Difference between revisions of "European Patent Office"
(re-order sections, merge two about the 2008 strike, start new one about grant procedure) |
(→Democratic problems: There is debate over whether the EPO's Appeal Boards and Enlarged Board of Appeal can provide judicial review for the EPO's decisions.<ref>See pages 4 and 5 of Spain's Action against the EU Patent Package: Arguments and Counter-A) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==Democratic problems== | ==Democratic problems== | ||
| + | |||
The EPO is a strange organisation because it's membership is very similar to the members of the EU, but it was formed before the EU and is not an EU institution. This means the EU has no control over the EPO. This creates a dangerous problem because the EPO is master of interpreting patent law. They can change the meaning of patent law without having to go through the usual democratic channels for changing legislation. Further, the EPO refuses to accept suggestions in any languages other than English, German or French,<ref>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-160636/european-patent-office-refuses-spanish-amicus-brief-against-software-patents</ref> so people of other languages have reduced capacity to participate in the consultations of the EPO. This also favours large enterprises who can afford translators over [[SME]]s and individuals. | The EPO is a strange organisation because it's membership is very similar to the members of the EU, but it was formed before the EU and is not an EU institution. This means the EU has no control over the EPO. This creates a dangerous problem because the EPO is master of interpreting patent law. They can change the meaning of patent law without having to go through the usual democratic channels for changing legislation. Further, the EPO refuses to accept suggestions in any languages other than English, German or French,<ref>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-160636/european-patent-office-refuses-spanish-amicus-brief-against-software-patents</ref> so people of other languages have reduced capacity to participate in the consultations of the EPO. This also favours large enterprises who can afford translators over [[SME]]s and individuals. | ||
The separation of powers in European patent governance has often been questioned. As patent attorney Rob J. Aerts says "''under the intergovernmental EPC system it is difficult to speak of a functional separation of powers''".[http://www.suepo.org/public/interviews/ex09169cp.pdf] | The separation of powers in European patent governance has often been questioned. As patent attorney Rob J. Aerts says "''under the intergovernmental EPC system it is difficult to speak of a functional separation of powers''".[http://www.suepo.org/public/interviews/ex09169cp.pdf] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Judicial review of EPO decisions== | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is debate over whether the EPO's Appeal Boards and Enlarged Board of Appeal can provide judicial review for the EPO's decisions.<ref>See pages 4 and 5 of Spain's Action against the EU Patent Package: Arguments and Counter-Arguments in Case C-146/13, ''Prof. Winfried Tilmann'', Heidelberg University, Düsseldorf.</ref> | ||
==Art 52 consultation, 2008-2009== | ==Art 52 consultation, 2008-2009== | ||
Revision as of 15:40, 26 March 2014
- This article is about the organisation. For EPO decisions, see EPO case law.
The European Patent Office (the EPO) is the primary organ of the European Patent Organisation (EPOrg). These were created by the European Patent Convention (EPC), which has 38 signatory countries.
The signatory countries include the countries of the European Union, but the EPO is not an EU institution. The EPO does not answer to the EU, and the EU has no control over the EPO.
The EPO approves thousands of software patents per year, but denies doing so.[1]
Contents
Granting European patents
The EPO grants "European patents". These then get passed on to the member states designated by the applicant, to be validated by the national patent office. Member states may place requirements such as translation into an official language. If the criteria of the member state are not met within three months, the patent is not validated by that member state. (The patent is actually considered valid as soon as granted by the EPO, but if not validated within three months, it is considered retroactively to never have been valid for that member state.)
Democratic problems
The EPO is a strange organisation because it's membership is very similar to the members of the EU, but it was formed before the EU and is not an EU institution. This means the EU has no control over the EPO. This creates a dangerous problem because the EPO is master of interpreting patent law. They can change the meaning of patent law without having to go through the usual democratic channels for changing legislation. Further, the EPO refuses to accept suggestions in any languages other than English, German or French,[2] so people of other languages have reduced capacity to participate in the consultations of the EPO. This also favours large enterprises who can afford translators over SMEs and individuals.
