11.09.17
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Online discussions about the UPC have rapidly shifted to assume, quite correctly in fact, that the UPC is facing mortal danger from which it may never recover
THE EPO was almost single-handedly destroyed by a terror-inflicting tyrant who was in charge for seven years. He tried hard, in vain, to ‘reform’ the Office and instead he broke everything. He even broke the governance of the entire Organisation, thanks in part to a Dane who has just joined the private sector.
The excuse the EPO likes to use for these chaotic changes is the UPC. “The final countdown,” however — as a reader just put it — looks not like a countdown for the UPC but for Battistelli’s departure. He was an utter failure and a disgrace who will be mentioned in the corridors for decades to come. “In addition to the Luther’s 95 theses,” the reader continued, “here are some personal considerations about EPO matters [notably] UPC.”
To quote:
you don’t need to worry, the UPC will never happen. Apart from legal issues linked to Brexit and the possible constitutional deficiencies in Germany, the UPC will not happen because Germany doesn’t want it to happen and will never ratify. You need to deeply understand the German mind to apprehend what is going on in Germany about this. Basically the EPC system, with search and examination/opposition, was copied from or based on the German intellectual property system (DPA). A system that had contributed to the success of German SME. The same cannot be said about the French patent system which were granted SGDG – sans garantie du gouvernement, that is without any governmental guaranty. Valid patents are valuable to German industrials. Now consider that last elections in Germany with a massive entry of the right extremist party AfD in the assembly. What does all this means? It is a serious warning that the Germans are not willing to transfer more power to a supranational institution, the EU. I suppose Ms. Merkel has understood the signals and is willing to send the UPC ad patres. I see another typical German behaviour in the way these matter are dealt with. Germans like Japanese don’t like to say no, it is undiplomatic. They say “may be” even if they think it is a ” no” and they prefer to let others do the dirty job. In this case for instance the Brits with Brexit should have killed the UPC not the Germans. As a safeguard a constitutional appeal and a lengthy procedure are the keys to the failure of the UPC. And Germany would say UPC didn’t happen leider.
The death of the UPC has become common knowledge. Even insiders dare say so. Days ago we started a #upcIsDead hashtag and earlier today even IAM, previously paid to promote the UPC, almost admitted this too. It said that “UPC falters” (to quote today’s headline).
This is as real as it gets. To quote the blog post:
These days one could be forgiven for questioning the significance of the European Commission’s ongoing public consultation on the potential creation of a single, EU-wide supplementary protection certificate (SPC). First proposed in late 2015, the consultation was initially intended to clear up the last remaining problems with a unitary patent regime whose arrival was regarded as imminent. However, the emergence of serious threats to the proposed Unified Patent Court regime mean that the SPC question may now be purely hypothetical.
The Commission is seeking comments on whether a unitary SPC should be created to accompany Europe’s new patent system – a question left unanswered by the Unitary Patent Court agreement. In its Single Market Strategy communication of October 2015, the Commission identified this question as one of the few issues left to be resolved in establishing the UPC.
[...]
The more pressing question now, though, is not what the EU Commission’s policy on SPCs will be, but whether the whole issue has been made irrelevant by recent developments in the UK and Germany. Put simply, the significance of the consultation has changed. No longer the means to providing the final piece to the UPC puzzle, it has become part of background efforts to keep the show on the road while more decisive issues play out elsewhere.
“Everything back to normal,” said a reader about Kluwer Patent Blog, or so “it seems.” This reader wanted to draw our attention to this older post from Kluwer Patent Blog, saying quite correctly, “you appear to have missed this new piece.”
Yes, we did miss that. This blog keeps publishing for firms like Bristows (as recently as days ago), so we typically don’t watch it closely, but days ago Wouter Pors (whose UPC propaganda we criticised before [1, 2]) did exactly what is takes to reinforce our perception of him. He has come up with an attack/discreditisation plan which focuses on the messenger in the complaint. He blames attorneys or “fearful lawyers” who merely “have a theoretical interest”.
Apropos, another UPC booster has just said: “The non-official German Bar Association wants to establish Germany as an international litigation venue after #Brexit. Germany is, of course, already a very important venue for international #patent #litigation.”
For them, it’s all about money through increased litigation. We know at whose expense/cost.
