information 2 12 › ... › download › 2012_02_epi_info.pdf · i – information concerning epi...

2 12

I – Informationconcerningepi

31 Committeereports

38 TrainingfortheEQEpre-examination2013

39 CEIPIpreparationCourses

41 epimeetingroom

II – ContributionsfromepiMembersandothercontributions

42 FICPIWorldCongress,MelbournebyT.Johnson

43 Statistics,theiruseandabuse,andtheEQEbyJ.Boff

44 Rule137(5)EPC–AnIrresistibleTemptation?byY.RobinandP.Chapman,T.Hargreaves(Co-authors)

49 DerFachmann:dienotwendigeFiktionimSystembyT.Fox

G 10904 F | ISSN 1434-8853 | Art.-Nr. 56356202 | Juni 2012

Information

Institut der beim Europäischen Patentamt zugelassenen Vertreter

Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office

Institut des mandataires agréés près l’Office européen des brevets

InstitutderbeimEuropäischenPatentamtzugelassenenVertreterInstituteofProfessionalRepresentativesbeforetheEuropeanPatentOfficeInstitutdesmandatairesagréésprèsl‘Officeeuropéendesbrevets

Redaktionsausschuss / Editorial Committee / Commission de RédactionWalterHolzerTerryJohnsonThierrySchuffeneckerAlbertWiedemann

Postanschrift / Mailing address / Adresse postale epiP.O.Box26011280058MunichGermanyTel: +4989242052-0Fax:+4989242052-20Email:[email protected]

Verlag / Publishing House / Maison d'édition CarlHeymannsVerlagEineMarkevonWoltersKluwerDeutschlandGmbHLuxemburgerStraße449D-50939KölnTel.(0221)94373-7000Fax(0221)94373-7201Kundenservice:Tel.(02631)[email protected]

Anzeigen / Advertisements / Publicité CarlHeymannsVerlagEineMarkevonWoltersKluwerDeutschlandGmbH

Druck / Printing / Imprimeur Grafik+DruckGmbH,MünchenISSN1434-8853©Copyrightepi2012

VierteljahreszeitschriftAbonnement im Mitgliedsbeitrag enthalten, für Nichtmitglieder € 54,00 p.a. zzgl. Versandkosten (€ 9,90 Inland / € 14,00 Ausland), Einzelheft € 20,00 zzgl.Versandkosten (ca. € 2,27 Inland / ca. € 3,20 Ausland) je nach Heftumfang. Preise inkl. MwSt. Aufkündigung des Bezuges 6 Wochen vor Jahresende.

QuarterlyPublicationSubscription fee included in membership fee, for non-members € 54,00 p.a. plus postage (national € 9,90 / abroad € 14,00), indivi-dual copy € 20,00 p.a. plus postage (national about € 2,27, abroad about € 3,20) depending on the size of the issue, VAT included. Cancellation of subscription is requested 6 weeks before any year’s end.

PublicationtrimestriellePrix de l’abonnement inclus dans la cotisation, pour non-membres € 54,00 p.a., frais d’envoi en sus (national € 9,90 / étranger € 14,00), prix à l’unité € 20,00, frais d’envoi en sus (national environ € 2,27, étranger environ € 3,20) selon le volume du numéro, TVA incluse. Résiliation de l’abonnement 6 semaines avant la fin de l’année.

Das Institut ist weder für Erklärungen noch für Meinungen verantwortlich, die in Beiträgen dieser Zeitschrift enthalten sind. Artikel werden in der oder den Amtsprachen (deutsch, englisch, französisch) wiedergegeben, in der bzw. denen diese Artikel eingereicht wurden.

The Institute as a body is not responsible either for the statements made, or for the opinions expressed in the publications. Articles are reproduced in the official language or languages (German, English or French) in which they are submitted.

L’Institut n’est pas responsable des opinions exprimées dans cette publication. Les articles sont publiés dans celle ou celles des trois langues officielles (allemand, anglais ou français) dans laquelle ou lesquelles ils ont été proposés.

The trade mark ”epi” is the property of the Institute and is registered nationally in Germany and as a Community Trade Mark at OHIM.

Table of Contents

Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

I – Information concerning epi

Committee Reports

Report of the Disciplinary Committee . . . . . . . 31Report of the EPPC to the epi Council. . . . . . . 32Report of the Harmonisation Committee . . . . . 33Report of the Litigation Committee . . . . . . . . 33Biotech Committee – Minutes of EPO/epi Meeting held on 10 November 2011 . . . . . 35

Education and Training

Mock EQEs 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Training for the EQE pre-examination 2013,by A. Zellner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Seminars introducing the EQE to potentialcandidates, by A. Zellner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Take a look at the EQE Forum, by A. Zellner . . . . 38Tutors wanted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3910th CEIPI epi Course on Patent Litigationin Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39CEIPI preparation courses for the EQEpre-examination and main examination 2013 . . . 39

Information from the Secretariat

Next Board and Council Meetings . . . . . . . . . 40News from epi Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41epi meeting room for epi members . . . . . . . . 41Deadline 3/2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Contact Data of Legal Division. . . . . . . . . . . 42Dates of forthcoming issues of epi Information . . 37epi Disciplinary bodies and Committees . . . . . . 53epi Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U3

II – Contributions from epi Members and othercontributions

Articles

FICPI World Congress and Executive CommitteeMeeting, Melbourne, 15-21 April 2012,by T. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Statistics, their use and abuse, and the EQE,by J. Boff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Rule 137(5) EPC – An Irresistible Temptation?by Y. Robin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Die Erfinderische Tätigkeit (inventive step etc.)ist wissenschaftlich erledigt, by Dr. A. W. Kumm . . 47Der Fachmann: die notwendige Fiktion im System,by T. Fox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49European Inventor Award, Press Release, EPO . . . 52

Information 2/2012 Table of Contents 29

Editorial

T. Johnson (GB)

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus proposed the doctrineof change being central to the Universe, summed up bythe expression, “change is the only constant”. Thisdictum can be applied to many areas, not the least theEPO where several changes have taken place recently.This year for example, the Office is publishing its annualreport online, a boon for users. The report shows thatdespite the economic crisis, patent applications reached244 000 in 2011, an increase of 3.7%. That year too,62115 EPs were granted, a 7% increase over 2010.

In addition, the EPO and Logica have signed an agree-ment which is aimed at helping the Office establish amanagement system for digitally processing patentapplications. This is intended to cover all stages of anapplication's life up to grant, and also to manageoppositions and appeals. The system is due to be rolledout gradually from April 2013 with full implementationduring 2015.

Another change was the joint launch with Googleearlier this year of Patent Translate, which could simplifythe patent system, including the unitary patent when (?)it comes into force.

Yet another EPO agreement was the one signed inFebruary this year with the JPO whereby Japanese docu-mentation will be supplied for use in the EPO machinetranslation project.

These are just some of the changes taking place andwe believe support Heraclitus' doctrine, which does notinclude the idea of “change for change's sake”. Theprojects we have mentioned are, we believe, innovativeand to be encouraged as they should improve the EPOsystem for all who are involved in it, including applicants.Our Institute being part of the European Patent Organi-sation will be following these changes with constructiveinterest.

Lest it be thought that our Institute is not changing wecan give one example of a change which is aimed toprovide improved access to the Institute for all ourmembership and other interested parties. This changeis for a radical re-design of the Institute's website, whichis an exciting project which if realised will benefit all theusers of the system too, or so we on the EditorialCommittee believe.

Heraclitus lives on!

30 Editorial Information 2/2012

Nächster Redaktions-schluss für epi Information

Informieren Sie bitte den Redaktions-ausschuss so früh wie möglich überdas Thema, das Sie veröffentlichenmöchten. Redaktionsschluss für dienächste Ausgabe der epi Informationist der 10. August 2012. Die Doku-mente, die veröffentlicht werdensollen, müssen bis zu diesem Datumim Sekretariat eingegangen sein.

Next deadline forepi Information

Please inform the Editorial Commit-tee as soon as possible about thesubject you want to publish. Dead-line for the next issue of epiInformation is 10th August 2012.Documents for publication shouldhave reached the Secretariat by thisdate.

Prochaine date limite pourepi Information

Veuillez informer la Commission derédaction le plus tôt possible du sujetque vous souhaitez publier. La datelimite de remise des documents pourle prochain numéro de epiInformation est le 10 aout 2012.Les textes destinés à la publicationdevront être reçus par le Secrétariatavant cette date.

Report of the Disciplinary Committee

P. Rosenich (LI), Chair of Disciplinary Committee

1. Disciplinary Case CD 5/10 (San Marino)

At the last Council the Chairman of epi DisciplinaryCommittee was asked about a Complaint which wasfiled with and decided by a Chamber of the DisciplinaryCommittee regarding the surprising high number ofGrandfathers entering the epi-Member-List when SanMarion acceded.

Without going into details it can be stated that theChamber Westerholm decided in their decision CD 5/10to hand over this case to the Disciplinary Board. Sincethen the case is pending before the Disciplinary Board(the second half of the first instance in disciplinarymatters).

2. Procedure when matters are sent to theDisciplinary Committee „just for information“by an epi Member.

The Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee decided tonot hand over a letter containing information with somerelevance to disciplinary Questions to a Chamber unlesssaid epi Member sends a detailed complaint.

The situation was this:A first European Patent Attorney filed a claim “Straf-anzeige” against another European Patent Attorneywith a local executive body.

The first European Attorney sent a plain copy of saidclaim to the epi Disciplinary Committee. No requestregarding disciplinary proceedings was attached andno reasoning with regard to epi's Code of Conductwas provided. The Chairman of the Disciplinary Com-mittee decided not to hand over the copy to a Disciplin-ary Chamber but to ask in writing if said first Attorneyrequested disciplinary proceedings.

The reason for this decision was:a) Local executive bodies like Police or Courts havebetter investigative powers than the Disciplinary Com-mittee. From this follows that said bodies may easierinvestigate what really happened. When the facts of thecase are then available, the Disciplinary Committee caneventually use these facts in later disciplinary procedures.For that reason it does not make much sense to keepdisciplinary proceedings running in parallel to Police orCourt actions/proceedings.b) Said claim did not contain a reference to the Code ofConduct and to a concrete disciplinary misbehavior ofthe Defendant. For that reason it was not prima facie

obvious in which way the defending Attorney actedagainst the epi Code of Conduct.c) If an epi Member (European Patent Attorney) files arequest for disciplinary proceedings against another epiMember it is expected that the complaining Membershould provide a detailed and substantiated requestbased on the provisions of the Code of Conduct.

3. Request for Court-experts from epi (DC)

An epi attorney asked NOT for a Decision by a DC-Chamber BUT for an advice and an Expert for a Courthearing in a Civil Court Action against another epiMember. The Chairman of DC decided that such advicecould not be given from DC and proposed that theattorney contact the Professional Conduct Committee.Its Chairman gave some advice related to proper e-mailcorrespondence between epi Members and clients. ThePresident agreed that epi Experts could present epi prac-tice in Court hearings within the frame defined by theChairman of the Professional Conduct Committee. TwoMembers of DC volunteered to act as Experts. Therequesting epi Attorney received the names of theseExperts and thanked the epi for its help. It seems that atthis stage of proceedings the Experts will not be invokedin the Court hearing.

4. DC-Meeting 10th-11th June in Athens

The main topic will be: Mediation Training for the (new)Members of DC.

Also a proposal of Edward Lyndon-Stanford will bediscussed regarding a possibility to publish cases if thedefendant is frequently found guilty in breaching theCode of Conduct.

5. Cyprus has not yet nominated a member for DC.The Chairman found and proposed a Memberfrom another Country who was willing to workin DC on the CY-seat.

The CY-Council Member promised alternatively to try afinal time to find a member from Cyprus. The SecretaryGeneral and the Chairman agreed to this procedure.

6. French Chamber Debled lost it's Rapporteur dueto professional work overload. The Chairmanasked successfully for a substitute Member fromanother Chamber to fill the gap.

Information 2/2012 Committee Reports 31

I–In

form

atio

nco

ncer

ning

epi

Report of the EPPC to the epi Council

F. Leyder (BE), Chair of EPPC

This report completed on 09.05.2012 covers the periodsince my previous report dated 10.02.2012. There is littleto be added.

The EPPC is the largest committee of the epi, but alsothe one with the broadest remit: it has to consider anddiscuss all questions pertaining to, or connected with,practice under (1) the EPC, (2) the PCT, and (3) the futureEU Patent Regulation, including any revision thereof,except all questions in the fields of other committees:Biotech, OCC, PDC, LitCom, and EPO Finances.

The EPPC is presently organised with seven permanentsub-committees (EPC, Guidelines, MSBA, EPO-epiLiaison, PCT, Trilateral & IP5, and Unitary Patent).Additionally, ad hoc working groups are set up whenthe need arises.

DG3

1. Meeting with VP3A delegation of Presidium and EPPC members metMr van der Eijk, new Vice-President DG3 and Chairmanof the Enlarged Board of Appeal since 01.12.2011.

UNITARY PATENT

2. European patent with unitary effect in the partici-pating Member States

No new document has been posted on the website ofthe Council (http://register.consilium.europa.eu/).

On the website of the Parliament (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/), both procedures are still flagged“Awaiting Parliament 1st reading/single reading/budget1st stage”, but with an indicative date that has now beenpostponed sine die.

PCT

3. PCT Working GroupThe 5th session of the PCT Working Group is summonedfor the week from 29 May to 1 June 2012 in Geneva,Switzerland (where Monday 28 May is a holiday). Theworking documents will timely be posted on the WIPOwebsite: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=25017

By the time this report will be published, a 'Summaryby the Chair' should also be available.

In terms of future developments of the PCT system, Ican mention a proposal to allow the Written Opinion bythe ISA to be available as of the date of internationalpublication (or even included in the international pub-lication of the application), a proposal to conduct atop-up search in the international phase and to providefor an accelerated international search and examination,a proposed interim arrangement for filing of color draw-ings at offices that do not accept color drawings, and aproposal to distinguish in the ISR the documents that aredestroying inventive step when taken alone from docu-ments that destroy inventive step when combined withother documents.

