The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office discussed older case law in its decision G 1/19 about computer implemented inventions, including decision T 1351/04. This decision is discussed with respect to “data intended for controlling a technical device”. According to G1/19 this data may be considered to have technical character because it has the potential to cause technical effects. In the following, we will take a closer look at this relevant decision T 1351/04.
The appeal in the case T 1351/04 is against the decision of the examining division to refuse the European patent application No. 02 258 100.3.
Subject matter of the application in suit
The claimed subject matter is in regard to create a specific index-file from a csv-file (e.g. an Excel-file). By employing the index-file, it is possible to significantly increase the speed of data extraction from a large-size csv-file. In the figure 1 below, you can see an example of the csv-file (on the right hand) and of the index-file (on the left hand).
Fig. 1: example of the csv-file (on the right hand) and of the index-file (on the left hand)
For the claimed subject matter, the csv-file requires records containing fields forming different hierarchical levels, see figure 1 above on right hand side (top hierarchical level, lower hierarchical level). The index-file is in principle built as a tree structure. This means, in the index-file information of the csv-file are connected/arranged in a tree structure. This looks schematically as follows in figure 2:
Because the records in the index-file (based on the csv-file) are arranged in the tree structure, the respective record is called a “node”. When you look in figure 1 right hand, you can see that in the csv-file there are records like “COOLING AND HEATING” and “HOUSEWORK” as the top hierarchical level. Depending on these there are further records respectively. The hierarchical records in a row of the csv-file are key character strings. The hierarchical record of the csv-file is mapped in the tree structure of the index-file. At each node there is also so-called management information, which includes information about the starting position and the number of corresponding records in the csv-file to be searched. This information permits the desired records of the csv-file to be retrieved directly when the node having the desired key character string has been found (cf para. [0042] of the description). When only keys of high-level nodes are used it is thus not necessary to follow the tree structure all the way down to the leaf nodes in order to retrieve the desired record information.
In other words, the hierarchical structure of the csv-file is transformed in the tree structure of the index-file, wherein addition information like starting position and number of corresponding records are stored. With this arrangement information of the csv-file can be retrieved by the index-file faster.
Is the subject matter of the application technical?
Yes, since the claimed method requires the use of a computer.
Features of the subject matter contributing to the technical solution of a technical problem
To assess the inventive step it must first be considered in how far the features of the claim contribute to the solution of a technical problem. The board took a look at the following feature since it is a distinguishing feature over the prior art:
“each node in the index includes the starting position information and number information used for retrieving records”.
As mentioned above, these features are part of the index-file and are called management information.
According to the description of the present application, the invention relates to a method for “promptly searching for and extracting data from a file” (cf paragraph [0001]). The data searched for can be of any kind, eg of a commercial nature as in the described embodiment, and thus have no technical relevance in themselves.
The data are stored as records having certain „start positions„, ie memory addresses in the file to be searched. The computer reads these addresses in the form of the “management information” in the index-file and retrieves the associated data from the csv-file to be searched. The management information thus controls the computer by directing it to a certain memory location.
Functional data, intended for controlling a technical device, are normally regarded as having technical character. The management information contained in the present claims should be regarded as contributing to the technical character of the search method according to the Board of Appeal.
It follows that the mentioned feature that has a direct bearing on how the search is conducted should be considered for inventive step.
Is the data decisive?
Further, in the decision the BoA refers to the decision T 52/85. This seems to suggest that as long as a claimed method for searching a data file is concerned with the way a computer performs the search, it may be technical. If however the kind of data is decisive, the method’s contribution is nontechnical (cf T 52/85, point 5.2). As noted above, in the present case the kind of data searched for is of no importance.
Practical advice
In order to support possible argumentation of the technical character of claimed subject matter comprising “functional data” it would be beneficial, when the functional data is not only disclosed in a abstract manner but also in regard to the machine-level of the computer. E.g. as mentioned above it could be disclosed that the management information controls the computer by directing it to a certain memory location.
Further information
Claim 2 of the main request in the appeal:
A computer-executable file search method for searching a file to be searched (3),
said file to be searched (3) including records having fields allocated to each of a plurality of hierarchical levels and being constructed so that records having the same key character string in a field at the same hierarchical level are arranged in series and wherein for each record, the first field is the top hierarchical level, and subsequent fields form lower hierarchical levels,
the method comprising computer-executed steps of:
creating (S3) an index file (5) using the method of claim 1;
accepting (S5, S6; S10, S11)) an instruction to search for data relating to a specified key character string over said file to be searched (3), the instruction including selection of either a data extraction output or a drill-down business form output;
retrieving (S7; S12, S13) from said index file (5) management information about one or more records related to the specified key character string on said file to be searched;
extracting (S8; S14) data of the one or more records from said file to be searched (3); and
outputting (S9) the extracted data;
wherein the retrieving and extracting steps comprise
when the data extraction output is selected, retrieving (S7) start position information and number information as management information about records related to the specified key character string and extracting (S8) data of a number of records specified by the number information from a position specified by the start position information;
and when the drill-down business form output is selected, retrieving (S12, S13), based on the pointer, a start position of a record of the node management information of the lower hierarchical level, and extracting (S14) data of the record based on the retrieved start position of the record.
If you would like to have more information, please contact us. We are pleased to support you.
Michael Schüller
5. Dezember 2022
Michael Schüller is partner at Winter, Brandl – Partnerschaft mbB.
As (German) Patent Attorney and European Patent and Trademark Attorney, he supports clients in the field of mechanical engineering.
Derzeit wird das neue Europäische Einheitspatentsystem implementiert, das voraussichtlich am 1. April 2023 startet. Die Einführung des Einheitspatentsystems hat Auswirkungen auf alle europäischen Patente, auch auf „alte“ europäische Patente, die bereits erteilt und in Kraft sind. Nähere Informationen zum neuen Einheitspatentsystem finden Sie im Folgenden.
Nach dem Start des Europäischen Einheitspatentsystems kann ein Anmelder einer Europäischen Patentanmeldung nach der Erteilung zwischen folgenden Möglichkeiten wählen:
Europäisches Einheitspatent, das einheitlich in (derzeit) 17 EU-Staaten in Kraft sein wird, u. a. in Deutschland, Frankreich und Italien. In der untenstehenden Abb. 1 sind dies die blau markierten EU-Staaten.
Klassisches Europäisches Patent, das wie bisher in einem oder mehreren der 39 Mitgliedstaaten (einschließlich Montenegro ab dem 1. Oktober 2022) der Europäischen Patentorganisation validiert wird. Dies sind in Abb. 1 alle blau und grün markierten Staaten.
Mischung aus dem Europäischen Einheitspatent, das in 17 EU-Staaten (s. Abb. 1 blau) in Kraft sein wird, und dem klassischen Europäischen Patent, das in einem oder mehreren der übrigen 22 Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Patentorganisation (s. Abb. 1 grün) validiert wird.
Abbildung 1: blau und grün: 38 EPÜ-Vertragsstaaten; blau : 17 EU-Staaten des Einheitspatents
Bei dem neuen Einheitspatentsystem ist ein Einheitspatentgericht vorgesehen. Über dieses können u.a. Patentverletzungsverfahren oder Nichtigkeitsverfahren hinsichtlich eines Einheitspatents zentral durchgeführt werden. Das Einheitspatentgericht ist für Europäische Einheitspatente und für klassische Europäische Patente zuständig und somit auch für „alte“ Europäische Patente, die noch in Kraft sind. Allerdings sind bei einem klassischen Europäischen Patent während einer Übergangszeit zwischen 7 und 14 Jahren nach dem Start des Einheitspatentsystems zusätzlich zum Einheitspatentgericht wie bisher die nationalen Gerichte in den Ländern zuständig, in denen das klassische Europäische Patent validiert wurde. Mit anderen Worten erfolgt beispielsweise ein Patentverletzungsverfahren bei einem Einheitspatent zentral vor dem Einheitspatentgericht, während bei einem klassischen Europäischen Patent zwischen dem Einheitspatentgericht und den nationalen Gerichten gewählt werden kann.
Ein Patentinhaber eines klassischen Europäischen Patents hat die Möglichkeit – während der obenstehend angeführten Übergangszeit – die Zuständigkeit des Einheitspatentgerichts auszuschließen. Hierfür ist es notwendig für das klassische Europäische Patent einen sogenannten „Opt-Out-Antrag“ zu stellen. Nach dem Ausschluss des Einheitspatentgerichts aufgrund eines Opt-Out-Antrags sind wie bisher ausschließlich die nationalen Gerichte für das klassische Europäische Patent zuständig.
In der untenstehenden Abb. 2 sind die verschiedenen Möglichkeiten aufgezeigt.
