scholarly journals Patenting Aspects of Natural Products

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Santhosh Kumar. M ◽  
Dr. M. Surendhar Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Natural Products ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
European Law ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Definite Time ◽  
Exclusive Right

A patent is a monopoly right granted to a Patentee for a definite time period, during which he/she is given the exclusive right to stop anyone else from using his/ her invention without approval. The European law may allow patents to be granted to natural products, where such products may not be eligible for patent protection in USA, the European patent office strict assessment of priority and added subject matter, it is important that all subject matter is included in the first application for the invention.

Powers of the Court concerning decisions of the European Patent Office

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Kuczera
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Unitary Patent

In actions brought under Article 32(1)(i), the Court may exercise any power entrusted on the European Patent Office in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012, including the rectification of the Register for unitary patent protection.

17. Patentable subject matter

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Industrial Application ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Technical Effect ◽  
Patentable Subject Matter ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk

This chapter deals with patentable subject matter and the ways in which it is regulated under the Patents Act 1977 and the 2000 European Patents Convention (EPC). More specifically, it discusses five criteria that an invention must satisfy to be patentable, including the requirement that it must be capable of ‘industrial application’, and that patents are not granted for immoral inventions. The chapter also considers two different approaches that are used when deciding whether an invention falls within the scope of section 1(2)/Article 52(2): the ‘technical effect’ approach in the UK and the ‘any hardware’ approach applied by the European Patent Office. Finally, it examines how the law deals with a number of specific types of invention and looks at possible reforms, particularly in relation to computer programs and computer-related inventions.

Rule 91: Interlocutory revision by the European Patent Office

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Kuczera
Keyword(s):  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Time Period

If, after the interlocutory revision, the EPO does not make a statement within the required time period, it is expressing that it deems the claimant’s application to be unfounded. This must at least be noted in the necessary documentation in order to prove that the interlocutory revision took place.

Artificial Intelligence Designated as Inventor – An Analysis of the Recent EPO Case Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (9) ◽  
pp. 918-924
Author(s):  
Martin Stierle
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Patent Applications ◽  
Artificial Intelligence Systems

Abstract This paper will focus on the issue of designating artificial intelligence systems as inventors in the current framework of European patent law. Most recently, the European Patent Office rejected two patent applications which indicated a machine called DABUS as the inventor of the claimed subject-matter. The paper will analyse the grounds of the decisions in detail, thereby reflecting on the current approach of the European Patent Office to such designations and on the concept of inventorship within the European patent system in general.

Patenting Software

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noam Shemtov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

This chapter examines some key elements of patent protection for computer-implemented inventions, with particular emphasis on the patent eligibility of software-implemented inventions in the United States and European Patent Office. It begins with an overview of computer-implemented inventions in the United States, focusing on policy trends and judicial interpretation. It analyses the US Supreme Court ruling in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l. and its effect on the landscape of software-related patents, before discussing computer-implemented inventions at the European Patent Office, highlighting trends and the development of case law. Finally, it considers the convergence of the current approaches in the United States and European Patent Office with respect to patenting of software.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document