EPC

4. 41st CPL meetingAt the 41st meeting of the Committee on Patent Law, theEPO submitted a proposal to amend Rule 53(3) EPC,pretty much in the line with the proposal posted on15.12.2011 on the EPO website for public consultation,despite the objections raised by epi at the 6thSACEPO/WPR meeting. We submitted further comments. Theproposal is now intended to be submitted to the Admin-istrative Council at its June meeting.

32 Committee Reports Information 2/2012

Information aboutepi membership and membership subscription

orRules governing payment of the epi annual membership fee

is available on the epi website www.patentepi.com

Report of the Harmonisation Committee

F. Leyder (BE), Secretary of Harmonisation Committee

This report covers the period since my previous reportdated 12.02.2012.

The Harmonisation Committee deals with all ques-tions concerning the worldwide harmonization of PatentLaw, and in particular within the framework of WIPO.

1. AIPLA-epi meeting

On 8 March 2012, a delegation of AIPLA met a dele-gation of the epi. Less than two weeks before themeeting, the President invited the members of the com-mittee who had attended the “Hearing of EuropeanUsers on the Implementation of the 'America InventsAct' 2011 in Light of Harmonization Issues” on 16th

February 2012 to join the epi delegation, as that Act was(of course) on the agenda.

The meeting was planned for two hours, with pre-sentations by both delegations. In a nutshell, we under-stood that AIPLA expressed that it is time to startnegotiating.

2. Committee meeting – Hearing at the EPO

As reported previously, Mr Lutz, Vice-President DG5,issued an invitation to a “Hearing of European Userson the Implementation of the 'America Invents Act'2011 in Light of Harmonization Issues” on 16th February2012.

An invitation was sent on 25th January 2012 to thecommittee members to join the epi delegation. The epidelegation comprised our President and both Vice-Presi-dents, four committee members, and a former commit-

tee member. The delegation met in the morning toprepare the afternoon hearing.

During the hearing, epi reaffirmed its opposition toany kind of grace period in the very interest of theinventors. It was interesting to note that BusinessEurope,to the contrary, appeared to support the idea of a graceperiod. There seemed to be a consensus that rulemakingcould not change the fundamental issues that Europeanusers appear to have with the AIA.

Incidentally, we understood that the EPO would wel-come any comments on derivation that the Europeanusers might wish to make.

3. 41st CPL

The EPO reported on the fact finding exercise carried outby the “Tegernsee Experts' Group” (see previous report).A further “Tegernsee Meeting” is planned after thesummer.

4. Standing Committee on the Law of Patents(SCP)

At the 18th Session of the SCP (21st to 25th May 2012),John Brown and Francis Leyder represented epi. TheSCP/18 working documents are available from the WIPOwebsite: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=25016

At the time of writing this report, no progress hadbeen made, and none could be foreseen.By the time this report will be published, a 'Summary bythe Chair' should be available.

Report of the Litigation Committee

A. Casalonga (FR), Chair of Litigation Committee

The Litigation Committee prepared comments on thedraft Rules of Procedure (RoP) for the new UPC. Thecomments were based on the eighth draft of the RoPdated March 30, 2012.

A position paper based on these comments was sent,after approval by the Presidium, to the Working Groupon the future Rules of Procedure as well as to the EUCommission.

The position paper contains general remarks andspecific comments on the draft Rules themselves.

Below are the general remarks.

1. Litigation cost

The epi considers essential that the overall costs of theprocedure before the court be reasonable.


Therefore, the Rules of procedure should be draftedwith the final aim of reaching a cost level approximatelysimilar to the overall costs of Court Litigation in Conti-nental Europe for example in France or Germany.

This aim is not only important in principle but also inview of the fact that parties will have the choice betweenthe UPC and National Courts during a relatively longtransitional period.

2. Litigation duration

The epi also considers that the overall duration of theCourt procedure should be reasonable. It is importantnot only for both parties, plaintiff as well as defendant,but also for the acceptability and sustainability of theentire patent system in Europe that decisions of the firstinstance could be issued within approximately one year.

In the same way, decisions of the Court of Appealshould, in normal cases, be issued within approximatelyone year.

3. Role of the Judges

The Rules of procedure should allow the various Divisionsof first instance, having panels with different nationalexperiences, to apply the same rules. However, the Rulesof procedure should not be so detailed that the Judgesare caught in a network of rules that do not allow themto take short cuts in the procedure and to discardarguments of minor importance and unjustified exten-sion of time requests. On the contrary, the Rules ofprocedure should allow the Judges to exercise a certainfreedom and personal authority to conduct an efficientprocedure.

The epi noted with satisfaction that Practice Directionsare also contemplated to deal with the details of theprocedure thus avoiding incorporation of too manydetails in the Rules of procedure themselves.

4. Damages and costs

In order to arrive at a reasonable duration of the overallCourt procedure, the epi considers that each time it ispossible, the determination of damages as well as coststo be paid by the losing party should be made by theCourt and decided in the decision on the merits. Initiat-ing a separate procedure for the determination ofdamages and costs should only be necessary in specifi-cally complicated cases where an extension of theduration of the procedure could be accepted.

5. Appeal procedure

The epi considers essential that final decisions be of highquality i. e. clear, logical and accurate, fully taking intoaccount the technical aspects of the patent. Taking intoaccount the number of different Local and RegionalDivisions which is to be expected and the proposedcomposition of the panels of those Divisions, the epi

considers that the appeal procedure with a single AppealCourt and panels of five judges including technicallytrained judges is probably the most important aspect ofthe entire organisation.

Consequently the epi considers that the procedurebefore the Court of Appeal should allow both parties topresent again the entire situation of the litigation includ-ing possible new facts and evidence which could notreasonably have been filed before the first instancecourt, as well as new nullity grounds if necessary. Theappeal procedure should therefore not be a simplerevision of the decision at First Instance. Only obviousabuses of the procedure and unjustified late presentedgrounds, facts and evidence should be rejected at thediscretion of the Court.

6. Witnesses and experts of the parties

In order to limit as far as possible the costs and durationof the procedure, the epi considers that evidence bywitnesses and experts of the parties should be strictlylimited to the establishment of factual situations andtechnical questions. Witnesses and experts of the partiesshould not present legal arguments for example onobviousness, skilled person or on interpretation of patentclaims or prior art documents. The procedure should beorganised in such a way that the oral testimony ofwitnesses and experts of the parties is avoided unlessreally necessary, at the discretion of the Court.

Questions presented to a witness or an expert of oneparty during an oral examination should only be pre-sented if agreed by the presiding judge.

7. Preserving evidence

The preservation and determination of evidence of analleged infringement is considered by the epi as anessential feature of an efficient procedure. The Rulesof procedure should therefore clearly authorize a plain-tiff to proceed with the inspection of an alleged infringe-ment as well as a description of said alleged infringementin all cases where it is necessary, at the discretion of theCourt and without excessive consideration of the risk ofdestruction of evidence.

7.1 The Rules of procedure should make it easily poss-ible for a plaintiff, based on reasonable arguments con-cerning the necessity of affording evidence of infringe-ment, to obtain from the Court, without the other partybeing heard in advance, an order to proceed with aninspection, in accordance with Article 35a(4) of the draftAgreement.

This should permit the plaintiff to present to the Courta complete and detailed description of the allegedinfringement.

7.2 This procedure (known in certain countries as “sai-sie” should however be carefully balanced, taking into


consideration the interests of the plaintiff as well as theinterests of the defendant.

7.3 It should be limited to obtaining evidence of analleged infringement and only

a) few samples of infringing products or

b) few samples of products used in an infringing processshould be allowed.

7.4 The procedure should be handled by an indepen-dent person nominated by the Court possibly assisted byrepresentatives of the plaintiff duly submitted to theirprofessional rules of conduct including secrecy pro-

visions. No employee of the plaintiff should be allowedto participate to this procedure.

7.5 Provisions should also be introduced in the Rules ofprocedure for safeguarding de confidentiality of certaindocuments and information. For example, it could beprovided that photocopies of alleged confidential docu-ments be kept in a sealed envelope or the equivalent bythe independent person nominated by the Court so thatthe Court (the Judge Rapporteur) may decide sub-sequently whether those documents can be wholly orpartly communicated to the plaintiff (if necessary only tocertain specific employees of the plaintiff under a pro-tective order).

Biotech CommitteeMinutes of EPO/epi Meeting held on 10 November 2011

A. de Clercq (BE), Chair of Biotech Committee

In Attendance:

Thanos Stamalopoulos (GR)Bernd Isert (BI, dir. 2404)Uli Thiele (UT, dir. 2402)Siobhán Yeats (SY, dir. 2403)Victor Kaas (VK, dir. 2401, Munich)Francisco Fernandez y Brañas (dir. 1222, the Hague)Sjoerd Hoekstra (SH, dir. 1223, the Hague)Maria Fotaki (MF, dir. 2405, Munich)Aliki Nichogiannopoulou (AN, dir. 2406, Munich)Imogen Scruton-Evans (GB, dir 2117, JCPAOC)

Ann de Clercq – BEGünter Keller– DEBart Swinkels – NLAnne Desaix – FRArpad Pethö – HUAnne Schouboe – DKNiklas Mattsson – SEDieter Wächter – CHAnna Hally – IEOlga Capasso – ITSisko Hillevi Knuth-Lehtola – FILiv Heidi Thoresen – NOSimon Wright – GB

Associate Members

Gabriele Leissler-Gerstl (liaison member of EPPC) – DE

Introduction

Mr Stamalopoulos gave a warm welcome. He said thatfrom the EPO's point of view this is a nice event and it fitsin well with their policy to meet users. As a serviceprovider, the EPO aims to give a good service. Anynewcomers to such EPO/epi annual meetings were wel-comed, including the Director from the Pure and OrganicChemistry Joint Cluster.

1. Developments since the WARF decision (G2/06), andpossible impact of the ECJ decision on stem cells.EPOpolicy on stem cells.

The recent CJEU Brüstle decision (C34/10) was dis-cussed. The decision is somewhat vague, althoughpotentially it might exclude any invention which at somestage necessarily involved the destruction of an embryo.At the time of the meeting the EPO's policy was that themorality exclusion can be overcome if one can refer to apublic hESC cell line deposited after May 2003. Therehave been a handful of cases going to grant on this basis.Note that in the WARF decision G2/06 the EPO decided itcould not refer any questions to the ECJ, as the EPO wasnot a court of a national state.

The Brüstle decision answered three questions. For thefirst time it gave an EU-wide definition of an embryo. TheEPO is currently evaluating its practice, and a documentmay be prepared by the Legal Department to be sub-mitted to the CPL meeting in December. The decisionmay be incorporated into the new Guidelines.

Note that the EPO adopted the EU legislation (BiotechDirective) for harmonization reasons. Whilst the EPOmay not be able to refer such matters to the CJEU, that


doesn't mean to say that it cannot follow an ECJ deci-sion. It was argued that the EPO should not grant patentsthat would be potentially invalid in national states. If wehave different claims for different states then that couldbe seen as disharmonious. It was noted that PresidentBatistelli had commented on the decision in his blog, andsuggested that the EPO would follow the ECJ decision.

2. Impact of EBA decisions G1/07 and G2/08 (Broccoliand Wrinkly Tomatoes), and further developments.

These decisions effectively said that the breedingmethods for plants that involve sexual selection areexcluded. Adding additional steps may not make themethod patentable, and back-crossing techniques mayalso be excluded. Both cases were referred to the TBA,and on the Broccoli case Oral Proceedings were due totake place on 26 October 2011. The Board of Appealcancelled the Oral Proceedings in the Broccoli case dueto the filing of amended requests and the case willcontinue in writing. In the tomato case a hearing washeld before Board 3.3.04 on November 8, 2011 and theApplicant had removed all claims to crossing and selec-tion, and so had retained only product claims. Unilever,the Opponent, argued that it would be improper for theEPO to grant claims on products if methods of producingthem were unpatentable. The Board said that it wouldrefer this issue back to the EBA. The questions have notyet been formulated, but Unilever have suggested some.This is the first time ever that one particular case hasreceived two referrals to the EBA. Note that the EPO hasonly a handful of cases on pure breeding methods (onerelates to melon, and the other to lettuce). On a sun-flower case there was a decision last March, but thisconcerned whether what is claimed is a variety (or not).

3. EPO's new rules: impact on applicantsConcern was expressed by the epi at President Batistelli'sblog, stating that the grant rate in biotech (about 28%)was lower than the EPO average grant rate. It was noted,though, that about 90% of biotech cases do not haveethical/morality issues. The biotech cluster performsabout 10,000 searches a year, and grants about 3,000cases.

Generally speaking, the change to a 6 month term forthe Rule 161 Communication was welcomed. Therewas, however, little experience of practice under Rules62 and 63, and such issues have not been raised on thatmany cases. It was uncertain whether Rule 63(2) couldbe raised as a reason for not searching.

It was noted that some Applicants are now contactingExaminers just before the 2 year deadline after theExamining Division's first communication, in order toclarify the situation on disunity. This is to decide whetherdivisional(s) were required. It was noted that if onerestricts to the first invention during examination, andthen one gets a further disunity objection, then thatobjection should be treated as a new one, under Rule 36(1)(b).

The epi called for an end to “precautionary” disunityobjections, for example where Examiners suggest that

one might be raised later. The epi welcomed the EPOasking Examiners to include a standard clause explicitlystating if a new disunity objection is being raised. Exam-iners have now been asked to do this wherever a newdisunity objection is going to appear, as a result ofinternal instructions.