Abbildung 2: unterschiedliche Möglichkeiten hinsichtlich eines europäischen Patentschutzes
Ein Opt-Out-Antrag kann bereits 3 Monate vor dem Start des Einheitspatentsystems in der sogenannten „Sunrise-Period“ gestellt werden. Derzeit ist geplant, dass die Sunrise-Period am 1. Januar 2023 beginnt. Die Frage, ob für ein klassisches Europäisches Patent ein Opt-Out-Antrag gestellt werden soll, hängt vom Einzelfall ab. Ein Opt-Out-Antrag ist nur möglich, solange keine Klage vor dem Einheitspatentgericht anhängig ist.
Folgende Schritte sollten Patentinhaber und –anmelder von klassischen Europäischen Patenten im Hinblick auf das neue Einheitspatentsystem vornehmen:
Ein Patentinhaber von einem klassischen Europäischen Patent sollte sich im Vorfeld – also am besten vor dem Beginn der Sunrise-Period – im Klaren sein, ob ein Opt-Out-Antrag von Vorteil ist. Falls ja, sollte dieser in der Sunrise-Period eingereicht werden.
Hat ein klassisches Europäisches Patent mehrere Patentinhaber, so müssen diese gemeinsam über einen möglichen Opt-Out-Antrag entscheiden. Diese sollten somit hinsichtlich eines möglichen Opt-Out-Antrags eine – vorzugsweise schriftliche – Vereinbarung treffen.
Für Fragen zum neuen Einheitspatentsystem – beispielsweise zu den genannten Schritten – stehen wir Ihnen gerne persönlich zur Verfügung.
Weitere Informationen zum neuen Einheitspatentsystem finden Sie in unserem Whitepaper zum Download.
Michael Schüller
28. November 2022
Michael Schüller is partner at Winter, Brandl – Partnerschaft mbB.
As (German) Patent Attorney and European Patent and Trademark Attorney, he supports clients in the field of mechanical engineering.
Since January 19, 2022, the Unified Patent System in Europa has been ramped up. On this day EU Member Austria has ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA). Now enough EU Members are on board for the new system and the execution of the “Protocol to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court on provisional application (PPA)” has started. The implementation of the PPA will lead to the gradual launch of the system, for example, judges are elected and appointed. At the moment, Germany is acting as a “Gatekeeper”. As soon as the system is ready, Germany will file its ratification certificate and 3-4 months later (according to Art. 89(1) UPCA) the Unified Patent System will start.
The introduction of the Unified Patent System has an impact on all European patents, also on “old” European patents which are already granted and in force. Patentees and applicants of European patents and applications should be aware of the implications and respond as needed. This white paper is intended to provide a basic overview of the European Unified Patent System and to support the patentees and applicants in possible steps.
You can download a pdf version of this whitepaper in the following languages: english, japanese
Listing of Agreement, Regulations, Rules, and Convention regarding the Unitary Patent
First of all, the legal basis is given here, which is referred to in the rest of the document.
The Unitary Patent is based on several legal provisions. First of all, there is the “Unitary Patent Package“:
One part of the Package is the Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012. This Regulation implements enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, authorized by Decision 2011/167/EU.
A further part of the Package is the Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012. This regulation is in regard to the applicable translation arrangements.
The UPCA creates a new court (Unified Patent Court) and new substantive standards of patent law. The two Regulations create a Unitary Patent, namely a “European Patent with unitary effect” / “Unitary Patent”. The European Patent changes from a “bundle patent” to a (small) “unitary patent”.
Furthermore, there is secondary legislation:
Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection (“UPR”). The UPR provide for the establishment of a Unitary Patent Division within the EPO and lay down the details regarding all the procedures to be conducted by the EPO.
Rules relating to Fees for Unitary Patent Protection (“RFeesUPP”). The RFeesUPP set out the amounts of all the fees and expenses payable to the EPO by Unitary Patent proprietors and how they can be paid.
Then the European Patent Convention (“EPC”)has to be considered regarding the Unitary Patent. The EPC is the Convention on the Grant of European Patents of 5 October 1973, including any subsequent amendments.
Classification of the European countries regarding the Unitary Patent
The UPCA is open to accession by any of the EU Member States of the European Union. At present, there are 27 EU Member states: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.
The UPCA is not open to states outside of the European Union, such as UK. Up to date, all EU Member States except Spain, Poland and Croatia have signed the UPCA. Therefore, 24 EU Member States have signed the UPCA, wherein these Member States are called “Contracting Member States” according to Art. 2(c) UPCA (or “Participating Member States” according to Art. 2 Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012).
From the 24 Contracting Member States 17 have already ratified the UPCA (current status of ratification): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden. Please note: the Unitary Patent benefits from unitary effect in these countries who have ratified the UPCA.
The 27 EU Member States are in addition members of the European Patent Organisation. All in all there are 38 members of the European Patent Organisation, e.g. including UK. See all members here.
In the figure below all the 38 members of the EPO are shown (blue and green marked countries). The 17 contracting members having already ratified the UPCA are marked blue.
Members of EPO ratified UPCA (blue)
Current Status
The UPCA has been ratified by enough Contracting Member States. Therefore, the “Protocol to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court on provisional application (PPA)” has been in force since January 19, 2022. The implementation of the PPA will lead to the gradual launch of the system:
Initially, institution building, the election of the Administrative Council, election and appointment of judges, adoption of the Rules of Procedure and other legal texts.
Opt-out declarations are to be able to be submitted in advance to the Registry of the Unified Patent Court.
Germany has ratified the UPCA but has not filed the ratification certificate, yet. When it is clear that the UPC will be operational upon the entry into force of the UPCA the final ratification of the Agreement by Germany can take place. Therefore, at the moment, Germany is serving as a “gatekeeper” for the Contracting Member States to ensure a proper process for the implementation of the PPA.
In summary, the Unitary Patent system will enter into force of as of the date of deposit of Germany’s instrument of ratification of the UPCA. Pursuant to Art. 89(1) UPCA, this date lies between 3-4 months before the entry into force of the UPCA and will be communicated on the EPO’s website. If Germany for example deposits its instrument of ratification on 20 May 2022, the UPCA would enter into force on 1st September 2022. On the same day, the two Regulations (Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 and No 1260/2012) setting up the Unitary Patent would become applicable, as well as the Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection (UPR).
Different types of patents in Europe
After the start of the Unitary Patent, there will be different options for patent protection:
„European patent with unitary effect“ (also called “Unitary Patent”) means a patent granted under the provisions of the EPC which benefits from unitary effect by virtue of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012, see Art. 2(f) UPCA. This patent benefits from unitary effect in the participating Member States by virtue of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 who have already ratified the UPCA.
Classic „European patent“ means a patent granted under the provisions of the EPC, which does not benefit from unitary effect by virtue of Regulation (EU) No 1257/ 2012, see Art. 2(e) UPCA. A classic European Patent can be validated in the 38 members of the European Patent Organisation.
Combination of a European patent with unitary effect and a classic European Patent. With a Unitary Patent combined with a classic European patent it is possible to seek a Unitary Patent and, in addition, validate the European patent in those EPC contracting states not territorially covered by the Unitary Patent scheme because the EPC contracting states are not Contracting Member States which have signed and already ratified the UPCA or the EPC contracting states are generally not EU Member states.
National Patent (and Utility Model if possible) in the respective European Country.
European Patents with unitary effect will have different generations in the future
The European Patent with unitary effect covers the territories of those participating Member States in which the UPCA has taken effect at the date of registration of unitary effect of a patent by the EPO. It is also likely that the outstanding ratifications of the UPCA will not take place all at once but rather successively. Consequently, there will be different generations of Unitary Patents with different territorial coverage.
The territorial coverage of a given generation of a European Patent with unitary effect will stay the samefor its entire lifetime, irrespective of any subsequent ratifications of the UPCA after the date of registration of unitary effect. In other words, a given Unitary Patent’s territorial coverage will not be extended to other Member States which ratify the UPCA after the EPO has registered its unitary effect.
The participating Member States covered by a given Unitary Patent will be listed in the Register for Unitary Patent Protection.
The Unitary Patent architecture
Pre-grant phase (including opposition, limitation, and revocation proceedings) of a Unitary Patent is based on the EPC. Therefore, the pre-grant phase for Unitary Patents is exactly the same as for classic European Patents.
The EPO is entrusted by the participating Member States with the administration requests for a Unitary Patent (= requests for unitary effect).
Unitary Patent Division at the EPO
A „Unitary Patent Division“ has been set up at the EPO as a special department to deal with Unitary Patents.
The EPO departments entrusted with the procedures laid down in the EPC, namely the search, examining, and opposition divisions, the Legal Division, and the boards of appeal, will have no responsibilities in relation to Unitary Patents.
Actions against decisions of the Unitary Patent Division must be brought before the Unified Patent Court (see Articles 32(1)(i) and 47(7) UPCA) and not before the EPO boards of appeal.
