WEB-CONTENT MEASUREMENTS – T 1422/19-3.5.07 – May 19, 2021 – non-technical features which contribute to technical character
The software discussed in this decision carries out an indirect measurement. The software measures/ determines a web page viewing area based on the measurement/ input data/ raw data of the size of a browser window. Such indirect measurements are of a technical nature, regardless of what use is made of the results (cf. G 1/19, point 99).
To enable proprietors of a patent in force in Germany to effectively protect their rights under the patent, they can apply for injunctions against alleged patent infringers as a means of interim legal protection. Injunctions can, for example, be aimed at prohibiting an alleged patent infringer from distributing or manufacturing a certain patent-infringing product within the area where a patent (injunction patent) is valid on pain of a fine or imprisonment.
Lukas VogelLukas Vogel supports clients in the fields of medical technology, manufacturing technology and automotive engineering. He is a German and European Patent Attorney, European Trademark and Design Attorney and holds a Master’s degree in engineering (Dipl.-Ing).
Biotechnology can be subdivded into three main areas: The largest area is called “red biotechnology“ and is applied in the healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors. The second area of “white biotechnology“ relates to the use of microorganisms in chemical production systems. The third area of “green biotechnology“ is about agriculture.
Biotechnological innovations have become indispensible for reaching the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) of the United Nations and the European Green Deal objectives. Thereby, new medical treatments, clean energy sources and sustainable agriculture are just three examples how biotechnology contributes to theses goals.
Dr. Julia Romic-PicklDr. rer. nat.
Patent Engineer
Division Chemistry/Biotechnology
Contact Details:
JRomic-Pickl@wbetal.de
At the EPO, data relating to software-related inventions may, under certain conditions, be regarded as data of a technical character. This means that such data will be taken into account as a distinguishing feature in the examination of inventive step. Data may have a technical character if they are so-called “functional data”. A typical example of “functional data” is data intended to control a technical device. In the following decision T 1806/20, the appellant tried to present “cognitive data” as “functional data”. The appellant relied on the earlier decision T 1194/97, which identifies a type of test method that can be used to determine whether the data are “functional data”.
欧州特許庁（以下EPO）は、2019年以降、最新の重要な特許動向を提供するためにいくつかの分析レポートを公表しています。これまでに公表された10件の分析レポートのうち2件は、バイオテクノロジー分野に関するもので、医療分野における革新的な将来技術や新興技術について解説しています。 本稿では、mRNAテクノロジー領域の中でも特に成長が著しい分野であるmRNAワクチンに関する最新のバイオテクノロジー・分析レポートに焦点を絞ります。
mRNAテクノロジー、特にmRNAワクチンは、ウイルス・細菌感染、がん、マラリア等、世界で最も広範に流行しかつ致死性である疾患の予防と治療を目的とした幅広い用途で、医療分野を根本的に改変する可能性を内包しています。 mRNAテクノロジーは、個人用がんワクチン等のオーダーメイド医療用途だけではなく、パンデミックの封じ込めに大きく貢献したSARS－CoV－2用mRNAワクチンに見られる公衆向けの広範な医療目的での開発にも適しています。したがって、mRNAテクノロジーは、多岐にわたる人類の苦痛の予防および治療のための適応型のツールボックスを提供すると言えます。
このような流れで、今年のノーベル生理学・医学賞とEPOの2022年欧州発明家賞が、mRNAテクノロジーの分野に授与されました。
分析レポートでは、EPOの全世界特許データのデータベースから抽出された特許情報が分析されました。全技術分野の発明総件数と比較して、mRNAワクチン分野の発明件数（mRNAワクチンに関連する国際パテントファミリーの件数）は、過去10年間で有意に高い増加率が認められました。
mRNAワクチンの特許出願のうち最も多数派の出願は、世界150カ国以上で特許保護の対象となり得る国際出願ルートを取っており、次いで米国出願、欧州出願、オーストラリア出願、カナダ出願、中国出願、日本出願となっています。分析レポートにもあるように、国際特許出願率の高さは、経済的期待の大きさとその期待に応じる形での多国家での商業化戦略の表れと見ることができます。
特許は、他人が業として特許発明を実施することを排除する権利を特許権者に付与する法的権利です。 最近のEPO－EUIPOの調査”Patents, trademarks and startup finance”で示されているように、特許は、とりわけ最も知財集約的（IP－intensive）なバイオテクノロジーの分野で、投資を誘致し、ライセンス契約を確保し、市場の独占権を提供するのに大きく貢献し得ます。端的に言えば、特許により技術革新、技術の普及、経済成長が促進されるということです。
当事務所は、革新的なアイデアや発明についての特許法や商標法上の助言を、創業者に高水準で提供することに特徴があります。
私達にとって重要なのは、イノベーションを保護し、知的財産の分野での皆様のパートナーであることです。
アイデアの特許化は、発明の期待される強み、市場の可能性、予算の制約を考慮した上で行われる経営上の決定であると言えます。
当事務所では、法律事務所WINTER､BRANDL – Partnerschaft mbBを知っていただき、また一般的な疑問を解消いだけるよう、拘束力のない無料相談を受け付けています。
上で触れたトピックに関する詳細とその事例については近日公開いたします。
皆様のご連絡をお待ちしております。
以下の連絡先までお気軽にお問い合わせください：CRegler@wbetal.de または JRomic-Pickl@wbetal.de
Dr. Julia Romic-PicklDr. rer. nat.
