IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Thursday, January 11, 2024

schestowitz

"For any decision of any court, it is essential that, as a first step, the court identifies (and, if necessary, interprets) the law(s) that will provide the legal basis for their decision. There are of course many examples of courts omitting to provide an explanation of the conclusions that they reached in this first step. However, this typically only happens when the relevant laws are long established and well known to all parti

schestowitz

es. In this respect, I find it frankly astonishing that, as a brand new court founded upon a largely untested legal system, the Munich LD chose not explain which laws (governing infringement and claim interpretation, etc.) formed the legal underpinning for their conclusions. This is all the more astonishing given that it is far from clear which national law (according Article 5.3 of Regulation 1257/2012) det

schestowitz

ermines the acts against which a unitary patent monopoly provides protection. From this perspective, the Munich LD's failure to address the legal basis for their decision looks at best ill-advised, if not amateurish."

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | UPC Munich Local Division takes a novel approach to claim interpretation (SES vs Hanshow, UPC-CFI-292/2023) - The IPKat

*rsheftel1435 (~rsheftel@freenode-sle.jn3.t23bea.IP) has joined #techbytes

Jan 11 03:17

*rsheftel1435 (~rsheftel@freenode-sle.jn3.t23bea.IP) has joined #techbytes

Jan 11 03:17

*rsheftel14358 (~rsheftel@freenode-sle.jn3.t23bea.IP) has joined #techbytes

Jan 11 03:22

*rsheftel14358 (~rsheftel@freenode-sle.jn3.t23bea.IP) has joined #techbytes

Jan 11 03:22

*rsheftel1435 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)

*rsheftel1435 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)

*rsheftel14358 is now known as rsheftel1435

*rsheftel14358 is now known as rsheftel1435

schestowitz

"Dear Colleagues,

schestowitz

« Production is the only thing that guarantees our payslip » writes DG1 Director

schestowitz

Normally directors dutifully trickle down the management mantra, both the official one and the unofficial one. Especially at the Office, any other attitude would quickly cause them to be exiled to director posts “ad personam” or other loss of their prerogatives. When meeting with staff, managers talk turkey. When the unofficial management mantra encounters staff resistance, managers cannot limit their instructions to oral ones and l

schestowitz

ay them down in written form (see “Productivity vs Quality at the EPO: A rare glimpse behind the curtain that’s worrying”, from the PatentLigitation.ch Blog on 26 July 2023).

schestowitz

We can consider it common ground, and figures (quality report et al.) show it, that the current functioning in DG1 operative units does not contribute to improving quality. The Central Staff Committee has already drawn the attention to the worrying situation and made proposals to the President and in the Administrative Council but it seems necessary to repeat them once more. After all, repetitio est mater studiorum (Repetition is the mo

schestowitz

ther of study/learning). The patent world has been debating quality for a long time. Concretely, apart from spreading its usual gospel, the Office has taken little concrete action to improve the situation.

schestowitz

A return to the basics is a must. At a time when the Office is looking back on 50 years of history and gearing up for a sustainable future, it is urgent that upper management finally gets back to the core business and what has made the Office a success story, namely its staff and the quality of their work.'

*u-amarsh04 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Jan 11 05:31

*u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes

Jan 11 05:36

*u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)

Jan 11 05:41

*u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes

Jan 11 05:47

schestowitz

" Additional note on ILOAT Submission - Dossier RI/2018/058 - Contribution rates to the New Pension Scheme (NPS) and Salary Savings Plan (SSP) "

schestowitz

"We noticed that the instructions for submission we sent you in our previous email are not very clear about the filing of the hard copies.

schestowitz

The hard copies need to be filed on time, before the 90 days deadline, in most of the cases the 26 Oct 2023. An electronic copy should also be sent. Please make sure you have the post receipt for the sending.

schestowitz

Please refer to the ILOAT page on this matter:

https://www.ilo.org/tribunal/advice-to-litigants/lang--en/index.htm#q1

schestowitz

schestowitz

“…….

schestowitz

· The relevant date for determining whether the time limit has been observed is the date of dispatch of the hard copy of the complaint (exceptionally the date of receipt at the Registry – Article 4(2) of the Rules ). In case the postmark is illegible, it is a sensible precaution to register the envelope or parcel and so get a receipt from the post office. The receipt will then serve, if need be, as evidence of the date of dispa

schestowitz

tch.

schestowitz

· The parties are usually asked to provide an electronic version of all submissions, in addition to the hard copy. However, for the purpose of determining whether a document has been filed within the specified time limit, it is always the date of dispatch of the hard copy that counts, and not that of the electronic copy that may be sent by e-mail on a different date."