Main features of a European Patent with unitary effect (Art. 3 Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012)
A European patent with unitary effect shall have a unitary character. It shall provide uniform protection and shall have equal effect in all the participating Member States who have ratified the UPCA.
A European patent with unitary effect may only be limited, transferred or revoked, or lapse, in respect of all the participating Member States who have ratified the UPCA. Dropping of individual designated contracting states as with the classic European Patent is not possible with the Unitary Patent.
A European patent with unitary effect may be licensed in respect of the whole or part of the territories of the participating Member States who have ratified the UPCA.
The unitary effect of a European patent shall be deemed not to have arisen to the extent that the European patent has been revoked or limited.
The transitional regime: for which European patents can a Unitary Patent be requested?
A Unitary Patent may be requested for any European patent granted on or after the date of application of Regulations (EU) No 1257/2012 and (EU) No 1260/2012. These regulations will apply from the date of entry into force of the UPCA.
In other words, Unitary Patents can only be requested for new European Patents whose granted after the entry into force of the UPCA. Thus, if necessary, the applicant could try to delay the grant of the European Patent until the entry into force of the UPCA. Alternatively, the applicant could file a divisional European application which is also time-consuming.
Requirements for obtaining a Unitary Patent
First of all, in order to be eligible for registration as a Unitary Patent, a European patent must have been granted with the same set of claims in respect of all participating Member States (Rule 5(2) UPR; Article 3(1) in conjunction with Recital 7 Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012). Therefore, it is important not to withdraw the designation of any of the participating Member States because this would rule out obtaining a Unitary Patent.
As to the procedure for obtaining a Unitary Patent, a formal „request for unitary effect“ must be filed with the EPO in writing by the European patent proprietor (Rule 5(1) UPR). This request must be filed no later than one month after the mention of the grant of the European patent is published in the European Patent Bulletin (see Rule 6(1) UPR; Article 9(1)(g) Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012; Article 97(3) EPC).
However, contrary to the normal EPC regime, where any of the three EPO official languages may be used in written proceedings (see Rule 3(1) EPC), requests for unitary effect have to be filed in the language of proceedings (see Article 9(1)(g) Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 and Rule 6(2) UPR).
A Unitary Patent can also be requested for a European patent granted to multiple proprietors in respect of the same or different participating Member States as long as it was granted with the same set of claims in respect of all those participating Member States.
Only, however, if the request for unitary effect has been duly signedby all the proprietors (or their representative(s)) is their common representative entitled to act for them all. Multiple proprietors need not be listed in the request for unitary effect in the same order as in the request for the grant (EPO Form 1001) or in the European patent specification.
Translation of the Unitary Patent
During a transitional period (see below) the request for unitary effect must also contain a translation of the European patent as required under Article 6(1) Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012, as follows:
where the language of the proceedings is French or German, a full translation of the specification of the European patent into English; or
where the language of the proceedings is English, a full translation of the specification of the European patent into any other official language of the European Union.
The translated text has no legal effect and is for information only.
The transitional period is at least 6 years and max. 12 years, see Art. 6 Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012. After the transitional period a translation is no longer necessary, see Art. 3(1) Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012.
Compensation for translation costs is available for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), natural persons, non-profit organizations, universities, and public research organizations having their residence or principal place of business in an EU Member State.
Costs of a Unitary Patent after Grant
In the pre-grant proceeding, the costs for a Unitary Patent and a classic European Patent are the same. For a Unitary Patent, a uniform annual renewal fee has to be paid with the EPO. According to the table below, you can see the renewal fees of the Unitary Patent after the grant. They are compared in this table to the renewal fees of a Unitary Patent together with a national UK-Patent, a Classic European Patent validated in DE, FR, UK and a Classic European Patent validated in DE, FR, UK, IT.
Renewal fees of the Unitary Patent after the grant
The annual fees for the first 10 years – the average life of a patent according to the EPO – would amount to less than € 5,000 for a Unitary Patent. The other options are roughly similar in terms of costs in this timeframe.
The costs for a payment service provider will be less for the single renewal fee of the Unitary Patent compared to possible multiple renewal fees of a classic European Patent. Therefore, the renewal fees are competitive in this timeframe, especially if more than three countries are designated for a classic European patent.
Further, a plurality of validation costs is not necessary for the Unitary Patent compared to the respective validation costs for the designated countries of the classic European Patent. For example, the validation costs for DE, FR, UK of a classic European Patent are around € 150 respectively.
The applicable law for Unitary Patents as an object of property
A European patent with unitary effect can be an object of property e. g. for license agreements, transfer, corporate restructurings, etc. Therefore, the applicable law in such cases is important.
According to Art. 7 Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 a European patent with unitary effect as an object of property shall be treated in its entirety and in all the participating Member States as a national patent of the participating Member State in which that patent has unitary effect and in which, according to the European Patent Register:
(a) the applicant had his residence or principal place of business on the date of filing of the application for the European patent; or
(b) where point (a) does not apply, the applicant had a place of business on the date of filing of the application for the European patent.
This means, if the applicant has his principal place of business e. g. in Germany, then the European patent with unitary effect as an object of property is treated as a national German Patent and German law is applicable.
In case of several applicants – e. g. two or more persons are entered in the European Patent Register as joint applicants -, point (a) above shall apply to the joint applicant indicated first. Where this is not possible, point (a) above shall apply to the next joint applicant indicated in the order of entry. Where point (a) above does not apply to any of the joint applicants, point (b) above shall apply accordingly. For example, if the first applicant has his principal place of business in France and the second applicant in Germany, then the European patent with unitary effect as an object of property is treated as a national French Patent
Therefore, if there are joint applicants from different countries the order of the applicants in the Patent Register plays an important role. The order can be changed in the granting proceeding of the European patent application.
Where no applicant had his residence, principal place of business, or place of business in a participating Member State in which the patent has unitary effect, the European patent with unitary effect as an object of property shall be treated in its entirety and in all the participating Member States as a national patent of the State where the European Patent Organisation has its headquarters in accordance with Art. 6(1) EPC, namely Munich in Germany. In other words, for applicant(s) outside the EU, German law applies for the European patent with unitary effect as an object of property. Germany is advantageous because there are comparatively few formal hurdles. For example, patents can be transferred orally in Germany.
This referral mentioned above is static and cannot be changed by transfer of ownership. Example: Patent proprietor as first applicant A based in the USA transfers his European patent with unitary effect to French company B, German law remains applicable for the European patent with unitary effect as an object of property.
Conflict of the Unitary European patent with national rights of earlier date
For a European patent application that is intended to be validated as a classic European patent after grant, where a national right of an earlier date exists in a contracting state designated in this European patent application, there are several possibilities of amendment open to the applicant. First, that designation may be withdrawn from the application for the contracting state of the national right of an earlier date. Second, for such a state, the applicant may file claims which are different from the claims for the other designated states. Third, the applicant can limit the existing set of claims in such a manner that the national right of an earlier date is no longer relevant. For a European patent application that is intended to have unitary effect after grant, only the third option is applicable. This means an applicant for a European patent with unitary effect has to amend the set of claims of such an application accordingly. You can find further information in the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO for a classic European Patent here.
In a possible action for revocation there is an important difference between a classic European Patent and a European Patent with unitary effect, please see the following example:
21.08.2023: DE application from applicant A filed.
29.03.2024: EP application from applicant B filed (first applicant from Berlin).
21.02.2025: DE application from applicant A (novelty-destroying for B) is disclosed.
20.03.2025: EP application from applicant B is granted.
1st possibility: The EP application is validated as a classic European Patent (EP-B) for several countries including Germany (with opt-out)
In a nullity proceeding (action for revocation) EP-B is revoked for DE only before the German Federal Patent Court, because of the national right of an earlier date in DE. In all other validated countries, EP-B remains in force because only in Germany the DE application A is opposed to a national German patent respectively to a European Patent validated in Germany. In the other validated countries, the national right of an earlier date in DE is not relevant.
2nd possibility: The EP application is validated as European Patent (EP-B) with unitary effect
In a nullity proceeding (action for revocation) before the UPC, the EP-B is revoked in respect of all the participating Member States who have ratified the UPCA because of the DE application A as a national right of an earlier date. This is because the first applicant is from Berlin, Germany and therefore, according to Art. 7 Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 the EP-B shall be treated as a national German patent (please see also above under “The applicable law for Unitary Patents as an object of property”).
Advantages of the European Patent with unitary effect
Centralized pre-grant procedure after grant and not only until grant, as in classic European patents.
Business-friendly level of renewal fees and less complexity in paying renewal fees compared to classic European patents.
No parallel litigation in the contracting members having already ratified the UPCA. Litigation is centralized at the UPC.