The post from Pors is a pleasure to read just because of the comments, of which they are plenty. He did ad hominem and it bounces back at him. “Reading this,” one person said, “it seems that Mr Pors has meanwhile found out what an ad hominem attack is and how to put it in practice.”
“As a “critic” of the UPC,” said another person, “I have to say that I find the general tone of Mr Pors’ comments to be unpleasant, verging on ignorant.”
Also: “I found this an interesting read in the sense that I saw only old arguments, which have already been countered, repeated and referred to, but no countering the counterarguments. It also showed me how making propaganda works by repetition of the same arguments over and over again.”
Here’s “UPC is dead,” echoing what we’ve been saying for a while. To quote: “Even smart people seem to slowly understand that the UPC is dead, which makes them somehow loose countenance.”
Another example among many: “The supporters of the constitutional complaint should welcome unreflected statements like those by Mr Pors as they facilitate presenting him and his ilk to the court as what they are: Self-centered and arrogant opportunists willing to sacrifice almost anything, in particular truth and decency, and to take any view if only it helps serving their agenda, which is filling their coffers in the UPC system of their design. It would be fun seeing similiar interviews with Mr Mooney, Mr Hoyng or Mr Tilmann and see how they rid themselves of the last little bit of credibility they still have left, just as Mr Pors has done here.”
Just about every comment there antagonises the UPC. MaxDrei wrote:
How? By lobbying Brussels with their “40 years of failure” mantra. What a travesty! Look at the EPO White Book of the established caselaw of the EPO’s DG3. For me, (and I started in the profession long before 1978), this is not failure but “40 years of Brilliant Success”.
Meanwhile, Berlin (and Karlsruhe) has just woken up to the cunning French plan to strip Germany of its leading role in patent litigation and ship it all, instead, to Paris. How else to understand the Constitutional challenge to the UPC in Germany?
It is good to see the consensus shifting against the UPC’s chances and desirability (lack thereof). Stick a fork in it. It’s done. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Reference: Loose Patent Scope Becoming a Publicity Nightmare for the EPO and Battistelli Does a China Outreach (Worst/Most Notorious on Patent Quality)
Summary: The utterly absurd situation in which Battistelli has put the EPO; conflicts of interest have become abundantly clear and they are exploited to their fullest
EARLIER today (around morning/noon to be more precise) SUEPO, the staff union of the EPO, published this polite response to Union Syndicale Fédérale from Mr. Campinos. It sounds promising, but that does not change the fact that Mr. Battistelli helped him get ‘elected’ (it seemed like a process as rigged as the DNC nominations in 2016). Don’t forget that Campinos has French nationality even though he — like Battistelli — has some other ‘pedigree’ (Italian name, Portuguese father or whatever).
People inside the EPO already learned the hard way what happens when politicians are put in charge. Battistelli comes from politics (still embroiled/involved in it) and Campinos comes from a political family. As it turns out, based on a message we’ve received, there’s much to be said about Battistelli’s political life in France. To quote:
Saint Germain en Laye / Inventor award: The inventor awards comedy has always been a shame and I fail to understand that applicants play the game. With this show held in St Germain en Laye, the culmination of indecency is reached. Is it acceptable that millions of euros are spent in the town where Benet Battistelli is deputy mayor, a week before his departure to grease the local “players” while epo staff are squeezed to death even on public holidays? No it isn’t and it is our duty to denounce it and to take all measures to stop this offending show.
A few things have changed recently in St Germain en Laye and it is important that the public becomes aware of them. The previous mayor, M. Emmnuel Lamy (69 y.o) passed away on May the 24th, this year leaving the place to his deputy M. Arnaud Péricard. Deputy that M.Lamy didn’t like very much. This wouldn’t be worth noting if M. Lamy, member of the same party as Mr. Battistelli, hadn’t had a very similar curriculum to M.Battistelli (Institut d’études politiques IEP, Ecole nationale supérieure d’administration ENA). M. Lamy being 2 years older than Battistelli (67 y.o.), they therefore met during their studies more than 40 years ago. They were “old friends”. What a coincidence! But the similarities go further that that.