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.ilo.org | Practical guide to the procedure before the ILO Administrative Tribunal (TRIBUNAL)

https://www.ilo.org/tribunal/about-us/WCMS_249195/lang--en/index.htm#art4

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.ilo.org | Rules of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization

schestowitz

<li>

schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

You can find in-depth explanations for each of these by itself, like the empty product. But all of these can be explained as consequences of the same mathematical principle. Let's say we have two lists xs and ys, and let + be list contatenation. We expect the following to always hold: [...]

schestowitz

</blockquote>

schestowitz

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-buttondown.email | Why all([]) is true, prod([]) is 1, etc • Buttondown

schestowitz

@ It's civil law I can only but agree with you that what matters is what is in the EPC and “none of the additional "customary" parts of EPO practice”, like problem solution approach solution when it comes to assessing IS. The PSA is no more than a tool, albeit a quite useful one. The problem I see is a potential conflict of jurisprudence between the UPC and the BA/EBA of the EPO in matters of validit

schestowitz

y. The problem is that, for historical reasons, the EPC provides for the granting of the title and it is up to the national courts, or now the UPC, to decide on infringement and, where appropriate, validity. There is a real risk of conflicting decisions on validity between the UPC and the BAs. Some national courts do not follow the case law of the BAs and the EBA, or claim that they do, but do exactly the opposite. <br

schestowitz

/>A European patent, with or without unitary effect, is a patent monopoly granted by the EPO. Its divisions of first instance are bound by the decisions of the EBA. They are only bound by the decisions of the BAs insofar as these are included in the Guidelines. The BAs are only bound by decisions of the EBA. UPC supporters would like the BAs and the EBA to follow UPC decisions, but I don't think they will. Only intense political pressu

schestowitz

re from UPC supporters could bring them to heel. I refer here to comments of Sir Robin Jacob during a conference held at UCL and commented in another blog. It should not be forgotten that a final decision by the EPO after an appeal on opposition takes precedence, whatever the UPC might have decided on validity. If the patent monopoly is revoked, it is revoked for all the EPC Contracting States for which it was validated. The

schestowitz

same applies if the patent monopoly is maintained in amended form regardless of the decision on infringement or validity taken by the UPC. The infringement may even lapse. It appears therefore advisable to file an opposition before the EPO. It is also much cheaper. The fact that this takes time is due to the procedural deadlines set by the EPC. Opposition at the EPO is certainly not waiting for Godot. Some oppon

schestowitz

ents, particularly in the pharmaceutical field, are not unhappy that the opposition procedure before the EPO takes a certain amount of time; it allows everything to simmer to the great detriment of the proprietors. See again the comments in another blog on the same UCL conference. The UPC wants, at least in the first instance, to give a decision within 12 months of filing a request/application. To avoid conflicts of jurisprud

schestowitz

ence, it must not confuse speed with haste. We live in interesting times!

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/upc-munich-local-division-takes-novel.html?showComment=1704908297713#c3156519652726278012

schestowitz

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/upc-munich-local-division-takes-novel.html?showComment=1704906717085#c5386400949497125266

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | UPC Munich Local Division takes a novel approach to claim interpretation (SES vs Hanshow, UPC-CFI-292/2023) - The IPKat

Jan 11 11:22

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | UPC Munich Local Division takes a novel approach to claim interpretation (SES vs Hanshow, UPC-CFI-292/2023) - The IPKat

schestowitz

" Proof of the pudding We might have disagreed on various topics, but in the present situation, I am fully with you. If the legislator had wanted to take account of the file history, he would have stated this clearly. It is manifest that the fathers of the EPC did not want a US-style file wrapper estoppel. It is not up to a local division of the UPC to introduce this concept through the back door. Art

schestowitz

69 and its implementing protocol were placed in the EPC to meet interpretation needs, particularly for national courts or the UPC. In a comment on another blog, I have added the following: It should not be left to local divisions to dispense with the normal rules of interpretation of claims or of the EPC, and certainly not allow them developing rules which might please one or the other head of a local division."

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/upc-munich-local-division-takes-novel.html?showComment=1704905677049#c2269514565794210194

*psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes

Jan 11 13:37

*psydroid2 has quit (connection closed)

Jan 11 14:55

*psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes

Jan 11 16:00

schestowitz

schestowitz

"@It's civil law Given the relatively high rate of direct revocation actions already before the UPC, it is likely the UPC will be able to develop its case law regarding validity conditions fairly quickly. If the UPC strikes down a patent monopoly and an opposition is pending before the EPO, what can happen ? It will seem difficult for the EPO to maintain a patent monopoly revoked by the UPC. As to whether it will be alig

schestowitz

ned on the case law of the EPO, on the PSA and many other issues, on the one hand it would be logical not to reinvent the wheel, and practitioners are well aware of the case law of the EPO. But on the other hand, the creation of the UPC is a historical achievement for Europe, the judges will make history as well, and I guess the UPC judges will likely be bent on defining their own case law and assert their primacy in the European patent

schestowitz

monopoly arena."

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | UPC Munich Local Division takes a novel approach to claim interpretation (SES vs Hanshow, UPC-CFI-292/2023) - The IPKat