The European patent with unitary effect provides inventors with uniform and comprehensive territorial protection in the contracting members having already ratified the UPCA.
Validation of the Unitary Patent in several states is not necessary. The validation for a classic European Patent is a time-consuming and complex administrative process, e.g. translations have to be filed, fees charged by national patent offices, and attorney fees arise. In contrast, for obtaining the European Patent with unitary effect patent proprietors file a single request with the EPO.
For the European patent with unitary effect one single renewal fee has to be paid to the EPO. The fee has to be paid in one currency and under a single legal regime as regards deadlines and admissible means of payment. In contrast, renewal fees for the classical European Patent vary in amount, have to be paid to different national offices operating under different legal requirements.
The renewal fee level is very attractive and business-friendly. The total fees for the first ten years – which is the average lifetime of a patent – amount to less than EUR 5000. There is a 15% reduction in renewal fees for patent proprietors who file a statement on a license of right with the EPO.
Reduced Costs for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) and other small entities.
Management of a European patent with unitary effect, e. g. transfers, licenses, and other rights, no longer need to be registered country by country in the national patent register with multiple local patent attorneys. Instead, a single registration entered in the Register for Unitary Patent Protection centrally administrated by the EPO is sufficient.
According to Rule 1(1) UPR the EPO shall be bound by decisions handed down by the UPC in actions brought under Art. 32(1)(i) UPCA.
The Structure of the UPC
The UPC is bound by EU law in the same way as any national court, Art. 1 UPCA. Therefore, the UPC shall cooperate with the Court of Justice of the European Union to ensure the correct application and uniform interpretation of Union law, as any national court, following Article 267 TFEU (TFEU = Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) in particular, please see Art. 21 UPCA.
The UPC is competent (Art. 3 UPCA) to any:
(a) European patent with unitary effect,
(b) Supplementary protection certificate issued for a product protected by a patent,
(c) Classic European patent which has not yet lapsed at the date of entry into force of the UPCA or was granted after that date, without prejudice to Art. 83 UPCA (no opt-out) and
(d) European patent application which is pending at the date of entry into force of this Agreement or which is filed after that date, without prejudice to Art. 83 UPCA (no opt-out).
The territorial scope of UPC decisions:
European patent with unitary effect: all participating Member States in which the UPCA has taken effect at the date of registration of unitary effect of this patent by the EPO, please see Art. 5 and 18 Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012.
Classic European patent: in all member states where this patent is in force, please see Art. 34 UPCA.
The court of 1st instance comprises a central division as well as local and regional divisions. It is competent inter alia for actions for infringement or revocation, see Art. 32 UPCA. In general, the jurisdiction of the court depends on the defendant’s residence or place of infringement, please see Art. 33 UPCA for further information. Local divisions are for example in: Milan, Vienna, Helsinki, Paris, The Hague, Brussels, Hamburg, Mannheim, Düsseldorf, Munich.
The central divisions are competent for isolated actions for revocation (Art. 33 (4) UPCA) and actions for declarations of non-infringement of patents and supplementary protection certificates. It also handles infringement actions if infringement takes place where no local or regional division is located or the defendant has his residence outside the territory of the Contracting Member States (Art. 33 (1) b UPCA). Because of the Brexit, London’s competence shall be divided between Paris and Munich until a new regulation is decided, wherein a decision will be issued probably during the implementation of the PPA.
The Court of Appeal in Luxembourg is competent for an appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance, see Art. 73 UPCA.
The Court Registry is competent of the administration of proceedings and documents (all document traffic with the court in electronic form), verification of formal requirements, online register of proceedings, entire procedural file accessible to anyone, restriction of disclosure-only upon justified request and only to confidential information, please see Art. 22 ff UPCA.
Benefits of the UPC
The UPC provides proprietors with a means of avoiding the high costs, risk, and complexity associated with multiple litigations in different jurisdictions.
The UPC has specialized and highly qualified judges (including technically qualified judges) who will establish harmonized case law and increase legal certainty.
The transitional period regarding the competence of the UPC (Opt-out)
In general, when the UPCA has taken effect, the UPC is competent for European patents with unitary effect and for classic European patents. Exception: There is a seven-year transitional period, Art. 83 (1) UPCA, during which an action for infringement or for revocation of a classic European Patent can also be brought before national courts (the transitional period can be prolonged by up to seven years, see Art. 83 (5) UPCA). A proprietor of or an applicant for a classic European patent has the possibility to opt-out from the exclusive competence of the UPC, please see Art. 83 (3) UPCA. In other words, the patent proprietor of a classic European patent can exclude the parallel jurisdiction of the UPC and therefore opt for the exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts. The patent proprietor of a classic European patent cannot determine the sole jurisdiction of the UPC.
The UPC is competent for action for infringement or for revocation of European patents with unitary effect without exception. During the transitional period, national courts remain competent for all proceedings concerning classic European patents.
During the transitional period for classic European Patents without opt-out, a combination of national courts and the UPC is probably possible as desired. E. g. for a classic European Patent an action for infringement could be filed with the regional court Düsseldorf (Germany) and at the UPC Regional Division Milan (Italy) for all designated countries except Germany.
Preconditions for Opt-out
A proprietor of or an applicant for a classic European patent granted or applied (not for a European patent with unitary effect) has the possibility to opt-out under the following preconditions (Art. 83(3) UPCA):
Action has not been brought before the UPC yet. This means that bringing a negative affirmative action for a right before the UPC renders later opt-out effectless.
The opt-out has been notified to the Court Registry of UPC by the latest one month before the expiry of the transitional period.
Legal issues in the context of the opt-out
The opt-out shall take effect upon its entry into the register. Thus, the application for opt-out alone is not sufficient to effectively declare an opt-out. The registration of the opt-out via a CMS is probably very fast.
According to R. 5.1(b) RulesUPC, the application to opt-out has to be made in respect of all of the Contracting Member States for which the classic European patent has been granted or which have been designated in the application. Therefore, a selection decision by the patentee is not possible for opt-out.
Where the classic European patent or application is owned by two or more proprietors or applicants, all proprietors or applicants have to lodge the application for opt-out, please see R. 5.1(a) RulesUPC. Where the person lodging the application for opt-out is not recorded as the proprietor or applicant in the registers, the person shall lodge a declaration that he is the proprietor. In other words, all co-owners of a classic European patent or application must file the opt-out request. This could lead to disputes between co-owners. If there is a proprietor who is not listed as an applicant and who appears later, then the opt-out is only effective from the date of the opt-out request of the last „true proprietor“ becomes effective.
If there is an incorrect application for opt-out, the opt-out only becomes effective with correction and from the date of correction, please see R. 5.5 RulesUPC.
For a (classic) European patent application opt-out is possible. If the European patent application is granted and validated as a European patent with unitary effect, then the opt-out request is deemed to be withdrawn with effect for the territory of the European patent with unitary effect, please see R. 5.9 RulesUPC.
If a divisional application is filed based on a (classic) European patent application, then the opt-out of the European patent application does not apply to the divisional application.
Ratification of an EU Member State after the opt-out
If an EU Member State ratifies the UPCA after opt-out of a classic European patent, e. g. Spain, then it is up to now unclear, whether the opt-out does also apply to the Spanish part of the classic European patent (if the Patent is validated in Spain). A uniform opt-out (i.e. also for Spain) is considered to be very likely.
“Sunrise Period” for Opt-out
The opt-out can be earmarked during the “Sunrise Period” to the start of the UPC system, please see R. 5.12 RulesUPC. Therefore, during the Sunrise Period applications for opt-out accepted by the Court Registry before the entry into force of the UPCA shall be treated as entered on the register on the date of entry into force of the UPCA. That allows patentees to file opt-outs for their existing classic European patents granted or applied before the UPCA comes into effect. Therefore, third parties cannot file claims against these patents in the UPC immediately on the date of entry into force of the UPCA (what would impede an opt-out). It is expected that the Sunrise Period takes place 3 months before the date of entry into force of the UPCA.
Opt-in (withdrawal from the opt-out)
The opt-out can be withdrawn by means of a „Request for withdrawal from the use of the opt-out“, please see R. 5.9 and 5.9 RulesUPC. This is called “opt-in”. The possibility to opt-in is unlimited in time – i.e. even after the end of the transitional period regarding the competence of the UPC. The withdrawal from the use of opt-out can be essentially declared according to the same formal rules compared to opt-out, i.e. in particular for each classic European patent separately and by effecting an entry in the register.
The preconditions for opt-in are:
Opt-out has been declared previously.
No proceeding is pending before a national court. I.e. a possible infringer, fearing an infringement action before the UPC, can file a national negative declaratory action to harm the opt-in.
Even a completed proceeding before a national court harms the opt-in.
After the opt-in, a further opt-out is not possible (no “opt-out again”).
