC does not harmonise national substantive patent laws at all and EPO granting only leads to de facto harmonisation. Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:50:02 +0100 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/192-guid.html#c1028 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/191-The-Court-Of-Justice-Of-The-EU-Kills-Patent-Court-Proposal..html#c1025 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/191-The-Court-Of-Justice-Of-The-EU-Kills-Patent-Court-Proposal..html#comments http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/wfwcomment.php?cid=191 nospam@example.com (Gibus) Actually I have bookmarked the page a long time ago since URL in curiae website are always the same. On the search form you should enter "Avis 1/09", or search by date... Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:35:36 +0100 http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/191-guid.html#c1025