M. Lamy used to edit a publication for his town “le Journal de Saint-Germain, also called “pravda locale”. It reminds of the EPO Gazette. If you further read the quoted article you will find this “pearl” about the degree of satisfaction of the tax payers in St Germain:
“En matière de culture et de loisirs, le bilan n’est pas bon. Si les bibliothèques, les musées, les évènements culturels et les activités sportives attirent une majorité de satisfaction, la programmation culturelle du théâtre Alexandre Dumas est fortement critiquée.” (in matters of culture and leisures, the balance isn’t good. Even if libraries, museums, cultural events and sport activities give satisfaction to a majority of users, the program of the theatre Alexandre Dumas is highly criticised). M.Battistelli was in charge of the theatre Alexandre Dumas at that time…..
I also suggest the reader to have a look at :
referring to one of the major French information magazines, l’Express tackles the “système Lamy” (!) with these words.
I firmly believe that the new Mayor, M. Arnaud Péricard, having M. Battistelli as deputy mayor is in a dangerous position and should be extremely cautious. I don’t think that M. Battistelli, the autocrat, will accept a subordinate position for a long time. If something happens to M. Péricard, what we of course don’t wish, M. Battistelli would be the new Sun King in St Germain en Laye.
As a reminder, political involvement is not allowed for Battistelli, but he was put in charge of the EPO in spite of that. As insiders very well know, Battistelli is allowed the break any rules without any consequences. Staff that’s ordinary (i.e. not Battistelli’s cronies), however, is barely even allowed to volunteer anywhere. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:02 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Battistelli’s popularity sinks to levels so low that chairs are no longer shy to turn him down
YESTERDAY we wrote about the EPO‘s latest brewing scandal in Haar. EPO management adds insult to injury. It wants to ‘grease up’ delegates just before their next meeting.
We understand that a letter was sent by the Board of Appeals PR (on behalf of Team Battistelli) for chairs/heads of delegation (or similar) to come to Haar and metaphorically piss on the graves. The details are still a little vague, e.g. who exactly was sent an invitation.
“One chair has said he would accept the invitation,” a source has since told us. “Others have expressed their disapproval.”
“They might need to just call that off, as embarrassing for Battistelli as this may be (especially if the public finds out).”“Seems people think up to three might attend.”
We shall soon know more.
What kind of party would that be? They might need to just call that off, as embarrassing for Battistelli as this may be (especially if the public finds out). He can go to Haar on his own; he can even admit himself to an institution there.
Stay tuned as we gather more information. We still hope that someone can leak the letter to us (if there are many recipients, it would be hard to know who leaked the text). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Patents, Samsung at 9:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Samsung is attempting to trash multimedia patents (HEVC), which are essentially software patents, but the media is focused on the Supreme Court’s refusal to revisit software patents in Apple v Samsung
THE MPEG patent cartel is a subject we wrote many articles about, especially around 2010. It’s not only a barrier to Free/libre Open Source software but to every small company. It’s a thicket of software patents which miraculously took hold even in countries that had already banned such patents. Korea is one of those countries and it seems as though Samsung is finally fed up with this cartel. As IAM put it this week, “Samsung targets fellow pool member’s HEVC patents as dispute escalates” and here are the details (with the obligatory pro-trolls bias/slant):
A fight between Samsung Electronics and a fellow member of MPEG LA’s HEVC patent pool escalated late last month as the Korean tech giant launched four inter partes reviews (IPR) against patents owned by Ibex PT Holdings. All of the patents targeted by Samsung are a part of the HEVC pool, which relates to video compression technology used in 4K HDTV and other video formats.
Samsung brought two IPRs against Ibex late last year, both of which were denied institution, but significantly ramped up its fight in October filing two reviews at the start of the month followed by the more recent quartet of filings. The company has brought a total of eight IPRs against three patents owned by its fellow HEVC pool member.
It is very unusual for pool members to target each other’s IP in this way. The standard practice is for each licensor in a pool to receive licences to all of the patents owned by the other pool members so they don’t pose an assertion risk. Therefore moving to invalidate another pool member’s IP suggests that Samsung is frustrated that Ibex continues to receive a slice of revenues on patents that the Korean company clearly feels shouldn’t have been granted in the first place.
