Comments on: Patents for Software? How the EPO Examines Software Inventions and what Lessons can be Learned

By: RC

RC — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:00:14 +0000

I shall add: the technically qualified members are not required to have a law degree. I’d be surprised if at least some didn’t have one, besides their technical degree.

Also, the legal basis for all BoA decisions is the European Patent Convention. Since one can get a law degree without having ever been anywhere near the EPC (or even patent law, I’m afraid), I’m quite certain that all the technically qualified members of the BoA know the ins and outs of the EPC better than 99.99% of law graduates (and even better than a majority of national judges handling patent cases in Europe).

By: RC

RC — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:18:22 +0000

I did not forget anything: you wrote “none of the people at the EPO have a law degree”, which is demonstrably false.

I must also add that having non-lawyer “lay judges” or “lay magistrates” is far from unprecedented in most judiciaries, both in civil and in common law countries.

Are you suggesting that none of the members of the Boards of Appeal should have a relevant technical background? Do you seriously believe that this would be a good idea?

By: panaracer

panaracer — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:10:15 +0000

You forgot the “two technically qualified members” which do not have a law degree.

By: Stranger

Stranger — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:49:33 +0000

RC is correct. The Appeal Boards of the EPO create, of course, case law applying to the independent legal system established by internation agreement, namely the Euopean Patent Convention.

By: RC

RC — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:59:29 +0000

Wrong. Utterly and completely misinformed. See Art. 21 EPC, setting out the composition of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO: (2) For appeals from decisions of the Receiving Section or the Legal Division, a Board of Appeal shall consist of three legally qualified members. (3) For appeals from a decision of an Examining Division, a Board of Appeal shall consist of: (a) two technically qualified members and one legally qualified member, when the decision concerns the refusal of a European patent application or the grant, limitation or revocation of a European patent, and was taken by an Examining Division consisting of less than four members; (b) three technically and two legally qualified members, when the decision was taken by an Examining Division consisting of four members, or when the Board of Appeal considers that the nature of the appeal so requires; (c) three legally qualified members in all other cases. (4) For appeals from a decision of an Opposition Division, a Board of Appeal shall consist of: (a) two technically qualified members and one legally qualified member, when the decision was taken by an Opposition Division consisting of three members; (b) three technically and two legally qualified members, when the decision was taken by an Opposition Division consisting of four members, or when the Board of Appeal considers that the nature of the appeal so requires. As for the Enlarged Boards of Appeal, their composition, according to Art. 22 EPC and R. 109 EPC always has a majority of legally qualified members. Next time

By: panaracer

panaracer — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:48:13 +0000

“EPO have developed a consistent case law as to the pragmatic problem/solution approach”

Sorry, but none of the people at the EPO have a law degree, so they cannot create “caselaw”.

By: New Disinformation From Patent Lawyers and Microsoft Lobbyists | Techrights

New Disinformation From Patent Lawyers and Microsoft Lobbyists | Techrights — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:16:49 +0000

[...] (who obviously want software patents in Europe) promote their cause with an analysis that ends with nonsense: Conclusion. In case of mixed-type invention (such as organisational, commercial or intellectual [...]