Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
As an intellectual exercise, pursuant to Article 52(2) EPC, the deductive decision phase is not regarded as an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC, whereas the method carried out by the device might well represent an invention within the meaning of this provision." [36] March 22, 2006, T 388/04 (Undeliverable mail/PITNEY BOWES). [37]
(T 258/03, Reasons 3.1). It now suffices that a physical entity or activity involves technical means to be considered as an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC. Having technical character is an implicit requisite of an "invention" within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC (requirement of "technicality"). [14]
This is "a negative, non-exhaustive list of what should not be regarded as an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC." [36] (For further information, see also: Software patents under the EPC). The second set of exclusions, or exceptions, include: Inventions contrary to "ordre public" or morality (Article 53(a) EPC), [43]
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:
This is a list of decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) in chronological order of their date of issuance. The list includes decisions under Article 112(1)(a) EPC (following a referral from a Board of Appeal), opinions under Article 112(1)(b) EPC (following a referral from the President of the EPO), "to ensure uniform application of the law ...
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).
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.
In addition to the consequences these legal provisions may have in practice, Rule 39.1 PCT is also significant from an interpretive perspective to understand the origin of the much debated Article 52(2) and (3) EPC (see Software patents under the European Patent Convention (EPC) and Article 52 EPC). The computer program exclusion was indeed ...