4. Disunity practiceThe epi said that their perception is that disunity objec-tions have increased, and that Examiners are now lesslikely to accept a common inventive concept. The EPOremarked that there were lots of cases with largenumbers of sequences, and that applicants should tryto ensure that these sequences have a (smaller) commonsequence, as well as a common function (if possible). Theepi thought that Examiners seem too ready to acceptlack of novelty, and can use (lack of) clarity and supportissues in order to justify disunity. These are substantiveissues which are perhaps better suited to examination,rather than the search stage. It was noted that applicantscannot challenge the Examiner's view at the searchstage, and even if one tries they rarely change theirminds.

The protest procedure now involves three people fromthe EPO. A workshop or other follow-up on the issue ofdisunity may be pursued, perhaps through the EP acad-emy. The EPO requested concrete examples from the epi,and possibly some statistics, where disunity has beenwrongly raised. The EPO said that they will tackle incon-sistency, but need examples first. They were sympatheticover the short two year divisional deadline, and it wasagreed that before long we may see a test case wherethe only reason for a refusal was under Article 82.

5. Restricted admissibility of functional features in orderto seek broad protection

The epi is seeing many objections based on lack ofsupport and/or lack of inventive step and sufficiencyacross the breadth of the claim. The EPO may have onlysearched the exemplified embodiments and argue thatthe claim should be limited to these exemplified embodi-ments.

Functional features will be allowed, but structuralfeatures are preferred. Inherently, it was argued, claimsto compounds defined by functional features have anindefinite number of possibilities (this was agreed, butthat is not necessarily the issue, especially if that does notnecessarily lead to sufficiency problems). Claims withfunctional features, but no structural ones, can be moredifficult to search. For example, what happens if acompound in the prior art has that function, inherently,but that function is not disclosed in the prior art?

6. Sequence listings and fees payable therefor.Changes were announced in the Notice of the Presidentin OJ 6/2011, 376, without prior consultation with theepi.

The EPO said that divisionals need their own sequencelistings as the description or claims may be different fromthe parent application. It is still not clear to the epi,though, why one cannot refer to a sequence listing on a


parent case, if the sequence listing to be filed on adivisional application is identical to that filed on theparent.

It was noted for e-filed PCT cases at the EPO, sub-sequent documents (such as sequence listings!) couldnot be e-filed. This will be taken up within the EPO.

7. Conducting Oral proceedingsIt was noted that some Examiners are setting very shortdeadlines, with little more than the minimum of 2months. The EPO suggested that Applicants could ringExaminers if they would like to re-schedule, and indeedmost Examiners should re-schedule if requested. It wasnoted that new objections in Summons were neitherdiscouraged nor encouraged.

8. Inventions in the area of pharmacogenomics:This concerns cases which are based on a genetic markerto treat a disease, for example methylation profiles. It caninvolve a new patient group defined by an SNP. The EPOsaid that often the claims can lack novelty, as one patientwill have inevitably been treated with the SNP, even if theart does not explicitly say so.

9. Third party observations (TPOs): does the new onlinetool encourage more third party observations?

Examiners will now always comment on the TPOs, even ifit just to say that the observations are no barrier to grant.The EPO will now accept observations after issue of theRule 71(3) notice. However, they will not be consideredafter the decision to grant notice has been issued. It wasnoted that observations were most often filed on vaccineand antibody cases, and occasionally on plant applica-tions.

10. Changes regarding the two types of 2nd medicaluse claims

It was noted where there may be an issue of doublepatenting for Swiss-style and EPC 2000 style claims. Inother words, would one be able to get two separateEuropean patents, one for each type? There is likely to bea test case on this. It was noted that one cannot switchbetween these two types of claims post-grant.

The meeting closed at 12 noon.

Mock EQEs 2012

The mock EQE offers participants the possibility to sit theEQE exams under exam-like conditions. The participantssit the various exams (A[Ch], A[E/M], B[Ch], B[E/M], Cand D) in the same order as the real exam and are givenexactly the same time to sit the paper. The exam paperswill be selected from previous EQE exams and are chosenfor their teaching value. The papers are reviewed byexperienced epi tutors. About one to two months afterthe mock EQE the tutors discuss the papers in smallgroups. Each participant receives personal feedback onhis/her work.

Participants may sit any combination of papers.

Scheduled events:

Helsinki:Mock EQE: 15–17 October 2012Feedback session: 14–16 November 2012

Further information to follow on epi website:www.patentepi.com –> EQE and Training

Information 2/2012 Education and Training 37

Nächste Ausgaben · Forthcoming issues · Prochaines éditions

Issue Deadline Publication

3/2012 10 August 2012 30 September 20124/2012 02 November 2012 30 December 2012

Training for the EQE pre-examination 2013

A. Zellner (DE), EPO, European Patent Academy

Starting in September 2012 candidates will again havethe opportunity to take a comprehensive online coursejointly developed by the epi and the European PatentAcademy. An EQE pre-examination training course ranfor the first time in 2011-2012. The new course will be aconsiderably extended version of the original one.

The 2012/13 course is aimed at students preparing forthe pre-examination on 25 February 2013. It comprisesvarious e-learning components including:– in-depth articles on major examination topics plus

multiple-choice questions to ensure that the impor-tant points of each topic are fully understood

– recorded lectures

– further sets of multiple-choice questions– in-depth case studies– virtual classroom sessions to give students an oppor-

tunity to ask selected experts questions in real time– access to the pre-examination course forum, a dedi-

cated support area monitored by the course tutors.

Registration starts in July 2012, at which point a previewof the course content will also be available. It will containa course outline and at least one full topic plus questions.

To receive notification and latest updates, please signup at www.eqe-online.org/pre-exam/course/.

Seminars introducing the EQE to potential candidates


The European Patent Academy jointly organises seminarswith the epi and the CEIPI that are designed to raiseawareness of what is tested in each of the differentexamination papers and the knowledge and skillsrequired to pass. The participants get an understandingof the concepts behind the different papers and aninsight into the critical factors, along with informationon how to structure their preparation. They also get a

basic understanding of what the examination commit-tees expect by way of a correct answer.

This year a session took place in Oslo on 15 May.Registration will soon open for a second session to takeplace in Warsaw on 5 October. Other locations and datescan be arranged on request.Contact: [email protected]

Take a look at the EQE Forum


When launched in 2006, the Forum was intended tofacilitate discussion amongst EQE candidates. In themeantime, it has been developed to become a centralinformation and training platform. More than 12000

posts in almost 3000 different threads are currentlyavailable to users. Since the beginning of 2010, therehave been over 200000 visitor sessions. To run throughthe services it offers, see: www.eqe-online.org

38 Education and Training Information 2/2012

Tutors wanted

As epi is always looking to add new tutors to its currentgroup we would like to know whether you are – inprinciple – interested in participating in this activity. Incase you decide to volunteer your commitment is con-ditional: you will always be asked whether you are willingto tutor in a specific event.

Please volunteer by filling in the form available on theepi website (www.patentepi.com –> EQE and Training).

For any further queries, kindly contact theepi Secretariat ([email protected]).

10th CEIPI epi Course on Patent Litigation in Europe

The programme of the 2012/2013 CEIPI epi Course isavailable on the epi website www.patentepi.com as wellas on the CEIPI website www.ceipi.edu

For further information or application, please refer toWalter Holzer (Course Coordinator) [email protected]

CEIPI preparation courses for theEQE pre-examination and main examination 2013

The Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies(CEIPI), more in particular its International Section, offersan extensive programme of courses for preparing can-didates for the European qualifying examination (EQE).

A pre-examination will be held in 2013for thosecandidates who fulfil the requirements to present them-selves to the pre-examination of the EQE in 2013 (seeSupplement to OJEPO 12/2011).

The CEIPI is organising seminars in Strasbourg to helpcandidates in preparing themselves for that pre-examin-ation.

The main seminar will take place from 5 to 9 Novem-ber 2012. It will cover relevant topics which can beexpected for the pre-examination. It will give participantsthe opportunity to apply their knowledge in a mockexamination.

The course fee is EUR 1 400. Closing date for enrol-ment is 1st October 2012. More information can beobtained from [email protected] or from theCEIPI website at www.ceipi.edu

As a complement to this seminar, the CEIPI offers apre-exam “Cramming Course” as a last minute oppor-tunity to candidates wishing to improve their skills inrespect of this paper. Participants will sit a paper underexam conditions, followed by a discussion of the drafted

papers with the tutor. This Cramming Course will takeplace on 8 February 2013 inStrasbourg.

The course fee is EUR 500. Closing date for enrolmentis 4 January 2013. More information can be obtainedfrom [email protected] or from the CEIPI web-site at www.ceipi.edu

For all papers to the EQE main examination 2013(AB, C and D), the programme starts with “IntroductoryCourses” in the early autumn of 2012, in a number ofdifferent cities in Europe (Strasbourg, Paris, Copen-hagen, Milan), so as to set candidates on the rails, asearly as possible, in preparing themselves.

The introductory courses are followed by the “Pre-paratory Seminars” in November 2012 and January2013, centrally in Strasbourg, France, which build upon the introductory courses and expand on the issuestreated, as well as provide for working on a mock examunder exam conditions, which is then compared with aCEIPI “model solution”.

CEIPI, through its tutors, has developed this pro-gramme over recent years and believes it has beensuccessful in providing a large number of candidates(about 400 every year) with a set of courses adapted tothe EQE, increasing their chances of success.

For paper C, which every year appears to be one of themajor stumbling blocks of the EQE, this programme is

Information 2/2012 Education and Training 39

supplemented with two extra courses: a “Special C-Re-sitter” course specifically designed for those who havefailed the C-paper (more than) once, and a last-minute“Cramming” Course, one month before the examin-ation, where candidates, can sit last year's paper underexam conditions, followed by a discussion of thesedrafted papers and the CEIPI-model solution the follow-ing day, in small groups. This course also provides foranswering any last-minute questions regarding paper C.

The “Special C-Resitter” course is offered in Stras-bourg.

The “Cramming Course” for paper C will be held inStrasbourg for English- and German-speaking candi-dates and in Paris for French-speaking candidates.

All courses are provided in the three EPO officiallanguages: English, French and German, and are givenby a mix of tutors from private practice (epi), industry andthe EPO.

The program is as follows (more extensive informationis contained in OJEPO 4/2012):

The fee for each one-day course in Paris or Strasbourg isEUR 500. The fee for the one-and-a-half day courses inStrasbourg, Paris, Milan and Copenhagen is EUR 750each.

Closing date for enrolment is 20 July 2012.More information can be obtained from

[email protected] or from the CEIPI website atwww.ceipi.edu

„Preparatory Seminars“ 2012/2013:

The AB seminar will be held in Strasbourg, from 26 to 28(am) November 2012, the C seminar from 28 (pm) to 30(pm) November 2012. Both parts can be booked sepa-rately.

The D seminar will be held twice in Strasbourg, from 7to 11 January 2013 and from 21 to 25 January 2013. Allseminars are intended for those who wish to sit the EQEmain examination in 2013.

The fee is EUR 1 400for the five-day courses (ABC orD); for the AB or C part on its own the fee is EUR 725.

Closing date for enrolment is 1st October 2012.More information can be obtained from melanie.wal-

[email protected] or from the CEIPI website atwww.ceipi.edu.

The “Special C-Resitter” course 2012 will be held inStrasbourg on 23 and 24 November 2012.

The course fee is EUR 850. The price includes the“C-Book”, 3rd edition.

Closing date for enrolment is 1st October 2012.

More information can be obtained [email protected] or from the CEIPI website atwww.ceipi.edu.

The “Cramming” course 2013 will be held in Strasbourg(EN, DE) on 7 and 8 February 2013 and in Paris (FR) on 2February 2013.

The fee for the Strasbourg course is EUR 650, for theParis course EUR 500.

Closing date for enrolment is 4 January 2013.

More information can be obtained [email protected] or from the CEIPI website atwww.ceipi.edu.

Christiane Melz, Secretariat of the International Sectionof CEIPI, (for any information on the above courses:telephone 0033 368 858313 or mail [email protected])

Next Board and Council Meetings

Board Meetings

87th Board meeting on 6th October 2012 in Istanbul (TR)88th Board meeting on 23 March 2013 in Stockholm (SE)89th Board meeting on 28 September 2013 in Riga (LV)

Council Meetings

73rd Council meeting on 10th November 2012in Hamburg (DE)

74th Council meeting on 19/20 April 2013 in Vienna (AT)

40 Information from the Secretariat Information 2/2012

„Introductory Courses“ 2012:

Paper Milan (EN) Copenhagen(EN)

Paris (FR) Lyon (FR) Strasbourg (EN,DE)

Paris (EN)

AB 21./22.09. 21./22.09. 28.09. 29.09. 28.09C 5./6.10. 5./6.10. 29.09. 28.09. 29.09D 12./13.10. 12./13.10. 7./8.09. 14./15.09 26./27.09. 26./27.09

News from epi Council

At the 72nd Council meeting the following elections were carried out:Mr Lars Estreen (SE) was elected Board member for SwedenMr Luigi Sansone (MT) was elected Board member for MaltaMs Valérie Mellet (LU) was elected substitute Council member for LuxembourgMr Filippo Santi (IT) was elected full member of Harmonisation CommitteeMr Enrique Armijo (ES) was elected full member of Litigation CommitteeMr Gian Giuseppe Masciopinto (SM) was elected full member of Litigation CommitteeMr Inigo Elosegui (ES) was elected substitute member of Lititgation Committee

Information 2/2012 Information from the Secretariat 41

Contact Data of Legal Division

Update of the European Patent Attorneys database

Please send any change of contact details to the Euro-pean Patent Office so that the list of professional rep-resentatives can be kept up to date. The list of pro-fessional representatives, kept by the EPO, is also the listused by epi. Therefore, to make sure that epi mailings aswell as e-mail correspondence reach you at the correctaddress, please inform the EPO Directorate 523 of anychange in your contact details.

Kindly note the following contact data of the LegalDivision of the EPO (Dir. 5.2.3.):

European Patent OfficeDir. 5.2.3.Legal Division80298 MunichGermany

Tel.: +49 (0)89 2399-5231Fax: +49 (0)89 [email protected]

Thank you for your cooperation.