Patent Engineer
Division Chemistry/Biotechnology
Contact Details:
JRomic-Pickl@wbetal.de
The amendments concern, inter alia, Rules 126(2), 127(2) and 131(2) EPC, which deal with service by postal services and by electronic means as well as the calculation of time limits triggered by the service of a document. (https://www.epo.org/en/legal/official-journal/2023/03/a29.html)
A Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO has referred questions to the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal regarding the definition of the state of the art in relation to a commercially available product (link).
The referring Board asks whether the commercial availability of a product and partial information about its composition (e.g. datasheets) can be state of the art, even when the composition or internal structure cannot be analysed or reproduced. This is critical for the referring case, as the possibility to use such a product in the inventive step assessment is decisive. The last question considers what threshold is required for the “undue burden” criterion in r.1.4 of G 1/92.
Currently, the new European Unified Patent System is being implemented, which is planned to start on April 1, 2023. The introduction of the Unified Patent System will have an impact on all European patents, including “old” European patents that have already been granted and are in force. Please find below more information on the new Unified Patent System.
After the start of the European Unified Patent System, an applicant of a European patent application can choose between the following options after grant:
The new Unified Patent System provides for a Unified Patent Court. Patent infringement proceedings or nullity proceedings relating to a Unitary Patent can be conducted centrally via this court. The Unified Patent Court is responsible for European Unitary Patents and for classic European Patents and thus also for “old” European Patents which are still in force. However, in the case of a classical European Patent, during a transitional period of between 7 and 14 years after the start of the Unified Patent System, the national courts in the countries where the classic European Patent is validated will have jurisdiction in addition to the Unified Patent Court as before. In other words, for example, patent infringement proceedings in the case of a Unitary Patent will take place centrally before the Unified Patent Court, whereas in the case of a classic European Patent, a choice can be made between the Unified Patent Court and the national courts.
A patentee of a classic European Patent has the possibility – during the transitional period mentioned above – to exclude the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court. For this purpose, it is necessary to file a so-called “opt-out-request” for the classic European Patent. After the exclusion of the Unified Patent Court due to an opt-out-request, the national courts will continue to have exclusive jurisdiction for the classic European Patent.
Fig. 2 below shows the different possibilities.
Figure 2: different possibilities regarding a European patent protection
An opt-out-request can already be filed 3 months before the start of the Unified Patent system in the so-called “sunrise period”. It is currently planned that the sunrise period starts on January 1, 2023. The question as whether an opt-out-request should be filed for a classic European Patent depends on the individual case. An opt-out-request is only possible as long as no action is pending before the Unified Patent Court.
Patentees and applicants of classic European Patents should take the following steps with regard to the new Unified Patent System:
If you have any questions about the new Unified Patent System – for example, about the steps mentioned above – we will be pleased to answer them personally.
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 patent applications 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:
English: https://www.epo.org/service-support/faq/own-file/cnipa-epo-pilot.html
Chinese: https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2020/10/20/art_364_153578.html
WINTER BRANDL Partnerschaft mbB, Tianhao Miao (Chinese Manager, German, European and Chinese Patent Attorney) and Michael Schueller (Partner, German and European Patent Attorney)
Tianhao MiaoTianhao Miao supports our Chinese clients in the field of mechanical engineering. He is Patent Attorney, European Patent Attorney and Chinese Patent Attorney.
„経過規定-欧州特許庁審判部手続規則2020発効前に口頭審理の召喚状が通知された場合の欧州特許庁審判部手続規則2020第13条1項の適用性“
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 (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.
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.
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.
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.
Decision T 1386/18: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t181386eu1.pdf
RPBA 2020: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/communications/2019/20190704.html