H. Interpretation of the EPC
Overview
H. Interpretation of the EPC
|
You are viewing the 9th edition (2019) of this publication; for the 10th edition (2022) see here |
1.The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
2.Interpretation of the EPC affected by TRIPS Agreement
4.Impact of national decisions on the case law of the boards of appeal
On the interpretation of provisions of the EPC, the EPC itself provides relatively little guidance. There is the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC of 5 October 1973 as revised by the Act revising the EPC of 29 November 2000. This deals with the extent of protection under Art. 69 EPC. Otherwise, the EPC contains only regulations like the hierarchy of legal provisions (Art. 150(2) and 164(2) EPC) and the equal authenticity of the EPC in its three official language versions (Art. 177 EPC). Art. 125 EPC is not concerned with the interpretation of the EPC but serves merely as a "fill-in" in case of missing procedural provisions. The EPC itself thus contains no general rules for its interpretation, and one must look outside the terms of the Convention itself for such rules (G 2/12, G 2/13, OJ 2016, A27 and OJ 2016, A28).
As an international treaty, the EPC has to be interpreted in accordance with the rules of interpretation developed in the so-called "law of nations" or public international law. To the traditional kind of international treaty which regulates legal relations between States had to be added the treaty which directly creates and defines rights and duties for individuals and corporate bodies (G 5/83, OJ 1985, 64; G 2/12, G 2/13).
In the interpretation of international treaties which provide the legal basis for the rights and duties of individuals and corporate bodies it is necessary to pay attention to questions of harmonisation of national and international rules of law. The boards of appeal may take into consideration decisions and opinions given by national courts in interpreting the law (see G 5/83, OJ 1985, 64; see also G 2/12, G 2/13). Nevertheless, in the proceedings before the European Patent Office, such considerations do not exonerate a board of appeal from its duty as an independent judicial body to interpret and apply the EPC and to decide in last instance in patent granting matters. TRIPS provisions, like decisions of the European and International Courts of Justice and national decisions, are elements to be taken into consideration by the boards of appeal but are not binding on them (T 154/04, OJ 2008, 46).
Although the European Patent Organisation is not a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties concluded on 23 May 1969 (hereinafter Vienna Convention), the principles of interpretation of Arts. 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention are to be applied to the interpretation of the EPC even though its provisions do not apply to the EPC ex lege (G 5/83, G 2/08 date: 2010-02-19, OJ 2010, 456). The boards of appeal refer to legal sources outside the EPC, including, for example, Vienna Convention and the TRIPS Agreement. Thus the boards of appeal may be guided in their decisions by the provisions of other international instruments. However, they have no obligation to apply them directly (G 2/02 and G 3/02, OJ 2004, 483).
- T 844/18
i) The board is empowered to and must assess the validity of a priority right claim as required by Article 87(1) EPC,
ii) the board's interpretation of the expression "any person" in Article 87(1) EPC confirms the long-established "all applicants" or the "same applicants" approach,
iii) the national law does not govern who is "any person" as per Article 87(1) EPC, the Paris Convention determines who "any person" is.
- T 2320/16
Oral proceedings by videoconference are consistent with the right to oral proceedings pursuant to Article 116 EPC (Reasons, 1)
- T 1807/15
The following question is referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision: Is the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference compatible with the right to oral proceedings as enshrined in Article 116(1) EPC if not all of the parties to the proceedings have given their consent to the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference?
- G 1/21
During a general emergency impairing the parties' possibilities to attend in-person oral proceedings at the EPO premises, the conduct of oral proceedings before the boards of appeal in the form of a videoconference is compatible with the EPC even if not all of the parties to the proceedings have given their consent to the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference.
- G 4/19
1. A European patent application can be refused under Articles 97(2) and 125 EPC if it claims the same subject-matter as a European patent which has been granted to the same applicant and does not form part of the state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) and (3) EPC.
2. The application can be refused on that legal basis, irrespective of whether it a) was filed on the same date as, or b) is an earlier application or a divisional application (Article 76(1) EPC) in respect of, or c) claims the same priority (Article 88 EPC) as the European patent application leading to the European patent already granted.
- G 3/19
Taking into account developments after decisions G 2/12 and G 2/13 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the exception to patentability of essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals in Article 53(b) EPC has a negative effect on the allowability of product claims and product-by-process claims directed to plants, plant material or animals, if the claimed product is exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process or if the claimed process features define an essentially biological process. This negative effect does not apply to European patents granted before 1 July 2017 and European patent applications which were filed before that date and are still pending.