FICPI World Congress and Executive Committee Meeting,Melbourne, 15–21 April 2012

T. Johnson (GB)

The FICPI World Congress takes place generally everythree years, usually in conjunction with a meeting of theExecutive Committee, the FICPI body effectively equiv-alent to the epi Council. I attended both meetings.

The Congress theme this time was Communicationand Co-operation, with a sub-text of contending withcreeping centralisation in contracting countries. Therewere several Congress sessions to address these themes,including “Judges Without Borders – how Judges useDecisions from other countries”; “Offices WorkingTogether with Users for a Better IP World”; “A SinglePatent in Europe (at Last?)”; and “Centralised IP: Whereis the Profession Going?”. The background papers willbe available on the FICPI website, www.ficpi.org.

FICPI invites sister organisations, of which our Instituteis one, to these meetings. I had the honour of repre-senting the epi in place of our President. In addition tosister organisations the official side is also invited; Phil-ippe Baechtold of WIPO gave a presentation of the latestwork being undertaken by WIPO, for example continu-

ing work on the Roadmap, and taking steps to enhanceInternational Preliminary Examination .

For our Institute I gave a brief report to the ExecutiveCommittee on Council position papers of mutual inter-est, namely on the UPC, stem cell patenting, how weco-operate with the EPO, the Praktika Extern Pro-gramme, and our appointment of a Director of Edu-cation, Karl Rackette. I gave a resume of his role andmentioned that Karl is a FICPI member too. As readerswill appreciate most of the themes I have mentioned arealso of interest to FICPI too, particularly that of providinga quality qualified profession in each country.

The World Congress marks the end of one term of theInternational President of FICPI and election of his or hersuccessor for the ensuing three years. In MelbournePeter Huntsman (AU) stepped down as President andBastiaan Koster (ZA) was unanimously elected as thenew President of FICPI for the next three years. The nextWorld Congress is scheduled to be held in South Africa,probably in Cape Town, in 2015.

42 Articles Information 2/2012

II–C

ontributionsfrom

epiMem

bersand

othercontributions

Statistics, their use and abuse, and the EQE

J. Boff (GB)

In epi Information 4/2011 G. Checcacci gave an inter-esting and detailed article on the calculation of EQE passrates, showing how the current system could give manyfalse impressions, and warning that the new pre-examin-ation may require additional care in analysis.

Concentration on numbers can be unhealthy, particu-larly if they are the wrong numbers, and perhaps it is timeto step back and consider what information provides thebest information to all of the parties involved: thecandidates; their employers; their trainers; and the EPO.

To each candidate, what is most important is whenthey become fully qualified. The candidate is interestedin qualifying in the minimum possible time, with theminimum number of examinations. At present candi-dates can only guess how long this might take, and theirguesses may be heavily influenced by those they areworking with. This means that it can be difficult for acandidate to assess the quality of their own training.

For employers the time to qualification is mostimportant, as this determines when the candidate canact independently. Employers are also interested in thecandidate's preparation and examination incurring theminimum cost and disruption, and so the number oftimes a candidate sits is of interest.

For trainers [and this includes employers, indepen-dent trainers, national constituencies and associations]the time to qualification reflects on whether their train-ing regime is sufficient to get candidates qualified in areasonable time. The pass rate of given papers may be ofinterest for trainers who concentrate on preparing can-didates for particular papers: but for those involved inthe complete training of a candidate, the pass rate will beof less relevance.

For the EPO the most important statistic is thenumber of times candidates sit the exam. Each exampaper sat costs the EPO money (although this maychange as the number paying extortionate fees forfourth and subsequent resits escalates). The candidatethat is well prepared and qualifies with few or no resitsincurs lower costs to the EPO than the candidate whofrequently resits. That is why escalating examination feeshave been introduced. Although escalating examinationfees punish candidates who sit the examination “tooearly”, they do not provide information to the candidateas to when “too early” might be.

The pass rate for a given paper in a given year doesprovide some limited information; but not as much asone would at first think [see the Checcacci article].

Thus it appears that there are two statistics that wouldbe widely useful [time to pass, and number of times sat]and one that appears of only narrow use [percentagepass rate].

Accordingly I suggest that in addition to the pass rates,further more useful statistics be presented each year.

The first statistic would be an indication of how longthe passing candidates and the failing candidates [foreach paper, and the examination as a whole] have beenin the profession.

This information is in principle readily calculable, requi-ring just one date for each candidate, determining thedifference from the date the results issue, and then asimple average. Expressing this average in years fromentry into the profession is possible, although expressingit as a number of days may make it easier to understand.

A candidate cannot pass within 1000 days from entryinto the profession [due to the three year qualificationperiod] but it would be nice to know whether thecandidate can expect to be qualified in 2000 days. Ifthe average time to pass exceeds 3000 days then there isa problem, particularly for those candidates who enterthe profession late in life.

The average time from entry into the profession forthose passing provides useful information to the candi-dates, and would be less liable to violent swings than thepass rate in any given year. This would be less likely tospread alarm and despondency than does the currentconcentration on pass rates.

Such statistics would also be useful in analysing thequality of the examination and the adequacy of training.

If the average time from entry into the profession forthose passing is lower than for those failing, then theremay be some problem candidates.

If the average time from entry into the profession forthose passing is higher than for those failing, thencandidates are on average taking the examination tooearly.

If the average time from entry into the profession, forpassing and failing candidates, are identical; then it mayindicate a reasonably balanced examination, even if thecandidates are unbalanced, with some passing soonerthan the average, and some later.

Having an average time to qualification allows candi-dates to assess themselves [and their trainers] on a moreinformed basis. Having a clearer understanding of wherea candidate is compared to the average, will assist betterdecision making.

If the average time from entry into the profession forthose passing differs significantly and consistentlybetween papers, then it may indicate problems withsome papers, but more likely it will indicate that someskills take more time to master than others, and candi-dates could consider this when deciding when to sitparticular papers.

Of course, averages hide a lot of detail, and it could beworth including, for both passing and failing candidates,

Information 2/2012 Articles 43

additional information excluding extreme candidates[e.g. the range of average time from entry into theprofession excluding the top and bottom deciles].

The second statistic would be the average numberof times passing and failing candidates have sat eachpaper. Again a simple average may be applied.

Candidates currently have to indicate how many timesthey have previously sat a paper since 2010, so as topermit calculation of fees. There would be little difficultyin requiring them to provide the information for earlieryears so as to ensure availability of statistics.

For the candidate, multiple sittings of a paper not onlytakes time and emotional energy, it costs more. The

average number of sittings required to pass a particularpaper, in combination with the average time to pass, willprovide useful information to determine the extent ofpreparation required for each paper.

The benefits to be expected from better statisticsinclude:-

• better candidate choices and preparation;

• lower costs and greater predictability for all parties;

• improved training;

• fewer rumours; and possibly,

• better structuring of the examination.

Rule 137(5) EPC –An Irresistible Temptation?

Y. Robin (GB)* and P. Chapman, T. Hargreaves (Co-authors**) (GB)

Background

European patent attorneys are familiar with the require-ments of Article 123(2) EPC, according to which aEuropean patent application or European patent maynot be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the Euro-pean application as filed.

A further limitation to the opportunity to amend theclaims is determined by Rule 137(5) EPC, which recites asfollows (emphasis added):

Amended claims may not relate to unsearched sub-ject-matter which does not combine with the orig-inally claimed invention or group of inventions to forma single general inventive concept. Nor may theyrelate to subject-matter not searched in accordancewith Rule 62a or Rule 63.

Rule 62a relates to limitations of the European search inthe case of a plurality of independent claims in the samecategory. Rule 63 relates to limitations of the Europeansearch in the event that it is impossible to carry out ameaningful search.

A recent increase in the number of objections raised byEuropean Examiners under Rule 137(5) EPC has beenobserved. In this article the author discusses the natureof and legal basis for such objections, and suggests anumber of practical measures to reduce the risk oftriggering objections under Rule 137(5) EPC.

The following are simplified real life examples of claimamendments which triggered objections under Rule137(5) EPC.

Example 1

Independent Claim 1: Product comprising A + B.Independent Claim 2: Product comprising A + C.Dependent Claim 3: Product according to claim 2,

further comprising D.

A product comprising feature A is known from the priorart. The EPO therefore raised an objection of lack of unitybetween claim 1 and claim 2. As a result, claim 1 wassearched, while claims 2 and 3 were not searched.

During prosecution, claim 1 was amended to incor-porate feature D. The combination of features A, B and Dfound clear and unambiguous basis in the description asoriginally filed.

Nevertheless, an objection under Rule 137(5) EPC wasraised, and later maintained, on the basis that feature Drelated to unsearched subject-matter because claim 3was not searched.

Example 2

Independent Claim 1: Product comprising A + B.Dependent Claim 2: Product according to claim 1,

wherein B comprises B1.Independent Claim 3: Product comprising A + C.Dependent Claim 4: Product according to claim 3,

wherein B further comprises B2.


* Yann Robin is an associate at the Glasgow office of Marks & Clerk LLP** Paul Chapman and Tim Hargreaves are European Patent Attorneys and

partners at the Edinburgh office of Marks & Clerk LLP

A product comprising feature A is known from the priorart. The EPO therefore raised an objection of lack of unitybetween claim 1 and claim 3. As a result, claims 1 and 2were searched, while claims 3 and 4 were not searched.

During prosecution, claim 1 was amended to incor-porate the subject matter of claim 2 (B comprises B1),and also to recite that B further comprises B2. Thisamendment found clear and unambiguous basis in thedescription as originally filed, and the combination offeatures A, B1 and B2 was clearly and unambiguouslyderivable from the description. It was clear that originalclaim 4 incorrectly depended upon claim 3, and shouldhave depended upon claim 1.

Nevertheless, an objection under Rule 137(5) EPC wasraised, and later maintained, on the basis that feature B2related to unsearched subject-matter because claim 4was not searched.

Legal Basis

When does an amendment fall foul of Rule 137(5) EPC,and were the above objections justified?

Origins

New Rule 137(5) EPC was established by a Decision ofthe Administrative Council dated 25 March 2009 (CA/D3/09, OJEPO 2009, 299). It is noteworthy that Rule137(5) EPC was introduced with a “Notice from theEPO dated 15 October 2009 concerning amendments tothe Implementing Regulations to the EPC” as part of“Raising the Bar”. Paragraph 7.4 of this Notice states:“Where the claims have been limited under Rule 62a(2)or Rule 63(3) EPC, amendments based on non-searchedsubject-matter can no longer be derived from thedescription at a later stage of the grant procedure. Thesubject-matter excluded from the search under Rule 62aor Rule 63 EPC may, however, be prosecuted in divisionalapplications, which must be filed by the deadline laiddown in Rule 36(1)(a) EPC.” This confirms that the merefact that the subject-matter in question can be found inthe description is not sufficient to overcome the require-ments of Rules 137(5) EPC, second sentence.

Guidelines for Examination in the EPO

C-VI, 5.2“If amended claims are directed to subject-matter whichhas not been searched (e.g. because it only appeared inthe description and the Search Division did not find itappropriate to extend the search to this subject-matter,see B-III, 3.5) and which does not combine with theoriginally claimed and searched invention or group ofinventions to form a single general inventive concept,such amendments are not admissible”

Paragraph C-VI, 5.2 of the Guidelines appears consistentwith the wording of Rule 137(5) EPC, first sentence. Thissection of the Guidelines further directs the reader to

paragraph B-III, 3.5 for an interpretation of what con-stitutes unsearched subject-matter:

B-III, 3.5“In principle, and insofar as possible and reasonable, thesearch should cover the entire subject-matter to whichthe claims are directed or to which they might reasonablybe expected to be directed after they have beenamended”

Paragraph B-III, 3.5 of the Guidelines clarifies that thesearch should cover not only the subject-matter of theclaims, but also the subject-matter which might reason-ably form the basis for a possible amendment. However,this passage opens up a broad range of possible inter-pretations in respect of the phrase “to which they [theclaims] might reasonably be expected to be directedafter they have been amended”.

It follows that an important point to consider is: Whencan a feature which is not present in the claims never-theless be deemed to have been searched by the SearchDivision?

Case Law of the Boards of AppealsThe Case Law of the Boards of Appeals provides somehelpful clarification on this issue.

G2/92 explains that “An applicant who fails to pay thefurther search fees for a non-unitary application whenrequested to do so by the Search Division under Rule46(1) EPC cannot pursue that application for the subject-matter in respect of which no search fees have beenpaid”. Further, “the Search Division then has to draw upthe search report “for those parts of the Europeanpatent application which relate to inventions in respectof which search fees have been paid”.”

G2/92 further clarifies that the Examining Division isprovided with a certain amount of flexibility in thejudgement it may apply in each case: “If the SearchDivision had previously considered that the applicationdid not comply with the requirement of unity of inven-tion, and had requested and received payment of one ormore additional search fees, then during the examin-ation stage in accordance with Rule 46(2) EPC, theapplicant may request and receive a refund of suchadditional search fees if the Examining Division finds(contrary to the Search Division) that the applicationdoes meet the requirement of unity of invention inArticle 82 EPC”.

Therefore, it appears that the subject-matter to beexamined must relate to an invention for which a searchfee has been paid.

T613/99 confirmed G2/92, and stated that Rule 86(4)EPC 1973 (Rule 137(5) EPC 2000) referred to a particularsituation, i. e. where the patentability of fresh claimscould not be examined in the context of the originalapplication, since this would have amounted to a dero-gation from the principle endorsed in G2/92.

T274/03 perhaps provides the most useful summaryof what constitutes unsearched subject-matter:


“(…) it is clear that post-search “switching” of subject-matter clearly implies a significant change in the natureof the subject-matter being claimed which is notnormally comparable to the addition of features takenfrom the description to further define an element thatwas already a feature of the original main claim.

