ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "EPO EBoA referral G3-08"

(Third-party articles: ===Reactions to the May 2010 decision=== * [http://news.swpat.org/2010/05/epo-patents-review-inadmissible/ EPO rules own software patents review inadmissible], ESP * [h)
(Reactions to the May 2010 decision: * [http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/open-source-business/news/index.cfm?newsId=20266 European Patent Office silent on software patent questio)
 
(24 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{navbox}}
 
{{navbox}}
:''Breaking news: [http://news.swpat.org/2010/05/epo-patents-review-inadmissible/ EPO rules own software patents review inadmissible]''
+
'''Referral G3/08''' is a set of questions about [[software patents]], sent to the [[European Patent Office]]'s highest administrative entity, the ''Enlarged Board of Appeals'' (EBoA), by the EPO's president.  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]].
  
In October 2008, the president of the [[European Patent Office]] referred question "'''G3/08'''" - also called '''the Brimelow referral''' - to the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeals.  The purpose was to ask for clarifications for interpreting the exclusion of "programs for computers" from patentability under Article 52 of the [[European Patent Convention]].<ref>http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2008/20081024.html</ref>  As part of the referral process, a public consultation was held which ended on April 30th 2009.<ref>http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/B89D95BB305AAA8DC12574EC002C7CF6/$File/G3-08_en.pdf G3/08</ref>
+
The EBoA responded in May 2010 that there was nothing in the questions that they were able to answer.  The questions posed were all "inadmissible". The response is 99 pages: [http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/DC6171F182D8B65AC125772100426656/$File/G3_08_en.pdf G3_08_en.pdf].
  
You can see the submitted briefs here: '''[[Briefs submitted to EPO EBA G3-08]]'''.
+
A public [[consultation]] was held in early 2009 as part of the consultation process.  (see [[Briefs submitted to EPO EBoA G3-08]])
 
 
For the previous discussions on how best to reply to the public consultation (now closed), see '''[[EPO G3-08 brainstorming]]'''.
 
  
 
==Questions of partiality==
 
==Questions of partiality==
  
 
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 May 2010 decision==
 +
 +
* PDF Pages 1-23: reasons for the referal, written Oct 23rd 2008
 +
* PDF Pages 24-28: the questions of the referal, Nov 11th 2008
 +
* PDF Pages 29-39: partiality review declares self impartial, Oct 16th 2009
 +
* PDF Pages 40-99: this is the opinion, first published May 12th 2009
 +
 +
The entire conclusion on page 55 (PDF page 99) is:
 +
 +
<blockquote>
 +
''The referral of 22 October 2008 of points of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President of the EPO is inadmissible under Article 112(1)(b) EPC.''
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 +
On the role of the legislator, pages 16-17 (PDF pages 60-61):
 +
 +
<blockquote>
 +
''harmonisation [...] can be taken up by the Enlarged Board only to the extent possible under the EPC, even if his suggestion might significantly advance the cause of legal uniformity in Europe. When judiciary-driven legal development meets its limits, it is time for the legislator to take over.''
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 +
On the current unclear situation, page 6 (PDF page 50):
 +
 +
<blockquote>
 +
''A uniform understanding of where to draw the dividing line between applications relating to programs for computers as such, which are excluded from patentability under Articles 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC, and applications relating to patentable technical solutions, in the form of CIIs, still cannot be assumed despite considerable convergence in recent court rulings.''
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 +
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 +
 +
* [[EPO G3-08 brainstorming]] - where [[ESP]] posted suggested responses
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
Line 26: Line 53:
 
===Third-party articles===
 
===Third-party articles===
 
* [http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/131-Enlarged-Board-Of-Appeal-at-EPO-Can-Impartiality-of-Member-Be-Challenged-By-Amicus-Curiae-Brief.html Enlarged Board Of Appeal at EPO: Can Impartiality of Member Be Challenged By Amicus Curiae Brief?]
 
