epi Information 3/17 · In some EPC member states it is even mandatory to have a professional...

Information 3 17

Institut der beim Europäischen Patentamt zugelassenen Vertreter

Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office

Institut des mandataires agréés près l’Office européen des brevets

ISSN 1434-8853 September 2017

®

5 New Solution for a Professional Liability Insurance

12 Report of the 5th meeting of EPO PAOC directors with epi (EPPC) members

18 Results of the 2017 EuropeanQualifying Examination

19 List of Professional Representatives

20 Improved opposition statisticsin the EPO annual reports

24 Patentanwaltsausbildung in der Industrie

29 Book Reviews

Cover:On the StreetThis picture, photographed byBerrin Kalenderli(European Patent Attorney, TR),was part of the epi Artists Exhibition 2015 at the EPO, Munich

Born in 1972. Having joined thefirm in 1995 and being Head of

Trademark Department, Berrin is registered as Trademark and PatentAttorney, European Patent Attorney. Member of epi, AIPPI, INTA, InternetCommittee of INTA and IntellectualProperty Constituency of ICANN. Graduated from the Bosphorus Uni-versity, she has been working on Intel-lectual Property connected non-con-tentious and prosecution matters forover two decades and represents localand international companies in a widevariety of areas, as well as local clien-tele on international scale for protec-tion of their IP rights in foreign terri-tories. She is fluent in English andGerman and is an active member ofthe Executive Board of Deriş. She hasinterest in photography, participatingat INTA art exhibition in the years2013, 2014 and epi Artists Exhibitionsin 2015. She also participated in LosAngeles Photo Festival – focus Turkeywith her photographs in 2014.

Berrin Kalenderli ist im Jahr 1972geboren. Die eingetragene türki-

sche Patent- und Markenanwältin undEuropäische Patentanwältin (Großva-terregelung) leitet die Markenabtei-lung der Kanzlei, in die sie 1995 ein-getreten ist. Sie ist Mitglied des epi,der Internationalen Vereinigung fürden Schutz des Geistigen EigentumsAIPPI, der türkischen Landesgruppedes AIPPI, der INTA, des Internet Komi-tee der INTA und des Wahlausschussesder ICANN. Sie graduierte an derBosphorus Universität und arbeitet seitmehr als zwei Jahrzehnten an nichtstreitigen Erteilungsverfahren auf demGebiet des Intellectual Property undvertritt lokale und internationale Man-danten. Darüber hinaus unterstützt sienationale Mandanten beim Schutzihrer IP Rechte im Ausland. Sie sprichtfließend Englisch und Deutsch und istaktives Mitglied des Executive Boardvon Deris. Sie interessiert sich für Pho-tografie, nahm an den INTA Kunst-ausstellungen der Jahre 2013, 2014und an der epi Artists Exhibition 2015teil. Ferner nahm sie am Los AngelesPhoto Festival mit dem Fokus Türkeiim Jahr 2014 teil.

Berrin Kalenderli est née en 1972.Elle est responsable du département

Marques du cabinet qu’elle a rejoint en1995 (Deris). Berrin est mandataireturque en marques et en brevets, ainsique mandataire européen en brevets.Elle est membre de l’epi, de l’AIPPI, del’INTA, de la commission internet del’INTA, et de la commission PI del’ICANN. Diplômée de l’Université duBosphore, elle travaille depuis plus de20 ans sur des matières non conten-tieuses et de procédure en relation avecla PI. Elle représente des sociétés localeset internationales dans un grand nom-bre de domaines, notamment la clien-tèle locale pour obtenir une protectionde leurs droits de PI à l’échelle interna-tionale. Elle parle anglais et allemandcouramment, et est un membre actifdu conseil d’administration de Deris. Ellea un intérêt particulier pour la photo-graphie, et a participé à l’expositionartistique de l’INTA en 2013 et 2014, età celle de l’epi en 2015. Elle a égale-ment participé au festival de la photode Los Angeles – consacré à la Turquie– en 2014.

Berrin Kalenderli

Information 03/2017 Table of Contents 3

Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

I – Information concerning epi

New Solution for a Professional Liability Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5What we know about the status of the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court project in mid September 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Election to epi Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7epi Artists Exhibition 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Committee Reports

Report of the By-Laws Committee (BLC),by P. Moutard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Report of the 5th meeting of EPO PAOC directors with epi (EPPC) members, by R. Jorritsma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Report of the Harmonisation Committee (HC),by J. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Education and Training

Forthcoming Educational Events . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Information from the EPO

Results of the 2017 European Qualifying Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18New Location for the Boards of Appeal . . . . . . . . 18List of Professional Representatives. . . . . . . . . . . 19Contact Data of Legal and Unitary Patent Division . . 19

Information from the Secretariat

Deadline 4/2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Next Board and Council Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Information from the Disciplinary Committee . . . . . 33epi Disciplinary bodies and Committees . . . . . . . . 34epi Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

II – Contributions from epi Members and other contributions

Articles

Improved opposition statistics in the EPO annual reports, by C. Mulder . . . . . . . . 20European General Court strengthens in T 527/14 once more the position of Patent Attorneys in EEA Countries, by P. Rosenich . . . . . . 22Patentanwaltsausbildung in der Industrie by T. Kimpfbeck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Book Reviews

T. Kühnen: Handbuch der Patentverletzungen,by A. Winter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29L. Gruner & A. Großmann: Verfahrenspraxis EPÜ und PCT-ÜbersichtenEntscheidungspfade · Musterformulierungen and EPC time limit calculator · Statutory time limits · time limits set by the EPO, by T. Kühnen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Hellebrand/Rabe: Lizenzsätze für technische Erfindungen,by K. Kohlmann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table of Contents

Medieval scholars we are told exercised

themselves with trying tofind an answer to the ques-tion “How many angels candance on the head of apin?” It seems that no defin-itive answer was reached inthose days though a con-temporary view expressedthat angels have a speciallocation, but no shape,which tends to the view that

infinitely many angels can be located (and dance!) onthe head of a pin.

Medieval scholars did not have the benefit of computers,but if they had they might be tempted to think that angelsand computers are analogous. For example, it is surmisedthat each Skylake chip of Intel has between 1.5 to 2 billiontransistors ‘dancing’ to computer programs. And the num-ber is changing by doubling every two years. Our Instituteis also changing, whilst, we venture, also aiming to be anangel, at least insofar as setting high standards for ourmembers and IP at large. Our new President as he sayslikes incremental change so we believe will lead the way,step by step, to set and reach achievable goals internallyin the Institute, with the EPO, and throughout the MemberStates. Exciting times, which while not requiring pin-headdancing will nevertheless require sure-footedness, whichwe believe will not be found wanting!

Editorial

T. Johnson (GB), Editorial Committee

Information 03/2017Editorial4

Nächster Redaktionsschluss für epi Information

Next deadline for epi Information

Prochaine date limite pour epi Information

Informieren Sie bitte den Redaktions -ausschuss so früh wie möglich überdas Thema, das Sie veröffentlichenmöchten. Redaktionsschluss für dienächste Ausgabe der epi Informationist der 13. November 2017. Die Dokumente, die veröffentlicht werdensollen, müssen bis zum diesem Datumim Sekretariat eingegangen sein.

Please inform the Editorial Committeeas soon as possible about the subjectyou want to publish. Deadline for the next issue of epi Information is13 November 2017. Documents forpublication should have reached theSecretariat by this date.

Veuillez informer la Commission derédaction le plus tôt possible du sujetque vous souhaitez publier. La datelimite de remise des documents pourle prochain numéro de epi Informa-tion est le 13 novembre 2017. Lestextes destinés à la publication devrontêtre reçus par le Secrétariat avant cettedate.

Terry Johnson

Post-script: this will be my last editorial (phew! I hearsome readers say!) as I am stepping down from Counciland as Chair and member of the Editorial Committee. Ithas been for me a great joy and privilege to be able toplay some small part on behalf of our fine Institute. Need-less to say, I could not have made whatever contributionI have achieved without the support and friendship of allmy fellow Committee members, including, it goes withoutsaying, Sadia Liebig, and you, the readers. I am sure that

the Committee will go from strength to strength, andwish it, and the Institute well. I leave you with the fol-lowing from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor WitShall lure it back to cancel half a Line,Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.(Translator: E. FitzGerald)

Information 03/2017 Information concerning epi 5

I magine that a European Patent Attorney makes a mis-take during his or her work for a client on a patent

application that is expected to protect a key ground-breaking invention, e.g. missing a deadline where nofurther processing according to Art. 121 EPC is possible,and then any attempts to use re-establishment of rightsunder Art. 122 EPC fail so that the underlying patentapplication is finally lost.

In such a situation, the client may become ratherunhappy with the concerned European Patent Attorney,but at least the applicant would most likely want toclaim the financial damage caused by the lack of patentprotection . Such damages can easily amount to hundredthousands of EUR, in some cases even millions of EUR,e.g. if the client can show that he likely suffers from theabsence of protection for his invention. Such financialclaims can be really threatening for the economic situa-tion of the European Patent Attorney and therefore, it isimportant and good practice for any European PatentAttorney to have a professional liability insurance whichwould cover for such incidents.

In some EPC member states it is even mandatory to havea professional liability insurance for nationally qualifiedpatent attorneys, who wants to offer their service totheir clients. When the epi learned that epi members insome EPC countries have rather difficulties to find a suit-able and/or affordable professional liability insurance,the epi Council supported upon a proposal of the epiTreasurer to install a Working Group to study the possi-bility for epi to facilitate that all members in all EPCcountries have access to a good professional liabilityinsurance that fits the specific needs of our profession.

Now, after around 15 months of work, the WorkingGroup and Treasurer are happy to inform you that withthe insurer Lloyds and the broker RMS, who are strongand reliable partners, we made that objective become areality. epi has concluded a framework contract withRMS that enables RMS to offer to epi members in all

38 member states a suitable solution for a professionalliability insurance issued by Lloyds. The insurance ismainly intended for epi members working in free pro-fession, but may also be available to those working inindustry, as far as it concerns external work they dowhich is not for their employer.

Under the framework agreement the individual epi mem-ber, or the European patent attorney’s firm, can concludesuch an insurance under standard terms negotiated byepi with RMS and Lloyds. The amount of the annualpremium to be paid will depend on the selected maxi-mum coverage, the deductible (amount you will have topay from your pocket in case of a claim), the turnoverand the number of epi members to be insured. Theinsurance product, called IPRISK, is covering all typicalactivities of a European Patent attorney and his/her sup-port staff, including but not limited to drafting, prose-cution and opposition work of European, but alsonational or PCT patent applications in EPC-countries.Upon request, and against an additional premium, thereis a possibility to cover also trademark and design work.

If you are interested in such a professional liability insur-ance or would like to receive a concrete offer pleasecontact RMS directly (RMS Risk Management Service Ltd,Attn. Giuseppe Antonuzzo, Phone: +49 911 5407 688,Email: [email protected]) or the epi secretariatunder the email address [email protected]. Moredetailed information about the new product IPRISK canalso be found on the epi website www.patentepi.com/en/professional-liability-insurance and the RMS websitehttp://www.iprisk.management.

New Solution for a Professional Liability Insurance

Information from C. Quintelier, Chair of the epi WG on Professional Liability Insurance and P. R. Thomsen, Treasurer of epi

Information 03/2017Information concerning epi6

We would like to inform our members on the statusand time schedule for the Unitary Patent and the Uni-

fied Patent Court system to start working.

For the new system to start, it is necessary that the UnifiedPatent Court Agreement is ratified by at least 13 countries,amongst them France, UK and Germany. So far, 14 countries,amongst them France, but not yet UK and Germany, haveratified the UPCA.

In his message in June 27, 2017 the Chairman of the Prepara-tory Committee explained why the start of the new systemis currently further delayed (https://www.unified-patent-court.org/news/message-chairman-alexander-ramsay-june-2017): first due to problems with the ratification process inGermany and secondly due to not enough ratifications ordeclarations of applicability of the Protocol on ProvisionalApplication of certain parts of the UPCA.

Ratification of the UPCA in the UK is progressing and it canbe expected that the UK will finalize all ratification steps bythe end of 2017. However, the ratification process in Ger-many has been suspended due to a complaint filed in April2017 with the German Constitutional Court by an individuallawyer.

The German Constitutional Court has not yet decidedwhether it will accept/hear the case, but has made the Pres-ident of Germany aware of the pending case, who thendecided for the time being not to pursue the last steps necessary for Germany’s ratification of the UPCA. It is gen-erally very difficult to predict when the German ConstitutionalCourt will decide whether to accept the case and, if it acceptsthe case, when a decision on the merits can be expected.Recently, the German Constitutional Court invited certaininstitutions in Germany to submit written comments with adeadline of 31 October 2017. It is therefore unlikely thatany decision by the German Constitutional Court on theacceptance of the case will be issued in 2017.

We know that the complaint is based on 4 grounds. Thefirst allegation is that the voting on the UPC legislation inthe German Parliament (Bundestag) did not have theallegedly necessary quorum and majority. The German par-liament assumed that a simple majority of the members ofparliament would be sufficient. The complaint argues that atwo thirds majority of all members of Parliament was neces-sary because the UPC-legislation falls into a certain categoryof legislation according to the German constitution as itincludes a transfer of some sovereign rights to an interna-

tional body. Should the Constitutional Court find this reasonto be successful, and in view of the general election in Ger-many in late September 2017, Germany would need to starta new ratification process for the UPC agreement fromscratch, which could take at least another 5-8 months.

The second allegation of the complaint asserts that theorgans and institutional decision-making processes of theUPC do not comply with the requirements of the Germanconstitution regarding observing principles of democracyand constitutional legality. Similarly, a third allegation concernsan alleged lack of independence and democratic legitimacyof the envisaged UPC judges. The fourth allegation of thecomplaint is that there is an incompatibility of the UPC Agree-ment with EU law. If the German Constitutional Court hasany doubts on that point, despite the decisions already issuedby the CJEU on the challenges by Spain and Italy against anearlier version of the UPCA and the UP system, the Consti-tutional Court would need to refer corresponding questionsto the CJEU, which would mean a further delay of at least15-24 months. In that scenario, the UP/UPC-system couldlikely only start around 2020.

The Protocol on Provisional Application of the UPC Agree-ment, which regulates that certain institutional and financialprovisions of the UPCA will come into force before the UPCcan become operational, also needs to be ratified or declaredapplicable by at least 13 UPCA member countries, amongstthem again France, Germany and UK. So far, that Protocolhas only been ratified or declared applicable by 10 countries,amongst them UK and France. Thus, also on that Protocol,two other countries beside Germany, which is expected toratify that Protocol together with the UPCA itself, are requiredto act before the provisional phase-in of the UP/UPC systemcould practically start.

Thus, based on what we know at the moment in mid Sep-tember 2017, a very optimistic assumption could lead to astarting date of the UP/UPC system within the first half of2018, whereas a less optimistic scenario would expect thenew system to come into force only in 2020 or even later,should any Court decision make it necessary to substantiallychange the UPC agreement and require a new round of rat-ifications.

The epi will continue to watch the developments and willpublish updates once more information is confirmed, in par-ticular on progress of the ratification process of the UPCAgreement that will also make applicable the two EU Regu-lations on the Unitary Patent.

What we know about the status of the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court project in mid September 2017

As you have been informed, the election to the epiCommittees will be held during the Council Meeting

of the epi in Warsaw on 18 November 2017.

If you are interested to work in one or more ofthe epi Committees, you can apply as a candidate for theCommittee(s) by completing the questionnaire, which isavailable on the epi website as follows:http://epi.patentepi.com/election.xhtml

Please note that the election to the Disciplinary Com-mittee and for the Internal Auditors has already beenheld during the last Council Meeting in Munich as stip-ulated in our Founding Regulations. Kindly note thatthere will be no elections to the Electoral Committeeand the Nominations Committee.

In order to give an overview of the different Committeesof the epi, please find the following information andcomposition of the Committees here:

By-Laws Committee

The By-Laws Committee assists the President, the Boardand the Council in all matters having regard to theinterpretation of the various regulations of the epi,the most important of them being the Founding Reg-ulation and the By-Laws. On request of the Board orCouncil the Committee proposes in the three officiallanguages amendments of existing By-Laws, or draftsnew ones.

The By-Laws Committee is responsible for the organisa-tion of the Collection of Decisions (CoD) and for editorialchanges and translation revisions.

The By-Laws Committee consists of five members, of whichone shall have German, one English, and one French,respectively, as their mother tongue. This Committee shallhave up to four substitute members, of which, one shallhave German, one English, and one French, respectivelyas their mother tongue, necessarily substituting the fullmember having the same mother tongue.

epi-Finances Committee

The epi-Finances Committee advises on the preparationof the budget and makes proposals for the financialplanning and financial management of the Institute.The Committee is empowered to consider financialmanagement of the Institute and investigates everyaspect of the financial affairs of the Institute, particu-larly for the purpose of ensuring a balanced financialsituation.

The Committee shall have a maximum of ten full members.