In accordance with the case law of the Boards ofAppeal (T 377/01, point 3.1 and T 708/00, point 17, bothdecisions not published in OJEPO) the Board is of theopinion that an amendment amounting to the restrictionof an original main claim by including complementaryfeatures from the original description into the claimrepresents an admissible reaction of an applicant vis-à-visan objection against the patentability of the unamendedclaim and does not constitute an abuse of the system ofthe nature which Rule 86(4) EPC was introduced toprevent. This type of amendment should not thereforein general be judged as contravening the requirementsof the rule, even though an additional search may berequired”.

The recent T1285/11 Decision also confirms that incor-rect findings by the Search Division are not binding onthe Examining Division:

“According to the practice of the EPO, as set out in theGuidelines for Examination (C-III, 7.10, first paragraph)and explained in detail in decision J3/09 (see Reasons,points 3.5.4 to 3.5.7, in particular point 3.5.6), theresponsibility for establishing whether or not the applica-tion meets the requirements of unity of invention ulti-mately rests with the examining division, and the opinionof the EPO acting as the ISA on lack of unity is not final orbinding on the examining division. The fact that theapplicant did not pay further search fees or protest feesin the international phase cannot therefore be seen as atacit agreement with the findings of non-unity of theISA, as submitted by the examining division in thedecision under appeal.

To the extent that an objection of non-unity raised bythe ISA turns out to be unjustified, the applicant isentitled as of right to have the whole subject-matter ofhis unitary invention searched. If need be, an additionalsearch would have to be performed (see Guidelines forExamination, C-III, 7.10, third paragraph, last sentence,and 7.11.1(v); decision J 3/09, Reasons, points 3.5.6 and5.2), regardless of whether or not this might involve anadditional effort.”

Discussion

From a close inspection of the Guidelines and the rel-evant case law, it appears that the mere fact that a claimwas not searched does not necessarily mean that somesubject-matter (e.g. a specific feature) contained withinthat claim, was not searched. In other words,unsearched claims should not always imply unsearchedsubject-matter.

Nevertheless, EPO Examiners appear to be increasinglyprompt to raise objections under Rule 137(5) EPC on the

basis that a claim was not searched, sometimes withapparently little consideration as to whether the subject-matter of that claim was, or should have been, searched.

A practical implication for European attorneys is: cananything be done to reduce the risk of an objection beingraised under Rule 137(5) EPC? Although T1285/11 con-firms that incorrect findings from the Search Division arenot binding on the Examining Division, it is a generallyaccepted principle that prevention is better than cure.

Since this type of objection is normally raised when anExaminer considers that the subject-matter of a claim hasnot been searched, one should try to ensure that allclaims presented on filing can reasonably be expected tobe searched.

As part of “Raising the Bar”, the EPO is becomingincreasingly strict on enforcing compliance of the claimswith the EPC, including Article 82 EPC (unity of inven-tion), and Rule 43(2) (plurality of independent claims inthe same category).

Even when a set of claims satisfies the requirements ofunity of invention, it is not uncommon for it to alsocontain several independent claims in the same categoryon filing. It is tempting to perceive such claims sets aspotentially increasing the flexibility of amendment dur-ing prosecution. The ultimate client may also deliberatelyopt to maintain multiple independent claims in onecategory because they may not yet know which inde-pendent claim covers best the product(s) which will befinally put on the market.

Nevertheless, with the recent trend relating to Rule137(5) EPC objections, it could be argued that such setsof claims may potentially diminish the flexibility ofamendment during future prosecution. This is because,unless such claims clearly fall within one of the excep-tions listed under Rule 43(2) EPC, it is likely that only oneof these claims will be searched pursuant to Rule 62aEPC. This could potentially limit an Applicant's oppor-tunity to amend the claims to introduce subject-matterwhich was present in those claims under Rule 137(5)EPC, second sentence, based on the current applicationof this Rule by the EPO.

On the other hand, if no such multiple independentclaims in the same category were present on filing, andthe description of the application as filed clearly andunambiguously discloses the subject-matter of theamendment in combination with the claims searchedby the Search Division, then no objection under Rule137(5) EPC, second sentence, should be raised. Further,amending the claims to incorporate that subject-mattermay be allowable under Article 123(2) EPC.

Compliance with Article 123(2) EPC is not, of course,the sole requirement as to whether or not an amend-ment is allowable.

It is easy to envisage an amendment to a preferredfeature which would find clear and unambiguous basis inthe description as originally filed, yet which would bedeemed not to combine with the originally claimedinvention to form a single general inventive concept,i. e. which would lack unity. In such a case, the amend-ment would likely not be permissible under Rule 137(5)



EPC, even if that feature was not part of any of theoriginal claims.

Another concern emerging from the recent increase inthe number of objections under Rule 137(5) EPC relatesto the new Rules regarding the filing of divisional applica-tions under EPC 2000. Under Rule 36(a) EPC, any volun-tary divisional application must be filed before the expiryof 24 months from the Examining Division's first com-munication in respect of the earliest application. Thisadditional hurdle now creates the risk that an objectionunder Rule 137(5) might be raised late in proceedings inview of an amendment made by the Applicant, and that,at the time the objection under Rule 137(5) is raised, it isalready too late to file a divisional application. This isparticularly relevant when the application relates to atechnical field in which the EPO still has a significantbacklog of applications to be examined. When concernsarise as to whether or not an objection under Rule 137(5)EPC might be raised in relation to a particular amend-ment, it may be prudent to request accelerated examin-ation under the 'PACE' procedure at the same time asresponding to a first communication from the ExaminingDivision. By doing so, the Applicant will likely receive afurther Communication from the Examining Divisionwithin 24 months of the first Communication, and willtherefore have the opportunity to file a voluntary div-isional application to overcome any objection that mightbe raised under Rule 137(5) EPC.

As discussed earlier, one practical option to reduce therisk of an objection under Rule 137(5) EPC being raisedmay be, in some circumstances, to minimise the numberof independent claims in each category. A number ofpossibilities exist to make use of this option. For example,

one could delay the filing of claims until an invitationunder Rule 57(c) is received to allow additional time tofinalise the claims. In the case of Euro-PCT applicationwhere the EPO was not the ISA, one could amend theclaims in response to a communication under Rule161(2), before the EPO draws up a supplementary searchreport.

Another potentially helpful measure may be to includeas many features in dependent claims as possible onfiling, using 'alternative' (and/or) language or 'optional'language in order to avoid excess claims fees. Unfor-tunately, this may lead to possible clarity objectionsunder Article 84 EPC.

Therefore, there are numerous parameters to be con-sidered when preparing claims for filing a Europeanapplication, or for entering the European regional phaseof a PCTapplication for which the EPO was not the ISA. Itmay be too early to decide whether or not the increasingfrequency of objections under Rule 137(5) EPC, shouldinfluence the form of the claims we, European PatentAttorneys, chose to present on filing European patentapplications. However, it appears that the choice ofstrategy adopted in each case may have an influenceon the Applicant's opportunity to amend the claimsduring examination, and should therefore not be over-looked. This issue should therefore be considered withgreat care until such time that a consistent approach asregards implementation of Rule 137(5) EPC is adopted bythe EPO.

With thanks to the following contributors***:Alastair Blake, Mairi Rudkin

Die Erfinderische Tätigkeit (inventive step etc.)ist wissenschaftlich erledigt

Dr. A. W. Kumm (DE)

I.

Kant: „Die so niemals selbst denken, besitzen dennoch dieScharfsichtigkeit, alles, nachdem es ihnen gezeigt worden,in demjenigen, was sonst schon gesagt worden, aufzuspä-hen, wo es doch vorher niemand sehen konnte“1.

II.

Die Erfinderische Tätigkeit- inventive step, Isobretátelskijúroven, jin bu xing etc. – ergäbe sich für „den Fach-mann“ als nicht nahe liegend (z. B. Art. 52 und 56 EPÜ).

Dieser „Fachmann“ hat freilich überhaupt nichts zutun mit einem der vielleicht ein paar Millionen realerSpezialisten- den wahren technischen Fachleuten derErde-, die in einigen hundert technischer Fachgebieteverschiedener Größe tätig sind2. Er ist vielmehr einfiktives Gesetzeskonstrukt, ein Phantom, das verkörpert

*** Alastair Blake and MairiRudkin are part-qualified patent attorneys at theGlasgow office of Marks & Clerk LLP

1 lmmanuel Kant, 1724 – 1802, der geniale Denker in Königsberg in Preußen.Zitat aus „Prologemina“ von 1783.

2 Ein realer Fachmann ist imstande auf einem eindeutig definierten tech-nischen Probleme durch selbständiges und Handeln zu erkennen, zu lösenund zu beurteilen. Das Wissen und Können dieser Spezialisten ist gaußisch-normalverteilt. Sie gliedern sich folglich in unterdurchschnittliche Fachleutemit nur applikativer Eignung oder in durchschnittliche Fachleute mit adap-tiver Befähigung oder in überdurchschnittliche Fachleute mit talentierter bisgenialer Begabung.

wird von einem, von drei, vier, fünf, sogar sieben amtlichbestellten Prüfern/Richtern, also von Nichtfachleuten3.

Diese bewerten eine selbst und nachträglich konstru-ierte fiktive Handlungsweise, die der reale Erfindergehabt hätte.

Die zwei gesetzlichen Normen sind jedoch nicht ope-rabel (nicht widerspruchsfrei festzustellen), denn jenesWerturteil ist keine objektive (vom Beurteiler unabhän-gige) technische Feststellung, sie ist keine objektiveRealdefinition. Die erfinderische Tätigkeit (etc.) istsonach wissenschaftlich erledigt4.

III.

Die Rechtsanwender verleugnen einfach die beiden nichtoperablen Normen und setzen ohne erkenntnistheoreti-sche Zweifel einfach dies fest: „Die Beurteilung dererfinderischen Tätigkeit erfolge auf objektiver Grundlageund sei ein objektives Kriterium“5 sie werde „an einemobjektiven, fiktiven Maßstab gemessen, nämlich derKunstfigur des Fachmannes“6.

Das ist jedoch ein logischer Widerspruch, denn etwasFiktives ist nie objektiv. Ohnehin sind alle Aussagen derSpruchstellen nur Zirkelschlüsse; ihre singulären ad-hoc-Entscheidungen sind keine Präjudizien und sie sind, wieschon Aristoteles uns lehrte, nicht induktiv zu verall-gemeinern4. Damit fallen auch alle Hypothesen, indenen „der Fachmann“ eine Rolle spielt, etwa die could-would-Konstruktion des EPA oder die alten, unbedarftenHilfskriterien7.

Kurzum: Alle Aussagen sind bloß ermessensgemäße,subjektive (vom jeweiligen Beurteiler abhängige) Fest-setzungen, sie sind nur subjektive Normierungsdefinitio-nen.

IV.

Gegen diese ablehnende Feststellung der erfinderischenTätigkeit wird eingewendet: Die erfinderische Tätigkeitsei nach der Rechtsprechung von Bundespatentgericht,Bundesgerichtshof, Beschwerdekammern und GroßerBeschwerdekammer des EPA „rein objektiv“ zu verste-hen. Das ist freilich das untaugliche „Autoritäts-Argu-ment“ der Rhetorik, denn noch so glanzvolle Namenersetzen keinen Beweis. Zudem ist es wissenschaftlichbelanglos, wie jemand etwas „versteht“; wesentlich ist,was es „ist“.

Weiterhin wird gesagt, „der Fachmann“ sei zwar eineFiktion, aber Fiktionen seien in Gesetzen durchaus

üblich. Worin liegt der Denkfehler? Eine Fiktion ist einAls-ob-Konstrukt, mit der man einen irrealen oderunwahrscheinlichen Sachverhalt als wahr postuliert. Ineinem Gesetz wird eine Fiktion formell „als ob real“unterstellt. Doch das ist ontologisch nur statthaft, wennes um Sachen geht. Dreht es sich dagegen um dieintellektuelle Fähigkeit eines Menschen, dann ist eineFiktion abwegig. Insbesondere „der Fachmann“, alsIrrealität, lässt sich so niemals zu einer realen, aussage-und zeugnisfähigen natürlichen Person ontologischumfunktionieren8.

V.

Kein einziger der millionenfachen Fachleuten, der ineinem der zu hunderten zählenden technischen Fächerntätig ist, kann im Voraus sagen, ob, wann, wie undwodurch irgendein Kollege des Fachgebietes einebestimmte fachliche Leistung erbringen wird. Er kannan Hand objektiver technischer Daten nur objektiv fest-stellen, ob ein vorgelegtes Objekt einen technischenFortschritt zeitigt oder ob es zwar neu, aber sozio-öko-nomischer9 Schrott oder Unsinn ist.

Nicht eine vage erfinderische Tätigkeit, sondern dererzielte technische Fortschritt ist das primäre, das not-wenige und hinreichende objektive Merkmal einer Erfin-dung.

Die objektive Realdefinition des Fortschritts wurdeschon früher aufgespürt, etwa seine Größenklassen,die Beziehungen zu den geistigen Leistungen oder eineWertzahl für die Größenklasse mit nur zwei objektivenZahlenwerten für die Gesamtwirkungen.10,11 (Die „Neu-heit“ ist nur ein sekundäres, hinreichendes Merkmal)12.

Das USA-Patent ist zwar auch an die irrealen „Fach-mann“ gebunden. Diese person having ordinary skill istaber nicht gleich dem esoterischen europäischen Alles-besser-Wisser. Daher werden nur etwa 10% der Anmel-dungen verworfen, die das Bekannte oder das sozio-ökonomisch törichte Neue betreffen. Alles andere wirdzugelassen, vor allem auch das eklatant Nichttechnische.Die means-for-Ansprüche erlauben zudem jede Inter-pretation, etwa was „standardessentiell“ sei.

Die Schweiz lässt offen, wem sich das „in naheliegender Weise ergibt“. Dort könnte man also mittelbarmit dem technischen Fortschritt arbeiten11.