* [http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/131-Enlarged-Board-Of-Appeal-at-EPO-Can-Impartiality-of-Member-Be-Challenged-By-Amicus-Curiae-Brief.html Enlarged Board Of Appeal at EPO: Can Impartiality of Member Be Challenged By Amicus Curiae Brief?]
 +
* [http://www.ffii.org/EPOReferral An FFII page on the referral]
  
 
===Reactions to the May 2010 decision===
 
===Reactions to the May 2010 decision===
Line 32: Line 60:
 
* [http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/150-EPO-EBoA-Opinion-in-re-G-0308-Patentability-Of-Computer-Implemented-Inventions.html EPO EBoA Opinion in re G 03/08 (Patentability Of Computer-Implemented Inventions)], IP::JUR
 
* [http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/150-EPO-EBoA-Opinion-in-re-G-0308-Patentability-Of-Computer-Implemented-Inventions.html EPO EBoA Opinion in re G 03/08 (Patentability Of Computer-Implemented Inventions)], IP::JUR
 
* [http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2010/20100512.html EBoA confirms EPO approach to computer programs], EPO
 
* [http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2010/20100512.html EBoA confirms EPO approach to computer programs], EPO
 +
* [http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2010/05/g-308-software-patents-decision-is-out.html G 3/08 (Software Patents) decision is out - Tufty the Cat vindicated], IP Kat
 +
* [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/05/patenting-computer-implemented-inventions-ciis-in-the-epo.html Patenting Computer-Implemented-Inventions (CIIs) in the EPO], Patenly-o
 +
* [http://eupat.ffii.org/10/05/eba/ EPO Supreme Tribunal refuses to arbitrate on Software Patents], [[FFII]]
 +
** Press release: [http://press.ffii.org/Press%20releases/Brimelow%20Referral%20on%20software%20patents%20dismissed%3A%20%22time%20for%20the%20legislator%20to%20take%20over%22 Brimelow Referral on software patents dismissed: "time for the legislator to take over"]
 +
* [http://www.pcworld.com/article/196138/appeals_body_ducks_question_of_software_patentability.html Appeals Body Ducks Question of Software Patentability], IDG News (PC World)
 +
* [http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/analysis/2263024/europe-gets-serious-ip Europe clarifies its position on intellectual property], computing.co.uk
 +
* [http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2010/05/software-patents-in-europe-g-308.html Software Patents in Europe-- G 3/08], PrawfsBlawg
 +
* [http://www.visaepatentes.com/2010/05/epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-found.html EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal found Referral on Computer-Implemented Inventions inadmissible (G 3/08)], Visae Patentes
 +
* [http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/open-source-business/news/index.cfm?newsId=20266 European Patent Office silent on software patent question], Computer World UK
 +
* {{translate fr|url=http://europeanpatentcaselaw.blogspot.com/2010/05/g308-la-saisine-est-irrecevable.html|title=G3/08: the referral is inadmissible}}
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Latest revision as of 12:51, 6 June 2010

Referral G3/08 is a set of questions about software patents, sent to the European Patent Office's highest administrative entity, the Enlarged Board of Appeals (EBoA), by the EPO's president. 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.

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)

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 May 2010 decision

  • PDF Pages 1-23: reasons for the referal, written Oct 23rd 2008
  • PDF Pages 24-28: the questions of the referal, Nov 11th 2008
  • PDF Pages 29-39: partiality review declares self impartial, Oct 16th 2009
  • PDF Pages 40-99: this is the opinion, first published May 12th 2009

The entire conclusion on page 55 (PDF page 99) is:

The referral of 22 October 2008 of points of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President of the EPO is inadmissible under Article 112(1)(b) EPC.

On the role of the legislator, pages 16-17 (PDF pages 60-61):

harmonisation [...] can be taken up by the Enlarged Board only to the extent possible under the EPC, even if his suggestion might significantly advance the cause of legal uniformity in Europe. When judiciary-driven legal development meets its limits, it is time for the legislator to take over.

On the current unclear situation, page 6 (PDF page 50):

A uniform understanding of where to draw the dividing line between applications relating to programs for computers as such, which are excluded from patentability under Articles 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC, and applications relating to patentable technical solutions, in the form of CIIs, still cannot be assumed despite considerable convergence in recent court rulings.

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

epo.org links

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

Reactions to the May 2010 decision

References