作者簡介：
郭史蒂夫 歐洲專利律師
現任：
北美智權教育訓練處 ／歐洲專利律師
經歷：
- Bryers事務所 歐洲專利律師
- Bugnion SpA事務所 歐洲專利學習律師
- Notabartolo & Gervasi事務所 歐洲專利學習律師
- 歐洲專利局 實習生
- 英國牛津大學生物化學、細胞與分子生物系，生化碩士
- 英國倫敦大學瑪莉皇后學院，智財管理碩士
|
自歐洲專利局（European Patent Office，簡稱EPO）於上世紀70年代成立以來，已經在執行一些歐洲各國（European，簡稱EUR）之國家專利局過去就在執行的相同任務。即使大家並沒有用嚴格的經濟利益角度來看待，但其實EUR國家專利局和EPO之間，關於其所提供的服務，諸如檢索功能、申請書的公佈、授證前的審查與授證後之無效審查等，已存在著一種競爭關係。 |
|
EPO的業務會蓬勃發展是無可爭議的，這主要是因為外國申請人和提交大量專利的申請人都喜歡向EPO提交其專利申請。另一個原因是EPO為來自歐洲和世界其他地區的PCT相關業務，以不同的方式建立了主要轉介點。
然而，必須注意的是，如果申請人僅打算在某些特定的歐洲國家（一般為3個或更少）得到專利的保護，則通過EPO申請專利，其費用會比起直接通過EUR國家專利局提出申請更為昂貴。
另一個外國申請人常忽視的事實是，EUR國家專利局對於專利申請人一般來說都比較友善。以筆者本身作為歐洲專利代理人的親身經歷來說，比起與EPO的專利審查員所需的溝通功夫，我比較容易與英國智慧財產局的專利審查委員於申請案中達成雙方可以允許的共識。這一事實與各EUR國家專利局與EPO的專業度並無關係，而是與接觸專利審查委員的難易和EPO的本質有關（該辦公室受到由各國派員參加之管理理事會所同意的較多之相對規則和程序的約束）。關於此點，我們可以一個由EPO在2009年發布的規則為例，它就相當武斷的規定提交分割案（divisionals）的時限。
另外一點值得注意的是，EUR國家專利局可以提供替代EPO的解決方案。EPO現提供PACE程序使申請人可以藉此快速取得專利，但英國專利局能提供比其更快的服務。如果申請人能提供一個合理的理由，它可以在大約6個月內就能授予專利（而且免費）。英國專利局最近還推出了一個新的付費服務，提供申請日後90天內即授證的服務。對於許多申請人來說，這90天的授證服務可能太快了一點，且不必要，特別是如果考慮到這會讓後來之具有早期有效優先日期的秘密申請案（例如，PCT申請案）變成不可能。但是，如果申請人的授權許可協議取決於該專利的取得，或者如果申請人想儘快防止在英國的侵權活動，則這樣的系統將極為可行；因為它提供了一個相當完整，及與EPO同樣品質（即高品質的檢索和申請審理）的服務，使獲證專利的推定有效性並不受影響。
另一方面，德國專利局也提供了它自己的快速專利申請服務。他們還提供了同時申請實用新型專利的選項，實用新型雖然具有較短的專利時限，但可以立即提供所需的保護。
至於意大利專利局，作為申請程序的一部分，提供了一個由EPO執行的免費專利有效性檢索。而且它並不會再去審查專利的有效性，從而使申請人可以在授證前照其認為合適的方式修改其申請。法國專利局也有提供了類似的服務，這兩個國家也都有提供實用新型專利的選項。
另一項有趣的服務是由英國專利局所提供的，是對於在英國被授證專利的有效性並不具約束力之意見的服務。只需要付出相對較低廉的代價，此服務允許任何人去要求英國專利局（資深審查員）提供其對於某專利有效性，或是否侵犯任何英國專利/申請案（即競爭對手的專利）的意見。由於這一過程可能會向公眾公開，有時其他的公眾就可以幫助你使競爭對手的專利變成無效。
一個比較實際的重點是，上述許多服務的價格都比EPO所提供的更具競爭力。此外，若申請費用不是申請人主要的考量的話，因兩者可以被同時申請，故以上所述的各國別申請程序並不必被視為EPO申請案的替代方案。
總結來說，我們應該緊記在某些情況下，例如申請人打算將其專利權保護範圍覆蓋多個國家（一般為4個或更多）時，上述這些EPO的替代方案顯然是不合適的。另一個EPO所頒發的國家別專利較不明顯的優勢是，由於倫敦協議降低了語言翻譯所涉的成本；更重要的是，決定其專利有效性的標準乃源自EPC，並由同一機制所設的機構來決定是否授予專利，因此EPO專利可以得到較統一的專利保護範圍。
About the Author:
Stefano John, European Patent Attorney
Experiences：
- European Patent Attorney, Bryers
- Trainee European Patent Attorney, Bugnion SpA
- Trainee European Patent Attorney, Notabartolo & Gervasi
- Internship, EPO
|
Going beyond the EPO
Stefano John NAIP Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney
Ever since the start of the European Patent Office at the end of the 1970’s, the EPO has been performing some of the same tasks that many European (EUR) national patent offices used to perform. Without putting it in strictly economical terms, this has lead to a sort of competition between EUR national patent offices and the EPO for certain type of services offered, namely searching functions, publication of applications, examination up to grant and post-grant invalidity examination.