Das Patentgesetz der VR China kennt sehr wohl dentechnischen Fortschritt, denn der normierte „Erfinder-geist“ (nicht operabel) ist durch den normierten „be-merkenswerten Fortschritt“ (operabel) gekennzeichnet.


3 Ein technischer Prüfer/Richter ist ein Fachmann, der auf verwandten tech-nischen Gebieten einsetzbar ist, der spürsinnig ist und der interdisziplinärdenkt; er ist sachkundig für Analysen von unterschiedlichen technischenSachverhalten und für technisch-begriffliches Abstrahieren und juristischesSubsumieren. Er ist ein Generalist und kein Spezialist. Der nur Rechtskundigeist ein Nichtfachmann.

4 Kumm, A. W.: Die Crux mit der erfinderischen Tätigkeit. ln epi Information,4/2011, S. 151.

5 Aus einer Entscheidung von 1983 des EPA.6 z.B. Benkard, Patentgesetz, 10. Aufl., Beck 2006, S. 243.7 So schon Kumm, A. W.: Die Bewertung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit, ein

rational unlösbares Jahrhundert-Problem. ln: epi Information, 1/1998, S.23.(Auf einen Artikel von R. Teschemacher, epi Information, 3/1997, S. 25).

8 Der „Durchschnittsfachmann“ ist auch nur ein statistisches Abstrakt derrealen Fachleute-Gesamtheit eines speziellen technischen Fachgebietes.

9 Das ist ein treffender Ausdruck statt des altertümlichen „gewerblichanwendbar“.

10 Vgl. Kumm, Altred W.: Inventionsmanagement 1995. ISBN 3-8248-0142-6.Dito: Vom Spezialisten zum Generalisten der Technik. 2003. ISBN3-89846-264-1.

11 Kumm, A. W.: Die Crux mit der erfinderischen Tätigkeit und die schweize-rische Chance ihrer operablen Bewertung. ln: epi Information, 1/2012, S. 22.

12 Was technisch fortschrittlich ist, ist denknotwendig auch neu, aber ein Neuesist nicht unbedingt auch fortschrittlich.

Der Fachmann: die notwendige Fiktion im System

T. Fox (AT)1

Von den zahlreichen Rechtsfiktionen, die das EPÜ undVerfahren vor dem EPA strukturieren, ist die des Fach-manns wohl die am häufigsten in Literatur und Recht-sprechung diskutierte. Andere „bewußt gesetzte, fal-sche Annahmen“2 wie die verschiedentlich ausgelöstenRücknahmefiktionen im Anmeldeverfahren vor dem EPAfordern offenbar weniger heraus als die Vorstellung einerPerson, die nichts weiter als Vorstellung bleibt.

Dient der Fachmann der Vereinfachung der Rechts-anwendung? Wenn dem so wäre, ließe er sich vermut-lich durch andere Hilfsmittel ersetzen.

Ist die erfinderische Tätigkeit eines Anmeldungs-gegenstandes ohne den Fachmann einschätzbar? Wennja, was ist dann mit den zahlreichen anderen Stellen desEPÜ, an denen der Fachmannbegriff eine Rolle spielt?

Dies ist ein Plädoyer dafür, daß der Fachmann nichteiner einfacheren Rechtsanwendung dient oder ein will-kürliches Hilfsmittel darstellt, sondern daß sein Begrifffür eine Einheitlichkeit des EPÜ sorgt.

Um dies zu verdeutlichen und um den Zweck dieserFiktion besser erklären zu können, erscheint es sinnvoll,zunächst die Wegkreuzungen kenntlich zu machen, andenen bei der Anwendung des EPÜ der Fachmannangetroffen wird. Dies wird im folgenden getan, umanschließend anhand der Art, wie der Begriff zu seinenEigenschaften kommt, zu prüfen, welche allgemeineFunktion der Fachmann im Recht hat oder haben kann.

Da er allseits als Fiktion bezeichnet wird, kann derFachmann keine reale Person sein. Wie dem AbschnittsD7 in der EPA-Publikation „Rechtsprechung“ zumBegriff des Fachmanns zu entnehmen ist, driften oderspezialisieren sich seine Eigenschaften mit der Zeit undmit den Entscheidungen, sein Nichtsein bleibt jedochkonstant. Doch selbst wenn in einem Einzelfall einmaleine Frau oder ein Mann anzutreffen wäre, der oder dietatsächlich jede geforderte Eigenschaft des Fachmannserfüllen würde (inkl. seiner Phantasielosigkeit trotzansonsten ungewöhnlich breiter Sprach- und Technik-kenntnisse), wäre es einfach überflüssig, diese Person alsZeuge in einem Einspruchsverfahren zu befragen.Ebenso ist es überflüssig, auf natürliche Personen undihre Fähigkeiten und Fachkenntnisse zu verweisen, umvermeintlich zu zeigen, daß der Fachmannbegriff ange-sichts der Realität widersprüchlich wäre; lebende Bei-spiele sind schlicht wirkungslos für theoretische Begriffe.

Ist aber einmal erlernt, daß der Fachmann ein reinerBegriff ist, so ist zu seinem Verständnis nicht mehr zusagen, als daß er ein Bündel von Eigenschaften ohneKondensationskern ist. Da es sich um keine Personhandelt, die uns im täglichen Leben oder anderswo alsschlüssiger Charakter gegenüberstehen soll, sind seine

Eigenschaften auch (fast) frei wählbar. Und so haben dieMerkmale des Fachmanns trotz seiner Virtualität bereitsKommentatoren dazu hingerissen, ihn als sehr merk-würdigen Zeitgenossen zu bezeichnen.3 Dies hat aber inder Rechtsanwendung keinerlei Auswirkung. Es ist nurverwunderlich, daß die ähnlichen Begriffe des informier-ten Benutzers im Geschmacksmusterrecht oder derangesprochenen Verkehrskreise im Markenrecht keinederartigen Spekulationen auslösen, obwohl es gleicher-maßen künstliche Personengruppen sind.4

Die Literatur wagt es kaum, diese Fachmann-Stellenim EPÜ erschöpfend aufzuzählen.5 Doch klar sind bei-spielsweise die folgenden Orte: Nach Artikel 56 EPÜ darfeine Erfindung dem Fachmann angesichts des Standesder Technik nicht naheliegen, um als erteilbar beurteiltwerden zu können. Die Erfindung ist gemäß Artikel 83 sodeutlich und vollständig zu offenbaren, daß ein Fach-mann sie ausführen kann. Das Kriterium der zulässigenÄnderung einer Patentanmeldung nach Artikel 123hängt ebenso vom Fachmann ab, da es an ihm unddem Umfang seines Wissens liegt, was noch unmittelbarund eindeutig in der ursprünglich eingereichten Fassungeiner europäischen Patentanmeldung enthalten ist undsomit hinzugefügt werden darf.6

Soweit die drei am häufigsten erkannten Stellen, dieden Fachmann involvieren. Doch hängt auch die Aus-legung des Artikel 54 von ihm ab: neuheitsschädlichkönnen Merkmale sein, die in einem Dokument desStandes der Technik nicht direkt enthalten sind, sofernsie der Fachmann nur mit seinem geistigen Rüstzeug,seinem Wissen und weiteren Fähigkeiten implizit miterfaßt.7

Derselbe Rückgriff erfolgt beim Vergleich einer euro-päischen Anmeldung mit ihrer vermeintlichen Prioritäts-anmeldung, so daß wiederum in Zweifelsfällen derFachmann entscheidet, ob sich alle Merkmale desGegenstandes der Nachanmeldung unmittelbar undeindeutig aus dem Prioritätsdokument herausziehenlassen.8

Ganz ähnlich geht es, wie man sich leicht vorstellenkann, bei Teilanmeldungen zu. Die technischen Angabeneiner Teilanmeldung muß nicht die Allgemeinheit oderder Erfinder, sondern niemand anderes als der Fachmannauch aus der Stammanmeldung entnehmen können.9


1 Europäpischer Patentanwalt, Schütz u. Partner, Wien; [email protected] Duden Fremdwörterbuch, Mannheim 1990, zur Bedeutung von „Fiktion“.

3 Robin Jacob, Der Fachmann, Sonderausgabe 1 zum ABl. EPA 2009, 83;Graham Ashley, Der Fachmann im Europäischen Patentübereinkommen,ebenda, 95.

4 Der informierte Benutzer im Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusterrecht:Art. 6(1) und 10(1) sowie Präambel GemGMG.

5 Graham Ashley, a. a.O., 94.6 Richtlinien für die Prüfung im EPA, April 2010 (kurz RiLi) C-VI, 5.3.1 und

5.3.10; G 3/89 und G 11/91.7 siehe die Zusammenfassung bei Spangenberg in Singer/Stauder, EPÜ, Köln

2010, S. 208ff.8 G2/98 zu Artikel 87 EPÜ.9 T 402/00, T 423/03.

Im Auslegungsprotokoll zu Artikel 69 EPÜ ist derFachmann wiederum direkt genannt, wenn es heißt,der Schutzbereich eines europäischen Patents erstreckesich zwar auf mehr als auf die wortgenaue Bedeutungder Ansprüche, aber wiederum auf weniger als das,„was sich dem Fachmann nach Prüfung der Beschrei-bung und der Zeichnungen als Schutzbegehren desPatentinhabers darstellt.“ Der Schutzbereich liegt viel-mehr zwischen diesen beiden Polen. Die Fähigkeiten desFachmannes bestimmen einen dieser Pole, wodurch derSchutzbereich indirekt erweitert oder verringert wird,wenn sich ebenso die fachmännischen Fähigkeiten ver-bessern oder verschlechtern. Jedoch auch ohne Aus-legungsprotokoll könnte man den Schutzbereich eineseuropäischen Patents direkt mithilfe des Fachmann-begriffs bestimmen, wie es beispielsweise bei deutschenPatenten bereits üblich ist.10 Somit hängt Wohl, Weheund Wirkung eines europäischen Patents in allen Ver-fahrensteilen vom Fachmann ab: im Prüfungsverfahren,bei den Einspruchsgründen und der Begrenzung derÄnderungsmittel im Einspruchsverfahren, sowie bei derFestlegung des Schutzbereichs.

Form, Klarheit und technische Auslegung der Ansprü-che bringen erneut den Fachmann ins Spiel, weswegendie Erfüllung der Regel 43 auch zu den Bestimmungenzählt, die erst durch diese Kunstfigur zum Leben erwecktwerden.11

Die Klarheit einer Anmeldung insgesamt steht unterder Bedingung, daß die Ansprüche durch die Beschrei-bung gestützt sind.12 Wer aber darüber entscheidet, obeine bestimmte Formulierung in der Beschreibung zurklaren Erläuterung der Bedeutung eines beanspruchtenMerkmals ausreicht, ist natürlich der Fachmann.

Das EPÜ ist trotz rarer Nennung des Fachmanns vondiesem Konzept durchsetzt. In extremen Fällen hängtsogar die gewerbliche Anwendbarkeit einer Erfindungvom Begriff des Fachmanns ab: Sie muß technisch derartsolide sein, „daß für den Fachmann ersichtlich ist, daß ihrBeitrag zum Stand der Technik in eine praktischegewerbliche Verwertung münden kann (T 898/05).“13

Somit kommt keines der Hauptkriterien der Patentier-barkeit (Neuheit, erfinderische Tätigkeit, gewerblicheAnwendbarkeit, Klarheit und ausreichende Offenba-rung) ganz ohne fachmännische Hilfe aus.

Damit nicht genug. In speziellen Zusammenhängenbedarf es fachmännischen Rats, ob biologisches Materialim Rahmen einer entsprechenden Anmeldung ausrei-chend schriftlich beschrieben werden kann und ob esalternativ frei zugänglich ist oder ob es doch lieber innatura hinterlegt werden sollte.14

Zuletzt eine weitere Nutzung der Fachmannsfiktion,nämlich als Figur, die sich das gleiche technische Gebietmit Prüfern des EPA teilt: Wenn im Kontext einer einzel-nen konkreten Erfindung Fachmänner auf mehrerentechnischen Gebieten angesprochen sind, können laut

Prüfungrichtlinien auch entsprechend viele Prüfer, bzw.Prüfer auf den jeweils wichtigen technischen Gebietenbei der Recherche der Anmeldung erforderlich sein.15

Es ist festzuhalten, daß es eine verwunderlicheAbsichtslosigkeit wäre, den Fachmann an derart vielenStellen des EPÜ eine Rolle spielen zu lassen.

Die Attribute des Fachmanns werden meist in derRechtsprechung festgelegt. Manche sind so speziell,daß sie in ihrer Bedeutung kaum mehr als über eineneinzelnen Streitfall entscheiden.

Erhält der Fachmann im Laufe sich entwickelnderRechtsauslegung weitere Eigenschaften, dann geltensie nicht nur in Zusammenhang mit der anlaßgebendenGesetzesstelle, sondern überall (wenn in einem weiterenkonkreten Fall nicht besondere Gründe dagegenspre-chen sollten). Nochmals die bekannte Teamfähigkeit:wenn die erfinderische Tätigkeit eines Gegenstandesan einer Arbeitsgruppe von Fachleuten gemessen wer-den kann, so kann auch die unzulässige Erweiterung(einer beliebigen anderen Anmeldung) oder die Bestim-mung des Schutzbereiches eines Patents von einemjeweils angemessenen Fachteam abhängen.