These four inter partes reviews will help demonstrate the value of PTAB, which we shall cover separately (lots happening there this week). Can these SEPs (standard-essential patents) be tackled once and for all? There are probably too many pertinent patents in there for that to be achievable, but one can help. Pretty much all of these patents would be software patents, which Alice renders invalid.
Speaking of SEPs, ITC has been getting involved, according to IAM which wrote:
You just don’t get injunctions in cases relating to standard essential patents in the US, do you? Absolutely not, in almost all circumstances. However, during a presentation at last week’s IPBC Asia in Tokyo, Vinson & Elkins partner John Fuisz drew delegates’ attention to a recent initial determination in an ITC case that might lead to that changing. In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing Same – involving Japanese companies Sony and Fujifilm – has opened the door to the possibility, in some circumstances, of SEP owners being able to use the commission as a forum through which to obtain injunctive relief.
SEP injunctions (embargoes) — more so than SEPs themselves — are seriously unjust. But these are the sorts of things IAM likes to promote, even in its events in Asia (like the above). That’s all about agenda and it’s pretty clear whose. Sadly, a lot of media that covers patent matters is just marketing and lobbying. Here’s a new example of a fake article, an advertisement disguised as “news” for a firm that represents patent trolls (Fish & Richardson).
In other news about Samsung, there’s yet more coverage about Apple v Samsung (we wrote about it over the weekend) and people aren’t happy about the Supreme Court denying intervention. We’ve received some long E-mails after our article about it, which basically argued that the only positive thing is Alice remaining in tact (without risk of challenge).
“Apart from the slide-to-unlock patent,” said Indian press, “the case also involved the quick links patent, which covered software that automatically turned information like a phone number into an accessible link.”
Software patents.
Florian Müller wrote a relatively short post about this. The half-full glass:
Samsung made a lot of headway with respect to design patent damages, and will get a new trial. In that context, the Supreme Court had granted a cert petition by Samsung and overruled the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court might have been particularly hesitant to hear yet another Apple v. Samsung case.
In the meantime Apple has been sued for alleged patent violations again (not software). We don’t suppose Apple intends to start any other (new) case against Android any time soon. Since the death of Steve Jobs not much new has happened on that front. █
“We’ve always been shameless about stealing great ideas.” ~Steve Jobs
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The EPO’s inability to attract people from abroad (countries other than Germany) and enough female scientists is a subject of concern within the Organisation, whose recruitment standards have sunk to embarrassing levels in the wake of unprecedented scandals
IN our previous post we quoted the Dutch as saying (about last month’s meeting of the Administrative Council of the EPO): “With regard to recruitment, it was also mentioned that one-third of the new staff members are of German nationality and that, on the other hand, the percentage of women is below par. Given the desire for diversity, the EPO staff made a comment on this.”
“Sadly for the Office, not many people even want to work there anymore.”Last year we found out that recruitment of Brits had gone down by 80%. Earlier this year a British worker committed suicide. He had a wife and a child. However poorly, Battistelli has long attempted to bury this issue. Suicides, lack of national diversity (e.g. many Frenchmen around him) and lack of gender/racial diversity is something that nobody ‘dares’ bring up in front of the autocrat. Sadly for the Office, not many people even want to work there anymore. There is a deep recruitment crisis. It guarantees brain drain and thus degradation in quality of service (e.g. examination).
Yesterday, one reader showed us that the EPO was trying hard to recruit in LinkedIn. It has gotten pretty bad and we gave some examples of this in the past (people publicly say that the EPO chases them, even with very low job requirements). “Desperately,” this reader explained, they still try to find staff. “But if you read this account of an interview you get an idea of how low they got…it’s appalling! Even to me [it's] hard to believe, of such a level right on an interview.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Benoît Battistelli’s ruthless and destructive push for the UPC, combined with disregard for the law and the welfare of EPO staff, results in strongly-worded publications that don’t even assume that the UPC will ever materialise
EARLIER this year, in the April 2017 edition of the “Bijblad de Industrieele Eigendom”, the EPO got slammed for Battistelli's manipulation of the Administrative Council. They called it “an unreal situation.”
The October 2017 edition of the “Bijblad de Industrieele Eigendom”, an official quarterly publication of the Netherlands Patent Office, was also published online [PDF] quite recently.
