IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Sunday, August 13, 2023

*schestowitz-TR has quit (connection closed)

*schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes

*schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1691845829414#c6186199169956721404

*MinceR gives voice to schestowitz-TR

Aug 13 17:13

schestowitz

schestowitz

Francis Hagel, the term "description" in Art. 69 is exactly as (un)ambiguous as "claims". Art. 69(1): The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. Let's splt this in two: Art. 69(1)(a): The extent of the protection co

schestowitz

nferred by a European patent shall be determined by the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. Art. 69(1)(b): The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent application shall be determined by the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. Also have a look at Art. 64 (to which Art. 69(1)(a) relates)

schestowitz

and Art. 67 (to which Art. 69(1)(b) relates). Art. 64 refers to the rights conferred by the granted patent as a legal document (description, claims, drawings). Art. 64 does not relate to the application as filed or to the description as filed. Of course the EPO should not insist on amendments of the description (or claims or drawings) that violate Art. 123(2), and applicants should never agree to such amendments.

schestowitz

Claims should be clear by themselves, so their meaning should not be confused by conflicting statements in the description. Ultimately claims have to be read in the context of the patent as a whole. But since a granted patent takes away rights from the public, it is only fair to require that reading only the claims gives a member of the puiblic a reasonable amount of legal certainty. And law is not a matter of math

schestowitz

ematical logic. A (judicial) practice of decades is a very strong legal foundation, even without binding precedent. The EBA can overrule such a practice, but will not do that lightly.

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/bad-cases-make-bad-law-has-dabus-ai.html?showComment=1691859563528#c4887207458028767995

schestowitz

schestowitz

The inventor of an AI invention is readily covered under existing legislation. If I create a machine capable of making inventions that fulfil patentability requirements, I am the inventor, either sole or joint depending on the contribution of others. Laws on intellectual property ownership change all the time - reference to slavery is irrelevant re IP. The European Commission may believe it has the right to propose legislatio

schestowitz

n on AI through its catch-all interpretation of the treaty, but we don't all agree with their view. Keeps the non-real-world academics in business through grants won by promoting a self-serving narrative.

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Bad cases make bad law: Has DABUS "the AI inventor" actually invented anything? - The IPKat