Darin besteht keine Notwendigkeit. Die Gesetz-gebung könnte sich gleichermaßen dazu entschließen,eine bestimmte Eigenschaft des Fachmanns nur aufeinen bestimmten Artikel anwendbar zu halten. Daßdies nicht geschehen ist, kann man auch so auslegen,daß dies Absicht ist, und man bewußt keine Vervielfäl-tigung von Fachmännern zuläßt. Beispielsweise ist ver-mieden worden, dem Fachmann in Zusammenhang mitder vollständigen Offenbarung (Artikel 83) ein Aus-legungswissen zu geben, das ihm dann im Rahmender zulässigen Erweiterung (Artikel 123) nicht mehrzur Verfügung steht. Bei der Konkurrenz der beidenArtikel hat man es vorgezogen, statt zweierlei fachmän-nischer Maßstäbe und somit der Erschaffung zweierverschiedener Fachmannbegriffe lieber zwei Offenba-rungstypen zu definieren: Zur Erfüllung des Artikel 83 istdie Erfindung für den Fachmann „deutlich und voll-ständig“ zu offenbaren, während dem Artikel 123(2)genüge getan ist, wenn die Anmeldung nichts enthält,was dem Fachmann ursprünglich „unmittelbar und ein-deutig“ gelehrt war. Deutlichkeit und Vollständigkeitbedeuten nicht dasselbe wie Unmittelbarkeit und Ein-deutigkeit. Die zweite Offenbarungsart ist enger aus-zulegen.16 Der Fachmann könnte demnach durchauseinen Gegenstand als reproduzierbar offenbart in einerAnmeldung herauslesen, jedoch das für ihn implizitOffenbarte dürfte nicht in einer nachträglichen Explika-tion eingefügt werden. Dies erzeugt keinen Widerspruchoder einen anderen Reparaturbedarf im EPÜ, sondern istschlicht zur Kenntnis zu nehmen. Auf diese Weise ent-stehen aber zwei Offenbarungsbegriffe – unter Beibe-haltung desselben Fachmanns.

Es gilt offenbar der unausgesprochene Grundsatz,wonach es nur einen Begriff des Fachmanns geben darf.Der Vermutung, daß sich die Begründer des EPÜ zu einer


10 Rainer Schulte, PatG, Köln 1994, § 14, Randnr. 18.11 siehe RiLi C-III, 2.1 und 4.12 RiLi C-III, 6.3.13 RiLi C-IV, 5.4.14 R. 31EPÜ AO, RiLi C-II, 6.2.

15 vgl. T 57/86, T 460/87, T 99/89 und RiLi B-I, 2.16 siehe Blumer in Singer/Stauder, EPÜ, Köln 2010, Art. 123, Randnr. 12,

S. 1040f.


unteilbaren Fiktion des Fachmanns aus Gründen derEinfachheit entschlossen hätten und weiterhin entschlie-ßen würden, ist streng zu widersprechen. Das EPÜ unddie umliegenden Rechtsquellen sind seit 1973 kontinu-ierlich komplexer geworden, deutlich auch wieder mitder Einführung des EPÜ 2000 oder der Regelung vonTeilanmeldungen. Dem Ziel der Einfachheit werden stetsandere Ziele vorgezogen, sicher auch ehrwürdige wieu.a. eine gesteigerte Gerechtigkeit für Anmelder, Recht-einhaber usw.17 Folglich wird wohl niemand mit demEinfachheitsargument für die Einsamkeit des Fachmannsstimmen.

Solange sich alle fachmännischen Eigenschaftenzusammengenommen nicht widersprechen, kann derFachmann für jede Rechtsstelle z. T. verschiedene Eigen-schaften haben und bleibt doch derselbe Fachmann.Beispielsweise kann die Eigenschaft, Routineversuchedurchführen zu können und damit die Bedingung dererfinderischen Tätigkeit nach Artikel 56 zu verschärfen,schlummern, während derselbe Fachmann ein Doku-ment des Standes der Technik auf indirekt genannteMerkmale prüft. Beide Fähigkeiten – Versuchstätigkeitund das Mitlesenkönnen nichtgenannter Dinge – beste-hen gleichzeitig widerspruchsfrei im Fachmannbegriffund werden nur aktiviert, falls angemessen. Niemandwird daran Anstoß nehmen.

Es bei einem Fachmannbegriff zu belassen, hat einenbesonderen Effekt: er sorgt für einen engeren undkonsistenten Zusammenhang ansonsten getrennterBestimmungen des EPÜ. Der Fachmann vereinheitlichtdas EPÜ zu einem organischen Ganzen. Es ist ja auchsinnvoll, das gesamte Patentierungsverfahren nur einerEinrichtung gegenüberzutellen, welche den Stand derTechnik und seine Grenzen gleichermaßen widerspie-gelt. Der Fachmann als halb menschenähnliches undhalb enzyklopädisches Geschöpf erweist sich dabei alsein sehr wirkungsmächtiger Maßstab. Auch anderewiederkehrende Termini wie etwa die Begriffe „Neu-heit“ oder „Stand der Technik“ dienen dem einheitlichenZusammenhang des EPÜ, sofern sie an verschiedenenAnwendungsorten denselben Begriffsinhalt aufweisen.

Es ist daher unter anderem richtig, bei weiterer Har-monisierung nationaler Patentrechte in materieller Hin-sicht dies mit dem Fokus auf den Fachmannbegriff zutun, wie bereits vorgeschlagen wurde.18 Man kann wohlsagen, daß sich zwei Patentgesetze dann in hohem Maßgleichen, wenn sie auf einem übereinstimmenden Fach-mannbegriff fußen und ihn an denselben Stellen zurAnwendung bringen. Auch richtig ist es, diesen Begriff

detailiert zu kommentieren, da er die unauffällige Klam-mer des europäischen und vermutlich fast aller nationa-ler Patentgesetze ist.

Der Rückgriff auf den Fachmann mag auch anderenZwecken dienen, wie etwa didaktischen Gründen, einerVereinfachung hinsichtlich der Anschaulichkeit mancherUmstände oder der Verkürzung eines Arguments.19

Diese Ziele sind jedoch leicht durch alternative Einzel-kriterien oder Kunstgriffe ersetzbar, weswegen die ein-heitsstiftende Wirkung als primäre Aufgabe des Fach-manns bestehen bleibt.

Zudem ist das EPÜ durch den Fachmann austariert, daeine theoretische Veränderung seiner Eigenschaften aneiner ersten Stelle zu einer sinnvollen Verschiebung andamit vernetzten anderen Orten des EPÜ führt. Istbeispielsweise das Wissen des Fachmannes als umfang-reicher als bisher anzusetzen – was z.B. durch Recht-sprechung zur Auslegung des Offenbarungsgehalteseines Dokuments des Standes der Technik nachArt. 54(2) motiviert sein könnte –, dann sind in der Folgeanzumeldende Gegenstände entsprechend wenigergenau zu beschreiben: schließlich liest der angespro-chene Fachmann nun mehr aus einer knapperenBeschreibung heraus. Es wird aber auch für alle ange-meldeten Gegenstände schwerer, die Bedingung dererfinderischen Tätigkeit zu erfüllen, denn der Fachmannwürde mehr Merkmale im Stand der Technik erkennenals bisher. Sofern die weiteren Randbedingungen gleichbleiben, sollten daher in diesem Gedankenbeispiel weni-ger Patente erteilt werden. Einmal erteilte Patentegenössen jedoch eine höhere Schutzwirkung, weil wie-derum der Fachmann (wie oben ausgeführt) diese beein-flußt. Man stelle sich vor, es wäre umgekehrt: eineManipulation des Fachmann-Konzepts führte zu einergeringeren Zahl von Patenten, die dann auch noch einengeringeren Schutzumfang hätten. Der Wert eines durch-schnittlichen europäischen Patents würde auf einenSchlag abnehmen. Doch analog wie in diesem Beispielfedern sich die vernetzten Funktionen des Fachmanns imgesamten EPÜ ab.

Wäre dem nicht so, müßten Teile des EPÜ neu kon-zipiert werden – oder aus einem Begriff des Fachmannsmüßten viele gemacht werden, etwa multipliziert ineinen FM56, FM83, FM123 usw., was wiederum derEinheitlichkeit des EPÜ nicht förderlich wäre. So bleibt esbei einem einzigen Fachmann, der mit seinem unüber-sichtlichen Eigenschaftsbündel wie eine unheimlicheKreatur anmutet. Aber wie Adorno schon sagt: „JedesKunstwerk ist eine abgedungene Untat.“20

17 Teilweise vereinfachte Anmeldevoraussetzungen oder eine einfachereBenennung von Mitgliedstaaten widersprechen der globalen gesetzlichenVerkomplexierung der dahinterstehenden Regelungen nicht.

18 S. Gedeon, Der fiktive Fachmann im Patentrecht, epi Information 2011,76-81.

19 Bernard Carboz, Der Fachmann, Sonderausgabe 1 zum ABl. EPA 2009, 91.20 Theodor W. Adorno, Minima Moralia, Frankfurt am Main 1951, 201.

European Inventor Award,Press release, EPO

European Inventor Award presented to outstandinginventors from Germany, France, Denmark and Australia• European Patent Office pays tribute to ground-break-

ing inventions in laser eye surgery, fuel cell technology,hepatitis B therapy, hearing aid devices and wirelesstelecommunications

• EPO President Benoît Battistelli: “With their brilliantinventions, this year's laureates have created greateconomic value and thousands of jobs.”Copenhagen, 14th June 2012 – The European Patent

Office (EPO) today honoured outstanding inventors fortheir contribution to social, economic and technologicalprogress with the presentation of the European InventorAward (EIA) – Europe's most prestigious prize for inno-vation. The Danish Crown Prince and Princess, around350 economic and political decision makers, researchers,scientists and intellectual property specialists attendedthe award ceremony at the Royal Danish Playhouse inCopenhagen.

The EIA is presented in five categories: “Industry”,“Research”, “Small and Medium-sized Enterprises(SMEs)”, “Non-European countries”, and “Lifetimeachievement”. The five winners of the European Inven-tor Award 2012 come from Germany (2), France, Den-mark and Australia, and represent the fields of ophthal-mology, fuel cell technology, medical research, medicaltechnology and telecommunications.

“With their brilliant inventions, this year's laureateshave created great economic value and thousands ofjobs. Above all, they have improved people's lives”, saidEPO President Benoît Battistelli. “The EIA pays tribute tothese creative and entrepreneurial minds for their sig-nificant contribution to technological progress, socialdevelopment and economic growth.”

Winners of the European Inventor Award 2012

In the “Lifetime achievement” category, the award wentto Prof. Josef Bille from the University of Heidelberg inGermany, who has filed almost 100 patents in the field ofophthalmology and paved the way in the field of lasereye corrections. Prof. Bille's ground-breaking inventionof wavefront technology for laser eye surgery enablesthe mapping of aberrations in the iris and thus helpscorrect short-sightedness, long-sightedness, and astig-matism for millions of people worldwide.

In the “Industry” category, the EPO honoured theDanish team Jan Tøpholm, Søren Westermann andSvend Vitting Andersen of Widex for developing a com-puter-aided method to manufacture individually-fitted,comfortable hearing-aid devices. The unique stereo-

lithographic manufacturing method CAMISHA (Com-puter-Aided Manufacturing of Individual Shells for Hear-ing Aids) has revolutionised hearing aids since itsintroduction. The majority of all hearing aid devicesworldwide now use this technology.

The award in the “Research” category went to Dr.Gilles Gosselin and Prof. Jean-Louis Imbach at the FrenchNational Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) and Dr.Marti L. Bryant who developed an effective drug for thetreatment of hepatitis B that has now been successfullycommercialised. One hundred times more infectiousthan HIV, hepatitis B is a particularly persistent diseasethat chronically affects 350 million people worldwide.

Dr. Manfred Stefener (Germany), founder of SmartFuel Cell AG (SFC), Oliver Freitag and Dr. Jens Müllerreceived the award in the “SMEs” category for thedevelopment of the first fuel cell for portable use, theso-called direct methanol fuel cell or DMFC. Today, thesefuel cells are used in a vast array of applications, includ-ing traffic management, security and surveillance sys-tems as well as to power isolated environmental datastations. They are also recognised for their environ-mental friendliness.

In the “Non European Countries” category the EPOhonoured Dr. John O' Sullivan, Graham Daniels, Dr.Terence Percival, Diethelm Ostry and John Deane fromAustralia who laid the foundation for today's wirelessnetworking technology (Wi-Fi). The researchers from theCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial ResearchOrganisation (CSIRO) created a technology that madethe wireless LAN fast and robust so it would be aspowerful as the cabled solutions of the time. Theirtechnology forms the standard today of almost all wire-less networks.

…

For comprehensive and detailed information (text,facts & figures, photo, TV footage) on the inven-tions, their authors and the corporations involved,please visit www.epo-presschannel.com.

For more information on EPO and its activities,please visit our website www.epo.org.