“Amongst other things,” a reader told us, “it contains a report on the October meeting of the Administrative Council (10 and 11 October) and a report on the meeting of the Select Committee which took place immediately before on 9 October.
“The Select Committee is a sub-committee of the Administrative Council responsible for matters relating to the Unitary Patent Agreement and it acts as a liaison body between the EPO and the EU.
“From the report on the Administrative Council meeting it would appear that some delegations are unhappy about the evident lack of progress in the “social dialogue” and the lack of information provided by the EPO to the Council.”
For example (translation): “Several delegations also addressed the social situation once again and enquired in particular about the state of the social dialogue. Unfortunately, however, the EPO did not provide any concrete information on the results and follow-up of, for example, the ‘focus groups’ which had been established.”
There’s also this: “The (very comprehensive) Social Report for 2016 was also discussed. Several delegations called for the necessary steps in the social dialogue with the focus on a clear objective while recognising that the dialogue itself is an extremely difficult matter in the given situation. The number of meetings has also grown considerably, but the qualitative results are lagging far behind.”
The report on the Select Committee meeting contains an update on the status of the UPC and includes observations on Brexit and the German constitutional complaint.
The report concludes by stating that it is unclear when a judgment on the complaint can be expected from the German Federal Constitutional Court or whether Germany will in fact be able to ratify the UPC Agreement.
Extracts of the relevant sections of the Bijblad in the original Dutch are shown below along with English translations of the most important passages.
Dutch (original):
Kort verslag 153e Administrative Council (AC)
De Administrative Council (AC) van de European Patent Organisation (EPO) kwam laatstelijk bijeen
op 10 en 11 oktober 2017.
Voor het eerst werd de vergadering geleid door de in juni nieuw gekozen voorzitter, Christoph Ernst, in het dagelijkse leven Ministeraldirigent (plv. directeur-generaal) bij het Duitse Justizministerium.
Aan de AC meeting werd ook deelgenomen door twee nieuwe Heads of Delegation: Catherine Chammartin namens Zwitserland (zij vervangt nu in die rol haar voorganger Roland Grossenbacher) en Sune Sörensen namens Denemarken (hij is bij de Denen de opvolger van Jesper Kongstad). Vermeldenswaard is verder dat de Luxemburger Lex Kaufhold werd gekozen tot voorzitter van het Budget & Finance Committee, als opvolger van Christoph Ernst die inmiddels AC Chair is geworden.
Natuurlijk stond deze AC voor een heel groot deel in het teken van de verkiezing van de volgende president van het Europees Octrooibureau (EOB). Na intensieve sessies met questions and answers, waarin de twee kandidaten door de AC uitgebreid aan de tand zijn gevoeld, werd de Portugees Antonio Campinos gekozen. Per 1 juli 2018 is hij dus de opvolger van de Fransman Benoît Battistelli. Campinos, nu nog Executive Director van het EU-bureau voor merk- en modelrechten in Alicante (EUIPO) en voordien ook nog president van het Portugese nationale bureau, was op voorhand al de gedoodverfde favoriet. Met 36 stemmen, tegenover 2 stemmen voor zijn Italiaanse tegenstrever, maakte hij de status van favoriet volledig waar. Het hem verleende mandaat geldt voor een periode van 5 jaar.
Naar aanleiding van het gebruikelijke activities report van de EOB-President is het management en het personeel van het EOB lof toegezwaaid voor de fraaie resultaten die door het bureau steeds kunnen worden gepresenteerd. Verschillende delegaties zijn daarnaast overigens andermaal ingegaan op de sociale situatie en vroegen zich in het bijzonder af hoe het staat met de sociale dialoog. Over de uitkomsten en de follow-up van bijvoorbeeld de ingestelde ‘focus groups’ is door het EOB echter jammer genoeg geen concrete informatie gegeven.