The opt-in can only be declared for all Contracting Member States for which the classic European patent has been granted or which have been designated in the application, please see R. 5.7 RulesUPC. Hence, a selection decision by the patentee is not possible for opt-in.
Implementation of opt-out
The application to opt-out has to be declared separately for each classic European patent or application, according to previous plans. No fees are charged for the application to opt-out, but considerable organizational costs. The application to opt-out has to be filed with the Court Registry (via CMS) and not with the EPO, both after entry into force of the UPCA and during the sunrise period. Detailed procedural steps will be described at www.unified-patent-court.org.
Suggestions re Opt-out
If you are an exclusive licensee with the right to sue, then a discussion with the licensor should be sought if you wish to opt-out.
If you are a licensor you can check whether royalties are payable „as long as a contract property right is in force“. In such a case, opt-out should be considered.
The more license agreements exist for a European patent, the more likely it is to opt-out.
If you are negotiating a license agreement, please think of opt-out/validation for a European Patent with unitary effect.
Co-owners of a classic European Patent must opt out together. Therefore, if you are one of several patent owners you should contact your co-owners.
If you have several IP rights to „the same“ invention, one European Patent should allow access to the UPC, one IP right to a national court. Therefore, if necessary, opt out of one IP right.
Approach with opt-out for “crown jewels” and “non-crown jewels”
Crown jewels are:
basic European patents with a long term,
European patents already infringed by competitors,
the product manufactured according to European patent is available everywhere in Europe,
the product manufactured according to patent contributes significantly to the company’s turnover,
the product manufactured according to the patent has a high profit-margin.
For a crown jewel, opt-out is recommended to avoid a centralized revocation via the UPC.
A strong European patent (e.g. because of successful opposition proceedings) which is not a crown jewel, access to the UPC could be maintained. Therefore, a revocation is unlikely and opt-out is rather not recommended.
For weak European patents, a request for opt-out should be filed to avoid a centralized revocation via the UPC. Afterward opt-in is possible (under certain circumstances, see above).
Strategic considerations on the European Patent with unitary effect
The European patent with unitary effect offers new possibilities. If it is to be in force in a large number of European countries, it offers a cost advantage compared to the classic European Patent. For example, a European patent with unitary effect is useful if it protects a pharmaceutical product or if it concerns a product for a large aftermarket (for example in the automotive area). A major cost advantage exists for 6 countries or more.
With a European patent with unitary effect a central cross-border attack against infringers in one proceeding at the UPC is possible. This is also possible for classic European patents if no opt-out is requested. But in return, there is the danger of a centralized revocation via the UPC of the European patent with unitary effect or the classic European patent without opt-out.
For important inventions, a strategic approach could be to file a divisional application in the examination procedure at the EPO parallel to a parent/previous application to obtain a European patent with unitary effect and a (slightly modified) classic European patent (with opt-out) or the other way around. This would be lead to strong protection since the European patent with unitary effect has to be attacked via the UPC and the classic European patent (with opt-out) via the respective national courts. Alternatively or in addition to the divisional application, a national patent (e.g. in Germany) could have been filed parallel, and/or a Utility Model can be branched off.
Prohibition of double patenting
At the moment (before the start of the Unitary patent system) Art II § 8 German International Patent Convention Act (IntPatÜbkG) stipulates that a national German patent loses its effect (ex nunc) when for the applicant or his successor a European patent with the same priority for the same invention has been granted. Therefore, a double patenting of a national German patent and a European patent having the same priority and the same invention is not possible (at the moment). When the UPCA is in force, then a new Art. II § 8 IntPatÜbkG is applied. Accordingly, there is no longer a prohibition of double patenting for a national German patent and a European patent with unitary effect or a classic European Patent (no opt-out) having the same priority and the same invention. This is due to the fact, that the UPC is competent for these European Patents and national German courts for the national German patent. Only, if opt-out is registered for a classic European patent, then there is still a prohibition of double patenting for the national German patent and the classic European patent (with opt-out). The new Art. II § 8 IntPatÜbkG applies to all national German patents granted after entry into force of the UPCA.
Therefore, parallel maintenance of a national German patent and a European patent with unitary effect or a classic European patent without opt-out is an option when the UPCA is into force.
Timeline for the Implementation of the Unified Patent System
Supporting users in an early uptake of the Unitary Patent by the EPO
The EPO has decided to introduce two transitional measures applicable to European patent applications having reached the final phase of the grant procedure.
These measures will be made available ahead of the entry into force of the Unitary Patent system, as of the date of deposit of Germany’s instrument of ratification of the UPCA. Pursuant to Article 89(1) UPCA, this date lies between 3-4 months before the entry into force of the UPCA and will be communicated on the EPO’s website.
First measure:
The EPO will allow early requests for unitary effect as of the date Germany deposits its instrument of ratification of the UPCA. Moreover, early requests for unitary effect may only be filed for European patent applications in respect of which a communication under Rule 71(3) EPC has been despatched. The possibility to file early requests will only be available until the start date of the Unitary Patent system. For example, if Germany deposits its instrument of ratification of the UPCA on May 20, 2022, then the UPCA enters into force on September 1, 2022. Between this periods, the applicant can file an early request for unitary effect if a due date for responding to a communication under Rule 71(3) EPC falls within this period.
The EPO would examine this early request and register unitary effect very soon after the publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin if all requirements are met.
In other words, when a communication under Rule 71(3) EPC is “pending” after Germany deposits its instrument of ratification of the UPCA, then the applicant can file an early request for unitary effect.
Second measure:
The second transitional measure will provide the possibility for the applicant to request a delay in issuing the decision to grant a European patent after despatch of communication under Rule 71(3) EPC by the Office and before approving the text intended for grant. This will make a European patent eligible for Unitary Patent protection that would otherwise have been granted before the start of the new system and will avoid that applicants miss opportunities to obtain a Unitary Patent in the transitional phase.
The EPO will allow requests for a delay in issuing the grant as of the date Germany deposits its instrument of ratification of the UPCA. Moreover, a request for delay may be validly filed only for European patent applications in respect of which the applicant has been informed of the text intended for grant by a communication under Rule 71(3) EPC but has not yet approved that text.
For further information in regard to the first and second measures, please visit the EPO website.
Download our whitepaper
You can download a pdf-version of this whitepaper in the following languages: english, japanese
Winter, Brandl – Partnerschaft mbB is one of Germany’s major patent and law firms. We are working for you to secure intellectual property protection all over the world. We always think with an eye on products and markets and beyond purely legal terms: from selecting and designing the appropriate property right to the filing of a custom-tailored application.
Michael Schüller is partner at Winter, Brandl – Partnerschaft mbB.
As (German) Patent Attorney and European Patent and Trademark Attorney, he supports clients in the field of mechanical engineering.
1. A European patent application can be refused under Articles 97(2) and 125 EPC if it claims the same subject-matter as a European patent which has been granted to the same applicant and does not form part of the state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) and (3) EPC. 2. The application can be refused on that legal basis, irrespective of whether it
a) was filed on the same date as, or
b) is an earlier application or a divisional application (Article 76(1) EPC) in respect of, or
c) claims the same priority (Article 88 EPC) as
the European patent application leading to the European patent already granted. (Headnotes of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA)) EBoA of the EPO, Decision of 22. June 2021 – G4/19 – Double Patenting
The appellant claimed priority of a granted EP Patent having the same subject matter
The appellant is the applicant of the European patent application-in-suit. The Examining Division of the European Patent Office (EPO) refused the application-in-suit. The refusal was based on the principle of the prohibition on double patenting. The application-in-suit claimed priority of a granted European patent, see figure below. The subject matter of the application-in-suit and the granted European patent comprised the same subject matter and are owned by the same applicant. Against the refusal of the Examining Division, the applicant of the application-in-suit filed an appeal.
The Board of Appeal (BoA) referred questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA)
In the appeal proceedings the BoA referred the following questions to the EBoA: “1. Can a European patent application be refused under Article 97(2) EPC if it claims the same subject-matter as a European patent which was granted to the same applicant and does not form part of the state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) and (3) EPC? 2.1 If the answer to the first question is yes, what are the conditions for such a refusal, and are different conditions to be applied depending on whether the European patent application under examination was filed
a) on the same date as, or
b) as a European divisional application (Article 76(1) EPC) in respect of, or
c) claiming the priority (Article 88 EPC) in respect of a European patent application on the basis of which a European patent was granted to the same applicant?
2.2 In particular, in the last of these cases, does an applicant have a legitimate interest in the grant of a patent on the (subsequent) European patent application in view of the fact that the filing date and not the priority date is the relevant date for calculating the term of the European patent under Article 63(1) EPC?”
