tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post8875622484100284343..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 0231/13 - No inventor needed, a professional representative is enoughDeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-89631093443777378612017-10-31T22:59:23.779+01:002017-10-31T22:59:23.779+01:00The decision is not a landmark decision.
The ref...The decision is not a landmark decision. <br /><br />The refusal of the postponement corresponds to established practice and case law.<br /><br />The same applies to the decision as to the substance. The reason for refusal has only to do with presentation of information, albeit this being carried out through a CII.<br /><br />In T 1094/07 the representative tried to obtain postponement of the OP in that he resigned his mandate 24 hours before the OP. The BA held that oral hearing could be torpedoed by resignation of the representative "in the eleventh hour". It was thus correct to of the ED to hold the OP in the absence of the representative.<br /><br />In T 861/12, the representative of choice of the opponent could not attend. The Board considered that one of the other 5 appointed representatives could replace the absent one, and refused postponement. The fact that the opponent then withdrew the power of attorney for the 5 remaining representatives did not help either.<br /><br />Any procedural manoeuvre where the representative resigns its mandate, or where the party withdraws a power of attorney shortly before OP, will thus not lead to postponement of the OP.<br /><br />EPO, especially the BA, thus neither hates patents or the applicants, it simply does not like to be taken for a ride. Fair playnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-13823370911114012492017-10-23T11:26:49.461+02:002017-10-23T11:26:49.461+02:00Maybe you are right. However, the BoA do not seem ...Maybe you are right. However, the BoA do not seem to like such a late withdrawal by the applicant. See e.g. CL BoA, C.IV.6.2.2 a):<br /><br />A party requesting oral proceedings is not obliged to be represented at them. Its duly announced absence could not be considered as improper behaviour (T 1071/06). <br /><br />However, the boards consider it highly undesirable for summoned parties to announce too late, unclearly or not at all that they will not be attending. Such conduct is inconsistent both with the responsible exercise of rights and with the basic rules of courtesy (see for example T 434/95, T 65/05).<br /><br />In my view, a withdrawal of representation at such a late stage equals a late announcement of the party (applicant) that it will not be attending (because representation is a prerequisite for attendence). <br /><br />In view of the above, it seems to be unlikely to me that this procedural maneuver will effectuate a postponement of the oral proceedings...<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-18916125166170339912017-10-21T22:47:17.943+02:002017-10-21T22:47:17.943+02:00Last anonymous: I fully agree, there is nothing su...Last anonymous: I fully agree, there is nothing surprising about this decision.<br /><br />Well, except one thing: 29 July 2017 was a Friday. It is quite likely that the applicants office was not aware of the medical problems of the inventor before monday 31 July, and that this message only reached the representative late on 31 July. The representative was probably travelling to Munich in 31 July. I see nothing wrong with the moment of notification of the illness,<br /><br />Not that it makes a difference of course, but still....<br /><br />I wonder what would have happened if the applicant had withdrawn the authorisation on the morning of 1 Aug. No represensentation anymore, no possibility to send somebody else. Postponement would appear inevitable.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-79983288699785312552017-10-17T17:25:24.205+02:002017-10-17T17:25:24.205+02:00The interesting thing is that I disagree with the ...The interesting thing is that I disagree with the viewpoints above. In my view, the decision is surely disadvantageous for the appellant, but I think that from a legal viewpoint, there is nothing to complain.<br /><br />In fact, it may well be that other legal provisions (e.g. US-, CN- or JP-patent law) allow granting of a patent, even if the only technical difference to the prior art is a (simple) display of information. The EPC does not. Thus, I think that the BoA may not be blamed for following the EPC because this is their job. Thus, nothing to complain from my point of view.<br /><br />The same applies to the decision not to postpone Oral Proceedings. It is obviously correct that the inventor is strictly speaking no party to the proceedings. Thus, its absence is only relevant under special circumstances. The appellant has not put forward any and - additionally - has requested the postponement at a very late stage of the proceedings. Under these circumstances, it is understandable that procedural economy and legal security for the public prevail.<br /><br />I cannot see why this decision should be a landmark decision either. The notion that if the only technical difference over the prior art is a (simple) presentation of information, the subject-matter is not patentable, is evidently not very new (see e.g. T641/00, 6. and T1543/06, 2.).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-21402945943137781052017-10-16T09:55:04.097+02:002017-10-16T09:55:04.097+02:00The problem is that the application is a computer-...The problem is that the application is a computer-implemented invention and this is still a problem for some EPO Examiners. To me, the word "software" in claim 1 doomed the application from an EPO prospective.<br /><br />To me the key passage of the decision is:<br /><br />"As regards the appellant's argument that it was surprising that the application had been refused by the EPO but not in China, Japan and the US, the Board notes that it has to decide on the basis of the provisions of the EPC, which may differ from those of other texts. Decisions of other patent offices, possibly taken on the basis of different claim versions, are in any case not binding on the Board"<br /><br />If three important PTO, all member of PPH pilot program, granted a patent peraphs EPO should consider that the application is worth of a patent? <br /><br />I hope that EPO be le strict and institutionally navel-gazing toward computer-implemented invention, as this is an important business.<br /><br />Trust_meUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12044096481149057032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-3203245941688059432017-10-13T16:24:35.473+02:002017-10-13T16:24:35.473+02:00No doubt, this is a landmark decision.No doubt, this is a landmark decision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-31316923822366927952017-10-13T14:57:32.443+02:002017-10-13T14:57:32.443+02:00As the attorney who trained me once said: "at...As the attorney who trained me once said: "at the EPO, they hate patents". One might also say "at the EPO, they hate applicants".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com