Introduction - exercises last week
Question 1: Consider these two documents (EP 0 996 717 B1 & WO 99/07839)
❖ Which date(s) determine(s) what publications belong to the prior art?
➢ The earliest publication date, the priority date: 05/08/1998
❖ When is the content of this patent first published?
➢ Publication date: 18/02/1999
❖ What is the connection between the EU patent and the international application?
➢ EU patent is granted on the entry into the national phase of the international application in the EU.
❖ Is this European patent valid in a) Italy and b) Norway?
➢ You need to find out whether it is valid in Italy by going to the national register or the European patent register
(espacenet). Italy is a designated state; Norway is not. It will depend on whether renewal fees were paid after
the grant date.
■ Italy: EP + PCT
■ Norway: PCT
Applicant/inventor?
❖ Who is/are the inventor(s)
➢ Inventor: in principle, the right to the invention belongs to you
❖ Who is/are the applicant(s)
➢ Applicant: the one that applies for the patent
➢ If there is an applicant, we are going to assume that it is the right applicant (EPC will not do the investigation)
⇒ They will inform the inventors that they are inventors, but they will not examine whether the designation is correct.
EPC
❖ The right shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title
➢ Successor: somebody that is entitled to get your rights
❖ Applicant may be any natural or legal person
❖ Applicant shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right to the European patent
❖ If the inventor is an employee, national law determine the right of the EP
❖ Disputes about entitlement (who is the rightful applicant) should be brought before the national court
➢ It is not that you can tell the EPO that he is not right person. You’ve to go to the national court
❖ EPO can interrupt proceedings upon request and, in case of decision of new owner, allows
➢ new owner to prosecute application
➢ new owner to file new application
Question 2: What is the difference between claim 1 of the PCT publication and the granted patent? What might be the reason?
❖ They changed the claims because, during examination, a product claim was not possible anymore, and they had to
change to a method claim (PCT phase, not examined yet) → fall-back claim!
❖ The scope of the claims may have to be reduced (too broad)
Question 3: Applicant/inventor?
❖ Who is/are the applicant(s)?
➢ VIB (Vlaams Interuniversitair Instituut voor Biotechnologie)
❖ Who is/are the inventor(s)
➢ Sabine Neirynck (Be), Min Jou Willy (Be), Fiers Walter (Be)
❖ What law determines the ownership of the invention
➢ Follows the Belgian law
❖ Who owns the invention?
➢ VIB (if inventors are employees → rights to the employer following Be law)
Question 1: Consider these two documents (EP 0 996 717 B1 & WO 99/07839)
❖ Which date(s) determine(s) what publications belong to the prior art?
➢ The earliest publication date, the priority date: 05/08/1998
❖ When is the content of this patent first published?
➢ Publication date: 18/02/1999
❖ What is the connection between the EU patent and the international application?
➢ EU patent is granted on the entry into the national phase of the international application in the EU.
❖ Is this European patent valid in a) Italy and b) Norway?
➢ You need to find out whether it is valid in Italy by going to the national register or the European patent register
(espacenet). Italy is a designated state; Norway is not. It will depend on whether renewal fees were paid after
the grant date.
■ Italy: EP + PCT
■ Norway: PCT
Applicant/inventor?
❖ Who is/are the inventor(s)
➢ Inventor: in principle, the right to the invention belongs to you
❖ Who is/are the applicant(s)
➢ Applicant: the one that applies for the patent
➢ If there is an applicant, we are going to assume that it is the right applicant (EPC will not do the investigation)
⇒ They will inform the inventors that they are inventors, but they will not examine whether the designation is correct.
EPC
❖ The right shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title
➢ Successor: somebody that is entitled to get your rights
❖ Applicant may be any natural or legal person
❖ Applicant shall be deemed to be entitled to exercise the right to the European patent
❖ If the inventor is an employee, national law determine the right of the EP
❖ Disputes about entitlement (who is the rightful applicant) should be brought before the national court
➢ It is not that you can tell the EPO that he is not right person. You’ve to go to the national court
❖ EPO can interrupt proceedings upon request and, in case of decision of new owner, allows
➢ new owner to prosecute application
➢ new owner to file new application
Question 2: What is the difference between claim 1 of the PCT publication and the granted patent? What might be the reason?
❖ They changed the claims because, during examination, a product claim was not possible anymore, and they had to
change to a method claim (PCT phase, not examined yet) → fall-back claim!
❖ The scope of the claims may have to be reduced (too broad)
Question 3: Applicant/inventor?
❖ Who is/are the applicant(s)?
➢ VIB (Vlaams Interuniversitair Instituut voor Biotechnologie)
❖ Who is/are the inventor(s)
➢ Sabine Neirynck (Be), Min Jou Willy (Be), Fiers Walter (Be)
❖ What law determines the ownership of the invention
➢ Follows the Belgian law
❖ Who owns the invention?
➢ VIB (if inventors are employees → rights to the employer following Be law)