- G 2/19
1. Ein Dritter im Sinne von Artikel 115 EPÜ, der gegen die Entscheidung über die Erteilung eines europäischen Patents Beschwerde eingelegt hat, hat keinen Anspruch darauf, dass vor einer Beschwerdekammer des Europäischen Patentamtes mündlich über sein Begehren verhandelt wird, zur Beseitigung vermeintlich undeutlicher Patentansprüche (Artikel 84 EPÜ) des europäischen Patents den erneuten Eintritt in das Prüfungsverfahren anzuordnen. Eine solchermaßen eingelegte Beschwerde entfaltet keine aufschiebende Wirkung.
2. Mündliche Verhandlungen der Beschwerdekammern an deren Standort in Haar verstoßen nicht gegen die Artikel 113 (1) und 116 (1) EPÜ.
- G 1/19
A computer-implemented simulation of a technical system or process that is claimed as such can, for the purpose of assessing inventive step, solve a technical problem by producing a technical effect going beyond the simulations implementation on a computer. For that assessment it is not a sufficient condition that the simulation is based, in whole or in part, on technical principles underlying the simulated system or process. The answers to the first and second questions are no different if the computer-implemented simulation is claimed as part of a design process, in particular for verifying a design.
- G 1/18
1. An appeal is deemed not to have been filed in the following cases: (a) where notice of appeal was filed within the two-month time limit prescribed in Article 108, first sentence, EPC AND the appeal fee was paid after expiry of that two month time limit; (b) where notice of appeal was filed after expiry of the two month time limit prescribed in Article 108, first sentence, EPC AND the appeal fee was paid after expiry of that two month time limit; (c) where the appeal fee was paid within the two month time limit prescribed in Article 108, first sentence, EPC for filing notice of appeal AND notice of appeal was filed after expiry of that two month time limit.
2. In the cases referred to in answers 1(a) to (c), reimbursement of the appeal fee is to be ordered ex officio. 3. Where the appeal fee was paid within or after the two month time limit prescribed in Article 108, first sentence, EPC for filing notice of appeal AND no notice of appeal was filed at all, the appeal fee is to be reimbursed.
- J 14/19
1.) Der Nachweis des Vorliegens der Voraussetzungen für die Aussetzung des Verfahrens nach Regel 14 (1) EPÜ muss während eines anhängigen Erteilungsverfahrens und somit vor Bekanntmachung des Hinweises auf die Erteilung im Europäischen Patentblatt erfolgen. Beweismittel, die erst nach diesem Zeitpunkt eingereicht werden, dürfen vom Europäischen Patentamt hierfür nicht berücksichtigt werden (Nr. 4.3 der Gründe).
2.)Die Frage zu welchem Zeitpunkt ein nationales Verfahren im Sinne der Regel 14 (1) EPÜ i.V.m. Artikel 61 (1) EPÜ als eingeleitet gilt, ist nach dem Verfahrensrecht jenes Staates zu beurteilen, dessen Gerichte zum Treffen einer Entscheidung im Sinne des Artikels 61 (1) EPÜ angerufen wurden (Nr. 6.1 und 6.2 der Gründe).
3.) Bei der Anwendung fremden Rechtes muss das Europäische Patentamt dieses, soweit möglich, im Gesamtzusammenhang der fremden Rechtsordnung anwenden. Dabei ist das Europäische Patentamt als von staatlichen Behörden und Gerichten unabhängige internationale Organisation nicht an die Rechtsprechung nationaler Gerichte zur Auslegung der anzuwendenden fremden Rechtsnorm gebunden. Sofern dem Europäischen Patentamt bekannt, sollte insbesondere höchstgerichtliche nationale Rechtsprechung bei der Entscheidungsfindung jedoch berücksichtigt und gewürdigt werden(Nr. 6.5 der Gründe).
4.) Fragen des Rechtsmissbrauchs stellen sich auch in den Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt (siehe etwa Artikel 16 (1) e) VOBK 2020). Zur Vermeidung von Wertungswidersprüchen sind derartige Fragen vom Europäischen Patentamt auch im Rahmen des Aussetzungsverfahrens autonom, also unabhängig von nationalen Rechtsordnungen zu beurteilen (Nr. 6.22 der Gründe).
5.) Die zweckwidrige Inanspruchnahme eines Rechtes kann unter Umständen Rechtsmissbrauch begründen. Dies ist etwa dann der Fall, wenn die Rechtsausübung überwiegend in Schädigungsabsicht erfolgt und andere, legitime Zwecke in den Hintergrund treten. Rechtsmissbrauch muss zweifelsfrei vorliegen und erfordert eine sorgfältige Prüfung und Abwägung der Einzelumstände. Die Beweislast trifft denjenigen, der sich auf Rechtsmissbrauch beruft (Nr. 13.1 der Gründe).
- J 12/18
Under Article 76(2) EPC only those Contracting States that had been designated in the earlier application at time of filing the divisional can be designated in the divisional. A designated state forfeited in the parent application at time of filing the divisional cannot be revived in the divisional one.