EBoA gives an interpretation of the referred questions
The essence of question 1 is according to EBoA, whether there is any legal basis under the EPC for refusing an application on the ground of “double patenting”. The term “double patenting” is interpreted in the narrow sense, where two or more EP applications are involved (and not a national patent).
The definition of the “same subject-matter” or “the same applicant” is not the subject of the present referral.
Further, the referred question 1 is restricted to substantive examination proceedings before the Examining division. Therefore, the referral does not extend to the question of whether and how the prohibition might be applicable in opposition proceedings.
It is the EBoA’s understanding that in current Office practice an objection of double patenting is only raised if there are overlapping and still valid designations in both the granted patent and the application concerned.
The essence of question 2.1 is as follows: if there is a legal basis in the EPC for the prohibition on double patenting, are all three of the possible constellations in which double patenting may arise to be treated in the same manner? Common to these constellations is that the granted patent and the application both have the same effective date.
Decision of the EBoA in regard to Question 1
For its decision, the EBoA concludes that Art. 125 EPC (https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar125.html) serves as a legal basis for the decision. Art. 125 EPC defines in the case of the absence of procedural provisions in the EPC, that the EPO shall take into account the principles of procedural law generally recognized in the Contracting States. To find out whether there is such a principle, the EBoA inter alia considers the preparatory documents of the Convention (= “travaux préparatoires”). Especially based on these documents the EBoA inferred that the prohibition on double patenting is such a principle generally recognized in the Contracting States according to Art. 125 EPC. As a consequence, the EPO is empowered and duty-bound based on Art. 125 EPC to apply the principle of the prohibition of double patenting. Therefore, the EBoA answered Question 1 in the affirmative. As a result, a European patent application can be refused if it claims the same subject-matter as a European patent that has been granted to the same applicant and does not form part of the state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) and (3) EPC.
Decision of the EBoA in regard to Question 2.1 and 2.2
Questions 2.1 and 2.2 refer to certain conditions for a refusal based on double patenting. The EBoA derived the answer on Questions 2.1 and 2.2 mainly from the preparatory documents of the Convention again. The answer is pointed out in Headnote 2 above.
Overview of the different constellations in regard to the prohibition of double patenting based on the present decision of the EBoA
Below the different constellations according to the headnotes of the present decision are shown. Common to these constellations is that the granted EP patent and the EP application both have the same effective date.
The EP patent application was filed on the same filing date as the EP patent application leading to the EP patent already granted (headnote 2a):
The EP application is an earlier application in respect of the EP application leading to the European patent already granted (headnote 2b):
The EP application is a divisional application (Article 76(1) EPC) in respect of the EP patent application leading to the EP patent already granted (headnote 2b):
The EP application claims the same priority (Article 88 EPC) as the EP application leading to the EP patent already granted (headnote 2c):
The EP application claims the same subject-matter as a EP patent which has been granted to the same applicant and does not form part of the state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) and (3) EPC (headnote 1):
Consequences for practice
An applicant can have the legitimate interest to have a second EP patent application granted for the same subject matter. E. g. an interest can be the longer term of protection available to an applicant as a result of claiming an internal priority. Nevertheless, according to the present decision of the EBoA a European patent application can be refused based on the prohibition of double patenting irrespective of whether there is a legitimate interest of the applicant. To overcome the prohibition of double patenting, the applicant could amend one or more of the applications in such a manner that the subject-matters of the claims of the applications are not identical. For example, the applicant could adapt the applications such that the subject matters are partially overlapping. In such a case no objection regarding double patenting should be raised (see also the decision of the BoA T 877/06). A further strategy could be that the applicant in a first step tries to get an EP patent application with a narrower subject matter/scope of protection granted. Then, in a second step, the applicant could try to get an EP patent application with a broader subject matter/scope of protection granted. Thus, the applicant would already have a narrower EP patent and can then possibly try to obtain another EP patent with a broader scope of protection more freely and flexibly. This approach is especially beneficial for important inventions. To overcome the prohibition of double patenting in general the applicant could follow the proposals in the Guidelines for Examination G-IV-5.4 https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_iv_5_4.htm): withdraw overlapping designations, or choose which one of those applications is to proceed to grant.
Winter, Brandl – Partnerschaft mbB, Munich, German and European Patent Attorney Michael Schüller
Michael Schüller
22. Oktober 2021
Michael Schüller is partner at Winter, Brandl – Partnerschaft mbB.
As (German) Patent Attorney and European Patent and Trademark Attorney, he supports clients in the field of mechanical engineering.
The German legal media JUVE has announced that the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has received two new constitutional complaints (Case ID: 2 BvR 2216/20 and 2 BvR 2217/20) against the draft legislation enabling Germany to ratify the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement and its Protocol on Provisional Application1).
The law approving the UPC Agreement was approved by the German federal council (Bundesrat) on 18 December 2020 and was awaiting the certification (signature) by the President of the Federal Republic of Germany in order to enter into force.
The identity of the complainants as well as the grounds for the constitutional complaints are currently unknown.
Further, it is not yet clear whether the constitutional complaints are admissible and whether Federal Constitutional Court will ask the President to halt the certifying process, as was the case with the previous constitutional complaint of 20172).
The ratification process of the UPC Agreement in Germany until now can be summarized as follows:
March 2017: German parliament (Bundestag) passes the German UPC legislation3).
↓
March 2017: First constitutional complaint is raised4).
↓
June 2017: German federal council (Bundesrat) approved the German UPC legislation5).
↓
June 2017: Federal Constitutional Court asks the President to halt the certifying process2).
↓
March 2020: Federal Constitutional Court decides that the German UPC legislation is void, since it has not been approved by the German parliament (Bundestag) with the required two-thirds majority although it amends the Constitution in substantive terms6).
↓
November 2020: German parliament (Bundestag) passes the German UPC legislation with the required two-thirds majority7).
↓
December 2020: German federal council (Bundesrat) approved the German UPC legislation8).
↓
December 2020: Second Constitutional complaints are raised1). ← Now
↓
(Prediction) XX 2021: Federal Constitutional Court asks the President to halt the certifying process?
↓
(Prediction) XX 2023: Federal Constitutional Court decides that the German UPC legislation is void, since the unrestricted primacy of European law as stipulated in Article 20 of the UPC Agreement violates the German basic law9)?
↓
(Prediction) XX 2023: Germany gives us to ratify the UPC Agreement?
Kan Hasegawa supports clients from Germany and Japan in the fields of classical chemistry, biotechnology, pharmacy, and medical engineering. He is a Patent Attorney, Japanese Patent Attorney and European Patent Attorney and holds a Master of Biotechnological Science.
On November 26, 2020, the German Bundestag (German Federal Parliament) in Berlin has approved the UPC Agreement. This is an important step towards the implementation of the Unitary Patent Package. The Unified Patent System is expected to be launched in spring 2022. Nevertheless, some steps still have to be taken.
The previous approval in the German Bundestag was unconstitutional
On March 10, 2017, the German Bundestag already approved the UPC Agreement. However, on March 31, 2017, a constitutional complaint was filed with the German Constitutional Court. Therefore, the ratification process of the Unified Patent System was stopped by Germany. On February 13, 2020, the Constitutional Court decided inter alia that in the vote in the German Bundestag the 2/3 majority was missing. After this decision of the Constitutional Court, the German Bundestag approved a new, unchanged bill on the UPC Agreement with a sufficient majority on November 26, 2020.
Besides the UPC Agreement, the German Bundestag adopts a protocol on provisional applicability
In addition to the UPC Agreement, the German Bundestag also approved a protocol on provisional applicability on November 26, 2020. With this protocol, it is possible that the Preparatory Committee of the Unified Patent System can appoint judges for the UPC, rent office space, etc. before the certificate of ratification is deposited by Germany.
In the next step, the German Bundesrat (Federal Council) has to approve the UPC Agreement
In Germany besides the Bundestag also the Bundesrat has to approve the UPC Agreement. The vote on this will take place on December 18, 2020. The approval of the UPC agreement in the Bundesrat is very likely since the same parties have a majority in the Bundesrat as in the Bundestag. Afterward a countersignature by the Federal Government and the German President takes place. In the end the approval is published in the German Federal Law Gazette. Then, the certificate of ratification is ready to be deposited by Germany.
The Central Divisions of the UPC will be located in Munich and Paris
Since the UK is going to leave the European Union on January 1, 2021, the UK is not part of the Unified Patent System and London will no longer be a location for the UPC Central Divisions. Therefore, the Central Divisions of the UPC will be located in Munich and Paris.
Summary of the important next steps
On December 18, 2020, the German Bundesrat will probably approve the UPC Agreement.
Then, the protocol on provisional applicability will be deposited by Germany (probably spring 2021).
After that, the Preparatory Committee of the Unified Patent System will appoint judges, rent office space, buy furniture, etc.