Committee on EPO Finances

The Committee's terms of reference are to keep under reviewthe information available, from the EPO or otherwise, con-cerning all aspects of the financial affairs and forward plan-ning of the EPO having relevance for the levels of officialfees charged to the applicant. The concern of the Committeeis not just the absolute level of fees, but also assessingwhether the users of the EPO get value for money. Thisinvolves looking to the Annual Report and other documentsrelating to the EPO's costs, staffing, financial obligations,performance, and levels of demand.

The committee shall have a maximum of four full members,and up to four substitute members.

European Patent Practice Committee

The European Patent Practice Committee (EPPC) considersand discusses all questions pertaining to, or connected with,practice under the European Patent Convention, the Com-munity Unitary Patent Regulation and the Patent CooperationTreaty (PCT) including any revision thereof, except questionsconcerning inventions in the field of biotechnology, onlinecommunications, documentation and patent information,the litigation of EP and Community applications and patents,and the setting of EPO fees. The EPPC drafts epi positionpapers for ratification by Council and then submits them torelevant bodies.

This Committee shall include one full member, for eachmember state, and additional full members belonging tofour technological groups as follows:l Pharmaceuticals (10 members);l Information and Communication Technologies

(12 members);l Mechanics: (10 members);l Chemistry (8 members).

Professional Education Committee

PEC advises the epi Board on professional education andqualification. Its members are professional representatives,with at least one from each EPC member country, and itmeets regularly.

The PEC also liaises with the Examination Board/ExaminationCommittees on behalf of epi. It organises and oversees edu-cational activities, including epiTutorials. It administratesthe epi Students, who are trainees preparing for the Euro-pean Qualifying Examination (EQE). PEC maintains continuousdialogue between itself, tutors and students.

Election to epi Committees


PEC has set up a number of working groups to concentrateon key areas of its responsibility.

At the moment, PEC is particularly considering EQE passrates and Continuing Professional Education for professionalrepresentatives. It has set up working groups to look at bothtopics.

Professional Conduct Committee

The Professional Conduct Committee shall deal with the for-mulation of recommandations in compliance with the Found-ing Regulation.

For this Committee the maximum number of members whichmay be elected from each member state is one full memberand one substitute member.

Litigation Committee

The Litigation Committee considers and discusses all ques-tions, including inter-state agreements, related to the litigationof European and EP patents and patent applications, as wellas representation in Court by European Patent Attorneysand the proposal to separate the Boards of Appeal from theEuropean Patent Office.

The Committee shall consist of a maximum of one fullmember and one substitute member for each contractingstate.

Committee on Biotechnological Inventions

The Committee on Biotechnological Inventions shall considerand discuss all questions pertaining to, or connected with,inventions in the field of biotecchnology, including theBudapest Treaty.

For this Committee, only one full member may be electedfor each member state.

Harmonisation Committee

The Harmonisation Committee deals with all questions con-cerning the worldwide harmonisation of Patent Law. In par-ticular, the Committee advises the delegates named by thePresident of the Council for meetings of the Standing Com-mittee on the law of Patents, convened by WIPO, or forother related meetings convened by WIPO, and reports tothe Council about these meetings.

The Harmonisation Committee shall have a maximum ofseven full members and a maximum of seven substitutemembers.

Online Communications Committee

The Online Communications Committee collaborates withthe European Patent Office in its projects for introducingonline communication. The Committee draws on experienceand knowledge of the systems set up by the national PatentOffices of the USA and Japan. In addition, the Committeemonitors the activities of National Patent Offices in the Mem-ber States and other official institutions in the area of onlinecommunications in connection with intellectual property andobserves the efforts of these institutions regarding harmon-isation of online communications. The Committee deals withall questions relating to these projects referred to it by mem-bers of the epi. The Committee members are selected forhaving practical experience of online systems for the benefitof the members of epi, and of the European Patent Officeand its users.

The Committee shall have a maximum of eleven full mem-bers.

Editorial Committee

The task of the Editorial Committee in publishing „epi Infor-mation” shall be to ensure that the publisher of the journalwill receive all texts to be published. In addition, the tasks ifthe Editorial Committee in maintaining the epi website shallbe to ensure that all texts to be published are placed andremoved from the website as appropriate.

The Editorial Committee shall consist of at least four and atmost eight members. Of these, one shall have German, oneEnglish, and one French, respectively, as their mother tongue.At least one member should have knowledge of Internetwebsite design.

epi Studentship Admissions Committee

The purpose of this Committee is to determine whethereach person applying to become an epi student has thenecessary qualifications to meet the requirements set out inthe Rules governing epi studentship.

The Committee shall consist of six members elected by Coun-cil. Please note that the Committee consists of 7 memberselected temporarily for the transition phase until the C83

Further information and the current composition of the committees can be found on the epi website as follows:http://patentepi.com/en/epi-bodies/epi-committeesFor further questions please contact the epi Secretariat [email protected]

Information 03/2017Information concerning epi8

The epi Artists Exhibition of epi Artists has become atradition in the cultural life of the epi and of the

EPO. Opened for the first time in 1991, it was followedby further shows in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2003,2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015. The interesting works ondisplay have ranged from paintings to graphical and fineart works, such as ceramics, sophisticated watches andjewellery, and artistic textile creations. The exhibitionswhich were opened by the Presidents of the epi and ofthe EPO met with great interest. We hope that the forth-coming exhibition will be just as successful. It is plannedto take place from

11 June to 22 June 2018atEuropean Patent OfficePschorrHöfe buildingBayerstrasse 34, Munich.

A prerequisite for the exhibition is a large participationof artists from various countries. Therefore, all creativespirits among the epi membership are invited to partici-pate. Please disseminate the information!

Please note that all contributions to the epi Artist Exhi-bition have to respect religions and beliefs, political viewsand take into consideration that children might be visitingthe exhibition.

For information please contact:epi SecretariatSadia LiebigP.O. Box 26011280058 MünchenGermany

Tel: +49 89 24 20 52-0Fax: +49 89 24 20 52-20e-mail: [email protected]

epi Artists Exhibition 2018


Next Board and Council Meetings

Board Meetings98th Board Meeting on November 17, 2017 in Warsaw (PL) 99th Board Meeting on April 13, 2018 in Malta (MT)

Council Meetings83rd Council Meeting on November 18, 2017 in Warsaw (PL) 84th Council Meeting on April 14, 2018 in Malta (MT)

Information 03/2017Committee Reports10

1. BLC meetings and the topics discussed during these meetings

Three BLC meetings took place on 22 February, 31 Marchand 6 July, 2017. Depending on the topics, the Treasurerof the epi and members of the Reporting Group (RG)were invited to discuss several proposals during the firstand the second meetings. Phone conferences were alsoheld with the Chair of PCC, resp. with the Chair of theDisciplinary Committee during the second meeting, resp.the third meeting.

Following topics were discussed:

• amendments to R.154 EPC and to internal regula-tions of the epi regarding the payment of the mem-bership fee;

• a new proposal (from the Secretary of the epi-FinancesCommittee) concerning the double signature;

• the proposal relating to Internet voting for Councilto take decisions outside Council Meetings;

• amendments proposed for the Code of Conduct; • Proposals from the Reporting Group concerning

“liaison members”, the definition of the rights andduties of the Council Members (Art. 58.1 By-Laws(BL)), the Terms of Reference of the Committeesand the Art.18 of the BL.

• Amendment of epi 4.2.4 (Resolution regarding non-attendance at oral proceedings)

• Rules of exclusion to avoid possible conflicts ofinterest of Board members participating to somecommittees.

We make here below a short presentation of the stateof these different topics.

2. Rule 154 EPC and amendments to epi internal regulations

The epi internal regulations (epi 3.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.3.2 - 4.3.4,5.1.1 - 5.1.5 and 5.2.2) were revised last year but a newamendment to Rule 154 EPC was recently proposed (dueto internal changes in the Legal Division of the EPO) whichrequired a further check of all these regulations.

The discussions, which took place together with theTreasurer, were based on the versions of these regulationsthat had been previously prepared by the Legal Advisorand circulated among all members of the BLC.

It was also proposed to amend the duties of the Treasureraccording to Art.16.4 BL to include the request to the EPO

for a deletion from the list of professional representativesin case of non-payment of the annual subscription.

A whole set of rules was thus ready for adoption – andwas adopted - by the Council of the epi (at C 82) and,for some of them, by the Administrative Council of theEPO.

3. New proposal concerning the double signature

The discussions in view of a regulation for a double signa-ture started again with the proposal of the Secretary ofthe epi-Finances Committee, Mr Tim POWELL. Said pro-posal included 2 parts: one for contracts and one for pay-ments.

Several other proposals were discussed during the BLCmeeting of February 22.

The conclusion of the discussions was a proposal basedon a double internal check that does not alter the compe-tences given by the BL (see in particular Art.15 and 16,resp. for the Secretary General and the Treasurer); in otherwords the proposed regulation will not be included in theBL but, if approved by Council, will be part of the Collectionof Decisions.

Further, the proposal does not include any provisionconcerning payment orders, because, according to theTreasurer, the practice of the bookkeeping was alreadyincluding a double check (The Treasurer will provide ashort description of the procedure in the bookkeep-ing).

4. Internet voting

No vote on the “Internet voting” proposal was takenduring the C 81 (Berlin) in order to give the Councilrepresentatives more time to study it and make com-ments.

In relation to this topic several comments were posted onthe epi Forum in December and January.

The RG and the BLC were of the opinion that, in view ofthese comments, no amendment of the proposal presentedin Berlin was needed.

To make the “Internet voting” consistent, it was furtherproposed to include in the BL a new duty for the substitutes(Art. 4.2 BL) to vote during any Internet voting.

Report of the By-Laws Committee (BLC)

P. Moutard (FR), Chair

Information 03/2017 Committee Reports 11

All proposed rules were adopted by the Council of theepi (at C 82).

As already mentioned, it will probably be necessary to elab-orate further regulations and amendments of the BL tosolve the problems that will be met by the Internet votingprocedure, but these problems cannot be foreseen now.

5. Amendments proposed for the Code of Conduct (CoC)

The Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) revised theepi CoC.

The BLC discussed the proposal of the PCC and proposedseveral amendments.

In particular, it is preferable not to amend Article 2.b(“Advertisements”), which the Legal Advisor has con-firmed, because the wording of this article had beenadopted a long time ago further to a litigation betweenthe epi and the European commission.

Further, the amendments proposed for the CoC includereferences to the activities before the UPC. The BLC hasexpressed doubts as to the possibility for the epi to sanctionthe epi members not complying with any rule or Code ofConduct of the UPC. The CoC of the epi must remainwithin the terms of the Disciplinary Regulation (see Art.9(2) of the Founding Regulation) which is adopted by theAdministrative Council of the EPO. The Code of Conductbefore the UPC will be adopted by a different body, namelythe Administrative Committee of the UPC (R. 291 (2) ofthe UPC Rule of Procedure). Further discussions on thistopic should be conducted with the Administrative Councilof the EPO and with the Preparatory Committee of theUPC (or the UPC Administrative Committee) before con-sidering the introduction of any reference to the UPC inthe epi CoC because it is essential for the epi membersto know which body is competent (or not) to sanctionthem for their future activities before the UPC.

6. Further proposals from the RG: Liaison members, rights and duties of theCouncil Members, Article 18 of the By-Laws,Terms of Reference of committees.

6.1. Liaison members.

This idea of this proposal is to have a contact person ofeach constituency that liaises between the constituencyand the Board or the committees; for example, this con-tact person could collect the opinion of his/her own con-stituency in order to get a preliminary view for the Board.The BLC revised the wording of the proposal and agreedwith the RG on a final text. This regulation was adoptedby the Council of the epi (C 82) and will be included inthe Collection of Decisions.

6.2. Rights and duties of the Council Members

This proposal concerned an amendment of article 58.1of the By-Laws by including a reference to the interestsof the epi but also of the constituency of each CouncilMember. However each Council Member remains inde-pendent and will still cast his/her vote according to his/herown conscience.

The epi Council has approved this proposal (C82).

6.3. Article 18 BL

This proposal concerned an amendment of article 18 ofthe By-Laws which is complex and needs to be rewordedat least for clarity’s sake.

Furthermore definitions of the duties of the Chair of anycommittee (but not the Disciplinary Committee) and ofthe committee members were introduced.

One problem was to identify which parts of this articleare applicable to the Disciplinary Committee and whichparts are not. This problem was solved during a phoneconference with the Chair of the Disciplinary Commit-tee.

The wording of this article was discussed during the 82nd

Council meeting, and will be further amended in orderto be presented to the epi Council Meeting in Warsaw(C83).

6.4. Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Committees

The ToR of several committees were amended further tovarious proposals by the RG which were adopted by theCouncil during the 82nd Council Meeting.

Accordingly the BLC is currently adapting the ToR ofthese committees.

7. Amendment of epi 4.2.4 (Resolution regarding non-attendance at oral proceedings)

This resolution is amended so as to encompass all oralproceedings, including before any EPO first instance.

This resolution was adopted by the epi Council at theC82 meeting and will be included in the Collection ofDecisions.

8. Rules of exclusion to avoid possible conflicts ofinterest of Board Members participating to some committees.

There are ongoing discussions to establish rules in orderto avoid possible conflicts of interest of Board Membersparticipating to some committees.


The annual EPO-epi meetings serve to discuss newdevelopments and problems in the communication

between representatives and first instance divisions ofEPO in the fields of pure and applied organic chemistry,which include pharma and medical uses. Most or all ofthe PAOC directors participate in the meeting. epi isrepresented by the 12-membered PAOC group, which isa subcommittee of EPPC.

A report of the 4th meeting was present in epi information1/2017 and at the same time epi members were invitedto come up with any issues that would deserve a discussionwith the EPO directors at the fifth meeting, which washeld in Munich on 16th May 2017. This invitation did notresult in any questions. The PAOC group itself collectedsome 15 topics for discussion with the EPO directors. Theseare summarised below.

Topics discussed at the 5th annual PAOC meeting

A. Substantive matters

1. Mechanical sub-assembly for use in connection with surgery

The question concerns application of Art. 53(c) EPCdealing with exclusion from patentability of "methodsfor treatment of the human or animal body by surgery...”. Is a method of operation of a mechanical sub-assembly, which itself is not invasive, for cooperationwith a skin incision, excluded from patentability underArt 53(c)? If yes, why?

(Directors): It will depend on the wording of the claim. Ifthe skin incision is part of it, then subject-matter may beexcluded. If the sub-assembly is in fact a computer pro-gram or imaging, the rules for C-I-I may (also) apply. It isdifficult to do examination of specific case in this discus-sion. Specifically, if a method claim devoted to operationof a mechanical sub-assembly for cooperation with a skinincision device necessitates surgery intervention into thebody, it goes under Art. 53(c) EPC, wherein extent ofintervention (serious/delicate) and need or not for assis-tance of professional staff has no importance.

2. Surgical/non-surgical methods

It is important for applicants to know how borderlinecases are examined where G1/07 does not give a clear

answer whether a method is to be objected to underArt 53(c) as relating to surgery (i: substantial physicalintervention on the body; ii. which requires professionalmedical expertise to be carried out; and iii. which entailsa substantial health risk even when carried out with therequired professional care and expertise). Guidelines (G-II 4.2.1.1) are not of much help, either. Such borderlinecases seem to call for assessment by a medical expert,rather than EPO examiners.

(Directors): Internal discussion of G1/07 in 2010 resultedin an Internal Harmonisation Note including a list of exam-ples which the directorate (PAOC/Biotech) would considerto be surgical, borderline or non-surgical. The list wasdrawn up with external experts and is updated. It is exclu-sively used by examiners. Only a small part of the guidanceis reflected in the Guidelines for examination. The questionwas discussed why (parts of) the list is not in the publiclyavailable Guidelines, because the guidance is very usefulfor applicants as well (time-saving, predictability, etc.).While the directors seemed to understand the need forapplicants to have access to the internal criteria as used byexaminers, EPO is reluctant to publish more, because ofthe sacrosanct nature of the Guidelines and sufficient roomshould be left for case-by-case judgement. It was discussedthat “Examination Matters” or dedicated workshops maybe the right forum to arrange more guidance for users onwhere the borderline for surgical methods is set by EPO.

3. Therapeutic/non-therapeutic methods

How are cosmetic and dermatologic uses to be distin-guished, where e.g. active components (not only herbalextracts) of cosmetics have an impact on the conditionof skin or hair in the way medicaments have? Howabout unity?

(Directors): The field is evolving and there are some 50examiners dealing with cosmetics. It depends on the effectwhether cosmetic or therapeutic or both uses can beclaimed. And on the prior art whether there is unity. Whenthe cosmetic use and the therapeutic use have a commonworking mechanism, both can be claimed in a single appli-cation, though with different claim format. The wordingof the claims is very important to differentiate the uses.There is hardly any new case law, because of the coopera-tive setting between examiners and applicants. The bor-derline mirrors the borderline between medical and foodapplications. Some borderline examples, such as sun-

Report of the 5th meeting of EPO PAOC (Pure and Applied Organic Chemistry) directors

with epi (EPPC) members, Munich, 16th May 2017

Ruurd Jorritsma (NL), Chair of EPPC PAOC Subcommittee


screens, sweeteners were discussed without reaching clearconclusions. It was emphasized that every case is verymuch context-dependent. Three possible wordings of inde-pendent claims were hypothetically mentioned: 1) A newcomposition comprising X; 2) A (new) composition fortherapeutic use comprising X; 3) Non-therapeutic use of a(new) composition comprising X.

