ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "France"

(add category)
m ({{country-region-todo}})
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{country-region-todo}}
 
According to the [[AIPPI]] (a pro-swpat lobby group), there is case law in French regarding business methods:<ref>http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/315C1D200F352432C12575A8004CCCA9/$File/G3-08_amicus_curiae_brief_AIPPI.pdf</ref> <ref>http://media.ffii.org/EbaReferral090430/html/AIPPI.html</ref> <ref>http://media.ffii.org/EbaReferral090430/pdf/AIPPI.pdf</ref>
 
According to the [[AIPPI]] (a pro-swpat lobby group), there is case law in French regarding business methods:<ref>http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/315C1D200F352432C12575A8004CCCA9/$File/G3-08_amicus_curiae_brief_AIPPI.pdf</ref> <ref>http://media.ffii.org/EbaReferral090430/html/AIPPI.html</ref> <ref>http://media.ffii.org/EbaReferral090430/pdf/AIPPI.pdf</ref>
  

Revision as of 22:07, 26 July 2009

Info to gather about
countries and regions
  • News articles?
  • Companies harmed
  • Studies showing harm?
  • Legislation
  • Court cases
  • Patents granted
  • About the patent office
  • Politicians against swpat

According to the AIPPI (a pro-swpat lobby group), there is case law in French regarding business methods:[1] [2] [3]

Quoting the referenced document, page 10:

A recent case for which French and European decisions were taken simultaneously in the field of business methods concerns EP 0 995 161 and a corresponding French patent 97/08712 (INFOMIL “Device, method and computerised cashing system for automatic delivery of discount coupons”). The French Court revoked the French patent, in a first instance. A decision of an Opposition Division (confirmed by a European Board of Appeal TOll6/06) revoked the European Patent. The French Court and the European Board of Appeal came to the same conclusions invention not excluded from patentability but lacking inventive step.
The French Court indicates that “the fact that the result is to provide a commercial advantage end to participate in the marketing of a store is not to be considered as what is protected is the computer system”. The Court concludes that the invention is not excluded from patentability. Then, the Court considers that the distinctive feature with respect to prior art “is implemented in an existing system and does not require any inventive effort; it only requires that a computer technician programs this additional feature into the content of a file already in place to obtain the improvement.” The Court concludes that no inventive step is then involved.

End quote.

References