Talk:European Patent Office/Archives/2012
 | This is an archive of past discussions about European Patent Office. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Languages
Does the EPC is constitutionnal in most european countries where the national constitution that the language of the State is not an EPO language? It is weird to see think that the opposition procedure might be only accessible to citizens who speak one of the 3 languages of the EPO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.232.103 (talk • contribs)
- This article mentions that the EPC tries to make European patent law accessible to people without English, French or German as a national language. For example, documents can be filed in your own language and fees are reduced. Your comment is more relevant to Opposition procedure before the European Patent Office, so I have put your comments there and suggested that the article be updated with information about languages. Thank you. GDallimore (Talk) 13:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I know, there are no specific legal provisions concerning the use of languages during EPO proceedings which would be unique to opposition proceedings. The relevant provisions are essentially equally applicable to grant proceedings. On the subject, worth reading are: Article 14 EPC, Rule 3 EPC, Rule 4 EPC, Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section a-viii , Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section e-v and Case Law of the Boards of Appeal (Fifth edition 2006), p. 478 (notably). But indeed an article on Language provisions in proceedings before the European Patent Office would be useful... Regarding the constitutionality of these provisions, I am not aware of any paper discussing this... Surely there must be some out there. --Edcolins (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there's anywhere near enough material to justify an article on the topic. Just odd mentions here and there. eg France refusing to implement the London Agreement (2000) because it was deemed unconstitional by the former president. The discussion in this article I think is sufficient already. Info on the original discussions behind the 1973 EPC is a little hard to come by, but I'm sure it must have been discussed at length so there is potential for expansion in the European Patent Convention article if the sources can be foound. As for oppositions, it does throw up different things compared to other proceedings because opposition is the only truly inter partes procedure so there is the possibility of two different non-EPO languages being used! GDallimore (Talk) 21:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I know, there are no specific legal provisions concerning the use of languages during EPO proceedings which would be unique to opposition proceedings. The relevant provisions are essentially equally applicable to grant proceedings. On the subject, worth reading are: Article 14 EPC, Rule 3 EPC, Rule 4 EPC, Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section a-viii , Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section e-v and Case Law of the Boards of Appeal (Fifth edition 2006), p. 478 (notably). But indeed an article on Language provisions in proceedings before the European Patent Office would be useful... Regarding the constitutionality of these provisions, I am not aware of any paper discussing this... Surely there must be some out there. --Edcolins (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Court
"The European Patent Office does not include any court which can take decisions on infringement matter."
My question is, if they have a court at all? In Germany the decision BVerwG I C 66.57 (GRUR 1959, 435) decided that the decisions of the boards of appeal within DPA are office actions and no judication. That was confirmed by BVerwG 2 B 72/81. German Art 96 (1) GG and the creation of the Federal Patent Court in 1961 changed that. So the question are the EPO boards of appeal courts at all? --Swen 12:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swen (talk • contribs)
- Technically speaking, saying that the EPO does not have a court which decides infringment matters should not be taken as an implication that they have courts for other matters. Nevertheless, I have clarified this by removing unecessary words. GDallimore (Talk) 13:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- See Case Law of the Boards of Appeal (Fifth edition 2006), p. 593, "D. Appeal procedure, 1. Legal character of appeal procedure". It all depends on how you exactly define a court. The EPO appeal procedure is a judicial procedure proper to an administrative court, according to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. --Edcolins (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nevertheless is the status as an administratively independent court not quite clear, see BVerfG 2 BvR 281/00 par. 2 and 4. Article 112(1)(b) EPC gives the President of the EPO supervisory priviledges over the Boards of Appeal. --Swen 21:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swen (talk • contribs)
- Addendum: G_2/06 in Official Journal EPO 5/2009 page 318 par. 4: "EPO Boards of Appeal have been recognized as being courts or tribunals, they are not courts or tribunals of an EU member state but of an international organization whose contracting states are not all members of the EU." --Swen 05:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swen (talk • contribs)
- Thanks. Good to know. I have updated Appeal procedure before the European Patent Office accordingly. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)