About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Biologue Chicago | Main | BIO International Convention »

March 27, 2009

Comments

I bet that in the pro-bureaucrat, anti-democratic EU there won't be so much as a whimper about this, since complaining won't do any good anyway.

What is interesting about this change is the "abuse" it is intended to discourage - a de facto continuation practice in the EPO where one could file a divisional application that is identical - claims and all - to the parent when the parent was about to die (final refusal), and just pick up the "divisional" and have another bite at prosecution of the same case.

H. Democrat & Derek:

This change, if enacted, will certainly require EP applicants to rethink prosecution strategy and prosecution budgets (potential simultaneous filing and prosecution of multiple DV applications). This rule change sounds eerily similar to what Judge Bryson outlined as a potential solution to the Rule 78--35 USC 120 conflict in his concurring opinion in the Tafas v. Doll appeal.

I have no idea if there exists any procedure for challenging such actions of the EPO Administrative Council. If one does exist, perhaps some entity will give it a shot.

Thanks for the comments.
Chris

Could you imagine the Board of Directors of Sony being formed of the presidents of Philips, Fujitsu, Hitachi and similar? One could imagine that, under this situation, the decisions taken by the Board of Directors would not particularly favour Sony.

A similar situation happens at the EPO as the Administrative council is formed by the Directors of the National Patent offices, most of which consider the EPO as a competitor which is going to leave the examiners in the national offices out of work since the national application is going to disappear in favour of first filings before the EPO.

Having this in mind, it is no wonder that the AC enacts decisions that are so counterproductive to the industry.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30