Voor de eerste keer heeft verder de President van de Boards of Appeal, de Zweed Carl Josefsson, zijn activities report gepresenteerd. Ingegaan is door Josefsson onder andere op de zeer onlangs afgeronde verhuizing van de Boards van München naar het plaatsje Haar. Verder is door hem aandacht besteed aan maatregelen, die een periode van vijf jaar beslaan, om de backlog aan te pakken, wat anders dan door sommigen wordt gedacht, beslist géén sinecure is. Als ook een uitvloeisel van de package deal in de AC (maar Nederland was toen tegenstemmer) van juni 2016 ten aanzien van Boards of Appeal is het overigens zo dat het plan bestaat om de fees bij de Boards met misschien wel 20% te verhogen; een verhoging die naar verluidt niet zou gaan gelden voor het midden- en kleinbedrijf.
Op de agenda stond verder het (voor het eerst uitgebrachte) Quality Report, in dit geval over 2016. Verschillende grotere octrooilanden maken zich druk om de kwaliteit van de producten en diensten van het EOB. Als het gaat om proceskwaliteit is het rapport overigens overtuigend. Wat productkwaliteit betreft blijft het moeilijk om te begrijpen hoe het er bij het EOB voorstaat. Nederland heeft opgemerkt dat het verhaal gaat dat de brief (inhoudend de intention to grant) die het EOB uitstuurt vóór de uiteindelijke verlening van het octrooi tegenwoordig in de vorm van amenderingen aanzienlijk meer reacties oproept bij de aanvragers dan voorheen. Als dat inderdaad zo is, dan zou het EOB in de voorfase dus minder goed werk geleverd hebben. Deze concrete vraag bleef echter onbeantwoord door het EOB. Door het EOB is toegezegd dat het Quality Report voortaan jaarlijks zal worden.
Ook het (zeer uitvoerige) Social Report over 2016 werd besproken. Bepleit werden door meerdere delegaties de nodige stappen in de sociale dialoog, gericht op een duidelijke doelstelling, in het besef dat de dialoog op zich in de gegeven situatie een uiterst moeilijke aangelegenheid is. Het aantal meetings is overigens flink gegroeid maar de kwalitatieve uitkomsten blijven daar ver bij achter.
Verder gaat de werving van (bijna uitsluitend nog) nieuwe examiners onverdroten voort. Ook is door delegaties aandacht gevraagd voor de gang van zaken en de uitkomsten bij de appeal en disciplinary procedures.
Ten aanzien van de werving kwam ook nog ter sprake dat één-derde van de nieuwe personeelsleden de Duitse nationaliteit heeft en dat daarentegen het percentage vrouwen achterblijft. Gegeven de gewenste diversiteit is hier door de staff van het EOB een kanttekening bij gemaakt.
Tot slot zij hier vermeld dat de AC het EOB heeft gevolmachtigd om het EPO-WIPO Agreement te vernieuwen dat ziet op het functioneren van het EOB als International Searching Authority en als International Preliminary Examining Authority onder het Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
terug naar nieuwsbrief
English (portions from original):
Naar aanleiding van het gebruikelijke activities report van de EOB-President is het management en het personeel van het EOB lof toegezwaaid voor de fraaie resultaten die door het bureau steeds kunnen worden gepresenteerd. Verschillende delegaties zijn daarnaast overigens andermaal ingegaan op de sociale situatie en vroegen zich in het bijzonder af hoe het staat met de sociale dialoog. Over de uitkomsten en de follow-up van bijvoorbeeld de ingestelde ‘focus groups’ is door het EOB echter jammer genoeg geen concrete informatie gegeven.
[...]
In response to the usual activities report of the EPO President, the management and staff of the EPO were commended for the fine results that could be constantly presented by the Office. Several delegations also addressed the social situation once again and enquired in particular about the state of the social dialogue. Unfortunately, however, the EPO did not provide any concrete information on the results and follow-up of, for example, the ‘focus groups’ which had been established.
[...]
Ook het (zeer uitvoerige) Social Report over 2016 werd besproken. Bepleit werden door meerdere delegaties de nodige stappen in de sociale dialoog, gericht op een duidelijke doelstelling, in het besef dat de dialoog op zich in de gegeven situatie een uiterst moeilijke aangelegenheid is. Het aantal meetings is overigens flink gegroeid maar de kwalitatieve uitkomsten blijven daar ver bij achter.
Verder gaat de werving van (bijna uitsluitend nog) nieuwe examiners onverdroten voort. Ook is door delegaties aandacht gevraagd voor de gang van zaken en de uitkomsten bij de appeal en disciplinary procedures.