Germany will deposit the certificate of ratification after the preparation of the Preparatory Committee (probably end of 2021).
Expected start of the Unified Patent System is in spring 2022.
WINTER BRANDL Partnerschaft mbB, Patent Attorney Michael Schüller, Munich
Michael Schüller
7. Dezember 2020
Michael Schüller is partner at Winter, Brandl – Partnerschaft mbB.
As (German) Patent Attorney and European Patent and Trademark Attorney, he supports clients in the field of mechanical engineering.
The EPO and the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) have agreed on a two-year pilot program last year that would allow Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applicants filing a PCT application at the CNIPA to choose the EPO as their International Searching Authority (ISA). This agreement was signed on November 12, 2020, at their joint conference in Suzhou, China. Due to the outbreak of the new coronavirus, it had not been determined when the program will start until the middle of October 2020.
The Start of the program is in December 2020
Recently, the EPO finally announced that this pilot program will start on December 1, 2020. The pilot program will be open to nationals and residents of the People’s Republic of China filing with CNIPA or the International Bureau (IB) of the World IP Office (WIPO). Further, there is a limit participation in the program to 2,500 patentapplications for the first 12 months and 3,000 for the next 12 months.
Benefits for Chinese applicants
For Chinese applicants, this program will offer an additional option to optimize their international patent strategy, especially when considering protection in Europe. As a result, Chinese applicants interested in accelerating the prosecution of their applications will, by selecting the EPO as their ISA, gain up to one year by entering into the European phase earlier and getting direct examination of their files, without the need for a supplementary European search. For more detailed questions about the pilot program, please use the following link:
WINTER BRANDL Partnerschaft mbB, Tianhao Miao (Chinese Manager, German, European and Chinese Patent Attorney) and Michael Schueller (Partner, German and European Patent Attorney)
Tianhao Miao
5. November 2020
Tianhao Miao supports our Chinese clients in the field of mechanical engineering. He is Patent Attorney, European Patent Attorney and Chinese Patent Attorney.
Die vorliegende, auf maschinellem Lernen insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit einem künstlichen neuronalen Netz beruhende Erfindung ist nicht ausreichend offenbart, da das erfindungsgemäße Training des künstlichen neuronalen Netzes mangels Offenbarung nicht ausführbar ist.
Da sich im vorliegenden Fall das beanspruchte Verfahren vom Stand der Technik nur durch ein künstliches neuronales Netz unterscheidet, dessen Training nicht im Detail offenbart ist, führt die Verwendung des künstlichen neuronalen Netzes nicht zu einem speziellen technischen Effekt, der erfinderische Tätigkeit begründen könnte. (Orientierungssätze der Beschwerdekammer)
BK, Entscheidung vom 12. Mai 2020 – T 0161/18 – Verfahren zur Bestimmung des Herzzeitvolumens; EPÜ Art. 83, 56
Gegenstand des Streitpatents ist die Nutzung eines künstlichen neuronalen Netzes zur Transformation einer Blutdruckkurve
Die Beschwerdeführerin ist Anmelderin einer Europäischen Patentanmeldung (Nr. 06804383.5). Die Erfindung betrifft unter anderem ein Verfahren zur Bestimmung des Herzzeitvolumens. Hierzu wird zunächst der Blutdruck einer Person als Blutdruckkurve aufgezeichnet. Der Blutdruck der Person wird über eine Manschette 2 von einem Oberarm der Person abgegriffen, siehe unten einkopierte Fig. 1. Über eine Leitung 3 wird der Blutdruck von der Manschette 2 zu einer Vorrichtung 1 mit einer Recheneinheit geführt.
Die einkopierte Fig. 2 zeigt den Verfahrensablauf auf der Recheneinheit. Es ist die Blutdruckkurve 7 ersichtlich, die über die Manschette 2 erfasst wurde. Mit Hilfe eines künstlichen neuronalen Netzes 8 wird die Blutdruckkurve 7 in einen äquivalenten Aortendruck 9 transformiert. Aus diesem wird anschließend unter Zuhilfenahme eines Optimierungsmodells 10 das Herzzeitvolumen 11 errechnet. Das neuronale Netz 8 hat Gewichtungswerte. Diese werden durch Lernen bestimmt.
Die Prüfungsabteilung hat die vorliegende Patentanmeldung zurückgewiesen, da das obenstehende erläuterte Verfahren nicht erfinderisch ist. Dagegen wendet sich die Beschwerdeführerin mit ihrer Beschwerde.
Die Beschwerdekammer erachtet die Erfindung als nicht ausreichend offenbart
Die Beschwerdekammer bezieht Stellung hinsichtlich des beanspruchten Trainings des neuronalen Netzes 8, siehe Fig. 2. Laut Beschwerdekammer ist in der Patentanmeldung lediglich offenbart, dass die Eingabedaten für das Training ein breites Spektrum von Patienten unterschiedlichen Alters, Geschlechts etc. abdecken soll. Allerdings offenbart die Patentanmeldung gemäß Beschwerdekammer nicht, welche Eingabedaten zum Trainieren des neuronalen Netzes 8 geeignet sind. Es ist auch nicht zumindest ein geeigneter Datensatz der Trainingsdaten in der Patentanmeldung offenbart. Somit kann das Trainieren des neuronalen Netzes 8 vom zuständigen Fachmann nicht nachbearbeitet werden. Die Erfindung ist somit nicht ausreichend offenbart.
Die Beschwerde wird von der Beschwerdekammer unter anderem basierend auf dem Grund der nicht ausreichenden Offenbarung zurückgewiesen.
Trainingsdaten sollte zumindest unter bestimmten Umständen in der Patentanmeldung offenbart sein
In der vorliegenden Patentanmeldung wurde im Verfahrens- und Vorrichtungsanspruch beansprucht, dass die Gewichtungswerte des neuronalen Netzes durch Lernen bestimmt werden. Um den Zurückweisungsgrund der nicht ausreichenden Offenbarung in diesem Fall zu vermeiden, sollten die Eingabedaten für das Training und zumindest ein Trainings-Datensatz in der Patentbeschreibung offenbart sein.
WINTER BRANDL Partnerschaft mbB, Patentanwalt Michael Schüller
Michael Schüller
10. September 2020
Michael Schüller is partner at Winter, Brandl – Partnerschaft mbB.
As (German) Patent Attorney and European Patent and Trademark Attorney, he supports clients in the field of mechanical engineering.
Transitional provisions – applicability of Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 to cases where the summons to oral proceedings was notified before the entry into force of the RPBA 2020. (Catchword of the Board)
BoA, Decision of January 20, 2020 – T 1386/18; Article 13(1) RPBA 2020
The appellant filed requests with the BoA before the revised RPBA 2020 was into force
The appellant (applicant) lodged an appeal within the prescribed period and in the prescribed form against the decision of the examining division to refuse the European patent application No. 10840300.7.
In 2018 the appellant filed his statement of grounds of appeal.
In 2019 to prepare the oral proceedings, the BoA communicated its preliminary assessment.
In 2019 the appellant filed a response.
On January 20, 2020, the oral proceedings took place.
The revised RPBA 2020 is in force from January 1, 2020. Therefore, the written submissions of the appellant mentioned above have been filed before the RPBA 2020 came into force. The oral proceeding was held after the RPBA 2020 came into force.
The BoA notes in its decision the transitional provisions of the RPBA 2020
In its decision, the BoA noted that the RPBA 2020 applies, except for “new” Articles 12(4) to (6) and 13(2) RPBA 2020. Instead of which the “old” Articles 12(4) and 13 RPBA 2007 remain applicable.
This is laid down in the transitional provisions according to Article 25 RPBA 2020. “New” Articles 12(4) to (6) RPBA 2020 refer to the first stage (filing stage) of the appeal, see Fig. 1 below.
“New” Article 12(4) RPBA 2020 defines that a request, fact, objection, argument, and/ or evidence on which the decision under appeal was/were not based is considered as an amendment. Any such amendment may be admitted only at the discretion of the Board. Nevertheless, if the party demonstrates that the request, fact, objection, argument, and evidence was/ were admissibly raised and maintained in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal, then it is not considered as an amendment. Compared to this, the “old” Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 –here applicable – has less stringent limitations on amendments at the first stage.
“New” Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 refers to the third stage of the appeal, see Fig. 1 above. This Article imposes the most stringent limitations on appeal submissions which are made at an advanced stage of the proceedings. Advanced stage means after the expiry of a period set by the board of appeal in communication under Rule 100(2) EPC or, where no such communication is issued, after notification of a summons to oral proceedings. In contrast, the “old” Article 13 RPBA 2007 – here applicable – has less stringent limitations.