4. Medical use claim format before EPO as ISA/IPEA

EPO examiners dealing with international phase appli-cations often object to Swiss-type or method claimsin medical use cases, as not meeting the “required”format (EPC 2000). However there is no such requiredformat under the PCT and a change of format can bedetrimental for the efficiency of procedures in otherjurisdictions.

(Directors): A warning about the methods not beingallowable in the EPO is correct, but the directors agreethat the PCT Guidelines, despite A9.08 (Methods neednot be searched, but substances for use therein do) donot provide a basis for requiring a change in claim format,since there is no mention of Swiss-type claims not beingacceptable or searchable. They will check the currentpractice.

(epi): The current version of the “Euro-PCT Guide”: PCTprocedure at the EPO (10th edition, updated until 1 January2017) appears to contain a mistake. In fact, on the topicof excluded subject-matter (point 219) the Guide refers toits own annex IV, which in turn refers to point A9.07,option [2] of the ISPE guidelines, but in the current versionof the ISPE guidelines (December 15, 2016) point A9.07addresses schemes, rules or methods of doing business(and, incidentally, does not present two options, so thatan option [2] is missing) rather than methods of treatmentor 2nd medical use claims (be they in the form of Swiss-type claims or EPC2000-compliant).

epi will endeavour to send the above information to thedirectors so that in the next edition of the Euro-PCT Guidethe above mistake may be corrected.

As regards the warning about Swiss-type claims or methodof treatment claims not being in the “required” (EPC2000-compliant) format, the directors are looking for examplesof EPO-ISA Written Opinions in which that warning isworded in terms that are not limited to the EPO practice,so that EPO may take steps to amend the standard lan-guage of that warning.

5. Plausibility threshold for pharma cases

There is a concern about a gradually rising plausibilitythreshold of medical effects, and whether it will be pos-sible to use internal, unpublished data contemporaneouswith the filing date to establish plausibility (T488/16).

(Directors): Referring to the specific case, the directors waitfor the reasons for the decision by the Board in question.The decision will not necessarily imply a change in practice.Generally speaking, if the evidence is needed for plausibility,it should be incorporated in the application. The generalconsensus among the directors was that, if the applicationitself does not already make the invention sufficiently plau-sible, then unpublished data cannot be used to remedythat defect even if the data are contemporaneous withthe filing date of the application.

6. Art. 123(2) allowability of combination of dependent claims

Some examiners are very strict in not allowing any com-bination of dependent claims except where they have adependency to all preceding claims. In some cases thismay be reasonable, in particular when the dependentclaims refer to different embodiments. But these objec-tions are made also in cases wherein e.g. claim 1 refersto a composition comprising a wax, a fat and an oil,claim 2 defines the wax as bees wax, claim 3 (referringto claim 1) defines the oil as olive oil, and the mainclaim is limited to claims 2 and 3.

(Directors): This is indeed a frequent reflex of examiners.With some variation, most of the directors would considerthe example as incorrect (it should be allowable). Preferredembodiments may be combined. The notion of (selectionfrom) lists (whether long or “of a certain length”) is notalways helpful. Stopgap formulations by applicants, suchas “wherever embodiments or preferences are mentionedin the description, it is contemplated by the inventors thatthese can be combined” would be ignored by examiners.What is essential is whether there is a new teaching. Itwas said that the EPO is now moving from a “literal”approach to a “conceptual” approach, e.g. when consid-ering combinations of claims, which is not always notedby users yet. The question was appreciated by the directors,because they see things moving and will have their internaldiscussions.

7. Art. 123(2) allowability of combination of ranges

Where the description defines a parameter as (…) morepreferably 14 % to 18 %, at least 15 % of the total (…), why would a limitation to 15-18% not meet Art123(2)? OD in case argued that 15% “may be under-stood to represent a minimum requirement to be fulfilledin order to arrive at a composition as envisaged by theopposed patent, irrespective of any upper limit, thuscorresponding to an alternative general range. But isn’tit up to the skilled person (gold standard), perhaps evento a skilled person willing to understand?

(Directors): Much the same principles and considerationsas in the preceding topic. It was stressed that when assess-ing admissibility of combining of ranges, it is important to


correlate specific ranges with specific properties. If corre-lated specific properties are different, than associated spe-cific ranges then ranges cannot be combined. These days,EPO considers itself rather liberal as to ranges. An amend-ment of the exemplified case would be allowed, with somereservation for specific circumstances.

8. Toxic priorities

G1/15 has terminated poisonous divisionals (Art. 54.3).Do OD’s (and ED’s) also apply G1/15 so as to a priorideny novelty attacks based on priority documents?

(Directors): Stayed cases are now unstayed. The practicewill be that A54(3) novelty attacks based on divisionals oron priority applications will be denied a priori using theconceptual approach dictated by G1/15, implying that thepart enjoying priority right and the part being novel,because not enjoying priority right, are always fully com-plementary (in line by the way, with the epi amicus brief).Whereas the “conceptual approach” now replaces the“literal approach”, there is no change in current test for“Is it the same invention”.

B. Opposition proceedings

1. Conduct at oral proceedings

For the purpose of enhancing quality and efficiency oforal proceedings and without imparting the right to beheard, it could help if chairs take some more grip onthe parties by indicating what they do and do not needto hear, and by keeping parties from unnecessary repe-titions and elaborations. Also summons could be cleareras to what will be important to be discussed during oralproceedings and what not.

(Directors): It is difficult for chairs to improve this. Manyattorneys do not listen and just go on arguing their way.The problem is with the right to be heard. Usually, a chaircannot comment on an attorney’s contribution until theattorney has spoken. EPO will continue to work on trainingthe chairs to be more confident. Chairs should give moreguidance by summarising the case at the start of the hear-ing and point at the issues where they still need someinput. This may also result in a party being reassured thathis point as presented before (in writing) has been takenand does not need to be repeated, and that he can focuson the points that have not been taken yet.

2. Setting different dates in preparation of oral proceedings

Summons to oral proceedings in inter partes cases setthree different dates: 1) the date for oral proceedings,2) the date for written submissions and 3) the datefor informing about language. Why not combine 2)and 3)?

(Directors): The dates are set under different rules andprocedures for formalities and therefore cannot beadjusted without changing the rules and procedures,which is quite far-reaching. EPO will nevertheless lookat it and see whether any harmonisation can beachieved.

3. Late filed documents and requests: fairness to the other party

Late filing of documents is generally unfair on patenteesmore than on opponents. A patentee may have ananswer to a new document but may not have time toformulate the answer at the oral proceedings. It is notalways possible to deal with the new documents byfiling Auxiliary Requests - drafting on the fly during oralproceedings is not easy. New documents can also be aproblem for opponents: if the patentee files a new doc-ument alleging that it shows data proving inventive step,it may be difficult for the opponent to show that thedata are flawed or not persuasive. It seems therefore tobe a good idea to discuss again the criteria for allowingnew documents and requests into the proceedings at alate stage.

(Directors): Test results, auxiliary requests etc. are really aproblem when filed at a late stage. More robustness inhandling such late filings is needed. Test results (whichmay take a long time to be prepared) may have to be dis-tinguished from other documents which can instead befiled upfront (i.e. with the opposition briefs for the oppo-nents, with the observations to the oppositions for thepatentee). The EPO directors also rely on the principle thatany late filed document which is not more relevant thanwhat has been filed upfront, should not be admitted intothe proceedings.

4. Time limits in shortened opposition proceedings

While the recent time reduction is appreciated, the timebetween a response to a notice of opposition and sum-mons may become too short, such as two weeks or so,and this can be a problem e.g. in the event of auxiliaryrequests.

(Directors): EPO agrees that the parties may have a problem,but this is the consequence of the accelerated system. Thisis the way we go, not waiting until all parties have takentheir additional responses. The opportunity to commenton the comments was expressly removed.

C. Procedural matters

1. National prior rights affecting European patents with Unitary effect

Is there any preparation for top-up searches in view ofthe UP/UPC entering into force at the end of this year


so as to reveal potentially damaging national prior rights(Art. 3. EU Reg 1257/2012)?

Yes, EPO will carry out top-up searches for national priorrights, using automatic translation where necessary. Noarrangements have been made yet as to how thesearches will be done. To the extent that national patentpublications are full prior art, and thus relevant in thepresent system, these are included in standard searchesalready.

2. Introduction of statements in the R71.3 text by examiners

Some examiners introduce statements about allegedly“closest” prior art into the description when issuing anallowance. Statistics show that this happens quite fre-quently, in about 1% of all applications, though varyingfrom one technical field to another. This is not onlyquestionable under Art. 123(2), but may also be detri-mental for the patent later on.

(Directors): EPO agrees that this is undesired. The PAOCexaminers are not known to do this, and they will beinstructed that it should not be done. Users should sendEPO a message if they do not want amendments,because examiners sometimes think that applicantsappreciate proposed amendments by examiners. (epi):proposed amendments are fine, but not at the R71.3stage. Amendments are preferably (epi) discussed intelephone consultations, and the result should alwaysbe confirmed in minutes to be sent afterwards. epi hasforwarded statistics about “closest prior art” initiativesby examiners.

3. Preliminary Opinions

Examining Divisions and especially Opposition Divisionsshould have a much higher awareness of the impactof preliminary opinions on national litigation, particu-larly when those opinions are being rushed out tomeet the new tighter timelines. As an example a pre-liminary opinion which could be read as a matureopinion on novelty or inventive step runs the risk ofbeing understood by a court as a high-rank decision-like statement which can hardly be modified even witharguments and evidence not available to the divisionissuing it.

Point taken that it would be wiser to state e.g. “noveltymay need to be discussed in view of D1” rather than “theclaim may lack novelty over D1”.

4. Third Party Observations

Despite all general reassurances to the contrary, TPO’sare often dealt with seriously only if they have clearnovelty implications. Violations of the EPC raised by third

parties before grant that cannot be addressed aftergrant, in particular clarity and breadth of claims, shouldespecially be taken seriously.

In the directors’ opinion, TPO’s are being taken seriously inall aspects. They agree that there should be an arguedcase about the objections. The objections are taken intoaccount in the recommendation for grant (“votum”); how-ever, these are not accessible to the public. In epi’s view,this should in one way or the other be visible to the (third)parties, perhaps already when passing the TPO to the appli-cant. EPO will look into how to show to the public thatthe TPO’s objections have been taken into account. Mr.Mercer will send examples of cases where there is no traceof the examiner taking the issues of (serious) TPO’s.

D. Topics presented by EPO

1. Amendments (1)

Would it help if the examiner indicated more preciselywhat needs to be excised from the description or atleast indicated as falling outside the scope of the inven-tion (for ex. among the examples)?

epi: Yes, it would, and preferably at a stage precedingallowance, so that the applicant can choose the mostappropriate formulation. Most representatives nowadaysare not in favour of deleting any examples, since in oneway or the other they may become relevant later on. Bysimple annotation, it can be clarified that the examplesas such are no longer covered by the accepted claims,while parts thereof may still be needed for support orsufficiency of disclosure.

2. Amendments (2)

What do you think of the proposal of not modifyingpassages in the description related to a “Method oftreatment” (typically US applications) as it is obviousthat a method of treatment cannot be claimed and thusnot serve as a basis of such an amendment?

Issue was discussed under topic A.4 above. It was agreedthat there is no need to modify the references to “methodof treatment” and that these can be understood as pro-viding basis for “use in treatment”.

Conclusion

The meeting was, as usual, very constructive and open.While the EPO directors are naturally somewhat reluctantto express opinions on specific cases, they show a will-ingness to explain their motivations and practices andto at least try to understand the problems that represen-tatives sometimes experience at the interface betweenthe office and the users. Both sides appear to be increas-ingly open in looking for practical solutions. To be continued again.

Report of the Harmonisation Committee (HC)

John Brown (GB), Chair


T his report completed on 25th August 2017 coversthe period since the previous report dated 20th Feb-

ruary 2017.

The Harmonisation Committee deals with all questionsconcerning the worldwide harmonisation of Patent Law,and in particular within the framework of WIPO.

26th Session of the SCP

epi was represented by John Brown, Chairman of epiHarmonisation Committee, and Francis Leyder, epiPresident, at the 26th meeting of the Standing Com-mittee on the Law of Patents (SCP/26), held from 3rd

to 6th July 2017 at WIPO in Geneva. epi pressed infavour of international harmonisation of privilege.SCP/26 decided that discussions on the main topicswould continue, these being Exceptions and Limita-tions to Patent Rights, Quality of Patents, Patents andHealth, Confidentiality of Communications betweenClients and their Patent Advisors and Transfer of Tech-nology. As usual, all meetings papers are available onthe WIPO website:http://www.wipo.int/meetings/es/details.jsp?meeting_id=42299

As stated in the Summary of the Chair (documentSCP/26/7), various seminars and sharing sessions will beorganised. The next session of SCP has tentatively beenplanned for 11th to 14th December 2017. In this regard,mention should be made to the fact that those whodecide to run for membership of the epi HarmonisationCommittee at the elections to be held at the epi CouncilMeeting in November should be ready to represent epiwhenever needed, and in particular at an SCP meeting.

Group B+ Users’ Symposium

epi was represented by Francis Leyder, epi President,and Chris Mercer, epi Past President, at a symposiumentitled “Cornerstones for patent law harmonisation: aB+ Sub-Group / Industry Symposium” held on 20th June2017 at the European Patent Office where proposalsfrom the Industry Trilateral were discussed.

The meeting papers are available on the EPO website:http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/harmonisation/group-b-plus.html

A report of the Symposium should be available in Sep-tember. epi are planning to submit written commentson the Industry Trilateral proposals in the near future.

Vorbereitungskursfür den C- und D-Teil der europäischen

Eignungsprüfung nach der Focussing® Methode im FOCUSSING®-Bootcamp.

http://www.focussing-bootcamp.comNächster Termin: 04.12.-08.12.2017

PATENTBUERO PAUL ROSENICH AG (PPR)BUERO- UND GEWERBEZENTRUM (BGZ)

ROTENBODENSTRASSE 12 · 9497 TRIESENBERGLIECHTENSTEIN

ANZEIGE

Information 03/2017 Education and Training 17

Continuing Professional Education (CPE)

Flexible epi Tutorial

Get your individual feedback on papers A/B/C/D when-ever you need it during your preparation for the EQE

l Sign in for a tutorial whenever you want

l Decide which paper you want to prepare

l Arrange individually with your tutor:- the due date when transfer your prepared

paper to your tutor- the date when to discuss the result of

your individual paper with your Tutor

l Discuss the result of your paper with your Tutor- in small Groups (on request) or- in a one to one session

Tutorial fee for each paper (Pre-exam, A, B, C or D) containsthat the selected paper can be written at a maximum ofthree different years: fee for epi students EUR 180 per selectedpaper and for non-epi students EUR 360 per selected paper.

Flexible epi Tutorial

The mock EQE(s) allow participants to attempt an EQE examunder exam conditions. The participants sit the variouspapers (Pre-Examination, A, B, C and D) in the same orderas during the real exam and are given exactly the same timeto sit the paper(s).We would like to give EQE candidates the possibility to bemore flexible in their preparation for the EQE. For this reason,epi offers the Mock EQE in three different cities at differenttimes, see time schedule:

Munich:Day Paper Local TimesMon 23 October 2017 Pre-Examination 13:00 - 17:00Tue 24 October 2017 D 9:30 - 15:00Wed 25 October 2017 A 9:00 - 13:00

B 14:30 - 18:00Thu 26 October 2017 C 9:30 - 15:00

Brussels:Day Paper Local TimesMon 13 November 2017 Pre-Examination 13:00 - 17:00Tue 14 November 2017 D 9:30 - 15:00Wed 15 November 2017 A 9:00 - 13:00

B 14:30 - 18:00Thu 16 November 2017 C 9:30 - 15:00

Helsinki:Day Paper Local Times

Mon 27 November 2017 Pre-Examination 14:00 - 18:00Tues 28 November 2017 D 10:30 - 16:00Wed 29 November 2017 A 10:00 - 14:00

B 15:30 - 19:00Thu 30 November 2017 C 10:30 - 16:00

The feedback will be given in small groups or one to one session(s) depending on the number of participants.The mock EQE fee is EUR 520 per paper**Registered epi students benefit of a 50% reduction.

All courses are provided in the three EPO official languages:English, French and German.

Further information about the epi preparation courses areavailable here:http://patentepi.com/en/education-and-training/qualifying-as-a-european-patent-attorney/preparing-for-the-eqe.html

epi preparation courses for the EQE pre-examination and main examination 2018

In the second half of the 2017 the following seminars will take place:

Opposition and Appeal26 September 2017 Dublin (IE) epi roadshow supported by the EPO

Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court12 September 2017 Stockholm (SE) epi roadshow supported by the EPO

12 October 2017 Bern (CH) epi roadshow supported by the EPO

16 November 2017 Eindhoven (NL) epi roadshow supported by the EPO

Opposition and AppealThis seminar series comprising in total four parts (Pre-Drafting, Drafting, Prosecution and Opposition).

