(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h9w2ackdz5nh2.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 23 01:45 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jun 23 02:09 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h9w2ackdz5nh2.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 23 02:16 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jun 23 02:49 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h9w2ackdz5nh2.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 23 02:53 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jun 23 03:20 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h9w2ackdz5nh2.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 23 03:25 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/06/keeping-digital-poker-face-assessing.html?showComment=1687357553906#c4741639718342291589 | Jun 23 03:31 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz[TR] | The Board makes some interesting comments in 2.3.3 and 2.3.4:<br />"<i>2.3.3 Thus, under the current conditions it cannot be assumed that the Enlarged Board of Appeal would have considered there to be a general obstacle against holding a witness hearing via videoconference.<br /><br />2.3.4 Whether G 1/21 requires a general emergency in order to hear a witness by videoconference contrary to the parties' requests, does not hav | Jun 23 03:31 |
| schestowitz[TR] | e to be addressed since G 1/21 does not concern oral proceedings in opposition proceedings nor taking of evidence but instead is limited to oral proceedings in appeal proceedings (see referred question in Reasons 20 of G 1/21).</i>"<br /><br />Point 2.3.3 is interesting because the Board could equally have chosen to point out that no assumptions can be made regarding whether the EBA would <b>not</b> have considered there to be | Jun 23 03:31 |
| schestowitz[TR] | a general obstacle against holding a witness hearing via videoconference. Thus, because the Board did not decide to refer questions on that point of law to the EBA, their observation in 2.3.3 is essentially meaningless.<br /><br />On the other hand, point 2.3.4 looks to be a bad faith attempt to avoid addressing the elephant in the room, namely that, combined with the wording of Article 116 EPC (which makes no distinction between fi | Jun 23 03:31 |
| schestowitz[TR] | rst and second instance oral proceedings), the ruling in G 1/21 casts doubt over the EPO's practice of using VICO as the default format for opposition proceedings.<br /><br />It is worth observing that the Board for T 423/22 is 3.2.01, which is the same Board as has issued various other (highly questionable!) decisions that are very clearly pro-VICO, including T 2791/19, T 0758/20, T 1158/20 and T 0618/ 21. Even so, it is very disap | Jun 23 03:31 |
| schestowitz[TR] | pointing that the Board did not address what appears to me to be the main problem with hearing witnesses by VICO, namely are the parties receiving a <b>fair</b> hearing of their case if the EPO admits witness evidence that could easily be "tainted" ... or at least that is not subject to the same level of safeguards that happens with evidence that is provided in person?<br /><br />Safeguards at in-person hearings include ex | Jun 23 03:31 |
| schestowitz[TR] | cluding the witness from observing the hearing until they are called to provide their evidence, and ensuring that the witness is not "coached" (or prompted) by anyone whilst providing their evidence. Hearing unsupervised witnesses by VICO eliminates <b>both</b> of those safeguards. How is that fair to the parties, especially if patents can be revoked (or upheld) solely upon the basis of evidence that could so easily be tai | Jun 23 03:31 |
| schestowitz[TR] | nted? | Jun 23 03:31 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Referral to the EBA in 3, 2, 1, .... never.<br />As we will never see a referral for the question if and if so, how the description is to be amended if the claims have been amended during examination.<br /><br />Because the Office, with the president at the top, probably have set very strict guidelines on this matter. Any risk of the EBA identifying such guidelines as conflicting with the Convention is to be mitigated. So the presid | Jun 23 03:31 |
| schestowitz[TR] | ent will not refer. And every member of the boards knows that if they will ever refer to the EBA, they will not be proposed again as board member after five years. EUR 25k a month is a lot to sacrifice for principles...<br /><br />As a result, applicants, proprietors, opponents will remain in doubt what to do as patent attorneys cannot properly advise their clients due to this divide among boards and between Office and boards. Whic | Jun 23 03:31 |
| schestowitz[TR] | h goes to the detriment of the Office and the European patent system.<br /><br />sic transit gloria mundi (Europae) | Jun 23 03:31 |
| schestowitz[TR] | "Let's face it, within the Office and the Boards of Appeal, the discussion is almost over and all of the members of these instances use the paper of G1/21 to clean up. To put it politely.<br />I just received a preliminary opinion from a board to indicate whether there would be any strong arguments against oral proceedings by electronic video conferencing.<br />Apparently, some standards are more gold than others.<br />Examiners and | Jun 23 03:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | members of the boards of appeal just want to be able to do their work from their home lands and not travel to The Hague or Munich every week because every applicant/patentee/opponent wants to have oral proceedings in person. They want to spend their expat allowance in the country where they do not need it.<br /><br />I do realise this is very cynical and not every examiner and board member will act like this. But I have had oral pr | Jun 23 03:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | oceedings using electronic means with examiners working from noisy laptops in holiday homes." | Jun 23 03:32 |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jun 23 03:44 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h9w2ackdz5nh2.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 23 03:51 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/06/22/conflicts-between-upca-and-national-laws-a-dangerous-riddle/#comments | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | When it comes to assessing possible conflicts between the different laws, I think that it is important to consider the following points. | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Firstly, the UPC Agreement is INTERNATIONAL law, and not EU law. This means that it is necessary to assess what legal effects (upon national law in France) flow from France’s ratification of the UPC Agreement. | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | This is a potentially very complicated matter, as the national law effects that flow from the UPCA will depend upon the constitutional arrangements / conventions in France. | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | I have not yet seen any analysis that explains whether the provisions of the UPCA override those of national patent law in France and, if so, for which type(s) of patents the national law provisions are overridden (ie whether for national patents, opted-out EPs, not opted-out EPs and/or EPs having unitary