智權報總覽 > PA 專欄           
 
EPO近期的兩項重要判決
郭史蒂夫/北美智權 教育訓練處 歐洲專利律師
張宇凱中文翻譯/北美智權教育訓練處專利工程研究員
2015.04.09

最近,EPO已公開了兩件重要的判決。這些案件均來自於在EPC系統內的終審機構---擴大上訴委員會(EBoA)(註:在歐洲專利核發與有效性系統中相當於美國最高法院的地位,只是其並不處理諸如侵權的其他課題)。因為所有的專利申請案,且因此所有的技術內容,均需依據EPC來進行測試,所以這類判決的公開內容均應被小心地考量。這也意味著EBoA通常很少,並且是經過長時間的考量之後,才會釋出這些判決。

這些重要判決通常會以G碼來標示。第一件判決是G2/12(或是G3/12),其主要涉及要如何解讀什麼是可准專利的,以及基於植物新品種保護國際聯盟(UPOV)的植物品種保護公約,什麼是可以取得保護的。基本上,EBoA認定任何在嚴格意義上不屬於植物品種,或是用以獲取該植物品種之「基本生物學方法」者,都可以取得專利。因此,只要適當它地進行撰寫,理論上就可以取得主張由基本上為生物方法所衍生之植物的請求項之專利保護。當然,其仍然必須適用新穎性與進步性等等一般性標準,才能取得有效的專利請求項!

另一項判決似乎也很深奧,但其對於歐洲專利的審查所帶來的影響,可能會是非常深遠的。基本上EBoA必須要確認在異議程序中,明確性的課題有多重要。明確性並不能作為提起異議程序的基礎,但是其卻是在異議程序中進行修正(以因應例如基於先前技術而衍生的可專利性課題)後,所可以提出的一項據由。有一種學院派的觀念,認為在異議程序中只要進行了修正,該請求項的任何一部分都可能會受到攻擊。EBoA並不同意這種見解,並認定明確性是只能在某些非常特殊的情況下,才能提出的據由。

這個判決看似對於在EPO的異議相關程序法來說,是相當深奧而重要的,但是其之影響可能會更為深遠。首先,在此一判決公開之前,多方異議程序的積案仍然維持懸而未決。現在,這些積案將可以透過各種上訴委員會與審查部門來進行處理。其次,其可以減低異議程序出現意料之外的結果。過去異議程序中之意料之外的結果,可能來自於對造所提出之針對於不同的及/或非系爭請求項,於不同及/或無害修正過程中所導致的明確性問題,但是現在這種做法是不被允許的。因此,異議程序將會變得更可預期。這應該也可以減少對於言詞異議的依賴,以及在EPC系統內的異議程序積案量。

第三項影響是,這意味著專利所有人在異議程序中,可以更有效地進行防禦。這是因為依據以往的實務情況,針對於先前技術的存在(例如進步性課題),或是揭露內容的可據以實現性等課題所進行之攻擊,都可以被轉換為對於明確性之攻擊。舉例來說,如果被攻擊的請求項係為A+B+C,其中C係為「用於進行X的構件」,並且在先前技術中揭露A+B也可以進行X,這種情況是否會構成預見或是使的該請求項顯而易見?並不一定,因為其可能並不相當於C。依據以往的實務情況,對造便可以爭辯說,該請求項對於C是什麼並不明確,並且應當基於明確性而無效。現在這種選擇將會是不可行的,且因此對造就必需單獨針對於揭露內容的適切性,來提出異議理由。

第四項影響是,在歐洲專利系統內,明確性只會在核准之前的審查程序時,由初始審查委員進行審查。這意味著,審查部門在審查專利案時,可能會更加謹慎地對於明確性進行判斷,但是一旦被核准,明確性就很少會構成問題。人們可能會這樣說:「如果其對於初始審查委員來說是明確的,而願意准予專利權的話,明確性就應該不是問題」。