November 2017 Prague (cZ) “Prosecution” and “Opposition”

epi roadshow supported by the EPO

Information 03/2017Information from the EPO18

new building will be informed by registered letter.During the transitional period some oral proceedingsmay continue to take place in the Isar building, there-after only in exceptional situations.

The information is available on the webpage:www.epo.org/move

New Location for the Boards of Appeal

As of October 2017 the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office will move to a new location.

Current planning (subject to potential revision) is thatthe Boards of Appeal will start operations at their newbuilding on 2 October 2017. As soon as the date of the move has been confirmed,parties whose oral proceedings take place in the

Results of the 2017 European Qualifying Examination

Statistics on the results of the 2017 EQE

Number of candidates per country and passes pursuant to Article 14 (1) of the Regulation on the European qualifying examination (REE)

Place ofresidence

Total numberof candidates Pass

AL 0 0

AT 21 10

BE 30 12

BG 4 2

CH 57 17

CY 0 0

CZ 5 1

DE 662 228

DK 32 10

EE 1 0

ES 59 14

FI 35 5

FR 173 71

GB 204 128

GR 4 0

HR 2 1

HU 8 2

IE 2 2

IS 1 1

IT 80 10

LI 1 0

LT 3 0

Place ofresidence

Total numberof candidates Pass

LU 2 1

LV 1 1

MC 0 0

MK 0 0

MT 0 0

NL 128 40

NO 7 4

PL 18 6

PT 6 1

RO 4 1

RS 2 2

SE 83 19

SI 6 3

SK 3 0

SM 0 0

TR 17 0

IL 1 0

JP 1 1

SG 1 0

US 1 1

Grand Total : 1665 595

Candidates are free to choose which paper(s) they wish tosit. Candidates who have only sat a sub-set of papers can-not fulfill the conditions of Article 14(1) REE (ie haveobtained the minimum grades for all four papers) and thuscannot be included in this table.

Example: A candidate has only sat papers A and B andpassed both papers. Nonetheless the conditions of Article14(1) REE are not yet fullfilled and this candidate is notincluded in this table.

This table includes all candidates who fulfill the conditionsof Article 14(1) REE.

Information source: http://www.epo.org/learning-events/eqe/statistics.html

Information 03/2017 Information from the EPO 19

Please send any change of contact details using EPO Form 52301 (Request for changes in the list of profes-

sional representatives: http://www.epo.org/applying/online-services/representatives.html) to the EuropeanPatent Office so that the list of professional representativescan be kept up to date. The list of professional representa-tives, kept by the EPO, is also the list used by epi. Therefore,to make sure that epi mailings as well as e-mail corre-spondence reach you at the correct address, please informthe EPO Directorate 5.2.3 of any change in your contactdetails. Kindly note the following contact data of the Legal andUnitary Patent Division of the EPO (Dir. 5.2.3):

European Patent OfficeDir. 5.2.3Legal and Unitary Patent Division80298 MunichGermany

Tel.: +49 (0)89 2399-5231Fax: +49 (0)89 [email protected]

Thank you for your cooperation.

Contact Data of Legal and Unitary Patent Division

Update of the European Patent Attorneys Database

List of Professional Representatives

by their place of business or employment in the Contracting states as at 31.08.2017

Contr.State

NumberTotal

% of Total Repr.

AL 14 0,11%

AT 155 1,27%

BE 240 1,97%

BG 55 0,45%

CH 562 4,61%

CY 11 0,09%

CZ 89 0,73%

DE 4431 36,32%

DK 265 2,17%

EE 25 0,20%

ES 218 1,79%

FI 180 1,48%

FR 1152 9,44%

GB 2303 18,88%

GR 24 0,20%

HR 24 0,20%

HU 71 0,58%

IE 77 0,63%

IS 22 0,18%

IT 530 4,34%

Contr.State

NumberTotal

% of Total Repr.

LI 20 0,16%

LT 25 0,20%

LU 21 0,17%

LV 19 0,16%

MC 5 0,04%

MK 24 0,20%

MT 6 0,05%

NL 518 4,25%

NO 100 0,82%

PL 294 2,41%

PT 41 0,34%

RO 47 0,39%

RS 47 0,39%

SE 424 3,48%

SI 30 0,25%

SK 30 0,25%

SM 16 0,13%

TR 85 0,70%

Total : 12200 100,00%

Since the entry into forceof the EPC 2000 in

December 2007, approxi-mately 1,345,000 patentapplications were received bythe EPO (Direct Europeanapplications and internationalapplications entering theregional phase). In the sameperiod, the EPO grantedalmost 600,000 patents (seeFigure 1) which is approxi-mately 44% of the number of

patent applications filed at the EPO.

Figure 1: Number of annually filed European patentapplications and granted European patents

On average, about 4% of the granted European patentsis opposed. Figure 2 shows the number of notices ofopposition filed annually in the period 2008-2016. Inthis period, on average about 2,900 oppositions arestarted every year. Some of these oppositions are inad-missible. Others are withdrawn because, for instance,the proprietor and the opponent have come to a licenseagreement.

Figure 2: Number of opposed European patents

In opposition proceedings, the Opposition Divisions cantake three decisions: the patent is revoked, the oppositionis rejected or the patent is maintained in amended form(Article 101(2) and (3) EPC).

Hence, the average number of decisions taken in opposi-tion proceedings should be around or less than 3,000 peryear. Of course, this number is influenced by the through-put time of opposition proceedings.

In the period from 2008-2014, the statistical reports ofthe EPO showed that on average 2,170 decisions weretaken in opposition proceedings per year. This statisticalinformation can be found in the separate annualreports, but the EPO also publishes so-called five-yearreviews.

The Annual Report of 2015 showed a sudden increasein the number of decisions in opposition proceedings.The number of decisions taken by Opposition Divisionsin 2014 was 3,157. In addition, the number of decisionsfor the previous years in the corresponding five-yearreport was also adapted retroactively. For each of thepreceding years (2011-2014) around 1,000 decisionswere taken in addition to the ones reported in the earlierAnnual Reports.

This sudden increase in output may have been due to anone-year error. However, the statistics of 2016 (and thecorresponding figures in the five-year report) showed thesame higher number of decisions.

Figure 3 shows the number of decisions taken annually bythe Opposition Divisions in proceedings in the period from2008 to 2016. The number of decisions in opposition pro-ceedings in the older Annual Reports (2008-2014; ‘old’statistics) are depicted in blue. The number of decisions inthe more recent Annual Reports (2011-2016; ‘new’ statis-tics) are given in red. As can be seen in Figure 3, there isan overlap in the statistical results. For the years 2011-2014, both the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ statistics have beenreported.

Information 03/2017Articles20

Improved opposition statistics in the EPO annual reports

Cees Mulder (NL)

Cees Mulder

Information 03/2017 Articles 21

Figure 3: Annual number of decisions in opposition proceedings

It is interesting to observe that the decisions in the yearswhere both statistics are available show different trends.For instance, there is an increase in the number decisionsfrom 2012 to 2013 in the ‘old’ statistics, whereas the‘new’ statistics show a decrease in the number of decisionsin the same period.

Surprisingly, more decisions are taken in opposition pro-ceedings under the ‘new’ statistical regime as comparedto the ‘old’ regime. In particular, the number of decisionstaken in the period 2011-2016 is every year higher thanthe number of oppositions filed in the same year. In par-ticular, 17,819 oppositions were filed in the period 2011-2016, whereas in the same period 20,659 decisions weretaken by the Opposition Divisions, i.e. almost 14% moredecisions than cases started.

A higher number of decisions may happen in a certainyear if there are extra efforts in dealing with oppositioncases, for instance because of a backlog.

No explanation about the retroactive change of the statis-tical method was given in the Annual Report where thishappened first (2016 Annual Report).

When asked, EPO Customers Services in its reply lettergave no specific explanation why the number of decisionsis suddenly and retroactively higher. In particular, the letterstated:

“In 2015 we changed the parameters selected for rep-resenting the outcome of our internal procedures withthe aim to offer a better insight into the EPO perform-ance as it affects users. This change accounts for theapparent discrepancies you noticed.”

No information was given on what ‘parameters’ werealtered.

After the issuance of the 2017 Annual Report, anotherquery was started to find out the change in the oppositionstatistics. The EPO now responded with a good explanationof the new statistics.

The opposition statistics reported in the annual reports upto the year 2014 displayed the number of opposition deci-sions that had taken legal effect in the respective reportingyear. This means that e.g. in the 2015 Annual Report, allopposition decisions taking legal effect in 2014, weresummed up.

As around 45% of the opposition cases are appealedwith the consequence that the decision of the oppositiondivision is suspended (Article 106 EPC). This means thatmost of these appealed opposition cases are only finallydecided and thus formally take legal effect in later years,even though they were decided upon by the oppositiondivision in previous reporting years. This manner ofreporting, albeit being legally and statistically sound,does not give a full picture of the work done by theopposition divisions. In view of this, the EPO decided tochange the statistics. As from reporting year 2015, thenumber of decisions taken by the opposition divisions ofthe EPO during the reporting year are presented, irre-spective of the date on which they take legal effect. Forconsistency reasons, this new method of reporting theopposition statistics was included in the five-yearoverview of the statistics section on the EPO websiteand covered (retroactively) also the earlier years.

The above explains the systematically higher level of oppo-sition decisions reported as from 2015 compared to thepreceding years.

In addition, the increasing number of decisions taken in2015 and 2016 are the result of the successful implemen-tation by the EPO of its Early Certainty program. Eventhough the Early Certainty from Opposition scheme wasonly officially implemented in 2016 (Official Journal of theEPO (2016) A42, A43), initial progress in opposition pro-ceedings was already achieved in the framework of theEarly Certainty from Search program which prioritised notonly search but also opposition actions.

The author would like to express his gratitude to Heli Pih-lajamaa for stimulating discussions during the preparationof the article.

Paul Rosenich being Austriancitizen and living and workingfor more than 30 years in thePrincipality of Liechtensteinrequested OHIM to enter himon the list of Representativesbefore OHIM.

OHIM denied this requestand Rosenich appealedagainst this decision at theBoards of Appeal of OHIM.Said Boards of Appeal con-

firmed the decision of OHIM and Rosenich filed suitagainst OHIM and against said confirming decision ofthe Boards of Appeal before the European GeneralCourt. The EGC followed in the case T 527/14 the argu-mentation of Rosenich namely that the EEA-Agreementis higher ranking and binding law also for the EU andits institutions (here the OHIM/EUIPO). The EEA-Agree-ment however gives individuals the right to choose theirplaces of business within the territory of the EEA andthe place of business/residence must not be used fordiscrimination in every ones right to work in his/her pro-fession (here as a representative of parties before trademark offices). Rosenich was not only Liechtenstein-,Swiss- and European Patent Attorney but also allowedto represent before the Austrian Patent Office. BeingAustrian Citizen, being allowed to represent before theAustrian Patent Office and having a place of business inthe EEA was fulfilling the requirements of being admit-table to the list of representatives before theOHIM/EUIPO even if the relevant EU-law did not referto a place of business in the EEA but instead only to aplace of business in an EU Country.

The EUIPO accepted the decision of the EGC and enteredRosenich subsequently on the list of representatives.

Following the suit initiated by Rosenich and based on asubsequent request of the EFTA states, the EU-law wasamended in the meantime, so that currently everyPatent/Trademark Attorney of an EEA Member state mayrequest to become a representative on the list of repre-sentatives before EUIPO.

Paul Rosenich the long standing Chairman of epi’s Disci-plinary Committee was born and raised in Austria andstarted his carrier as inhouse Patent engineer in Austriansindustries. In 1987 he moved into private practice to thepatent attorneys law firm of Dr. Kurt Büchel the thenTreasurer of epi. Rosenich passed the EQE and becameEuropean Patent Attorney and subsequently also Liecht-enstein Patent Attorney. By working also in a Swiss Firmhe became Swiss Patent Attorney as well. In 1998Rosenich opened his own IP Law firm in Liechtenstein.2011 Rosenich requested OHIM to enter him on the listof Representatives before OHIM. Rosenich argued in thefirst place that his qualification as representative beforethe Liechtenstein Trade Mark Office together with is Aus-trian citizenship and Liechtenstein residence fulfill therequirements requested by the EU-law Directive 207/2009.OHIM denied based on the argument that Rosenich didnot represent before an EU-Trademark Office and hencehis qualification was doubtful. Rosenich proved that hemay represent also before the Austrian Patent Office.OHIM denied again based on the fact that Rosenich didnot reside in an EU-Country. So Rosenich took an addi-tional place of Business in Germany – based on the EPCGermany had to allow this. Then OHIM argued that theresidence was different from the EU-Country where therepresentation was confirmed (AT). From this course ofOHIM affected Rosenich decided to fight for his rights asEU/EEA citizen. His lawyer confirmed his view that theEEA-Agreement overrides certain EU-law provisionsrestricted to the EU-territory. The request for entranceon the list was finally based on Rosenich’s right to repre-sent before the Austrian Patent Office, his Austrian citi-zenship and on his residence/place of Business in thePrincipality of Liechtenstein as a Member of the EEA.OHIM finally decided against this request. As a conse-quence Rosenich – represented by the trademark depart-ment of his firm headed by Noémi Rosenich-Markó andby Prof. Dr. Alexander von Mühlendahl – appealed 2012against this decision at the Boards of Appeal of OHIM.Said Boards of Appeal however confirmed in 2014 thedecision of OHIM and as a consequence Rosenich filed in 2014 suit against OHIM and against said confirmingdecision of the Boards of Appeal before the EuropeanGeneral Court.

The EGC considered all arguments from all sides duringthe written procedure in 2014 and 2015. The EGC invitedfor oral proceeding 2016 and set a term until whichRosenich should have been entered on the list of repre-sentatives based on the new law which was installed in

22 Articles Information 03/2017

European General Court strengthens in T 527/14 once more the position of Patent Attorneys in EEA Countries

Paul Rosenich (LI)

Paul Rosenich

the meantime and which allowed all EEA-Patent Attor-neys to be entered on the list. OHIM found again newarguments against such entry and was not willing toenter Rosenich based on his former request even if itwas evident, that under the new law Rosenich wouldhave to be entered on the list anyway. For that reasonRosenich was still not officially entered. As a consequenceof not resolving the matter within the set term the EGChad to decide the matter. The 5th Chamber of the Courtfollowed the argumentation of Rosenich namely thatthe EEA-Agreement is higher ranking and binding lawalso for the EU and its institutions (here the OHIM/EUIPO).The then binding provision of the Directive 207/2009requested under Article 93(2) three requirements: a)nationality of an EU-Member State, b) the business seator a working place in the EU and c) must be allowed torepresent before a central IP Office of a Member Stateof the EU. Rosenich provided proof for a) and c) andreferred to the EEA-Agreement when interpreting therequirement b) and presented proof to have his businessseat in Liechtenstein (EEA). The EGC agreed to the argu-ment of Rosenich that the EEA-Agreement gives individ-uals the right to choose their places of business withinthe territory of the EEA and the place of business/resi-dence must not be used for discrimination in every onesright to work in his/her profession (here as a representa-tive of parties before trade mark offices). Since Rosenichwas not only Liechtenstein, Swiss and European PatentAttorney but was also allowed to represent before theAustrian Patent Office, he fulfilled all provisions, if inter-preted correctly. Being Austrian Citizen, being allowedto represent before the Austrian Patent Office and havinga place of business in the EEA was fulfilling the require-ments of being admittable to the list of representativesbefore the OHIM/EUIPO even if the relevant EU-law207/2009 did not refer to a place of business in the EEAbut instead only to a place of business in an EU Country.This is the consequence of Art. 36 of the EEA-A andother findings.

German and French version of the decisions con be foundon the epi website.

The EGC delivered its decision on July 13th 2017 andthe EUIPO accepted the decision of the EGC a few dayslater and entered Rosenich subsequently, officially andfinally on the list of representatives.

Following the suit initiated by Mr. Rosenich and basedon a subsequent request of the EFTA states, the EU-lawwas amended in the meantime as far as representationin EU trade mark matters is concerned, so that currentlyevery Patent/Trademark Attorney of an EEA Memberstate may request to become a representative on the listof representatives entitled to represent in trade markmatters before EUIPO. However, the decision is of interestfar beyond the matter of representation before the EUIPOin Trade Mark Matters because it establishes the principleof direct applicability of the freedom to provide serviceswithin the EEA which may be invoked by all personswishing to provide such services, even in the face ofcontrary legislation.

The decision will also immediately affect the right ofEEA professionals to represent clients in design mattersbefore the EUIPO. The Community Design Regulationcontinues to limit the right to represent to professionalswith a place of business in the EU, thus excluding thoseestablished only in an EEA country. But now, as a resultof the decision, the EUIPO will accept those represen-tatives also in design matters. As a matter of fact theEUIPO confirmed on July 21st 2017 to Islandic repre-sentatives that because of the decision their practice indesign matters is changed. Furthermore, the right torepresent in design matters must now also be recog-nized for all legal practitioners, regardless of whetherthey have their place of business in the EU or in one ofthe three EEA countries.

