Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
March 19, 1986, T 51/84 (Coded distinctive mark/Stockburger). [2] The Board held that if a claim focuses solely on procedural steps involved in applying a coded distinctive mark to an object without indicating or presupposing technical means for carrying them out, a process of this kind is excluded from patentability by Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC.
T 258/03, also known as Auction Method/Hitachi, is a decision of a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), issued on April 21, 2004. It is a landmark decision for interpreting Article 52(1) and (2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) which built on the principles suggested by the same Board in T 641/00 (Comvik, Two identities).
The European Patent Convention (EPC) is a multilateral treaty instituting the legal system according to which European patents are granted. Its version applicable before December 13, 2007 contained a provision, namely Article 52(4) EPC 1973, [notes 2] reading as follows:
The Official Journal of the European Patent Office (OJ EPO) is a monthly trilingual publication of the European Patent Office (EPO). It contains "notices and information of a general character issued by the President of the European Patent Office, as well as any other information relevant to [the European Patent Convention (EPC)] or its implementation". [1]
Like the other parts of the paragraph 2, computer programs are open to patenting to the extent that they provide a technical contribution to the prior art.In the case of computer programs and according to the case law of the Boards of Appeal, a technical contribution typically means a further technical effect that goes beyond the normal physical interaction between the program and the computer.
Article 52(3) EPC then qualifies Art. 52(2) EPC by stating: The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.
T 641/00, also known as Two identities/COMVIK, is a decision of a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), issued on September 26, 2002. It is a landmark decision regarding the patentable subject matter requirement [1] and inventive step [2] under the European Patent Convention (EPC).
The European Patent Office is the only body that can perform legally effective publication and registration of European patent applications and patents. It regularly issues warnings about scams by firms and individuals that invite applicants to register patents in unofficial registers or publications. [ 5 ]