effect). Whilst it would be great to know the answer, I suspect that the reality is that the assessment is far from straightforwa | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | rd. | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | To add to the complications, constitutional arrangements / conventions will vary from country to country. This means that what is true for France (regarding the national law effects flowing from the UPCA) may not be true for any other UPC Participating Member State – and vice versa. | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Secondly, EU law DOES play a part in determining the applicable provisions of patent law … but only for EPUEs. Confusingly, Regulation 1257/2012 indicates that EPUEs shall be treated as if they are a NATIONAL patent of a selected Member State (Article 7). It also indicates that the infringement provisions to be applied are those of the NATIONAL law of the selected Member State. | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Thus, even when considering the (potentially limited) impact of EU law, we circle right back to the confusing and complicated interface between national and international laws. | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Finally, there is another international law to consider, namely the EPC. In particular, Article 64(1) EPC indicates that a granted EP shall, in any given EPC State, confer the SAME RIGHTS AS would be conferred by a NATIONAL patent granted in the EPC State in question. This provision applies irrespective of the type of granted EP, and so should mean that national patents, opted-out EPs, not opted-out EPs and EPUEs all confer the same | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | rights. | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | As for the UPCA, the extent to which Article 64(1) EPC confers effects under national law will vary from country to country. However, a key difference for the EPC is that its member states have, over the years, enacted NATIONAL law provisions that are aligned with the provisions of the EPC. Thus, for example, the UK has enacted Section 77 of the UK Patents Act, which brings UK national law into line with Article 64(1) EPC. I have no | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | doubt that, where relevant, there are similar provisions in the national laws of other EPC States. | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | The UPCA and the EPC are both international treaties and therefore, in theory, have equal standing under national laws. However, the greater alignment of national laws with the EPC (as compared to the UPCA) suggests to me that the provisions of the EPC are likely to prevail in situations where they conflict with provisions of the UPCA. | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Whether the judges of the UPC will agree that the situation is rather complicated is an open question. However, given that the key questions relate to provisions of national laws, I rather suspect that it will be the judges of national (constitutional) courts that will have the final say. | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Of course, all of the above-mentioned complications were eminently avoidable. All that needed to be done was for the Participating Member States of the UPCA to FULLY (and explicitly) align their national laws with the provisions of the UPCA. But that did not happen, and so here we are. | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | By the way, you forgot to mention one of the worst issues of divergence between the UPCA and various national laws, which relate to experimental use and “Bolar” exceptions from infringement. As things currently stand, it appears that a POST-GRANT selection of patent type and/or litigation venue could completely change the conclusion on infringement for the same acts committed in the same country. However, as that would be entire | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | ly contrary to the principle of legal certainty (for third parties), we can look forward to some entertaining debates on which fundamental legal principles should be honoured and which should not. | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | REPLY | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | law sniffer | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | JUNE 22, 2023 AT 4:07 PM | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | I just wonder how someone can imagine that no conflict may arise between a national law and a UPCA law: the one is tailored to a Country, the other one refers to a Union of Countries which is a totally different entity, already this prevents the two from overlapping under many aspects, and knowingly the national law always prevails (locally) … unfortunately, I would say, but it’ so | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | REPLY | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Thomas | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | JUNE 22, 2023 AT 10:10 PM | Jun 23 04:03 |
| schestowitz[TR] | The “misfortune” seems fortunately to be confined to the transitional period. I agree with you that both interpretations are possible. That said, in my view, for the sake of a coherent system, we neither need national courts to produce UPC case law, nor (to larger extent) the other way around. It would likely be a mess to be cleaned up later. But it makes life indeed interesting. | Jun 23 04:03 |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jun 23 04:06 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h9w2ackdz5nh2.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 23 04:10 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jun 23 09:53 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h9w2ackdz5nh2.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 23 09:58 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 23 11:00 | |
| *GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed) | Jun 23 11:15 | |
| *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@ijy3f65ph788e.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 23 11:21 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | x https://gizmodo.com/microsoft-activision-blizzard-takeover-hearing-ftc-1850565779 | Jun 23 13:17 |
| *parsifal (~parsifal@aahfbjmj4hann.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 23 13:37 | |
| *TechBytesBot (~b0t@ju4kayhrhsm6a.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 23 13:39 | |
| TechBytesBot | Hello World! I'm TechBytesBot running phIRCe v0.77 | Jun 23 13:39 |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 23 18:47 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 23 18:47 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Jun 23 18:47 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@he3qmzbru3paa.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 23 18:49 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@freenode-lfh.25v.nqbf2d.IP) has joined #techbytes | Jun 23 18:49 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@he3qmzbru3paa.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 23 19:04 | |
| *parsifal has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Jun 23 22:21 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (connection closed) | Jun 23 23:04 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.