One would also think that this ruling could possiblyaffect/confirm the new European Patent Court repre-sentation rules and even other similar matters whichare not even on the monitor. Insofar it is believed thatthis T 527/14 is an important mile stone in the freedomof representation of European Patent Attorneys.

23ArticlesInformation 03/2017

I. Einleitung

Die Ausbildungen zum Patentassessor gemäß § 158PAO und zum zugelassenen Vertreter vor dem

Europäischen Patent amt gemäß Art. 11 (2) a) ii) VEP inder Industrie, erstere gelegentlich auch mit langer Weg1,Industrieweg2, Patentsachbearbeiter3-Ausbildung oderErleichterte Prüfung4 umschrieben, befinden sich im Wan-del. Zahl reiche Änderungen geben Anlass zu einer Neu-betrachtung5, insbesondere der aktuelle Referentenent-

wurf des Bundesministeriums der Justiz und fürVerbrauchschutz zur neuen Verordnung über die Aus-bildung und Prüfung der Patentanwälte, PatAnwAPrV;die Einführung des Syndikuspatentanwalts in die Patent-anwalts ordnung, PAO; die Registrierungspflicht fürBewerber auf die europäische Eignungsprüfung6 unddie Ver tretungsbefugnis vor dem bevorstehenden Ein-heitlichen Patentgericht.

Entgegen des vereinfachenden Aufsatztitels will derGesetzgeber die Ausnahmeregelung von § 158 PAOkei neswegs auf Bewerber aus Industriepatentabteilun-gen beschränken7. Der Begriff Ausbildung ist diesemZu sammenhang ebenfalls vage. Haben § 158 PAO undArt. 11 (2) a) ii) VEP doch gerade die Aus bilderlosigkeitgemein. Industrie-Bewerber können die Prüfungsreifealso im Selbststudium errei chen.

Die Abbildung zeigt einen groben Zeitplan für Indu-strie-Bewerber. Der Zeitplan unterscheidet sich von Be -werbern gemäß § 7 PAO bzw. Art. 11 (2) a) i) VEP, imFolgenden Kanzlei-Kandidaten genannt, im Wesent -lichen durch eine andere Reihenfolge und eine kürzereAusbildung. Während Kanzlei-Kandidaten die As -sessorenprüfung nach 34 Monaten absolvieren und imAnschluss die Europäische Eignungsprüfung, absol vierenIndustrie-Bewerber dies typischerweise umgekehrt undüber einen Zeitraum von acht Jahren. Vor liegender Auf-satz beleuchtet nun der Reihe nach die Prüfungsvor-aussetzungen Technische Befähigung, Beratungs- undVertretungszeit, das für die Assessorenprüfung vorge-schriebene Hagen-Studium und gibt Tipps, wie dasAmtsjahr ersetzt werden kann. Anschließend werdenbeide Prüfungen und das Litigation Certificate disku-tiert.


Patentanwaltsausbildung in der Industrie

Thomas Kimpfbeck (DE)

Education of German Patentassessors according to § 158PAO and education of European Patent Attorneys accord-ing to Art. 11 (2) a) ii) REE is different, however, there aresimilarities and synergy effects. Scope and content of therespective examinations would approach by the first draftof the German Ministry of Justice for the new examinationregulation for patent attorneys (PatAnwAPrV).

La formation des “German Patentassessors” selon le § 158 PAO et celle des mandataires en brevets européensselon l’article 11 (2) a) ii) REE est différente, il existe cepen-dant des similarités et des effets de synergie. Le premierprojet de réglement de l’examen de qualification des man-dataires allemands, preparé par le ministère de la justiceallemande, vise à rapprocher la portée et le contenu deces deux examens.

Abbildung: Möglicher Ausbildungsablauf. Das Bestehen der europäischen Eignungsprü� fung verkürzt die Industrie-Bewerber- Beratungs-

bzw. Vertretungstätigkeit von zehn auf acht Jahre, § 158 (1) PAO.

Ausbildungsbeginn

Registrierung als Bewerber gemäß R. 28 ABVEP

8 Jahre

Assessorenprüfunggemäß §158 PAO

2 Jahre

EuropäischeVorprüfung

3 Jahre

EuropäischeEignungsprüfung

5 Jahre

Hagen-Studium

1 Bedingt durch die im Vergleich zur 34 Monate dauernden Ausbildungvon § 7 PAO Bewerbern lange Berufsausübung von mindestens acht bzw. zehn Jahren gemäß § 158 (1) PAO. Siehe auch Beschwerdekammerentscheidung D 3/07

2 Bedingt durch die in der Industrie häufig anzutreffende ausbilderloseAusbildung, § 158 PAO bzw. Art. 11 (2) a) ii) VEP

3 Überschrift des § 158 PAO4 BT Drs. IV/2045, § 172 PAO. Heute sachlich nicht mehr gerechtfertigte

Formulierung.5 vgl. derzeit in Überarbeitung befindliche Informationsbroschüre

des VPP: Patentanwalt Patentassessor Europäischer PatentvertreterEuropäischer Markenvertreter. 2013, www.vpp-patent.de/Ausbildung/brosch.pdf

6 ABl. EPA 2017, Zusatzpublikation 2 7 BT Drs. V/276, S. 6


II. Technische Befähigung

Für die Assessorenprüfung müssen Industrie-Bewerbermindestens eine im Inland abgeschlossene techni scheAusbildung auf einer Ingenieurschule oder einer gleich-wertigen technischen Lehranstalt vorweisen,§ 158 (1) PAO. Welche technischen Lehranstalten alsgleichwertig anzusehen sind, bestimmt die Präsidentindes DPMA, § 158 (5) PAO. Als Ingenieurschule bzw.gleichwertig gelten insbesondere Fachhochschulen undBerufsakademien8 nicht jedoch Berufsfachschulen9.Diese Hürde ist niedriger als die für Kanzlei-Kan didatengeltende technische Befähigung gemäß § 6 (1) PAO,bei der es vor allem auf den Abschluss einer wissen-schaftlichen Hochschule ankommt. Ein Master of Sci-ence Abschluss einer Fachhochschule genügt§ 6 (1) PAO jedoch nicht10.

Für die Europäische Eignungsprüfung müssen Industrie-Bewerber mindestens einen Bachelorabschluss in Natur-oder Ingenieurwissenschaften in einem der Vertrags-staaten erworben haben, Art. 11 (1) a) VEP,R. 11 (1) ABVEP. Bachelorabschlüsse einer Universität,technischen Universität, Berufsfachschule, Fach -hochschule, Schule für Ingenieurwissenschaften odereiner ähnlichen Ausbildungseinrichtung werden an -erkannt, R. 11 (1) ABVEP. Es bestehen weitere Gleich-wertigkeits- und Anerkennungsregeln, siehe R. 12 bis14 ABVEP. Mindestens 80% der für den akademischenAbschluss nötigen Kursstunden müssen natur- und/oderingenieurwissenschaftliche Fächer sein. Für patentrecht-liche Fächer trifft dies beispielsweise nicht zu11.

III. Beratungs- bzw. Vertretungstätigkeit

Industrie-Bewerber haben ein zehnjähriges, ständigesDienstverhältnis vorzuweisen, während dem sie ihrenAuftraggeber auf dem Gebiet des gewerblichen Rechts-schutzes beraten oder vertreten haben, § 158 (1) PAO.Es gilt ein strenger Maßstab; die Beratungs- bzw. Ver-tretungstätigkeit muss hauptberuflich, eigenverantwort-lich und nach Art und Umfang bedeutend sein12 undnoch ausgeübt werden, § 158 (1) PAO. Nicht dazu zäh-len beispielsweise Ausbildungszeiten und zwischenzeit-liche Versetzungen, um sich bei einem Tochterunter-nehmen mit Technologie vertraut zu machen13. Einständiges Dienstverhältnis setzt eine über wiegende Zur-verfügungstellung von Arbeitszeit und -kraft voraus14;

ein Arbeitgeberwechsel15 und Eltern zeit16 stehen demnicht entgegen. Ein Patentanwalt oder Patentassessorals Ausbilder, wie bei Kanzlei-Kandidaten vorgeschrie-ben, ist nicht erforderlich, § 158 PAO.

Aufgrund von Parallelen zwischen Deutschem und Euro-päischem Patentrecht hat der Gesetzgeber es alsgerechtfertigt erachtet, das Erfordernis der zehn JahreBeratungs- bzw. Vertretungstätigkeit auf acht Jahre zureduzieren, wenn der Bewerber die europäische Eig-nungsprüfung bestanden hat17. Für die Zulassung zurAssessorenprüfung haben die In dustrie-Bewerber unteranderem einen von ihnen erstellten und unterzeichne-ten Tätigkeitsbericht beizu bringen; der Arbeitgeber hatden Tätigkeitsbereich separat, schriftlich zu bestätigen18.Der VPP stellt für beides ausführliche Formulare19 zurVerfügung, die zwar nicht rechtsverbindlich aber gängigund hilfreich sind.

Kanzlei-Kandidaten sind verpflichtet während ihrer prak-tischen Ausbildung an von der Patentanwaltskam merorganisierten Arbeitsgemeinschaften teilzunehmen, dietheoretische Kenntnisse vermitteln20. Die Ar -beitsgemeinschaften können aufgrund einer Absprachezwischen der Patentanwaltskammer und dem VPP auchvon Industrie-Bewerbern besucht werden21.

Für die Europäische Eignungsprüfung genügt Industrie-Bewerbern eine kürzere Beschäftigungszeit von dreiJahren, Art. 11 (2) a) ii) VEP. Als Berechnungsgrundlagedient eine Vollzeitbeschäftigung. Es können auch Teil-zeit-Zeiträume von nicht weniger als drei Monaten undmindestens 50% Beschäftigungsgrad be rücksichtigtwerden, R. 15 (2) ABVEP. Seit 13. März 2017 müssensich Bewerber, die sich erstmals zur Euro päischen Eig-nungsprüfung anmelden wollen, nach Beginn ihrerBeschäftigungszeit im Sinne des Art. 11 (2) VEP regi-strieren lassen. Das Europäische Patentamt empfiehlteine frühzeitige Registrierung. Die Registrierung istonline22 vorzunehmen. Industrie-Bewerber müssen übereine allgemeine Vertretungsvoll macht für Angestellteverfügen23. Ferner müssen Industrie-Bewerber konkretverantwortete europäische Akten nachweisen. DasEuropäische Patentamt stellt ein Musterformular24 zur

8 www.dpma.de/amt/aufgaben/patentanwaltsausbildung/wegfuerpatentsachbearbeiter/voraussetzungen/index.html

9 BGH Beschluss vom 11. Juli 1983 – PatAnwZ 1/82, S. 5, 610 BGH Beschluss vom 29. November 2013 – PatAnwZ 1/12, Rn. 3111 In mehreren Beschwerdekammerentscheidungen wurde festgestellt,

dass das Diplom des Studiengangs Patentingenieurwesen der Fachhochschule Amberg-Weiden die 80%-Regel nicht erfüllte, siehe D 1/12, D 2/12, D 3/12, D 4/12

12 BGH Beschluss vom 4. Oktober 1982 – PatAnwZ 2/81, S. 6, 813 BGH Beschluss vom 4. Oktober 1982 – PatAnwZ 2/81, S. 714 BT Drs. IV/2045, S. 63

15 Persönliche Erfahrung des Autors16 Informationsbroschüre des VPP: Patentanwalt Patentassessor

Europäischer Patentvertreter Europäischer Markenvertreter. 2013, S. 1917 BT Drs. 11/3253, S. 3118 www.dpma.de/amt/aufgaben/patentanwaltsausbildung/

wegfuerpatentsachbearbeiter/formalitaeten/index.html19 www.vpp-patent.de/04-Ausbildung-Downloads.htm20 www.patentanwalt.de/de/patentanwaelte/ausbildung/

zeitplaene-der-arbeitsgemeinschaften.html21 Informationsbroschüre des VPP: Patentanwalt Patentassessor

Europäischer Patentvertreter Europäischer Markenvertreter. 2013, S. 2122 www.eqe.org/EQEASy/candidate/auth/login23 Formular EPA 100424 documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/

c40b33a43fcb6f2cc1257f80004fbf21/$FILE/Beispiel%20Liste%20ii%20en.pdf

25 in Formular 51017 Praktikums- oder Arbeitsbescheinigung nach Artikel11 (2) a) VEP und Regeln 1 und 15 ABVEP


Verfügung, aus dem hervor geht, dass, erstens, ein brei-tes Spektrum an nationalen, europäischen und PCT-Fäl-len erwünscht ist, zweitens, nur vom Bewerber unter-schriebene Handlungen akzeptiert werden, drittens,zwar nationale Patentfälle berücksichtigt werden, dieseaber Handlungen vor dem Europäischen Patentamtnicht ersetzen können und, viertens, fordert das Euro -päische Patentamt, dass der überwiegende Teil derTätigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit europäischen Patent-anmeldungen und Patenten stehen muss. Der Arbeit-geber muss die Beschäftigung des Industrie-Bewerbersbestätigen25. Erfolgt die Beschäftigung bei unterschied-lichen Arbeitgebern, so ist jeweils ein geson dertes For-mular auszufüllen.

IV. Hagen-Studium

Das Studium Recht für Deutsche Patentanwältinnen undPatentanwälte an der FernUniversität Hagen, im Folgen-den Hagen-Studium genannt, wurde 1998 als für diePatentassessorenausbildung obligatorisch ein geführt26.In den Vorjahren hatten bereits ca. 90% der Bewerberfreiwillig an einen entsprechenden Stu diengang derFernUniversität Hagen teilgenommen27. Man erachtetedas Hagen-Studium gerade für In dustrie-Bewerber alswichtig, um breitere Kenntnisse im allgemeinen Rechtzu erlangen28. Es ist aber so wohl für Industrie-Bewerberals auch für Kanzlei-Kandidaten vorgeschrieben, § 7(3) PAO. Industrie-Be werber können es erst nach fünfJahren Beratungs- oder Vertretungstätigkeit beginnen29.Die Studienge bühr für Industrie-Bewerber beträgt3.200,00 €30. Das Hagen-Studium ist als Fernstudiummit einem Umfang von zwei Jahren, zwei Präsenz –pha sen a eine Woche, zwei Klausuren sowie einermündlichen Prüfung konzipiert31. Die Studieninhaltesind in § 3 (3) der Prüfungsordnung des Hagen-Studi-ums festgelegt.

In § 32 (1) des Referentenentwurfs zur neuen PatAnwAPrVwird u.a. ein Bachelor of Laws als zum Hagen-Studiumgleichwertig vorgeschlagen. Dies würde u.a. mehrGestaltungsfreiheit beim Studienbeginn für Industrie-Bewerber mit sich bringen. Es gibt kein Pendant desHagen-Studiums für die Europäische Eignungsprüfung32.

V. Amtsjahr-Ersatz

Abweichend von der Ausbildung der Kanzlei-Kandida-ten dürfen Industrie-Bewerber die Ausbildung beimDeutschen Patent- und Markenamt und beim Bundes-patentgericht, im Folgenden Amtsjahr genannt, nichtabsolvieren, § 7 (1) PAO33. Die Vorschriften über dieeuropäische Eignungsprüfung für zugelassene Vertreter,VEP, kennen grundsätzlich keine verpflichtende Ausbil-dung beim Europäischen Patentamt oder bei denBeschwerdekammern. Das Amtsjahr vermittelt denKanzlei-Kandidaten die Praxis des Patentamts und desPatentgerichts sowie die für Prüfung und Beruf erfor-derliche Theorie. Regelmäßige Klausuren helfen ihnendas Gelernte zu verfestigen und die Assessorenprü-fungsreife zu er langen. All dies müssen sich Industrie-Bewerber autodidaktisch aneignen. Paragraph 16 (2)PatAnwAPO gibt Hinweise für ein das Amtsjahr erset-zendes Curriculum34. Geeignete Literatur für das Selbst-studium bieten u.a. die Verlage Carl Heymanns undC.H. Beck. Zu folgenden Themen ist jedoch wenig Lite-ratur verfügbar: Sortenschutzge setz, Unionsmarkenver-ordnung, Madrider Marken Abkommen und Protokoll,Gemeinschafts geschmacks musterrecht, Haager MusterAbkommen, Patentanwaltsordnung und Insolvenzord-nung.

Paragraph 18 (1) Nr. 3 RefE PatAnwAPrV konkretisiertden Inhalt der Ausbildung auf Grundzüge des Rechtsder USA und Japan auf dem Gebiet des gewerblichenRechtsschutzes, d.h. auch Spezifika des Marken- undDesignrecht dieser Länder gilt es zu erlernen. Das Fach-journal Mit teilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte bietetu.a. regelmäßige Aktualisierungen zu ausländischen IP-Gesetzen. Ergänzend zum Selbststudium bieten ver-schiedene Kanzleien Kurse35 an.