有些專利法學界人士也指出,此一判決顯示EPO逐漸遠離專利審理權力的有趣變動。此一判決被認為將會允許歐盟的UPC法院(一旦其被設立),承接認定明確性之相關課題。這將會導致一些人認為或猜測,未來EPO是否基本上僅是為了核准專利而設立,而最終由UPC來負責評估其之有效性。

 

 
作者: 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

 


Important decisions at the EPO
Stefano John / NAIP Education & Training Group , European Patent Attorney

Recently the EPO has emitted two important decisions. These are from the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA), which is the ultimate decision making authority within the EPC system (thus the equivalent of the US Supreme Court within the European patent granting and validity system, not for other issues as infringement). Because all patent applications, and thus all technologies, are tested under the EPC, the possible ramifications of emitting such decisions are considered very carefully. This means that the EBoA releases such decisions only rarely and after long consideration.

These important decisions are denoted by their G number. The first decision is G2/12 (or G3/12) and it relates mainly to how one interprets what is patentable and what is protectable under the UPOV treaty for protection of plant varieties. Basically, the EBoA decided that everything which is not strictly a plant variety or an “essentially biological process” to obtain said plant variety is patentable. Hence, one could in theory protect with a patent claim the plants derived from a process that is essentially biological, as long as it is worded properly. Of course the usual standards of novelty and inventive step would have to apply to obtain a valid patent claim!

The other decision may seem also very abstruse, but its ramifications within European patent prosecution could be quite important. Basically the EBoA had to decide how far the issue of clarity would be important in inter-partes oppositions. Clarity is not a ground on which to start an inter-partes opposition, but it is a ground that can be raised within the opposition as a result of making an amendment (to, for example, counter an issue raised on patentability in light of new prior art). There was a school of thought that argued any part of the claims could be attacked within the opposition once an amendment was made. The EBoA disagreed and decided that clarity was only grounds that could be raised in some very specific circumstances.

This may seem abstruse and important only to the procedural law of oppositions at the EPO, but its consequences could be larger than that. Firstly, a backlog of inter-partes oppositions have been stayed pending before the emission of this decision. Now this back-log can be dealt with by the various Boards of Appeal and Examining Divisions. Secondly, it reduces the probability of surprise outcomes within oppositions. Surprise outcomes within oppositions could previously arise from the opponent raising clarity on different and/or unsuspected claims as a result of a different and/or innocuous amendment, but now this is not possible. Thus oppositions should become more certain. This should also reduce the reliance on oral oppositions and the backlog of oppositions within the EPC system.

A third consequence is that it means that patent proprietors have more efficient defences in oppositions. This was because under previous practice, an attack on the pertinence of prior art (e.g. inventive step) or enabling disclosure could be converted into an attack on clarity. If for example the claim being attacked was A+B+C, where C is “means for doing X” and the disclosure in the prior art was A+B which also did X, would it be anticipatory or render the claim obvious? Not necessarily because it may not be C. Under previous practice the opponent could then argue that the claim was not clear as to what C was and should be invalidated as lacking clarity. Now that option is not possible and therefore the opponent has to convince the opposition on the pertinence of the disclosure alone.

A fourth consequence is that the only time clarity will be examined within the European patent system before grant is during Examination with the primary Examiner. This means that the Examining Division may be more careful in judging clarity while prosecuting the patent, but that once it has been granted, clarity will rarely be an issue. One could say “If it’s clear to the primary examiner so that he is willing to grant the patent, clarity should not be an issue”.

Some patent law circles have also noted that this decision indicates an interesting move in patent adjudicating powers away from the EPO. It has been suggested that this has been done to allow the EU UPC Courts, once in place, to take up the issue of deciding on clarity. This leads some to prevaricate and wonder if in the future the EPO is basically being set up to grant patents and the UPC to ultimately evaluate the validity thereof.

 

 
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

 


Facebook 在北美智權報粉絲團上追踪我們