In the present decision, the BoA clarified, that the “new” Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 applies to the present proceedings because this Article is not excluded by the transitional provisions defined in Article 25 RPBA 2020. “New” Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 refers to the second stage of the appeal – see Fig. 1 above – and to amendments before notification of a summons or before the expiry of a time-limit of a communication. “New” Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 defines the conditions under which a party may amend its appeal case after the initial stage of the proceedings and before the period set in a communication under Rule 100(2) EPC has expired or before a summons to oral proceedings has been notified. The party must provide reasons as to why the amendment is submitted at this stage of the appeal proceedings. Its admittance is subject to the Board’s discretion alone.
Other Boards of Appeal have different views regarding the application/ interpretation of “new” Article 13(1) RPBA 2020
According to a further recent decision T 0032/16 of a different BoA, when compared, the revised wording in “new” Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 is more detailed in listing out the requirements on the party making an amendment to its appeal case and the criteria to be used by the Board when exercising its discretion. The difference however merely reflects much of the case law developed under “old” Article 13(1) RPBA 2007. Therefore, according to T 0032/16 no contradiction can be found in the wording of “new” Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 compared to “old” Article 13 RPBA 2007.
In a further recent BoA decision, T 0989/15 the Board saw no reason to apply the criteria of “new” Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 in addition.
Conclusion
If the first stage took place before RPBA 2020 came into force then the “old” Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 for the first stage applies instead of “new” Articles 12(4) to (6) RPBA 2020. Therefore, for such cases, there are less stringent limitations on amendments at the first stage of the appeal proceeding.
Where the summons to oral proceedings or a communication of the Board under Rule 100(2) EPC has been notified before the date of the entry into force (1 January 2020) “old” Article 13 RPBA 2007 instead of “new” Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 for the third stage applies. Hence, for such cases, there are less stringent limitations on amendments at the third stage of the appeal proceeding.
Further, the “new” Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 for the second stage applies according to T 1386/18, irrespective of the fact that the summons to oral proceedings was notified before 1 January 2020. But according to T 0032/16 this “new” Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 is not stricter compared to the “old” Article 13(1) RPBA 2007 in combination with the developed case law which is good News.
Reasons for the decision
Revised Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA 2020) – Transitional provisions The present proceedings are governed by the revised version of the Rules of Procedure which came into force on 1 January 2020 (Articles 24 and 25(1) RPBA 2020), except for Articles 12(4) to (6) and 13(2) RPBA 2020 instead of which Articles 12(4) and 13 RPBA 2007 remain applicable (Article 25(2) and (3) RPBA 2020). The general applicability of the RPBA 2020 to the present proceedings includes Article 13(1) RPBA 2020, irrespective of the fact that the summons to oral proceedings was notified before 1 January 2020 (cf. T 2227/15, T 32/16 and T 634/16, none of them published in the OJ EPO)
Winter, Brandl – Partnerschaft mbB, Patent Attorney Michael Schüller
Michael Schüller
13. Oktober 2020
Michael Schüller is partner at Winter, Brandl – Partnerschaft mbB.
As (German) Patent Attorney and European Patent and Trademark Attorney, he supports clients in the field of mechanical engineering.
Die Anweisung, für ein Auswahlmenü auf einem Bildschirm eine Darstellungsart zu wählen, die lediglich dem Zweck dient, die angezeigten Menüpunkte und den Umstand, dass möglicherweise noch weitere Punkte verfügbar sind, besonders anschaulich zu präsentieren, betrifft kein technisches Lösungsmittel und ist deshalb bei der Prüfung auf erfinderische Tätigkeit nicht zu berücksichtigen (Bestätigung von BGH, GRUR 2015, 660 – Bildstrom; BGH, GRUR 2015, 1184 – Entsperrbild). (Leitsatz des Gerichts)
BGH, Urteil vom 14. Januar 2020 – X ZR 144/17 – Rotierendes Menü; EPÜ Art. 52 II lit. d
Gegenstand des Streitpatents ist ein Bildschirm, der ein rotierendes Menü anzeigt
Die Beklagte ist Inhaberin des mit einer Nichtigkeitsklage angegriffenen Streitpatents. Dieses betrifft eine elektronische Vorrichtung mit wenigstens einer Anzeige 1, siehe untenstehend einkopierte Figur 1. Die Anzeige 1 stellt ein Menü 2 dar, das von einem Benutzer rotiert werden kann. Ein Teil von Menüpunkten des Menüs 2 liegt außerhalb der Anzeige 1. Außerhalb liegende Menüpunkte können bei Bedarf in die Anzeige 1 hereingedreht werden, wobei entsprechend innen liegende Menüpunkte herausgedreht werden. Das BPatG hat das Streitpatent für nicht patentfähig erachtet und in vollem Umfang für nichtig erklärt. Dagegen wendet sich die Beklagte mit der Berufung.
Bei der Beurteilung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit nicht berücksichtigtes Merkmal
Das Merkmal in Anspruch 1 des Streitpatents, dass das Menü 2 rotierend ist, wird bei der Beurteilung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit vom BGH nicht berücksichtigt. Gemäß BGH ermöglicht dieses Merkmal es nicht, die zur Verfügung stehende Anzeigefläche effizienter zu nutzen. Sie dient lediglich dem Zweck, die angezeigten Menüpunkte und den Umstand, dass möglicherweise noch weitere Punkte verfügbar sind, besonders anschaulich zu präsentieren. Damit wird allein dem menschlichen Vorstellungsvermögen Rechnung getragen. Darin liegt nach der Rechtsprechung des Senats kein technisches Lösungsmittel (BGH, GRUR 2015, 1184 Rn. 21 – Entsperrbild; BGH, Urteil vom 26. Februar 2015 – X ZR 37/13, GRUR 2015, 660 Rn. 31 ff. – Bildstrom). Das beschriebene Merkmal wird somit nicht bei der Beurteilung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit berücksichtigt.
Weitere Merkmale bezüglich des Menüs werden berücksichtigt
Im Gegensatz zu dem Merkmal, dass das Menü 2 rotierend ist, werden andere Merkmale in Anspruch 1 des Streitpatents bezüglich dem Menü 2 vom BGH bei der Beurteilung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit berücksichtigt. Beispielsweise:
Menü 2 umfasst eine Anzahl von Menüpunkten,
Menü 2 ist auf der Anzeige außerhalb der Mitte vorgesehen,
ohne Änderung des Formats des Menüs 2 kann eine beliebige Anzahl von Punkten zu dem Menü 2 hinzugefügt werden.
Laut BGH haben diese Merkmale die Funktion, einen räumlich begrenzten Anzeigebereich für die Anzeige von Informationen zu nutzen. Die Informationen können aufgrund ihres Umfangs und ihrer Formatierung nicht auf einmal dargestellt werden. Dieses technische Problem wird nach den genannten Merkmalen durch eine bestimmte räumliche Anordnung der angezeigten Informationen gelöst. Hierin liegt nicht nur eine zweckmäßige und leicht verständliche Darstellung der Informationen, sondern ein technisches Lösungsmittel, nämlich eine zweckmäßige Ausnutzung der zur Verfügung stehenden Bildschirmfläche. Somit werden diese Merkmale bei der Beurteilung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit vom BGH berücksichtigt.
Das Urteil des BPatG wird vom BGH bestätigt, da der beanspruchte Gegenstand nicht erfinderisch ist.
Hilfreiche Zweckangaben im Patent
Die Merkmale des Menüs 2, die bei der Beurteilung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit berücksichtigt wurden, erfüllen einen technischen Zweck: sie führen zur besseren Ausnutzung der Anzeige 1. Das Merkmal bezüglich der Rotierbarkeit des Menüs 2 führt lediglich zur besonders anschaulichen Präsentation der Menüpunkte. Dieses Merkmal nimmt somit auch nicht auf physische Gegebenheiten der menschlichen Wahrnehmung und Aufnahme von Informationen Rücksicht. Wäre dies der Fall, so hätte dieses Merkmal berücksichtigt werden müssen. Derartige Merkmale finden sich beispielsweise beim Streitgegenstand des Urteils BGH, GRUR 2015, 660 – Bildstrom. Darin führt eine bestimmte Informationsdarstellung dazu, dass ein Nutzer in die Lage versetzt wird, die Informationen schnell und effizient zu erfassen. Möglicherweise hätte eine derartige Zweckangabe in dem Streitpatent in der vorliegenden Sache zu einer Berücksichtigung des Merkmals hinsichtlich des rotierbaren Menüs bei der Beurteilung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit geführt. Natürlich nur, wenn diese Zweckangabe technisch zutreffend gewesen wäre.
Winter, Brandl – Partnerschaft mbB, Patentanwalt Michael Schüller
Michael Schüller
20. August 2020
Michael Schüller is partner at Winter, Brandl – Partnerschaft mbB.
As (German) Patent Attorney and European Patent and Trademark Attorney, he supports clients in the field of mechanical engineering.