Die praktische Ausbildung des Amtsjahrs ist schwierigerzu ersetzen. Möglich und sinnvoll sind dazu Besu cheöffentlicher Verhandlungen der Patentstreitkammernan Land- und Oberlandesgerichten sowie des Bundes-patentgerichts. Dasselbe gilt für Einspruchsverhandlun-gen beim Europäischen Patent und für Verhandlungenbei den Beschwerdekammern. Verhandlungstage undzu verhandelnden Fälle lassen sich telefonisch bei denGe richten erfragen.

26 BT Drs. 13/10764, S. 127 BT Drs. 13/10764, S. 228 BT Drs. 13/10764, S. 1029 § 2 (1) (b) Prüfungsordnung für das weiterbildende Studium

„Recht für Patentanwältinnen und Patentanwälte” an der FernUniversität in Hagen vom 23. Oktober 2012

30 www.fernuni-hagen.de/kurthaertel/patent/gebuehren.shtml31 §§ 3 bis 5 Prüfungsordnung für das weiterbildende Studium

„Recht für Patentanwältinnen und Patentanwälte” an der FernUniversität in Hagen vom 23. Oktober 2012

32 siehe jedoch freiwilliges Weiterbildungsstudium ExaminatoriumEuropaeum der FernUniversität Hagen, www.fernuni-hagen.de/kurthaertel/europaeum/

33 siehe auch: www.dpma.de/amt/aufgaben/patentanwaltsausbildung/wegfuerpatentsachbearbeiter/voraussetzungen/index.html

34 § 158 (1) PAO nimmt Patentsachbearbeiter jedoch explizit von der in §§ 10 (2), 12 PAO iVm § 16 PatAnwAPO festgelegten Ausbildung für Kanzlei-Kandidaten aus.

35 z.B. Preu-Kurs der Kanzlei Preu Bohlig:https://www.preubohlig.de/de/Preu-Kurs/index.html , IP-Akademie der Kanzlei Bardehle Pagenberg:https://www.bardehle.com/de/ip-akademie.html


VI. Assessorenprüfung

Industrie-Bewerber melden sich zur Assessorenprüfungan, indem sie bei der Präsidentin des DPMA einen form-losen Antrag auf Zulassung stellen, § 158 iVm. § 10 (1)PAO. Paragraph 40 PatAnwAPO regelt welche Unterla-gen Industrie-Bewerber dem Antrag beifügen müssen.Die Prüfungsgebühr beträgt 260,00 €36. Die Assesso-renprüfung ist in Form zweier Aufsichtsarbeiten, einerwissenschaftlichen und einer praktischen, a fünf Stun-den sowie einer mündlichen Prüfung über durchschnitt-lich eine Stunde abzulegen.

Von den jährlich durchschnittlich 180 Assessorenprüf-lingen sind ca. 30 Industrie-Bewerber gemäß§ 158 PAO37. Vergleichbare Auswertungen zur Euro-päischen Eignungsprüfung gibt es nicht; erfahrungsge-mäß ist hier der Anteil an Industrie-Bewerbern jedochnoch höher.

Während der Assessorenprüfung sind das TaschenbuchGewerblicher Rechtsschutz sowie der Schönfelder nebstErgänzungsband als Hilfsmittel zugelassen38. Für diePrüfungsvorbereitung werden Kursen angeboten39. Fürden Prüfungserfolg ist das selbstständige Üben anhandalter Klausuren40 erfahrungsgemäß jedoch kaum durchLiteratur oder Kurse zu ersetzen. Das DPMA hält dazuauf seiner Webseite41 zahlreiche frühere Prüfungsauf-gaben vor.

Nach bestandener Assessorenprüfung steht den Indu-strie-Bewerbern seit 1. Januar 2017 die Zulassung alsSyndikuspatentanwalt42 offen. Die Privilegien und Vor-schriften zum Syndikuspatentanwalt sind in den §§ 41abis 41d PAO normiert und dürften nicht zuletzt wegender Befreiung von der Versicherungspflicht in dergesetzlichen Rentenversicherung zugunsten einer Ver-sorgung in den berufsständischen Versorgungswerken43

die Attraktivität der Assessorenprüfung für Industrie-Bewerber erhöhen.

Der Referentenentwurf zur neuen PatAnwAPrV schlägteinige Änderungen vor, die auch Industrie-Bewerberbetreffen. So soll der Antrag auf Zulassung zur Asses-sorenprüfung spätestens sechs Monate vor demMonatsersten des beantragten Prüfungstermins gestellt

werden44, um dem DPMA eine frühzeitigere Prüfungs-planung zu ermöglich45. Die Prüfungsgebühr erhöhtsich auf 560,00 €46. Die Anzahl der Klausuren wird aufvier verdoppelt, die Prüfungszeit auf a drei Stundenverringert47. Dies erhöht die schriftliche Prüfungszeitdennoch um insgesamt zwei Stunden. Inhaltlich sollendie Klausuren eine juristische Prüfung zu technischenSchutzrechten, eine juristische Prüfung zu nicht -technischen Schutzrechten und ein Schreiben aus derAnwaltspraxis, z.B. Anmeldung, Bescheidserwiderung,umfassen48. Die mündliche Prüfungszeit soll auf durch-schnittlich 45 Minuten verkürzt werden49. Die Bewer-tung der Prüfungsleistung soll in Anlehnung an das 18-Punkte-System der juristischen Staatsprüfung anstattdes bisherigen Sieben-Noten-Systems erfolgen50.

VII. Europäische Eignungsprüfung

Einmal jährlich finden die Europäische Eignungsprüfungsowie die seit 2012 obligatorische Vorprüfung statt.Industrie-Bewerber müssen für die Vorprüfung bereitsalle Nachweise erbringen, die auch für die EuropäischeEignungsprüfung, bzw. Hauptprüfung, erforderlich sind,wobei sich die nachzuweisende Beschäftigungszeit, vgl.Abschnitt III. Beratungs- bzw. Vertretungstätigkeit, umein Jahr reduziert, Art. 11 (7) VEP. Die Vorprüfungsge-bühr beträgt insgesamt 400,00 €. Die Vorprüfung dau-ert vier Stunden und prüft rechtliche Fragen und Fragenbetreffend die Ausarbeitung von Ansprüchen, R. 10ABVEP. Die Hauptprüfung setzt das Bestehen der Vor-prüfung voraus. Sie besteht aus vier Prüfungsteilen,nämlich A: Ausarbeiten von Ansprüchen und der Ein-leitung einer europäischen Patentanmeldung innerhalbeiner Prüfungsdauer von vier Stunden; B: Ausarbeiteneiner Bescheidserwiderung innerhalb einer Prüfungs-dauer von dreieinhalb Stunden; C: Ausarbeiten einesEinspruch innerhalb einer Prüfungsdauer von fünfein-halb Stunden und D: Beantworten rechtlicher Fragenund Ausarbeiten rechtlicher Beurteilungen von spezifi-schen Sachverhalten innerhalb einer Prüfungsdauer vonebenfalls fünfeinhalb Stunden51. Die Hauptprüfungsge-bühr beträgt insgesamt 1.000,00 €.

Neben der vorgeschriebenen Beschäftigungszeit ist fürdie Europäische Eignungsprüfung keine institutionelle

36 www.dpma.de/amt/aufgaben/patentanwaltsausbildung/pruefung/pruefungsgebuehr/index.html

37 Dies ergibt sich aus statistischen Auswertungen mehrerer Jahresberichte des Bundespatentgerichts zur Kandidatenausbildung,aus Angaben im Gesetzentwurf der CDU/CSU und SPD zur Neuordnung des Rechts der Syndikusanwälte sowie aus Angaben im Referentenentwurf zur neuen PatAnwAPrV.

38 www.dpma.de/docs/dpma/ausbildung/7/zugelassenehilfsmittel.pdf39 Vereinigung von Fachleuten des Gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes, VPP,

organisiert regelmäßige Prufungsvorbereitungskurse40 www.dpma.de/amt/aufgaben/patentanwaltsausbildung/pruefung/

pruefungsaufgaben/index.html41 www.dpma.de/amt/aufgaben/patentanwaltsausbildung/pruefung/

pruefungsaufgaben/index.html42 Fitzner, Uwe, VPP-Rundbrief 1/2017. S. 1 ff.43 BT Drs. 18/5201, S. 1

44 § 36 (5) RefE PatAnwAPrV45 RefE PatAnwAPrV, S. 7346 § 37 (1) S. 1 RefE PatAnwAPrV47 § 39 (2) RefE PatAnwAPrV48 § 40 (1) RefE PatAnwAPrV49 § 39 (3) RefE PatAnwAPrV50 § 46 (1) RefE PatAnwAPrV; RefE PatAnwAPrV, S. 79 f.51 documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/

95E40F86D0D13535C125806E004BDE51/$File/Future_exam_dates_2017-2018.pdf

theoretische Ausbildung vorgeschrieben. Industrie-Bewerber müssen sich die Theorie eigenverantwortlicherarbeiten. Als Curriculum für das Selbststudium kannz.B. R. 22 ABVEP dienen, ein ausführlicheres hält dasEuropäische Patentamt im Guide for preparation, ChapterIII52 bereit. Dasselbe Dokument enthält auch zahlreicheLiteraturtipps. Für den Prüfungserfolg ist vor allem dasÜben alter Prüfungen entscheidend. Das EuropäischePatentamt hält dazu eine Vielzahl alter Prüfungsaufga-ben im sogenannten Compendium53 vor.

Da die europäische Eignungsprüfung keinen Selbst-zweck erfüllt, sondern gerade dazu dient festzustellen,ob ein Bewerber geeignet ist, als zugelassener Vertretervor dem Europäischen Patentamt aufzutreten,Art. 1 (1) VEP, ist eine theoretische Ausbildung ähnlichdem Amtsjahr sinnvoll. Neben rein prüfungsvorberei-tenden Kursen54 gibt es auch Kurse, die künftigen Ver-tretern Unterricht in den Rechtsgrundlagen sowie derPraxis des europäischen Patentrechts vermitteln55.

VIII. Litigation Certificate

Vor dem in Entstehung befindlichen EinheitlichenPatentgericht wird, mit wenigen Ausnahmen, Anwalts-zwang herrschen. Die Parteien sollen von einem Rechts-anwalt vertreten werden, Art. 48 (1) EPGÜ. Als gleich-wertig gelten Zugelassene Vertreter vor demEuropäischen Patentamt mit erforderlicher Qualifikation,Art. 48 (2) EPGÜ. Für eine Übergangszeit von einemJahr nach Ratifikation des Einheitspatentpakets bestehteine Großvaterregelung für diese erforderliche Qualifi-kation. Sie gilt für Zugelassene Vertreter, die das Hagen-Studium oder dessen Vorgänger Kandidatenkurs Fisch-bachau erfolgreich absolviert haben, Art. 48 (2), (3)EPGÜ, R. 12(a)(ii) Draft Rules on the European Patent Liti-gation Certificate and other appropriate qualifications pur-suant to article 48(2) UPCA, REPLC. Nach Ratifikationdes europäischen Patentpakets müssen ZugelasseneVertreter einen Kurs im Umfang von wenigstens 120Stunden absolvieren, um ein Litigation Certificate zuerwerben. Es stellt die erforderliche Qualifikation gemäßArt. 48(2) EPGÜ dar56. Es gibt bereits erste Kursange-bote57.

Für Industrie-Bewerber dürfte die Anerkennung einesBachelor oder Master of Laws Abschlusses nachR. 11 REPLC als erforderliche Qualifikation iSv. Art. 48(2) EPGÜ von Interesse sein. Im Hinblick auf§ 32 (1) RefE PatAnwAPrV, siehe oben, könnten in

Zukunft mit einem solchen Bachelorabschluss auf einenStreich sowohl das Hagen-Studium als auch das Litiga-tion Certificate erledigt werden. Als gleichwertig fürdie Assessorenprüfung gilt jedoch nur ein universitärerBachelor of Laws Abschluss58. R. 11 REPLC verlangt,dass der Abschluss Unions-Bildungsstandards entspricht.Diese Kriterien erfüllt beispielsweise das FernstudiumBachelor of Laws der FernUniversität Hagen59.

IX. Zusammenfassung

Die Ausbildungen zum Patentassessor gemäß § 158PAO und zum zugelassenen Vertreter vor dem Europäi-schen Patent amt gemäß Art. 11 (2) a) ii) VEP weisengrundsätzliche Unterschiede aber auch Gemeinsamkei-ten und Synergieeffekte auf. Für die Europäische Eig-nungsprüfung gelten liberalere Voraussetzungen beider technischen Befähigung. Die Anmeldeformalitätenbeider Prüfungen haben sich angeglichen. Die Beschäf-tigungszeit für die Europäische Eignungsprüfung istjedoch wesentlich kürzer als die Beratungs- und Ver-tretungstätigkeit für die Assessorenprüfung; die bestan-dene Europäische Eignungsprüfung verkürzt die Bera-tungs- bzw. Vertretungstätigkeit für dieAssessorenprüfung. Für die Europäische Eignungsprü-fung gibt es weder ein Pendant des Hagen-Studiumsnoch des Amtsjahrs. Umfang und Inhalte beider Prü-fungen würden sich durch den Referentenentwurf fürdie neue PatAnwAPrV annähern. Es wurde ferner dasLitigation Certificate für die Vertretung vor dem Ein-heitlichen Patentgericht diskutiert. Ein Bachelor of LawsAbschluss könnte in Zukunft auf einen Streich sowohldas Hagen-Studium als auch das Litigation Certificateerledigen. Entgegen des Aufsatztitels kann der hier dis-kutierte Ausbildungsweg aus verschiedenen Gründenauch für Kanzlei-Kandidaten von Interesse sein etwa,weil kein Ausbilder verfügbar ist oder den Kandidatender wissenschaftliche Hochschulabschluss fehlt.

Die Ausbildungen zum Patentassessor gemäß § 158PAO und zum zugelassenen Vertreter vor dem Euro-päischen Patentamt gemäß Art. 11 (2) a) ii) VEP wei-sen grundsätzliche Unterschiede aber auch Gemein-samkeiten und Synergieeffekte auf. Umfang undInhalte der Prüfungen würden sich durch den Refe-rentenentwurf für die neue PatAnwAPrV annähern.

Thomas Kimpfbeck, Dipl.-Ing. (FH), ist bei der Rohde &Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG als Patentassessor und EuropeanPatent Attorney tätig. Der Aufsatz repräsentiert die per-sönliche Meinung des Autors.


52 documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/AD1DEB5847E771FEC125764E0056D80B/$FILE/eqe_preparation_guide_7th_edition_2017_en.pdf

53 www.epo.org/learning-events/eqe/compendium_de.html54 EQE-Vorbereitungskurs, https://www.mhpatent.net/55 z.B. CEIPI Basic training in European Patent Law56 Kimpfbeck, Thomas: Prozessrecht in Einheitspatentverfahren. 2017,

S. 36, 37

57 CEIPI Course on Patent Litigation in Europe beginnend im Oktober 2017

58 RefE PatAnwAPrV, S. 6859 www.fernuni-hagen.de/rewi/studium/bachelor_of_laws.shtml

Information 03/2017 Book Review 29

Handbuch der Patentverletzung9. Auflage

Author: Thomas KühnenBook review by Andreas Winter (DE)

Mittlerweile liegt die 9. Auflage des von Thomas Küh-nen, Vorsitzender Richter am OLG Düsseldorf, dem

wohl bedeutendsten deutschen Gericht für Patentverlet-zungen, herausgegebenen Handbuchs vor. Die ersten vierAuflagen erschienen noch unter dem Titel „Die Durch-setzung von Patenten in der Praxis“ von Thomas Kühnenund Eva Geschke mit Erstpublikationim Jahre 2002. Die fünfte Veröf-fentlichung erschien im Jahre 2011mit noch heute aktuellem Titel. Seitdiesem Buch sind zwischenzeitlich vierAuflagen in sechs Jahren erschienen,bereits daran lässt sich die Bedeutungdes Themas und des Werkesermessen.

Die vorliegende 9. Auflage bringt dieKommentierung auf den aktuellenStand von Gesetzgebung und Recht-sprechung, wobei Änderungen undEntscheidungen bis September 2016berücksichtigt wurden. Insbesonderedie Bereiche kartellrechtlicheZwangslizenz und äquivalentePatentverletzung wurden erneuertsowie zusätzliche Beispielfälle ergänzt.

Das Werk ist klar gegliedert in 10 Kapitel, denen sichjeweils 3 bis 9 Unterkapitel mit weiteren Untergliederun-gen anschließen. Das erste Kapitel „Schutzbereichsbes-timmung“, mit den Inhalten: Rechtsgrundlagen, Grun-dregeln der Auslegung, zulässigem Auslegungsmaterial,Verständnishorizont und Benutzungsarten, ist nicht nurfür jeden Rechts- oder Patentanwalt relevant, sondernauch für die betriebliche Praxis im Rahmen der Klärungder Relevanz von Fremdschutzrechten bei Produktneuen-twicklungen oder „freedom to operate“ Analysen. Aufzweihundert Seiten werden die Grundlagen derSchutzbereichsbestimmung ausgiebig und mit verschiede-nen Beispielfällen umfangreich erläutert. Auch der Bereich

mittelbare Patentverletzung sowie Patentschutz für Ersatz-und Verbrauchsteile wird hier behandelt.

Es schließen sich Kapitel zur Sach verhaltsermittlung, Vor-prozessualem, Klageverfahren, Verteidigungsmöglich -keiten der Beklagten, Rechtsmittelverfahren, Sonstigen

Verfahren, Zwangsvollstreckungsver-fahren, Schadenersatz und Sonstigeman. Neben der Schutzbereichsbestim-mung als Basis bilden das Klagever-fahren, Verteidigungsmöglichkeiten,Sachverhaltsermittlung und die son-stigen Verfahren Schwerpunkte imWerk.

Beim Thema Klageverfahren wird ins-besondere das Thema Klageansprücheumfangreich behandelt. Im BereichVerteidigungsmöglichkeiten liegt derSchwerpunkt bei der materiellenVerteidigung, wobei hier das Themastandardessentielle Patente undFRAND Erklärungen nicht zu kurzkommt. Die Sachverhaltsermittlunggeht insbesondere auf den Besichti-gungsanspruch und Vorlageverpflich-

tung zur Sachaufklärung und Beweissicherung ein. Bei densonstigen Verfahren wird die einstweilige Verfügung tiefer-gehender behandelt.

Ferner hervorzuheben und von besonderer praktischerBedeutung sind die aufgeführten Checklisten.Die Neuauflage des bewährten Standardwerks zumateriellen und verfahrensrechtlichen Fragen rund um diePatentverletzung behandelt nicht nur die Grundlagen derPatentverletzung sondern geht in praxisorientierter Weisealle Schritte des Verletzungsverfahrens bzw. deren Abwehrdurch. Es gibt einen Einblick in alle Aspekte der Patentver-letzung und gibt einen umfassenden Überblick über dieaktuelle Rechtsprechung.

Thomas KühnenHandbuch der Patentverletzung9. Auflage, 2017, 1048 S. HardcoverCarl Heymanns VerlagISBN 978-3-452-28573-7

Information 03/2017Book Review30

Verfahrenspraxis EPÜ und PCT Übersichten · Entscheidungspfade · Musterformulierungen

and

EPC time limit calculatorStatutory time limits · time limits set by the EPO

Authors: Leopold Gruner & Arlett GroßmannBook review by T. Kühnen (DE)

Verfahrenspraxis EPÜ und PCTÜbersichten · EntscheidungspfadeMusterformulierungen2. Auflage 2017, kartoniert, RingbindungCarl Heymanns VerlagISBN 978-3-452-28886-8.

Großmann and Gruner enhance the existing EPC lit-erature with two innovative tools - the book „Ver-

fahrenspraxis EPÜ und PCT“ and the bilingual (German/English) EPC time limit calculator for the determinationof different time limits of the EPC - which complementeach other superbly. The entire package not only servesas a compact resource for exam preparation, but alsoprovides an always quick and reliable overview of thedetails of the EPC and PCT proceedings to the practi-tioner. Due to its spiral binding, the book is easy andcomfortable to handle.

Verfahrenspraxis EPÜ und PCTThe book is divided into 4 chapters corresponding toparts A, B, C and D of the EQE.

The main part D comprises more than 100 tables, whichgive the reader a complete outline of the different stepsin proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPC,PCT and EURO-PCT). Each page, presented in a hori-zontal (landscape) format, offers a self-explanatory,easy-to-understand tabular structure. For the individualsteps of the proceedings the requirements/ requiredactions, fees, time limits, possible time limit extensions,legal consequences, and legal remedies are addressed,from filing an application to opposition all the way toappeal. Special cases are clearly separated from thegeneral tables and all information provided is fully ref-erenced (EPC, Guidelines for the Examination in theEPO, Official Journal and Case law). Above each table,Articles, Rules and case law decisions referred to arequoted verbatim, thereby facilitating the reader’s quickorientation.

Parts A, B, and C of the book deal with specific issuesconnected to drafting an application, formulating aresponse to a communication issued by the EPO andopposition. They provide extensive information, for exam-ple on claim categories, the prior art, how to draft aproblem solution approach, and grounds for opposition.Each chapter contains extensive formulation proposals,which are not only very useful in the main EQE but areequally a welcome help for a patent attorney’s dailywork.

Information 03/2017 Book Review 31

EPC time limit calculatorThe EPC time limit calculator is a two-sided turntable –one side is dedicated to the determination of statutorytime limits of the EPC, the other to time limits set by theEPO. Currently, time limits starting in one of the calendaryears 2016 and 2017 are covered.

The category of statutory time limits of the EPC comprisesthree kinds of time limits, namely time limits starting onthe date of filing of a patent application (such as thetime limits for paying the filing fee and search fee or forfiling a translation), in addition time limits starting onthe date of the mention of the publication of the searchreport (such as the time limit for paying the examinationfee) and finally time limits starting on the date of themention of the grant of the European patent ( like thetime limit for filing a notice of opposition). The time limitcalculator also allows for the reliable determination oftime limits set by the EPO on a daily basis, taking intoaccount the „10 day rule“ according to Rule 126 (2)EPC and days on which at least one EPO filing office isnot open (Rule 134 (1) EPC).

The time limit calculator enables the user to calculateEPC time limits in a very effective and time saving man-ner. Especially during the preparation period and theEQE itself, the time limit calculator is a very handy andhelpful self-check tool. Afterwards, it facilitates the workof the patent attorney and theparalegals when counselling aclient.

The time limit calculator comeswith references to the book“Verfahrenspraxis EPÜ und PCT”for all statutory time limits ofthe EPO, which allows for quickretrieval of more informationabout the various steps of pro-ceedings before the EPO.

EPC time limit calculator/EPÜ – FristenscheibeStatutory time limits · time limits set by the EPO/ Gesetzliche Fristen · Amtsfristen1st edition 2016/ 2017/ 1. Auflage 2016/2017Ø 19 cm, varnished, in a brochure/ Ø 19 cm, lackiert, in einer BroschüreExclusively via/ Exklusiv über www.gg-ip.eu/shop

Information 03/2017Book Review32

Lizenzsätze für technische Erfindungen5. Auflage

Authors: Hellebrand/RabeBook review by Klaus Kohlmann (DE)

D ie Verfasser aktualisieren die bekannte Sammlungvon Lizenzsätzen und reichern sie mit zahlreichen

neuen Beispielen an. Daher gewann das Werkentsprechend an Umfang und damit auch an Aus-sagekraft. Durch die langjährige Pflege wurde ein umfan-greicher Fundus geschaffen, der ein breites Spektrumabdeckt. Somit dürfte sich in der Regel für einen in derPraxis auftretenden Fall, wenigstens eine geeignete Ref-erenz finden lassen. Dabei eignet sich die Sammlungnicht nur für die Ermittlung von Erfindervergütung nachder Lizenzanalogie. Es kann darüber hinaus als Aus-gangspunkt für die finanzielle Bewertung von Erfindun-gen und erfindungsbezogenen Schutzrechten im Rahmenvon Lizenzierungen und Verkäufen dienen, insbesonderebei der Festlegung von Transferpreisen im Rahmen vonkonzerninternen Transaktionen.

Hilfreich für die Suche nach passenden Analogien fürden vom Anwender zu bewertenden Fall ist die system-atische Zuordnung von Patentlizenzsätzen zu Technolo-gien. Diese orientiert sich nach der internationalen Patentklassifikation. Ein Verzeichnisder Klassen gegliedert nach Sektio-nen und Untersektionen ist denaufgeführten Lizenzverträgen vor-angestellt. Ferner bietet ein umfan-greiches Stichwortverzeichnis Unter-stützung, so dass der Anwenderselbst nicht mit dem System derPatentklassifikation vertraut seinmuss. Die Lizenzsätze zu einer überdas Verzeichnis oder das Stich-wortverzeichnis gefundenen Klasse

lassen sich einfach auffinden, da auf jeder Doppelseitelinks oben die gerade behandelte Klasse angegeben ist.

Zwei grundsätzliche Schwierigkeiten bei der Bewertungvon Erfindungen und darauf angemeldeten Schutzrechtenbestehen darin, dass es sich hierbei um deutlich individu-ellere Wirtschaftsgüter handelt, die noch dazu mit objek-tiven Kriterien schwieriger greifbar sind als beispielsweiseImmobilien, für deren Bewertung traditionell ein äußerstumfangreicher Erfahrungsschatz und eine umfassendeDatenlage zu den getätigten Transaktionen zur Verfügungstehen. Umso wertvoller sind ergiebige Sammlungen vonLizenzsätzen für technische Erfindungen, die sich nichtlediglich auf die Nennung von angeblich typischen Lizen-zsätzen beschränken. Daher ist es wichtig, dass die Bear-beiter mit der Wiedergabe von Auszügen zu den zuge-hörigen Einigungsvorschlägen und Urteilen zum Teilumfangreiche und aufschlussreiche Hintergrundinforma-tionen liefern. Damit ist es möglich, die ausgewähltenBeispiele in den richtigen Kontext zu stellen und somitAbleitungen für den konkreten Fall vorzunehmen. Dies

wird gerade der versierte Anwenderzu schätzen wissen. Interessant ist,dass die Sammlung um immerhin 11Beispiele aus der Rechtsprechungangereichert wurde und damit explizitin die Situation Einblick bietet, in derein Unternehmen in die „Falle“ einesexistierenden Fremdschutzrechtsgetappt ist. Sollten von der Recht-sprechung behandelte Fälle in künfti-gen Auflagen größeren Raum ein-nehmen, wäre deren Auflistung ineinem Index erwägenswert.

Hellebrand/HimmelmannLizenzsätze für technische Erfindungen5. Auflage 2017, Leinen. XIV, 783 S. HardcoverCarl Heymanns VerlagISBN 978-3-452-27444-1

Information 03/2017 Information from the Secretariat 33

Information from the Disciplinary Committee

The Disciplinary Committee informs all epi Members about the installation of the new fixed 11 Chambers.

Chamber Country Lastname Firstname Chamber Position

Gray

Yurtseven

Rousounido

Reuteler

Tsimikalis

Westerholm

Poth

Kihn

Pakidanska

Rogozińska

GB Gray John ChairRS Bogdanovic Dejan RapporteurIT Pio Frederico MemberSK Cechvalova Dagmar Substitute Member

TR Yurtseven Tuna ChairDK Frederiksen Jakob RapporteurMT Sansone Luigi MemberMK Damjanski Vanco Substitute Member

CY Rousounidou Vasiliki ChairAL Nika Melina RapporteurIE Smyth Shane MemberLT Gerasimovic Jelena Substitute Member

CH Reuteler Raymond ChairES Stiebe Lars RapporteurBE Debled Thierry MemberPT Dias Machado Antonio Substitute Member

GR Tsimikalis Athanasios ChairHR Korper Zemva Dina RapporteurSM Martini Riccardo MemberFR Nevant Marc Substitute Member

FI Westerholm Christian ChairSE Karlström Lennart RapporteurLI Rosenich Paul MemberNO Thrane Dag Substitute Member

AT Poth Wolfgang ChairCZ Fischer Michael RapporteurDE Fröhling Werner MemberSI Borstar Dusan Substitute Member

LU Kihn Pierre ChairNL Hooiveld Arjen RapporteurRO Fierascu Cosmina MemberMC Hautier Nicolas Substitute Member

BG Pakidanska Ivanka ChairIS Hardarson Gunnar RapporteurLV Sergejeva Valentina MemberAL Nika Melina Substitute Member

PL Rogozińska Alicja ChairEE Kahu Sirje RapporteurHU Kovari Zoltan MemberSI Borstar Dusan Substitute Member

Please note that the Chair of a Chamber is entitled tochange the functions of the Members within the Chairs

Chamber as the case may seem useful.

All Members of a Chamber including the Substitute Member(Alternate Member) are independent in reaching their deci-sion, are bound to confidentiality and are fully documentedabout a case to be dealt with in said Chamber.

The Substitute Member (Alternate Member) may substituteany of the Members, Rapporteurs or Chairs - as the casemay be- within those Chambers they are related to.

The Chair of the Disciplinary Committee – when he composesthe fixed Chambers – is responsible that every Member ofthe Disciplinary Committee serves at all available positionsover the time.

In case Members of the Disciplinary Committee leave theDisciplinary Committee (e.g. at the end of a period) while acase of the Chamber of said Members is not yet finished,the Chair nominates new available Members to substitutesaid Chamber to the degree necessary, so that said case canbe finished by said Chamber efficiently. This is a change ofthe past long standing practice.

Information 03/2017Information from the Secretariat34

Disziplinarrat (epi) Disciplinary Committee (epi) Commission de Discipline (epi)

AL – NIKA Melina AT – POTH Wolfgang°° BE – DEBLED Thierry BG – PAKIDANSKA Ivanka SlavchevaCH – REUTELER Raymond CY – ROUSOUNIDOU Vasiliki CZ – FISCHER MichaelDE – FRÖHLING Werner° DK – FREDERIKSEN Jakob EE – KAHU Sirje ES – STIEBE Lars MagnusFI – WESTERHOLM Christian

FR – NEVANT Marc GB – GRAY John GR – TSIMIKALIS Athanasios HR – KORPER ŽEMVA Dina HU – KOVÁRI Zoltán IE – SMYTH Shane IS – HARDARSON Gunnar Örn IT – PIO FedericoLI – ROSENICH Paul* LT – GERASIMOVIC Jelena LU – KIHN Pierre LV – SERGEJEVA Valentina MC – HAUTIER Nicolas

MK – DAMJANSKI VancoMT – SANSONE Luigi A. NL – HOOIVELD ArjenNO – THRANE Dag PL – ROGOZIŃSKA AlicjaPT – DIAS MACHADO António J. RO – FIERASCU CosminaRS – BOGDANOVIC Dejan SE – KARLSTRÖM Lennart SI – BORSTAR Dusan SK – ČECHVALOVA Dagmar SM – MARTINI Riccardo TR – YURTSEVEN Tuna**

Disziplinarausschuss (EPA/epi) Disciplinary Board (EPO/epi) Conseil de Discipline (OEB/epi)

epi Mitglieder

BE – CAMPABADAL Gemma

epi Members

DE – MÜLLER WolframFR – QUANTIN Bruno

Membres de l’epi

IS – VILHJALMSSON Arni

Beschwerdekammer inDisziplinarangelegenheiten (EPA/epi)

DisciplinaryBoard of Appeal (EPO/epi)

Chambre de Recours en Matière Disciplinaire (OEB/epi)

epi Mitglieder

DE – LENZ NannoDK – CHRISTIANSEN Ejvind

epi Members

ES – SUGRANES MOLINÉ PedroFR – GENDRAUD PierreGB – HALLYBONE Huw George

Membres de l’epi

GB – JOHNSON TerryNL – VAN WEZENBEEK Lambertus

Ausschuss für epi-Finanzen epi-Finances Committee Commission des Finances de l’epi

BE – QUINTELIER ClaudeCH – BRAUN AndréDE – MAIKOWSKI Michael*

FR – LAGET Jean-LoupGB – POWELL TimIT – TAGLIAFICO GiuliaLU – BEISSEL Jean

PL – MALEWSKA EwaRO – TULUCA DoinaSM – TIBURZI Andrea

Geschäftsordnungsausschuss By-Laws Committee Commission du Règlement Intérieur

Ordentliche Mitglieder

FR – MOUTARD Pascal*

Stellvertreter

AT – FORSTHUBER Martin

Full Members

GB – JOHNSON Terry

Substitutes

BE – LEYDER FrancisDE – THESEN Michael

Membres titulaires

IT – GERLI PaoloMC – SCHMALZ Günther

Suppléants

FR – LE VAGUERÈSE Sylvain

Ausschuss für EPA-Finanzen Committee on EPO Finances Commission des Finances de l’OEB


BE – QUINTELIER Claude

Stellvertreter

DE – SZYMANOWSKI Carsten

Full Members

CH – LIEBETANZ Michael**GB – BOFF Jim*

Substitutes

ES – JORDÁ PETERSEN SantiagoIT – LONGONI Alessandra

Membres titulaires

IE – CASEY Lindsay

Suppléants

NL – BARTELDS Erik

*Chair/ **Secretary °Vice-Chair / °°Vice-Secretary

Disziplinarorgane und Ausschü� sseDisciplinary Bodies and Committees · Organes de discipline et Commissions


Ausschuss fürEuropäische Patent Praxis

European Patent PracticeCommittee

Commission pour laPratique du Brevet Européen

AL – NIKA VladimirAL – HOXHA DitikaAT – KOVAC WernerAT – VÖGELE AndreasBE – COULON LudivineBE – VANDERSTEEN Pieter BG – BENATOV Samuil GabrielBG – SHENTOVA Violeta VarbanovaCH – MAUÉ Paul-GeorgCH – WILMING MartinCY – THEODOULOU Christos A.CZ – BUCEK RomanCZ – JIROTKOVA IvanaDE – VÖLGER SilkeDE – VOGELSANG-WENKE HeikeDK – CARLSSON EvaDK – PEDERSEN Søren SkovgaardEE – TOOME Ju� rgenEE – SARAP MargusES – BERNARDO FranciscoES – ARMIJO NAVARRO-REVERTER

EnriqueFI – HONKASALO Terhi Marjut

Anneli°

FI – WECKMAN ArjaFR – CALLON DE LAMARCK

Jean-RobertFR – LE VAGUERÈSE SylvainGB – BOFF JimGB – MERCER Chris*GR – SAMUELIDES Emmanuel°HR – HADŽIJA TomislavHR – TURKALJ GordanaHU – LENGYEL ZsoltHU – SZENTPÉTERI ZsoltIE – BOYCE ConorIE – MCCARTHY DenisIS – FRIDRIKSSON Einar**IS – MARLIN DanaIT – MACCHETTA FrancescoIT – MODIANO MicaelaLI – GYAJA ChristophLI – KEIL AndreasLT – BANAITIENE VitalijaLT – PAKENIENE AušraLU – LAMPE Sigmar°LU – OCVIRK Philippe**LV – FORTUNA JevgenijsLV – SMIRNOV Alexander

MC – FLEUCHAUS Michael°MC – HAUTIER NicolasMK – ILIEVSKI BogoljubMK – KJOSESKA MarijaNL – AALBERS ArntNL – JORRITSMA RuurdNO – REKDAL KristineNO – THORVALDSEN KnutPL – BURY MarekPL – LEWICKA KatarzynaPT – ALVES MOREIRA PedroPT – FERREIRA MAGNO FernandoRO – NICOLAESCU Daniella OlgaRO – TULUCA DoinaRS – PLAVSA UrosSE – BLIDEFALK JennySE – CARLSSON FredrikSI – HEGNER Anette°SI – IVANČIČ BojanSK – MAJLINGOVA� MartaSM – PERRONACE AndreaSM – TIBURZI AndreaTR – DERIŞ AydinTR – KÖKSALDI Sertaç Murat

Ausschuss fürBerufliche Bildung

ProfessionalEducation Committee

Commission deFormation Professionnelle


AL – DODBIBA EnoAT – SCHWEINZER FritzBE – VAN DEN HAZEL BartBG – KOSSEVA Radislava AndreevaCH – BERNHARDT WolfgangCY – THEODOULOU Christos A.CZ – HARTVICHOVA KaterinaDE – LETZELTER FelixDK – STAHR PiaEE – NELSAS TõnuES – VILALTA JUVANTENY LuisFI – KONKONEN Tomi – Matti

Stellvertreter

AL – KRYEZIN VjollcaAT – MARGOTTI HerwigBE – D’HALLEWEYN NeleBG – BENATOV Samuil GabrielCH – WAGNER KathrinCZ – LANGROVA IrenaDE – AHRENS GabrieleDK – JENSEN Bo HammerES – SÀEZ GRANERO FranciscoJavier

Full Members

FR – COLLIN JérômeGB – GOWSHALL JonGR – LIOUMBIS AlexandrosHR – PEJČINOVIČ TomislavHU – TEPFENHÁRT DóraIE – LITTON Rory FrancisIS – INGVARSSON SigurdurIT – RAMBELLI Paolo*LI – ALLWARDT AnkeLT – ŠIDLAUSKIENE AurelijaLU – LECOMTE Didier**LV – LAVRINOVICS Edvards

Substitutes

FI – NYKÄNEN TerhiFR – FERNANDEZ FrancisGB – NORRIS TimHU – RAVADITS ImreIE – HARTE SeánIS – HARDARSON Gunnar ÖrnIT – GUERCI AlessandroLI – GYAJA ChristophLT – KLIMAITIENE OtilijaLU – BRUCK Mathias

DK – CHRISTIANSEN Ejvind

Membres titulaires

MC – THACH TumMK – PEPELJUGOSKI ValentinNL – VAN WEZENBEEK LambertusNO – BERG Per G.PL – MALCHEREK PiotrPT – FRANCO IsabelRO – FIERASCU Cosmina CatrinelSE – HOLMBERG MartinSI – FLAK AntonijaSM – PETRAZ Davide LuigiTR – YAVUZCAN Alev

Suppléants

LV – SERGEJEVA ValentinaNL – SMIT FreekNO – RØHMEN EirikPL – PAWŁOWSKI AdamPT – DE SAMPAIO JoséRO – TEODORESCU MihaelaSE – JÖNSSON ChristerSI – ROŠ ZlataSM – PRIMICERI Maria VittoriaTR – ATALAY Bariş

Examination Board Members on behalf of epi



Ausschuss für Standesregeln

Professional Conduct Committee

Commission deConduite Professionnelle


AL – SHOMO VjollcaAT – PEHAM AloisBE – VAN DEN BOECK, Wim**BG – KOSSEVA Radislava

AndreevaCH – RÜEDI RegulaCZ – MUSIL DobroslavDE – GEITZ HolgerDK – RØRBØL LeifEE – OSTRAT JaakES – ELOSEGUI DE LA PEÑA IñigoFI – KUPIAINEN Juhani°°FR – DELORME Nicolas

Stellvertreter

AT – FOX TobiasBE – VANHALST KoenBG – NEYKOV Neyko HristovCH – MAUÉ Paul-GeorgCZ – ZAK VítezslavDE – KASSECKERT RainerFI – SAHLIN JonnaFR – TARAVELLA Brigitte

Full Members

GB – NORRIS TimHR – BIJELIĆ AleksandarHU – LANTOS MihályIE – LUCEY MichaelIS – JÓNSSON ThorlákurIT – CHECCACCI Giorgio*LI – WILDI RolandLT – BANAITIENE VitalijaLU – KIHN HenriLV – SMIRNOV AlexanderMC – HAUTIER NicolasMK – KJOSESKA Marija

Substitutes

GB – POWELL TimHR – DLAČIČ AlbinaIE – O’NEILL BrianIS – FRIDRIKSSON EinarIT – MARIETTI AndreaLT – DRAUGELIENE VirginaLV – FORTUNA LarisaNL – PETERS John

Membres titulaires

MT – CAMILLERI AntoineNL – BOTTEMA HansNO – THORVALDSEN Knut PL – HUDY LudwikPT – BESSA MONTEIRO CesarRO – PETREA Dana MariaSE – LINDGREN AndersSI – MARN JureSK – ČECHVALOVÁ DagmarSM – BERGAMINI SilvioTR – ARKAN Selda

Suppléants

NO – SELMER LorentzPL – KREKORA MagdalenaPT – GARCIA João LuisRO – BUCSA GheorgheSE – SJÖGREN-PAULSSON StinaSI – GOLMAJER ZIMA MarjanaSM – MERIGHI Fabio Marcello

Ausschuss für Streitregelung

Litigation Committee

Commission Procédure Judiciaire


AL – PANIDHA ElaAT – KOVAC WernerBE – VANDERSTEEN PieterBG – GEORGIEVA-TABAKOVA

Milena LubenovaCH – THOMSEN Peter**CY – THEODOULOU

Christos A.CZ – GUTTMANN MichalDE – PFRANG TilmanDK – KANVED NicolaiEE – KOPPEL Mart EnnES – ARIAS SANZ Juan

Stellvertreter

AT – NEMEC HaraldBE – MELLET ValérieBG – PAKIDANSKA Ivanka

SlavchevaCH – DETKEN AndreasCZ – HALAXOVÁ EvaDE – MOHSLER GabrieleDK – CHRISTIANSEN EjvindES – JORDÀ PETERSEN SantiagoFI – VÄISÄNEN Olli JaakkoFR – GENDRAUD PierreGB – POWELL Tim

Full Members

FI – ETUAHO KirsikkaFR – CASALONGA Axel*GB – HEPWORTH John MalcolmHR – VUKINA SanjaHU – TÖRÖK Ferenc°IE – WALSHE TrionaIS – HARDARSON Gunnar ÖrnIT – COLUCCI GiuseppeLI – HARMANN Bernd-GüntherLT – ŽABOLIENE RedaLU – BRUCK MathiasLV – OSMANS VoldemarsMC – SCHMALZ Günther

Substitutes

HR – VUKMIR MladenIE – WHITE JonathanIS – FRIDRIKSSON Einar KarlIT – DE GREGORI AntonellaLI – MARXER AmonLT – KLIMAITIENE OtilijaLU – LECOMTE DidierLV – FORTUNA JevgenijsMC – THACH TumNL – STEENBEEK Leonardus

Johannes

Membres titulaires

MK – DAMJANSKI VancoNL – CLARKSON Paul MagnusNO – SIMONSEN KariPL – BURY LechPT – CRUZ NunoRO – PUSCASU DanRS – ZATEZALO MihajloSE – LINDEROTH MargaretaSI – DRNOVŠEK NinaSK – NEUSCHL VladimírSM – MASCIOPINTO Gian GiuseppeTR – DERIŞ Aydin

Suppléants

NO – THUE LIE HaakonPL – KORBELA AnnaPT – CORTE-REAL CRUZ AntónioRO – VASILESCU RalucaSE – MARTINSSON PeterSI – KUNIČ TEŠOVIĆ BarbaraSK – BAĎUROVÁ KatarínaSM – MAROSCIA AntonioTR – CORAL Serra Yardimici



Ausschuss fürBiotechnologische Erfindungen

Committee onBiotechnological Inventions

Commission pour lesInventions en Biotechnologie

AL – SINOJMERI DianaAT – PFÖSTL AndreasBE – DE CLERCQ Ann*BG – STEFANOVA Stanislava

HristovaCH – WÄCHTER DieterCZ – HAK RomanDE – KELLER GüntherDK – SCHOUBOE AnneES – BERNARDO NORIEGA

FranciscoFI – KNUTH-LEHTOLA Sisko

FR – TARAVELLA BrigitteGB – WRIGHT Simon**HR – DRAGUN TihomirHU – PETHÖ ÁrpádIE – HALLY Anna LouiseIS – JÓNSSON ThorlákurIT – CAPASSO OlgaLI – BOGENSBERGER BurkhardLT – GERASIMOVIČ LiudmilaLU – SPEICH StéphaneLV – SERGEJEVA ValentinaMK – ILIEVSKI Bogoljub

MT – SANSONE Luigi A.NL – SWINKELS BartNO – THORESEN LivPL – CHLEBICKA LidiaPT – CANELAS AlbertoRO – POPA CristinaRS – BRKIČ ŽelijkaSE – MATTSSON NiklasSI – BENČINA MojcaSK – MAKELOVÁ KatarínaSM – PRIMICERI Maria VittoriaTR – ILDEŞ ERDEM Ayşe

Harmonisierungsausschuss Harmonisation Committee Commission d’Harmonisation


BE – LEYDER Francis**CH – BRAUN Axel

Stellvertreter

BG – ANDREEVA Natasha DK – JENSEN Bo Hammer GB – JOHNSON Terry

Full Members

DE – STEILING LotharES – DURAN Luis-AlfonsoGB – BROWN John*

Substitutes

FI – KÄRKKÄINEN Veli-MattiFR – CONAN PhilippeIT – SANTI Filippo

Membres titulaires

IE – GAFFNEY Naoise EoinMC – THACH Tum

Suppléants

SE – MARTINSSON PeterTR – MUTLU Aydin

Wahlausschuss Electoral Committee Commission pour les Élections

CH – MÜLLER Markus* GB – BARRETT Peter IS – VILHJÁLMSSON Árni

Redaktionsausschuss Editorial Committee Commission de Rédaction

DE – WIEDEMANN Albert FR – NEVANT MarcGB – JOHNSON Terry*

NL – NOLLEN Maarten


Ausschuss fürOnline-Kommunikation

OnlineCommunications Committee

Commission pour lesCommunications en Ligne

DE – ECKEY LudgerDK – INDAHL PeterFI – VIRKKALA Antero Jukka*

FR – MÉNÈS CatherineGB – DUNLOP HughIE – BROPHY David

Timothy**IT – BOSOTTI Luciano

NL – VAN DER VEER JohannisLeendert

SM – MASCIOPINTO Gian Giuseppe

Interne Rechnungsprüfer

Internal Auditors

Commissaires aux Comptes Internes

Ordentliche Mitglieder Full Members Membres titulaires

Stellvertreter Substitutes Suppléants

CH – KLEY Hansjörg FR – CONAN Philippe

DE – TANNER Andreas IT – GUERCI Alessandro


Ständiger BeratenderAusschuss beim EPA (SACEPO)

Standing Advisory Committeebefore the EPO (SACEPO)

Comité consultatif permanentauprès de l’OEB (SACEPO)

epi-Delegierte

BE – LEYDER FrancisDE – LEISSLER-GERSTL GabrieleDK – HEGNER Annette

epi Delegates

FI – HONKASALO MarjutFI – VIRKKALA AnteroGB – BOFF JimGB – WRIGHT Simon

Délégués de l’epi

IT – BOSOTTI LucianoNL – TANGENA AntoniusRO – TEODORESCU Mihaela

SACEPO –Arbeitsgruppe Regeln

SACEPO –Working Party on Rules

SACEPO –Groupe de Travail Règles

BE – LEYDER Francis GB – MERCER Chris FI – HONKASALO Marjut

SACEPO –Arbeitsgruppe Richtlinien

SACEPO –Working Party on Guidelines

SACEPO –Groupe de Travail Directives

DE – LEISSLER-GERSTL Gabriele DK – HEGNER Anette GR – SAMUELIDES Manolis

SACEPO –Arbeitsgruppe Qualität

SACEPO –Working Party on Quality

SACEPO –Groupe de Travail Qualité

MK – ILIEVSKI Bogoljub

SACEPO – PDI SACEPO – PDI SACEPO – PDI

AT – GASSNER Brigitta DK – INDAHL PeterFI – LANGENSKIÖLD Tord

IE – O’NEILL Brian

SACEPO – EPP SACEPO – EPP SACEPO – EPP

BE – BIRON Yannick FI – VIRKKALA Antero IE – BROPHY David


Nominierungsausschuss Nominations Committee

Commission de Proposition

BE – QUINTELIER Claude*DE – LEISSLER-GERSTL Gabriele

ES – DURÁN Luis-AlfonsoFR – LE VAGUERÈSE Sylvain**

RO – TEODORESCU MihaelaTR – ARKAN Selda

Zulassungsausschuss für epi Studenten

epi StudentshipAdmissions Committee

Commission d’admission des étudiants de l’epi

CH – FAVRE NicolasDE – LEISSLER-GERSTL GabrieleDE – KASTEL Stefan

GB – MERCER ChrisGR – ROUKOUNAS Dimitrios

IT – MACCHETTA FrancescoIT – PROVVISIONATO Paolo


Präsident / President / PrésidentBE – LEYDER Francis

Vize-Präsidentinnen / Vice-Presidents Vice-PrésidentesDE – VOGELSANG-WENKE HeikeSI – KUNIČ TEŠOVIĆ Barbara

Generalsekretär / Secretary General Secrétaire GénéralPT – PEREIRA DA CRUZ João

Stellvertretender Generalsekretär Deputy Secretary General Secrétaire Général AdjointNL – TANGENA Antonius

Schatzmeister / Treasurer / TrésorierCH – THOMSEN Peter

Stellvertretender Schatzmeister Deputy Treasurer / Trésorier AdjointIT – RAMBELLI Paolo

Vorstand / Board / BureauPräsidium / Presidium / Présidium

Institut der beim Europäischen Patentamt zugelassenen VertreterInstitute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent OfficeInstitut des mandataires agréés près l‘Office européen des brevets

Redaktionsausschuss / Editorial Committee / Commission de RédactionTerry JohnsonMarc NevantMaarten NollenAlbert Wiedemann

Postanschrift / Mailing address / Adresse postaleepiBayerstrasse 8380335 MunichGermanyTel: +49 89 24 20 52-0Fax: +49 89 24 20 52-20Email: [email protected]

Layout und Satz / Layout and composition / Mise en page et ensembleSIMIUS New Media GmbHLichtenbergstraße 885354 Garching bei MünchenTel: +49 89 54 84 27 20Email: [email protected]

© Copyright epi 2017

Das Institut ist weder für Erklärungen noch für Meinungen verantwortlich, die in Beiträgen dieser Zeitschrift enthalten sind. Artikel werden in der oder den Amtsprachen (deutsch, englisch, französisch) wiedergegeben, in der bzw. denen diese Artikel eingereichtwurden.

The Institute as a body is not responsible either for the statements made, or for the opinions expressed in the publications. Articles arereproduced in the official language or languages (German, English or French) in which they are submitted.

L’Institut n’est pas responsable des opinions exprimées dans cette publication. Les articles sont publiés dans celle ou celles des troislangues officielles (allemand, anglais ou français) dans laquelle ou lesquelles ils ont été proposés.

The trade mark “epi” is the property of the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office.epi is registered internationally, as a Community trade mark (CTM) in the EU and nationally in Germany.

European Patent InstituteBayerstrasse 8380335 Munich | Germany

®

epi Information 3/17 · In some EPC member states it is even mandatory to have a professional...

Documents

Transcript of epi Information 3/17 · In some EPC member states it is even mandatory to have a professional...