On any view, the world of international patents is fast-paced and constantly changing in shape. Barely a week goes by without an important development from a major national Court or the EPO in a significant area such as the allowability of claims to pharmaceutical dosage regimes or the patentability of computer software.
The Patents Courts of the Members States of the EU have openly stated their desire to harmonise their approach to most central areas of patent law. Courts more regularly and encouragingly refer to and recite EPO case law and decisions in parallel cases from other national Courts. Regular conferences are held with this very goal in mind. But the Courts also recognise that the different procedural regimes regarding evidence and other matters such as disclosure inevitably mean that different results will be reached by different tribunals on the same issues. This makes life uncertain for industry and highlights the need for a single Community Patent and/or Court. However, this in turn leads to significant political issues which presently seem impossible to resolve.
Unless and until full harmonisation is achieved, the best that can be done is to gather as much information as possible so that a patent holder and other stakeholders know where to enforce their rights and where to avoid litigation. The aim of this blog is to provide readers with an up to date picture on important developments in the field of patents throughout Europe and to provide a platform for high level discussion on the most significant topics, covering both national patent developments as well as developments at the EPO.
Our fellow contributors are some of the continent’s leading patent lawyers and as a result, this blog will be truly pan-European in its approach.
Peter Burgers, Brinkhof and Brian Cordery, Bristows
9 April 2010
________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.
We know how adequately to define, for instance, trademark and design as the phenomena of objective reality in corresponding laws, but have been unlearned in this respect relate to the concept of invention. Why, I would question and answer shortly as follows:
1) the continuous worldwide reformation and harmonization of patent systems (I hold, it is inevitable) require a new kind of thinking, i.e. systems thinking, for solving the problems in these undertakings (first step).
2) first of all it is needful to find out the point of view, from which understandings about the patent system generally appear in their greatest principal simplicity. By my estimation such point of view can only be indisputable common comprehension of the concept of invention as the legal object in Patent Laws, i.e. the phenomenon of objective reality to which the parties’ (patentee v. public interest or patentee v. third parties) volition should have been directed (second step).
3) only after taking in account the steps 1 and 2 it would be known what to do, and then do its best.
I am prepared to bring into daylight my point of view about the concept of invention based on 25 years watching developments of such patent systems as ones in USA, Japan, German, United Kingdom and EPC.
I hold that the above might be high level discussion on the very significant topic in patent matters.
Best regards from Estonia