Ten aanzien van de werving kwam ook nog ter sprake dat één-derde van de nieuwe personeelsleden de Duitse nationaliteit heeft en dat daarentegen het percentage vrouwen achterblijft. Gegeven de gewenste diversiteit is hier door de staff van het EOB een kanttekening bij gemaakt.
The (very comprehensive) Social Report for 2016 was also discussed. Several delegations called for the necessary steps in the social dialogue with the focus on a clear objective while recognising that the dialogue itself is an extremely difficult matter in the given situation. The number of meetings has also grown considerably, but the qualitative results are lagging far behind.
Furthermore, the recruitment of (almost exclusively) new examiners will continue unabated. Delegations also drew attention to the state of play and the outcome of appeal and disciplinary procedures.
With regard to recruitment, it was also mentioned that one-third of the new staff members are of German nationality and that, on the other hand, the percentage of women is below par. Given the desire for diversity, the EPO staff made a comment on this.
Dutch (original):
Kort verslag Select Committee d.d. 9 oktober 2017
Het Select Committee (SC) van de Administrative Council (AC), dat gaat over de implementatie van de unitaire octrooibescherming in EOB-context, kwam bijeen op 9 oktober 2017.
Het Europees Octrooibureau (EOB) heeft het SC geïnformeerd over de voortgang en de nieuwe functionaliteiten van de IT-systemen die nodig zijn om de voorziene unitaire octrooibescherming te ondersteunen om zo het vereiste dataverkeer tussen het EOB, de national offices en het UPC mogelijk te maken. Vermeldenswaard voor gebruikers is nog dat er op verzoek van de user community van het EOB een nieuwe code komt om in het EOB-register de Europese octrooien met unitair effect te kunnen identificeren.
Aan de orde kwam ook het belang dat in het Unitary Patent Protection (UPP)-deel van het EOB-register ook alle relevante informatie vindbaar zal worden over Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs). Het EOB ziet daartoe graag dat national offices gebruik maken van de mogelijkheid om de bedoelde informatie electronisch uit te wisselen met behulp van het EOB- systeem INPADOC.
Ook deze keer is gesproken over de stand van zaken met betrekking tot het Unitary Patent en het Unified Patent Court (UPC). Belangrijke hobbels zijn de instemming met de “Provisional application phase” van het UPC Agreement en hat “Protocol on Privileges en Immunities” van dat UPC alsook natuurlijk de nog onvoltooide ratificatieprocedures in het UK en Duitsland (waar de Bundespräsident wacht met het contrasigneren nu het Bundesverfassungsgericht zich nog moet uitspreken over de aldaar op 31 maart ingediende constitutionele klacht).
Ter informatie stonden op de SC-agenda de “Results of the questionnaire on national measured accompanying the implementation of the European patent with unitary effect”. Het SC nam hier kennis van. Het is de bedoeling een overzicht van alle nationale implementatiemaatregelen te publiceren op de EOB website, zodra het unitaire systeem operationeel wordt.
Tav de voorlichting en communicatie over het unitaire octrooipakket door het EOB nam het SC kennis van de plannen die daarvoor bestaan. Het SC verwelkomde de producten die in ontwikkeling zijn, zoals brochures, een uitgebreide User Guide en de aanpassing van de EOB-website. Ook werd door het EOB meegedeeld dat het EOB bereid is om de vertaling van de User Guide in andere dan drie officiële EOB-talen te verzorgen.
Daarnaast heeft de Europese Commissie een update gegeven van haar plannen voor ondersteunende maatregelen voor het midden- en kleinbedrijf. Een haalbaarheidsstudie over een systeem van pre-diagnose voor bedrijven is gestart. Een aanbesteding wordt georganiseerd voor een database on IP licensing, gericht op implementatie ervan in 2018. Ook wordt nagedacht over mogelijkheden voor arbitration en mediation.
