Exclusions and Exceptions to Patent Eligibility Revisited: Examining the Political Functions of the “Discovery” and “Ordre Public” Clauses in the European Patent Convention and the Arenas of Negotiation

2014 ◽  
pp. 145-173
Author(s):  
Ingrid Schneider
Keyword(s):  
The Political ◽  
European Patent ◽  
European Patent Convention ◽  
Ordre Public

Environmental Risk in Biotech Patent Disputes: Which Role for Ordre Public before the European Patent Office?

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-56
Author(s):  
Angelica Bonfanti
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Risk ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Patent Convention ◽  
Ordre Public

Nowadays, biotechnologies are among the most interesting areas of science. Their development, fostered by intellectual property (IP) rights’ protection, leads to useful progress. Nonetheless, when, as with biotech inventions, environmental protection is at stake, this progress is not without controversy. The present contribution aims at examining the interferences between IP and environmental protection, as emerging in the framework of the European Patent Convention. To this extent, it will focus on the function and on the limits of the ordre public exception clause, with the purpose of suggesting a new role for science in disputes for revocation of biotech patents.

7. Secondary Patentability Requirements

2019 ◽  
pp. 162-177
Author(s):  
Justine Pila ◽  
Paul L.C. Torremans
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Industrial Application ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Inventive Step ◽  
European Patent Convention ◽  
Biotechnological Inventions ◽  
The Eu

This chapter considers the secondary patentability requirements of the European Patent Convention (EPC). It assumes the existence of a subject matter for which a European patent may validly be granted, and focuses on the legal tests for determining its novelty, inventive step, and susceptibility of industrial application in accordance with Articles 54 to 57 EPC and the corresponding provisions of the EU Biotech Directive for biotechnological inventions.

Patents for plants and genes under the European Patent Convention

1992 ◽  
Vol 99 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 141-152
Author(s):  
Noel Byrne
Keyword(s):  
Western Europe ◽  
Patent Application ◽  
Plant Biotechnology ◽  
European Patent ◽  
European Patent Convention ◽  
National Patent ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Biotechnological Invention ◽  
Written Description ◽  
Skilled Person

SynopsisThe cost of patenting an invention should be incurred only where the patent is likely to give the inventor an economic or a tactical advantage. Where it is practicable, secrecy may be preferable to patenting. If an advantage from patenting can be envisaged, then in Western Europe the inventor can apply either for a European patent under the European Patent Convention or for a national patent. The inventor in plant biotechnology faces a ban on patenting certain inventions, including plant varieties and essentially biological processes for the production of plants. But since this ban is interpreted strictly, there are opportunities for patenting what at first glance might seem not patentable. A patent application must give a written description of the invention that is complete enough for a skilled person to reproduce it. The inventor may be required to supplement the description in a patent specification for a biotechnological invention, by depositing a sample of relevant biological materials. A European patent is treated as a national patent in the country for which it was granted. Since a patent may be invalidated in enforcement proceedings, patenting may turn out to have been a costly mistake.

Patenting treatment or dosage regimes under the European Patent Convention 2000

2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
pp. 540-542
Author(s):  
E. D. Ventose
Keyword(s):  
European Patent ◽  
European Patent Convention

Towards a Pro-active Approach Concerning the Intersections between the Jordan Patents of Invention Law, United States Patent Law and European Patent Convention

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-87
Author(s):  
Zein J. Razem ◽  
Qais Ali Mahafzah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
European Patent ◽  
United States Patent ◽  
European Patent Convention ◽  
Active Approach ◽  
Patent Laws ◽  
The World ◽  
States Patent

AbstractAttempts to harmonize patent laws worldwide have increased, leaving bits of argumentative issues untouched in the patent systems under scrutiny. However, diversity can sometimes prove desirable since majority rule is not always right and the minority wrong. Sometimes a part is more righteous than the whole. This research focuses on areas where the Jordan Patents of Invention Law, United States Patent Law, and the European Patent Convention intersect. It concludes that although most countries, including Jordan, follow a different path than that taken by the United States, it may be unnecessary for the United States to change its system in order to be in sync with the rest of the world. Thus, it may prove advantageous to have two separate systems that can provide different patent protections where humanity achieves progression and development.

Legal and regulatory update

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
John Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent Infringement ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Final Time ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Patent Convention ◽  
First Case ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Regulatory Update

The year 2004 saw the end game of what was probably the largest and most significant patent infringement case in the English Courts of the past 10 years. Bird & Bird acted for TKT throughout. Kirin-Amgen and Transkaryotic Therapies Inc. (TKT) crossed swords for the final time in the House of Lords during an eight day appeal hearing in July 2004. The case is significant for the number of patent law issues at stake: novelty of product-by-process claims, three types of pleaded insufficiency, and most importantly the issues of purposive construction and infringement under the Protocol to Article 69 of the European Patent Convention. This section focuses mainly on the first and last of these issues. Indeed, the TKT case is actually the first case dealing with 'protocol infringement' to reach the House of Lords under the 1977 Patents Act. The appellate committee comprised Lords Hoffmann, Hope, Rodger, Walker and Brown.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document