Press contact

Oswald Schröder Rainer OsterwalderSpokesperson Deputy spokespersonTel: +49 89 2399 1800 Tel: +49 89 23 99 1820Mobil: +49 163 839 9668 Mobil: +49 177 459 4228Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]



Disziplinarorgane und AusschüsseDisciplinary bodies and Committees · Organes de discipline et Commissions

Disziplinarrat (epi) Disciplinary Committee (epi) Commission de discipline (epi)

AT – Wolfgang Poth°°BE – Thierry DebledBG – Vesel PendichevCH – Raymond ReutelerCZ – Michael FischerDE – Werner Fröhling°DK – Susanne HøibergEE – Sirje KahuES – Inigo Elosegui de la PenaFI – Christian WesterholmFR – Bernard RougemontGB – John Gray

GR – Athanasios TsimikalisHR – Dina Korper ZemvaHU – József MarkóIE – Shane SmythIS – Arni Vilhjalmsson**IT – Bruno MuracaLI – Paul Rosenich*LT – Vitalija BanaitieneLU – Pierre KihnLV – Ileana FloreaMC – Eric AugardeMK – Blagica Veskovska

MT – Luigi SansoneNL – Arjen HooiveldNO – Elin AndersonPL – Alicja RogozinskaPT – Antonio J. Dias MachadoRO – Calin PopRS – Dejan BogdanovicSE – Lennart KarlströmSI – Janez KraljicSK – Tomas HörmannSM – Giampaolo AgazzaniTR – Tuna Yurtseven

Disziplinarausschuss (EPA/epi)epi-Mitglieder

Disciplinary Board (EPO/epi)epi Members

Conseil de discipline (OEB/epi)Membres de l’epi

BE – Georges Leherte DE – Walter DabringhausGB – James Boff

FR – Bruno Quantin

Beschwerdekammer inDisziplinarangelegenheiten (EPA/epi)

epi-Mitglieder

DisciplinaryBoard of Appeal (EPO/epi)

epi Members

Chambre de recoursen matière disciplinaire (OEB/epi)

Membres de l’epi

DE – Nanno LenzDK – Ejvind Christiansen

ES – Pedro Sugrañes MolinéFR – Pierre GendraudGB – Huw George Hallybone

GB – Terry JohnsonNL – Bart van Wezenbeek

epi-Finanzen epi Finances Finances de l’epi

CH – André jr. BraunDE – Michael Maikowski*FR – Jean-Loup Laget

GB – Timothy Powell**IT – Salvatore BordonaroLT – Marius Jason

LU – Jean BeisselPL – Ewa MalewskaSE – Klas Norin

Geschäftsordnung By-Laws Règlement intérieur

BE – Jasmin Jantschy** DE – Dieter Speiser*FR – Pascal Moutard

GB – Terry Johnson

StandesregelnOrdentliche Mitglieder

Professional ConductFull Members

Conduite professionnelleMembres titulaires

AT – Friedrich SchweinzerBE – Philippe OverathBG – Neyko NeykovCH – Regula RüediCZ – Dobroslav MusilDE – Holger GeitzDK – Leif RoerboelEE – Raivo KoitelES – Juan Antonio MorgadesFI – Juhani Kupiainen

FR – Jean-Robert Callon de LamarckGB – Timothy Powell*HR – Aleksandar BijelicHU – Mihaly LantosIE – Michael LuceyIS – Thorlakur JonssonIT – Paolo GerliLT – Virgina DraugelieneLU – Henri KihnLV – Sandra Kumaceva

NL – Hans BottemaNO – Per FlugePL – Ludwik HudyPT – César de Bessa MonteiroRO – Lucian EnescuSE – Ronny JansonSI – Jure MarnSK – Dagmar CechvalovaSM – Giuseppe MasciopintoTR – Kazim Dündar

Stellvertreter Substitutes Suppléants

AT – Eberhard PisoCH – Paul Georg MauéCZ – Vitezslav ZakDE – Rainer KasseckertDK – Anne SchouboeEE – Jürgen ToomeES – Anna Barlocci

FI – Jonna SahlinFR – Philippe ConanGB – Simon WrightHR – Albina DlacicIE – Brian O'NeillIS – Einar FridrikssonIT – Andrea Marietti

LT – Vitalija BanaitieneLU – Romain LambertNL – John PetersNO – Lorentz SelmerPL – Miroslaw KlarRO – Gheorghe BucsaSE – Stina Sjögren PaulssonSI – Marjanca Golmajer Zima

*Chair /**Secretary °Vice-Chair / °°Vice-Secretary


Europäische Patentpraxis European Patent Practice Pratique du brevet européen

AL – Vladimir NikaAT – Werner KovacAT – Andreas VögeleBE – Ludivine CoulonBE – Francis Leyder*BG – Ivanka PakidanskaBG – Violeta ShentovaCH – Ernst IrnigerCH – Paul Georg MauéCY – Christos A. TheodoulouCZ – Ivana JirotkovaCZ – Jiri MalusekDE – Ingo HeinzelmannDE – Heike Vogelsang-WenkeDK – Eva CarlssonDK – Soeren PedersenEE – Jaak OstratEE – Margus SarapES – Enrique ArmijoES – Luis-Alfonso Durán MoyaFI – Marjut HonkasaloFI – Arja Weckman

FR – Jacques BauvirFR – Jean-Robert Callon de LamarckGB – Jim BoffGB – Chris MercerGR – Manolis Samuelides°HR – Tomislav HadzijaHR – Gordana TurkaljHU – Zsolt LengyelHU – Zsolt SzentpéteriIE – Olivia CatesbyIE – Denis McCarthyIS – Einar Fridriksson°°IS – Ragnheidur SigurdardottirIT – Francesco MacchettaIT – Micaela ModianoLI – Christoph GyajaLI – Roland WildiLT – Ausra PakenieneLT – Jurga PetniunaiteLU – Sigmar Lampe°LU – Philippe Ocvirk**LV – Jevgenijs FortunaLV – Alexander Smirnov

MC – Michael FleuchausMC – Günther SchmalzNL – Arnt AalbersNL – Ruurd JorritsmaNO – André BergNO – Kristine RekdalPL – Katarzyna LewickaPL – Ewa MalewskaPT – Pedro Alves MoreiraPT – Fernando Ferreira MagnoRO – Daniella NicolaescuRO – Doina TulucaSE – Carl CarlssonSE – Anita SkeppstedtSI – Bojan IvancicSK – Marta MajlingovaSK – Robert PorubcanSM – Antonio MarosciaSM – Andrea PerronaceTR – Hülya CayliTR – Aydin Deris

Berufliche QualifikationOrdentliche Mitglieder

Professional QualificationFull Members

Qualification professionnelleMembres titulaires

AL – Eno DodbibaAT – Friedrich Schweinzer**BE – Nele D'HalleweynBG – Radislava KossevaCH – Wolfgang BernhardtCY – Christos A. TheodoulouCZ – Jiri AnderaDE – Felix LetzelterDK – Pia StahrEE – Tónu NelsasES – Francisco Saez Granero

FI – Tomi KonkonenFR – Francis FernandezGB – John GowshallHR – Tomislav PejcinovicHU – Dóra TepfenhártIE – Conor BoyceIS – Sigurdur IngvarssonIT – Paolo Rambelli*LI – Susanne KaminskiLT – Otilija KlimaitieneLU – Didier LecomteLV – Edvards Lavrinovics

MK – Valentin PepeljugoskiNL – Freek SmitNO – Per BergPL – Piotr MalcherekPT – Isabel FrancoRO – Cosmina-Catrinel FierascuSE – Martin HolmbergSI – Antonija FlakSK – Josef KertészSM – Davide PetrazTR – Alev Yavuzcan


AT – Herwig MargottiBE – Bart Van Den HazelBG – Vesel PendichevCH – Michael LiebetanzCZ – Irena LangrovaDE – Gabriele AhrensDK – Bo Hammer JensenES – Ismael IgartuaFI – Terhi Nykänen

FR – Jérôme CollinGB – Gary WhitingHU – Imre RavaditsIE – Seán HarteIS – Gunnar HardarsonIT – Isabella FerriLI – Anke AllwardtLT – Aurelija SidlauskieneLU – Mathis BrückLV – Valentina Sergejeva

NL – Bart van WezenbeekNO – Eirik RøhmenPL – Adam PawlowskiPT – José de SampaioRO – Mihaela TeodorescuSE – Christer JönssonSI – Zlata RosSM – Andrea PerronaceTR – Ayse Ünal Ersönmez

Examination Board Members on behalf of the epi

DE – Martina Winter FR – Marc NévantGB – Ian Harris

NL – Martin Hatzmann



Biotechnologische Erfindungen Biotechnological Inventions Inventions en biotechnologie

AT – Albin SchwarzBE – Ann De Clercq*BG – Stanislava StefanovaCH – Dieter WächterCZ – Roman HakDE – Günter KellerDK – Anne SchouboeFI – Sisko Knuth-LehtolaFR – Anne DesaixGB – Simon Wright**

HR – Tihomir DragunHU – Arpad PethöIE – Anna-Louise HallyIS – Thorlakur JonssonIT – Olga CapassoLI – Burkhard BogensbergerLT – Liudmila GerasimovicLU – Pierre KihnLV – Valentina SergejevaNL – Bart Swinkels

NO – Liv ThoresenPL – Jadwiga SitkowskaPT – Alberto CanelasRO – Cristina PopaSE – Niklas MattssonSI – Mojca BencinaSK – Katarína Makel'ováSM – Maria PrimiceriTR – Ayse Ildes Erdem

EPA-FinanzenOrdentliche Mitglieder

EPO FinancesFull Members

Finances OEBMembres titulaires

DE – Walter Dabringhaus FR – Pierre GendraudGB – Jim Boff*

IE – Lindsay Casey


IT – Alessandra Longoni NL – Erik Bartelds PL – Ewa Malewska

HarmonisierungOrdentliche Mitglieder

HarmonizationFull Members

HarmonisationMembres titulaires

BE – Francis Leyder**CH – Axel Braun

DE – Lothar SteilingFR – Philippe ConanIT – Filippo Santi

GB – John D. Brown*SE – Nils Ekström


BG – Natasha AndreevaFI – Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

IT – Stefano GibertiLI – Anke Allwardt

PL – Marek BeslerSM – Paolo Ferriero

StreitrechtOrdentliche Mitglieder

LitigationFull Members

ContentieuxMembres titulaires

AT – Werner KovacBE – Pieter VandersteenBG – Ivanka PakidanskaCH – Peter Thomsen**CY – Christos A. TheodoulouCZ – Michal GuttmannDE – Matthias WagnerDK – Nicolai KanvedEE – Mart KoppelES – Enrique ArmijoFI – Kirsikka EtuahoFR – Axel Casalonga*

GB – Edward Lyndon-StanfordHR – Mladen VukmirHU – Ferenc Török°IE – Stephen MurnaghanIS – Gunnar HardarsonIT – Giuseppe ColucciLI – Bernd-Günther HarmannLT – Vilija ViesunaiteLU – Mathis BrückLV – Voldemars Osmans

MC – Günther SchmalzNL – Leonardus SteenbeekNO – Haakon Thue LiePL – Lech BuryPT – Nuno CruzRO – Ileana FloreaSE – Stina Sjögren PaulssonSI – Nina DrnovsekSK – Vladimir NeuschlSM – Gian Giuseppe MasciopintoTR – Aydin Deris


AT – Harald NemecCZ – Eva HalaxovaDE – Gabriele MohslerDK – Ejvind ChristiansenES – Inigo EloseguiFI – Arja WeckmanFR – Pierre Gendraud

GB – Terry JohnsonHR – Sanja VukinaIE – Triona WalsheIS – Einar FridrikssonIT – Antonella De GregoriLI – Roland WildiLT – Ausra PakenieneLU – Valérie Mellet

NL – Paul ClarksonNO – Kari SimonsenPL – Anna KorbelaRO – Dan PuscasuSE – Lars EstreenSK – Katarina Bad'urováTR – Serra Coral



Redaktionsausschuss Editorial Committee Commission de Rédaction

AT – Walter Holzer DE – Albert WiedemannFR – Thierry Schuffenecker

GB – Terry Johnson

Online Communications Committee

DE – Ludger EckeyDK – Peter IndahlFI – Antero Virkkala*

FR – Catherine MénèsGB – John GrayIE – David Brophy**

IT – Luciano BosottiNL – Johan van der VeerRO – Doina Greavu

PatentdokumentationOrdentliche Mitglieder

Patent DocumentationFull Members

Documentation brevetsMembres titulaires

AT – Birgitta Gassner DK – Peter Indahl* /**FI – Tord Langenskiöld

IE – Brian O’Neill


FR – Jean-Robert Callon de Lamarck GB – John Gray NL – Bart van Wezenbeek

Interne RechnungsprüferOrdentliche Mitglieder

Internal AuditorsFull Members

Commissaires aux Comptes internesMembres titulaires

CH – Hansjörg Kley FR – Philippe Conan


DE – Thomas Zinke LI – Bernd-Günther Harmann

Wahlausschuss Electoral Committee Commission pour les élections

CH – Heinz Breiter CH – Markus Müller IS – Arni Vilhjalmsson

Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)

epi-Delegierte epi Delegates Délégués de l’epi

BE – Francis LeyderDE – Gabriele Leißler-GerstlFI – Antero Virkkala

GB – Jim BoffGB – Chris MercerGB – Simon WrightIT – Luciano Bosotti

LU – Sigmar LampeNL – Antonius TangenaRO – Mihaela Teodorescu

SACEPO Working Party Rules

BE – Francis Leyder GB – Chris Mercer LU – Sigmar Lampe

SACEPO Working Party Guidelines

DE – Gabriele Leißler-Gerstl DK – Anette Hegner GR – Manolis Samuelides

*Chair /**Secretary

Vorstand/Board/Bureau

Präsident / President / PrésidentNL– AntoniusTangena

Vize-Präsidenten / Vice-Presidents / Vice-PrésidentsDE– GabrieleLeißler-GerstlRO– MihaelaTeodorescu

Generalsekretär / Secretary General / Secrétaire GénéralPT – JoãoPereiradaCruz

Stellvertretender Generalsekretär / Deputy Secretary General / Secrétaire Général AdjointCH– MichaelLiebetanz

Schatzmeister / Treasurer / TrésorierBE – ClaudeQuintelier

Stellvertretender Schatzmeister / Deputy TreasurerTrésorier AdjointCZ – FrantišekKania

Mitglieder/Members/Membres

AL– VladimirNikaAT– FriedrichSchweinzerBG– NatashaAndreevaCY– ChristosA.TheodoulouDE– LotharSteilingDK– BoHammerJensenEE – MargusSarapES – Luis-AlfonsoDuránMoyaFI – MarjutHonkasaloFR – JacquesBauvirFR – LaurentNussGB– EdwardLyndon-StanfordGB– SimonWrightGR– VassilikiBakatselouHR– DavorBoškovicHU – ÁdámSzentpéteriIE – LindsayCaseyIS – ThorlakurJonssonIT – MicaelaModianoLI – BurkhardBogensbergerLT – RedaZabolieneLU– BerndKutschLV – JevgenijsFortunaMC– GüntherSchmalzMK– ValentinPepeljugoskiMT– LuigiSansoneNO– DagThranePL – AnnaSlominska-DziubekRS – SlobodanPetosevicSE – LarsEstreenSI – GregorMacekSK – DagmarCechvalováSM– AndreaTiburziTR – SeldaArkan

epi / P.O. Box 26 01 12 / 80058 Munich, Germany