De plannen om in het bijzonder het innovatieve midden-en kleinbedrijf te ondersteunen worden op zich verwelkomd, al zijn er ook landen die vervolgens uitdrukkelijk wijzen op het subsidiariteitsbeginsel dat veronderstelt dat rekening wordt gehouden met nationale verantwoordelijkheden en initiatieven en dat er waar mogelijk wordt samengewerkt met organisaties in de nationale omgeving.
terug naar nieuwsbrief
Update UPC Agreement
Ratificaties
Sinds eind juli jl. hebben weer twee landen het UPC Agreement geratificeerd: Estland en Litouwen. Daarmee bedraagt het aantal ratificaties inmiddels 14 landen (zie hier voor een volledig overzicht van de ratificaties). De voor inwerkingtreding vereiste ratificaties van het Verenigd Koninkrijk en Duitsland ontbreken echter nog.
Verenigd Koninkrijk
Wat betreft de Britse ratificatie kan worden gemeld dat het Schotse parlement het Protocol inzake Privileges en Immuniteiten heeft goedgekeurd. Het parlement in London dient dit echter ook nog te doen (zie hier), alvorens het VK het UPC Agreement kan ratificeren. Van Britse zijde wordt verzekerd dat hun ratificatie nog dit jaar zal worden gedeponeerd in Brussel.
Duitsland
Over de Duitse klacht is in augustus jl. meer bekend geworden. De Duitse octrooigemachtigde dr. Th. Bausch heeft aan het Bundesverfassungsgericht meer informatie gevraagd en gekregen (zie hier). De klacht blijkt te zijn gebaseerd op vier bezwaren:
1) De UPC-goedkeuringswet waarbij soevereiniteit wordt overgedragen, moest met tweederde meerderheid worden gekeurd door de Bundestag en de Bundesrat.
2) Democratische en rechtstatelijke gebreken ten aanzien van de regelgevende organen van het UPC.
3) Gebrekkige onafhankelijkheid en democratische legitimatie van de UPC rechters.
4) Strijd met het principe van openheid jegens Europees recht (Europarechtsfreundlichkeit) op grond van vermeende onverenigbaarheid van de UPC Agreement met het EU recht.
Het Duitse constitutionele hof heeft een aantal derden in de gelegenheid gesteld om hun zienswijze op de klacht te geven. In oktober jl. is voorts aan andere derden ook deze gelegenheid geboden en blijkt het Bundesverfassungsgericht de termijn voor het geven van een zienswijze te hebben verlengd tot eind december. Het dus is vooralsnog onduidelijk wanneer een beslissing van het Duitse hof op de klacht tegemoet kan worden gezien of dat Duitsland het UPC Agreement kan ratificeren.
terug naar nieuwsbrief
English (portions from original):
Update UPC Agreement
Ratifications
Since the end of July, two more countries have ratified the UPC Agreement: Estonia and Lithuania.
With this, the number of ratifications is now 14 countries (see here for a full overview of ratifications).
http://www2.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/treaties-agreements/agreement/?id=2013001&DocLanguage=en
However, the ratifications of the United Kingdom and Germany which are required for entry into force are still missing.
United Kingdom
As regards the British ratification, it can be reported that the Scottish Parliament has approved the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities. However, the Parliament in London still has to do this (see here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2017/9780111158555/contents) before the UK can ratify the UPC agreement. From the British side it has been assured that their ratification will be deposited this year in Brussels.
Germany
More became known about the German complaint in August. German Patent Attorney Dr Th. Bausch asked for and received more information from the Federal Constitutional Court (see here).
http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2017/08/16/upc-finally-some-news-from-the-german-federal-constitutional-court/
The complaint appears to be based on four objections:
1) The UPC Agreement Act, which transfers sovereignty, had to be approved by the Bundestag and the Bundesrat with a two-thirds majority.
2) Democratic and legal deficiencies in respect of the UPC regulatory bodies.
3) Inadequate independence and democratic legitimacy of the UPC judges.
4) Conflict with the principle of openness to European law (“Europarechtsfreundlichkeit”) on the grounds of alleged incompatibility of the UPC Agreement with EU law.
The German Constitutional Court offered a number of third parties an opportunity to give their views on the complaint. Last October, this opportunity was extended to other third parties, and the Constitutional Court appears to have extended the deadline for submission of opinions to the end of December. It is thus unclear for the moment when a judgment on the complaint can be expected from the German Court or whether Germany can ratify the UPC Agreement.
The above is an admission from UPC ‘cheerleaders’ that UPC may not happen. This is rather significant. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA