Difference between revisions of "EPO EBoA referral G3-08"
(split para) |
(The response is 99 pages: [http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/DC6171F182D8B65AC125772100426656/$File/G3_08_en.pdf G3_08_en.pdf].) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{navbox}} | {{navbox}} | ||
| − | '''Referral G3/08''' is a set of questions sent by the president of the [[European Patent Office]] | + | '''Referral G3/08''' is a set of questions sent by the president of the [[European Patent Office]] to the office's Enlarged Board of Appeals (EBoA). It is also called '''the Brimelow referral''', after the then-president Alison Brimelow. The questions concerned the EPO's interpretation of Article 52 of the [[European Patent Convention]] regarding [[software patents]]. |
| − | The EBoA responded in May 2010 that there was nothing in the questions that they were able to answer. The questions posed were all "inadmissible". | + | The EBoA responded in May 2010 that there was nothing in the questions that they were able to answer. The questions posed were all "inadmissible". The response is 99 pages: [http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/DC6171F182D8B65AC125772100426656/$File/G3_08_en.pdf G3_08_en.pdf]. |
A public [[consultation]] was held in early 2009 as part of the consultation process. (see [[Briefs submitted to EPO EBoA G3-08]]) | A public [[consultation]] was held in early 2009 as part of the consultation process. (see [[Briefs submitted to EPO EBoA G3-08]]) | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
One amicus brief questioned the partiality of the board,<ref>http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/24132F14CDCF83F9C12575AD002AF47D/$File/G3-08_amicus_curiae_brief_Schulz_de.pdf</ref> but the EPO disagreed and decided not to change the composition of the board.<ref>http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/A29F9A464FCDEB05C12576620035166B/$File/G00003_08_interlocutory_en.pdf</ref> | One amicus brief questioned the partiality of the board,<ref>http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/24132F14CDCF83F9C12575AD002AF47D/$File/G3-08_amicus_curiae_brief_Schulz_de.pdf</ref> but the EPO disagreed and decided not to change the composition of the board.<ref>http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/A29F9A464FCDEB05C12576620035166B/$File/G00003_08_interlocutory_en.pdf</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The EBoA | ||
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
Revision as of 10:41, 14 May 2010
Referral G3/08 is a set of questions sent by the president of the European Patent Office to the office's Enlarged Board of Appeals (EBoA). It is also called the Brimelow referral, after the then-president Alison Brimelow. The questions concerned the EPO's interpretation of Article 52 of the European Patent Convention regarding software patents.
The EBoA responded in May 2010 that there was nothing in the questions that they were able to answer. The questions posed were all "inadmissible". The response is 99 pages: G3_08_en.pdf.
A public consultation was held in early 2009 as part of the consultation process. (see Briefs submitted to EPO EBoA G3-08)
Contents
Questions of partiality
One amicus brief questioned the partiality of the board,[1] but the EPO disagreed and decided not to change the composition of the board.[2]
The EBoA
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- EPO G3-08 brainstorming - where ESP posted suggested responses
External links
epo.org links
- The October 2008 announcement
- The October 2008 announcement (alternative link)
- G3/08, the referral itself
- The pending queue of referrals, where this one was found
After receiving the responses to the consultation, the EPO published information to repeat its claim that it doesn't grant software patents:
Third-party articles
- Enlarged Board Of Appeal at EPO: Can Impartiality of Member Be Challenged By Amicus Curiae Brief?
- An FFII page on the referral
Reactions to the May 2010 decision
- EPO rules own software patents review inadmissible, ESP
- EPO EBoA Opinion in re G 03/08 (Patentability Of Computer-Implemented Inventions), IP::JUR
- EBoA confirms EPO approach to computer programs, EPO
- G 3/08 (Software Patents) decision is out - Tufty the Cat vindicated, IP Kat
- Patenting Computer-Implemented-Inventions (CIIs) in the EPO, Patenly-o
- EPO Supreme Tribunal refuses to arbitrate on Software Patents, FFII