The separation of powers in European patent governance has often been questioned. As patent attorney Rob J. Aerts says "under the intergovernmental EPC system it is difficult to speak of a functional separation of powers".[1]
Judicial review of EPO decisions
There is debate over whether the EPO's Appeal Boards and Enlarged Board of Appeal can provide judicial review for the EPO's decisions.[3]
Art 52 consultation, 2008-2009
- (See EPO EBoA referral G3-08)
In October 2008, the EPO's president referred a set of questions regarding software patents to the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal. A public consultation was held in early 2009 and there were almost one hundred briefs submitted to EPO EBoA G3-08. The decision of the EBoA, published in May 2010, was that the EBoA cannot answer this type of question. All questions were judged "inadmissible".
A troubled institution
In September 2008, the staff of the EPO went on strike to complain about the decline in patent quality.[4][5] The Staff Union of the EPO, SUEPO, have a number of criticisms on their website.[6] They also published results of an informal survey showing that only 6% of patent examiners had confidence in the President of the EPO, Alison Brimelow, and her team of Vice-Presidents.[2][3]
In May 2009, the EPO President Alison Brimelow announced she would be stepping down after less than two years in the job.[7][8]
Also in May 2009, the EPO office in Munich was surrounded by pigs and tractors in a protest against patents on biotech.[9] (Note: This doesn't seem software related, but Richard Stallman and Hartmut Pilch both spoke there, so there must be some software link.)
Key people
The EPO president, selected in March 2010, is Benoît Battistelli.[10] Mr. Battistelli served as Deputy Chairman of the EPO's Administrative Council since 2006[11] Previous presidents were Alison Brimelow and Alain Pompidou.
David Sant also held a prominent position during the EU software patents directive.
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Do software patents exist in my area?
- EPO does grant software patents
- UPLS - a proposal from the European Commission which would create a centralised patent court that would probably uphold the EPO's software patents
External links
- EPO's official site: www.epo.org
- EPOrg's subpage on www.epo.org
- 2009 pamphlet: Patents for Software?
- October 2008 EPO PR: President of the EPO asks for clarification of exclusion
- CII e-learning module 1 (Gnash or other flash player required)
- CII e-learning module 2 (Gnash or other flash player required)
Third party
- Is the demand for patents stifling reform?, May 2009 article about hesitations regarding expanding patent system cooperation
- The Political Legacy Of Ms Alison Brimelow, March 2010
- EPO case law is not binding to member states, 2006 statement from the European Commission (see FFII's reaction)
- Computer Implemented Inventions in Europe, An Update, 1 Sep 2010, IPEG
- Kober's Directive: EPO President authorises patents on computer programs and business methods, 2001, FFII
Wikipedia pages
- European Patent Office
- European Patent Organisation
- Appeal procedure before the European Patent Office - about the Boards of Appeal, Enlarged Board of Appeal, etc.
References
- ↑ http://www.epo.org/about-us/press/releases/archive/2005/06072005.html the EPO does not grant "software patents": computer programs claimed as such, algorithms or computer-implemented business methods that make no technical contribution are not considered patentable inventions
- ↑ http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-160636/european-patent-office-refuses-spanish-amicus-brief-against-software-patents
- ↑ See pages 4 and 5 of Spain's Action against the EU Patent Package: Arguments and Counter-Arguments in Case C-146/13, Prof. Winfried Tilmann, Heidelberg University, Düsseldorf.
- ↑ http://www.suepo.org/public/press/sup080918e.pdf
- ↑ http://www.out-law.com/page-9453
- ↑ "Quality vs Quantity: situation at EPO". http://www.suepo.org/public/quality_quantity.
- ↑ http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2009/05/alison-brimelow-to-step-down.html
- ↑ http://www.managingip.com/Article/2198283/EPO-begins-search-for-new-president.html
- ↑ http://bulletin.sciencebusiness.net/ebulletins/showissue.php3?page=/548/art/13867
- ↑ http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2010/20100301.html
- ↑ http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/103-Now-Four-Candidates-Running-For-Next-EPO-Presidency.html