It is uncontested that the EPO has flourished, mainly because foreign applicants and applicant who file large number of patents would favour filing patent applications before the EPO. Another reason is that the EPO forms, in different ways, the main point of referral for PCT-relevant operations for applications deriving from both Europe and the rest of the world.
However it is worth remembering that applying for patents via the EPO can be more expensive than applying via national office directly if the applicant is intending to only cover certain specific countries (generally 3 or less).
Another fact that is generally overlooked by foreign applicants is that EUR national patent offices are generally more favourable to applicants. In my own personal experience as patent attorney, it is easier to arrive to a compromise on what can be allowed with a patent examiner at the UKIPO than with the EPO. This fact does not arise from any difference in professionalism between EUR national patent offices and EPO patent offices, but is more related to access to the Examiner and the nature of the EPO (an office bound by relatively rules and procedures as agreed on by an Administrative Council of different countries which are relatively more). One can cite the rather arbitrary rule made by the EPO in 2009 on time limits by which divisionals have to be filed.
It is also worth remembering that EUR national patent offices can offer alternative solutions to the EPO. The EPO offers PACE to obtain a quick grant of the patent, but the UK patent office can offer even faster services. They can offer grant within roughly 6 months of application if a reasonable reason is given (free of charge). A new service has been recently set up to offer grant within 90 days of application upon payment. This may seem too quick and unnecessary to many applicants, especially if one considers that it is not possible to then allow for secret applications with earlier valid priority dates (e.g. PCT applications). However, what if the applicant’s license deal hinged on having a granted patent or if the applicant wanted to prevent infringing activities in the UK as soon as possible. Then such a system would work because it offered a reasonably complete service much earlier and still of the same quality as the EPO (i.e. good quality search and prosecution), so that presumption of validity of the granted patent is unaffected.
The German system also offers their own fast prosecution services. They also offer the option of filing a concurrent utility model, which though lasting less time, can offer protection immediately.
The Italian patent office, as part of the applications gives a free validity search, carried out by the EPO. It does not then examine the validity of the patent, thus allowing the applicant to amend the application as they see fit before going to grant. The French patent office also offers a similar service. Both countries also offer utility model options as well.
Another interesting service offered by the UKIPO is the offer of a non-binding opinion on the validity of a UK granted patent. For a relatively low cost, this service allows for any member of the public to request that the UKIPO (senior examiner) provide an opinion on the validity or infringement of any UK patent/application (i.e. a competitor’s patent). Since this process may be laid open to the public, sometimes other members of the public then can help in rendering a competitor’s patents invalid.
On a practical note, many of the above services are offered at a more competitive price than the EPO. Further, what is detailed here-above does not need to be an alternative to an EPO application if costs are less of an issue as they can be applied for concurrently.
As a concluding note, it is still worth remembering that the alternatives to the EPO are obviously not suitable in certain situations, such as if one intends to cover multiple countries (generally 4 or more). Other less obvious advantages are uniformity of patent scope, lower language costs due to the London Agreements and, more importantly, the EPO national patents issued are decided on criteria of patent validity as set out by the EPC and decided by the same authority granting the patents.
更多歷期精采文章，請參閱智權報總覽 >>
|
