epi Information 4/2010

Information4 10G 10904 F | ISSN 1434-8853 | Art.-Nr. 56356004 | December 2010Institut der beim EuropäischenPatentamt zugelassenen VertreterInstitute of Professional Representativesbefore the European Patent OfficeInstitut des mandataires agréés prèsl’Office européen des brevetsI – 125 th Meeting of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation111 Report on the 125 th Administrative Council meeting113 Interview with Jesper Kongstad, Chairman of the Administrative Council (AC)114 Interview with Guss Broesterhuizen, Chairman of the Budget and FinanceCommittee (BFC) of the AC115 Interview Mihály Ficsor, Chairman of the Committee on Patent Law (CPL) of the AC117 Interview Josef Kratochvíl, Chairman of the Technical and Operational SupportCommittee (TOSC) of the ACII – Information concerning epi119 69 th Council Meeting reports125 2011 epi Membership feeIII –Contributions from epi Members and other contributions126 Filing date requirements under the EPC, by C. Mulder and D. Visser129 No teaching without disclosing, response to Stellbrink, by H. Sendrowski

Institut der beim Europäischen Patentamt zugelassenen VertreterInstitute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent OfficeInstitut des mandataires agréés près l‘Office européen des brevetsRedaktionsausschuss / Editorial Committee / Commission de RédactionWalter HolzerTerry JohnsonEva LiesegangThierry SchuffeneckerPostanschrift / Mailing address / Adresse postaleepiPostfach 26 01 12D-80058 MünchenTel. (089) 24 20 52-0Fax (089) 24 20 52-20e-mail: info@patentepi.comwww.patentepi.comVerlag / Publishing House / Maison d'éditionCarl Heymanns VerlagEine Marke von Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbHLuxemburger Straße 449D-50939 KölnTel. (0221) 94 373-7000Fax (0221) 94 373-7201Kundenservice: Tel. (02631) 801-2222info@wolterskluwer.dewww.heymanns.comAnzeigen / Advertisements / PublicitéCarl Heymanns VerlagEine Marke von Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbHDruck / Printing / ImprimeurGrafik + Druck GmbH, MünchenISSN 1434-8853© Copyright epi 2010VierteljahreszeitschriftAbonnement im Mitgliedsbeitrag enthalten, für Nichtmitglieder € 48,00 p.a. zzgl. Versandkosten (€ 9,90 Inland / € 14,00 Ausland),Einzelheft € 19,00 zzgl.Versandkosten (ca. € 2,27 Inland/ ca. € 3,20 Ausland) je nach Heftumfang. Preise inkl. MwSt. Aufkündigung desBezuges 6 Wochen vor Jahresende.Quarterly PublicationSubscription fee included in membership fee, for non-members € 48,00 p.a. plus postage (national € 9,90 / abroad € 14,00), individualcopy € 19,00 p.a. plus postage (national about € 2,27, abroad about € 3,20) depending on the size of the issue, VAT included.Cancellation of subscription is requested 6 weeks before any year’s end.Publication trimestriellePrix de l’abonnement inclus dans la cotisation, pour non-membres € 48,00 p.a., frais d’envoi en sus (national € 9,90 / étranger € 14,00),prix à l’unité € 19,00, frais d’envoi en sus (national environ € 2,27, étranger environ € 3,20) selon le volume du numéro, TVA incluse.Résiliation de l’abonnement 6 semaines avant la fin de l’année.Das Institut ist weder für Erklärungen noch für Meinungen verantwortlich, die in Beiträgen dieser Zeitschrift enthalten sind. Artikel werdenin der oder den Amtsprachen (deutsch, englisch, französisch) wiedergegeben, in der bzw. denen diese Artikel eingereicht wurden.The Institute as a body is not responsible either for the statements made, or for the opinions expressed in the publications. Articles arereproduced in the official language or languages (German, English or French) in which they are submitted.L’Institut n’est pas responsable des opinions exprimées dans cette publication. Les articles sont publiés dans celle ou celles des trois languesofficielles (allemand, anglais ou français) dans laquelle ou lesquelles ils ont été proposés.The trade mark ”epi” is the property of the Institute and is registered nationally in Germany and as a Community Trade Mark at OHIM.

Information 4/2010 Table of Contents 109Table of ContentsEditorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110I – 125 th Meeting of the Administrative Councilof the European Patent OrganisationReport on the 125 th Administrative Councilmeeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111Interview with Jesper Kongstad, Chairman of theAdministrative Council (AC) . . . . . . . . . . . 113Interview with Guss Broesterhuizen, Chairmanof the Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) ofthe AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114Interview with Mihály Ficsor, Chairman of theCommittee on Patent Law (CPL) of the AC . . . 115Interview with Josef Kratochvíl, Chairman of theTechnical and Operational Support Committee(TOSC) of the AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117II – Information concerning epiCouncil MeetingReport on the 69 th Council pre-meeting,19 th November 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119Report on the 69th Council meeting,20 th November 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121ReportsThe By-Laws Committee 1978-2001, by C.E. Eder 123epi member count reaches 10,000 . . . . . . . 124EQE and trainingResults of the 2010 European QualifyingExamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124epi MembershipInformation from the SecretariatNext Board and Council Meetings . . . . . . . . 123List of professional representatives asat 31.10.2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125Deadline 1/2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110Dates of forthcoming issues . . . . . . . . . . . 111epi Disciplinary bodies and Committees . . . . . 137epi Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U3III – Contributions from epi Members and othercontributionsArticlesFiling date requirements under the EPC,by C. Mulder and D. Visser . . . . . . . . . . . 126No teaching without disclosing, a response toStellbrink, by H. Sendrowski . . . . . . . . . . . 129ReportsCentenary Celebration of Dutch Patent Law . . . 132Letters to the EditorHow can we take the brakes off? (Can your ownpriority application become your prior art?)M. Rots (NL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133Anmerkungen zu den Beiträgen von Frischknecht/Kley in epi information 1/2010 und Vögele/Nemecin epi information 3/2010 zur neuen Regel 36 EPÜ,by Frank Wagner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135Book reviewC-Book, by William Chandler andHugo Meinders – Review by S. Kirsch . . . . . . 1362011 epi Membership fee. . . . . . . . . . . . 125

110 Editorial Information 4/2010EditorialT. Johnson (GB)Despite advances in technology and the burgeoningglobal village, differences between peoples and culturesremain paramount and we believe are an aspect of life tobe cherished. Individuals and enterprises small and largerightly value their Mother Tongue. Nevertheless in theworld of IPRs, particularly patents, translations areimportant in providing information on both technologyand legal aspects of protection afforded to countrieswhich might not have as their native language thelanguage of the patent grant.Machine translations of texts have long been the grailof industry and official bodies alike, but problems haveexisted in the realisation of an accurate rendering of onelanguage into another. The machine translation of „hydraulicram“ in one language into „wet sheep“ inanother is an example we believe not to be apocryphal.However, things move on. We have learned of theinitiative of the EPO in pursuing, in conjunction withthe EC, a project to provide a viable machine translationof patent texts which would be beneficial to Europeancitizens and industry alike. We believe this to be apositive and far-sighted step which should be encouragedas it will enhance legal certainty and encourageinnovation within the Member States of the EPC. We aresure our readers will look forward to receiving details ofthe progression of the project.From future developments to present ones, we mentionthat there are „new“ appointments in the EPO inaddition to the newly-elected President.Mr Jesper Kongstad (DK) is now Chair of the AC. MrGuillaume Minnoye (BE) and Mr Raimund Lutz (DE) havejust been elected as VP in DG1 and DG5 respectively.We congratulate them all, wish them well in their newroles, and look forward to working with them in thefuture.Nächster Redaktionsschlussfür epi InformationInformieren Sie bitte den Redaktionsausschussso früh wie möglich überdas Thema, das Sie veröffentlichenmöchten. Redaktionsschluss für dienächste Ausgabe der epi Informationist der 21. Januar 2011. Die Dokumente,die veröffentlicht werdensollen, müssen bis zum diesemDatum im Sekretariat eingegangensein.Next deadline forepi InformationPlease inform the Editorial Committeeas soon as possible about thesubject you want to publish. Deadlinefor the next issue of epiInformation is 21 st January, 2011.Documents for publication shouldhave reached the Secretariat by thisdate.Prochaine date limite pourepi InformationVeuillez informer la Commission derédaction le plus tôt possible du sujetque vous souhaitez publier. La datelimite de remise des documentspour le prochain numéro de epiInformation est le 21 janvier 2011.Les textes destinés à la publicationdevront être reçus par le Secrétariatavant cette date.

Information 4/2010 125 th Administrative Council meeting 111Report on 125 th Meeting of the Administrative Council (AC)The Hague, 26–28 October 2010By way of background, and to set the scene as it were,members will be aware that the AC is part of theEuropean Patent Organisation, effectively being thelegislative arm, the Office being the executive arm.The AC was set up under Art. 4 para (b) EPC, moredetailed aspects of its functions being set out in Arts.26-36 EPC. The current chairman of the AC elected tothe post this year is Jesper Kongstad, who is also DirectorGeneral of the Danish Patent Trade Mark Office. (There isa report of a discussion the epi had with him in this issue).The AC has three main committees, namely the Committeeon Patent Law (CPL), the Technical and OperationalSupport Committee (TOSC), and the Budget andFinance Committee (BFC). (Reports of meetings of therespective chairs of these committees are also to befound in this issue). These committees advise the Presidentand/or the AC on specific questions directed tothem by the President, or Chair of the AC.Participants in the AC are representatives of theMember States, the President of the EPO (and supportstaff), the Board of Auditors, and representatives of thestaff of the EPO.The epi has observer status, as has the government ofBosnia and Herzegovina, WIPO, the EC, the NordicPatent Institute, and Business Europe. Observers canintervene in debates, but cannot vote.The work of the AC is supported by a PermanentSecretary, Yves Grandjean, who is Director of the CouncilSecretariat.In addition to the above, it should be mentioned thatthe AC has set up a Board in accordance with Art. 28EPC (known as Board 28 or B28), which in general assiststhe Chair of the AC in preparing the work of the Council.Terry JohnsonEditorial CommitteeAs is to be expected, there is an agenda drawn up foreach meeting of the AC. Items are labelled A, B, or C.Category A is reserved for items which have been previouslyapproved by the BFC with a 75% majority, andwhich the AC can therefore adopt. Category B are itemswhich require discussion by the AC. Category C isreserved for items which are confidential and whichare discussed and adopted if approved, in a closedsession of the AC, the Member States, the President(and any assisting employees), and the Board of Auditorsbeing the participants in the closed session.The 125 th meeting of the AC was an extremely importantone as it was the first to be attended by BenoîtBattistelli following his election as President of the EPO.The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming thePresident, new heads of delegations and new observers,(including your reporter !) and reported that he had hadseveral meetings with the new President, all with a verypositive outcome which he was confident would be thenorm for the future, and therefore to the benefit of theEuropean Patent Organisation.He then gave the floor to the President. Mr Battistellioutlined the work he had undertaken since he tookoffice in a comprehensive first address to the AC asPresident. On his very first day of office (1 July 2010) hemet staff in Munich, and on the second, in The Hague.He subsequently had met staff in other offices so that hehad met about half the staff complement early in histenure. He hoped to build a positive and transparentrelationship with the staff.In order to maintain the EPO as a centre of excellencein the global world of IP he has commissioned two auditsby external bodies, one on IT and the other on finances.I – 125 th Meeting of the Administrative Council of the European Patent OrganisationNächste Ausgaben · Forthcoming issues · Prochaines éditionsIssue Deadline Publication1/2011 21 January 15 March2/2011 09 May 30 June3/2011 12 August 30 September4/2011 04 November 30 December

112 125 th Administrative Council meeting Information 4/2010Initial reports of the results of these separate audits willbe presented to the AC, TOSC, and BFC in 2011forevaluation. It is also hoped to implement the evaluatedreports in 2011.The President also reported on a major initiative regardinga harmonised approach for a global classificationsystem for patent documents. This initiative comprisesthe USPTO and the EPO agreeing to work togethertowards the formation of a partnership to explore thedevelopment of a joint classification system. The systemwill be based on the European classification system(ECLA). It is proposed that this joint system will be alignedwith WIPO standards and the IPC structure. This initiativeis a work in progress of which IP5 partner offices, the ACand stake holders will be regularly updated.The EPC has 38 Member States using 28 languages.Translation is a major issue for users, Offices, the EC,European industry, and the ongoing discussion towardsthe implementation of the EU patent. The presidenttherefore reported that a study on machine translationhad been launched by the Office, with technical andfinancial support being provided by the EC whose representativeMargot Fröhlinger, confirmed that the ECfinancial contribution would be 40% of a budget of 10million euros, and that a MoU would be entered intowith the EPO in respect of the project.The President also presented the final report on theEPO, UNEP and ICTSI study „Patents and Clean Energy:bridging the gap between evidence and policy.“ Thistimely and comprehensive report concludes inter aliathat greater and better availability of technologicalinformation including on IPRs, and the development oflicensing of clean energy technologies would appear toprovide practical measures which could resonateimmediately in the present debate on climate change.The AC has an extremely wide-ranging agenda. TheChair acts as what could be called a facilitator beingextremely effective in this role. In introducing each agendaitem he calls on the President, or the AC Member who hascharge of it, to make a report. He then invites representativesof the Member States to speak if they have a viewon the topic, and then observers. The President can interveneat any time. The topics for the 125 th meetingcovered a wide range including, e.g. the need for urgentrenovation/replacement of the main building (The Tower)in The Hague, which is in a sad state of disrepair, andfunding for the European School in Munich.Of possible particular interest to our members the ACelected the following as VPs: Mr Guillaume Minnoye(BE), as VP DG1 and Mr Raimund Lutz (DE) as VP DG5,who take up their appointments on 01.01.2011, andalso decided: –1) Voluntary divisional applications: Amendment ofRule 36 (1) (a) EPC listing communications fromthe EPO that trigger the 24 – month period for filingvoluntary divisional applications. This is AC paperCA/D 16/10. It clarifies the law, and does not changeit. It entered into force on the 26 th October, 2010, ieas of the date of the meeting.2) Amendments to Rule 71EPC and new Rule 71(a)EPC: These are aimed at introducing an additionalprocedural step in cases where the Applicantrequests amendments or corrections in response tocommunications under Rule 71 (3) EPC. Theseamendments are set out in AC document CA/81/10Rev.1e, and are scheduled to come into force on 1April 2012.3) Amendment to Rules 161 and 162 EPC, CA/134/10:This extends the period for dealing with replies toWO-ISA, IPER and IPER from one month to six(6)months. The amended Rules enter into force on01.05.2011.4) Morocco: The AC authorised the President to concludea draft Validation Agreement with Morocco,(date of entry to be confirmed).I believe the foregoing gives an accurate account ofsalient points covered during the meeting. My overallimpression is that there is a very positive and constructiveatmosphere between the Office and the Member Statesin the AC, and that the AC performs an important andnecessary role as the legislature of the European PatentOrganisation. Our Institute should, I believe, aim tofoster and promote its valued status as an observer.Information aboutepi Membership and membership subscriptionorRules governing payment of the epi annual membership feeis available on the epi website www.patentepi.com

Information 4/2010 125 th Administrative Council meeting 113Interview with Jesper Kongstad (DK)ChairmanAdministrative Council of the European Patent Organisation1. Having just beenelected for a threeyear term at more orless the same time asa new President ofthe EPO assumedoffice, and bearingin mind the competenciesof the AC,how do you see cooperationbetweenthe AC and the newPresident developing?JK: As I mentioned in my opening remarks to the AC, thepresident and I have had several meetings since he tookoffice. These have been very positive and productive andprovide a good basis for future co-operation. The focalpoint of the European Patent Organisation is the President.The executive branch of the Organisation is theOffice through the person of its President. The AC is thelegislative arm of the Organisation, through the personof the Chair of the AC. My job as Chair, as I see it, is to actas a facilitator who is strictly neutral whilst neverthelessseeking direction from the Member States. It is a multifacetedjob. The President and I have been colleagues onthe AC for many years which I think bodes well for thefuture, indeed I envisage a very positive future for theEPO. My aim as Chair of the AC is to provide as positive aclimate as possible in which the President can carry outhis aims for the Organisation.2. The AC decided to set up a Board, the so-called B28(Article 28 EPC). Would you kindly explain the role ofthe Board? How do you see it has improved theoperation of the AC?JK: The role of the Board is to advise the AC Chair onpreparation for and conduct of meetings of the AC.From time to time the Board is asked by the AC to drawup proposals for implementation eg on voting. TheBoard comprises three elected members from theMember States, the EPO President and the Chairs ofthe CPL, TOSC and BFC. The elected members have athree year term. The Board meets before every ACmeeting and in my view, enhances the efficiency ofthe AC.3. The AC has three committees, the BFC, the CPL andthe TOSC. Could you advise us of the interaction ofthe Board and these Committees – does the Chairmanof the AC have a role in this interaction?JK: The main thrust of the Committees is to assist theworking of the AC. There is a two way interactionbetween the Committees through their Chairs and theAC through me. The Office also puts forward topics tothe appropriate Committee for comment or advice, andthe Committee responses to the Office are also put tothe AC. The interaction between the EPO, the AC andthe three Committees is in my view a pragmatic onewhich works to the benefit of the Organisation as awhole.4. The finances of the Office have come under increasingscrutiny of late. How do you see the financialmatters being resolved in the long term for the goodof all stakeholders?JK: The initiative of the President in commissioning anexternal financial audit is an important one for theOrganisation. We hope to have an audit report in January2011 with discussion on it at the March 2011 meetingof the AC. We also hope that concrete proposals canbe tabled at our June 2011 meeting. Clearly soundfinancial matters are of great importance to insure thatEuropean stakeholders have a stable patent system inwhich to operate. Current trends are encouraging, theoffice has cut costs, and filings are increasing, so with theresults of the audit in hand I am optimistic that thelong-term prospects for the Organisation are good. Thestaff are of course decisive as to the financial outcome ofoperations, so the President’s effort to establish a constructivedialogue with the staff is very important.5. One of the pressing matters is that of staff pensions,which in some quarters are perceived to act as amill-stone around the neck of the Office. Can pensionissues be resolved to the satisfaction of the staffand therefore for the long-term health of the Office?JK: The AC has had discussions on this subject, and a newsystem has been decided. Modernization of pension systemsare taking place all over Europe and necessary. Thishas happened in my Office (DK) more than 20 years ago,and the pension scheme is today run by the labour unions,and the coming and present pensioners appoint Directorsto the scheme, which essentially is a private one whichoperates in what must be said is a flexible labour market.6. There is a backlog of unexamined cases in most majorPOs, the EPO is not alone in this. However, the EPO isunique in having members of its AC drawn from allMember States, most of whom have national agendasto pursue and some, if not all have implementedwork-sharing schemes with other offices. Do you seeany conflict of interest between the Office and NPOs,and if so, how can this be resolved?JK: I do not see any conflict of interest. Indeed thediversity is I think, a positive attribute to the Europeanpatent system, so much so that the AC has embarked ona work-sharing scheme based on a pilot project betweenthe Office, AT, DE, UK and the DK. Quality of examin-

114 125 th Administrative Council meeting Information 4/2010ation has been shown to be improved, and I thereforehope that through co-operative efforts we will be able tofurther develop work-sharing for the good of the system.7. Leading on from the previous question, we understandthat the EPN meets to discuss EPO/NPO cooperationand experiences. Should the AC be part ofthis dialogue?JK: „Definitely yes.“ The AC through the Member States ispart of the EPN and, as you mentioned, is tied up withwork-sharing, quality control and reduction in the back log.8. We understand too that there is a project for (parttime) working at home (PTHW) for examiners, presumablyto promote reduction of the backlog andcosts. Do you see this as an idea which mightbecome the norm in the future?JK: The sole responsibility for this lies with the Presidentof the EPO. The AC looks forward to hearing how PTHWmight develop.9. WIPO has observer status on AC. Both the EPO andWIPO have a common aim in promoting patents forgreen technology. How do you see the AC workingto ensure that these aims are complementary, andnot in conflict with one another?JK: The EPO has this well in hand, witness the comprehensivefinal report which the President presented to theAC on the study on „Patents and clean energy: bridgingthe gap between evidence and policy.“ I am confidentthat there will be no conflict, nor lowering of quality.10. The epi has observer status. Our organisation wouldwish to continue what we hope is and has been aconstructive dialogue with the AC. How from yourperspective do you see this developing?JK: The AC being a legislative body values continuinginput from observer participants, particularly the epi aswell as other such as Business Europe. The AC is effectivelya public body, and accordingly values co-operationwith users of the system. I think that I can say on behalfof the Contracting States that we look forward to acontinuing dialogue with the epi.Interview with Guus Broesterhuizen (NL)Chairman of the Budget and Finance Committeeof the Administrative CouncilAs Mr Broesterhuizeninformed us, all MemberStates participate in theBFC, as does the Presidentof the EPO supportedby EPO staff. Themandate of the Committeearises under Art. 3 ofthe Financial Regulationsof the European PatentOrganisation. The goalof the Committee is todiscuss financial implicationsof technical andlegal matters and to advise the AC accordingly. MrBroesterhuizen voiced the view that discussions in theBFC are often of a global rather than of an in-depthnature. He aims to strengthen the latter, which wouldbenefit the decision-making role of the AC, and couldalso lead to the AC being able to discuss matters of amore political nature. It seems too that there is a certaininformation gap between the EPO and the MemberStates. Being a governor (one of 38) of the EPO requiresan in depth knowledge of things going on and hence ahuge amount of information. This information mightand should be provided by the EPO, but grasping, understandingand drawing conclusions from it might bedifficult. Solving this dilemma might need a review ofthe mandate, from the managerial point of view, of thePresident but also the external financial audit commissionedby the President should go a long way to pluggingthis perceived information gap.As Chairman, Mr Broesterhuizen is a head of delegationin the Administrative Council and member of Board 28.This brings him close to the political decision makingprocess which takes place in the Council. He is of theview that generally members of the BFC should not onlyhave expertise in management and finance, but shouldalso be close to the political decision making process.Mr Broesterhuizen would also like to enhance his roleas Chairman to assist, in his capacity of chairman of theBFC, the Office in preparing substantive papers beforeAC meetings, of course respecting the different roles andresponsibilities of the BFC and the office.The epi has observer status on the Committee. Arepresentative of our EPO Finances Committee generallyattends BFC meetings. Kim Finnilä suggested that MrBroesterhuizen and our representative might have a oneto one meeting when convenient at a future BFC meeting.This suggestion was welcomed by Mr Broesterhuizen.

Information 4/2010 125 th Administrative Council meeting 115Interview with Mihaly Ficsor (HU)Chairmanof the Committee on Patent Law (CPL)In general introductoryremarks, Mr Ficsor notedthat the tasks of his Committeeare to advise theAC on (1) proposals concerningthe legal frameworkof the EPC, (2)issues relating to internationalpatent law harmonisationin a globalcontext, and (3) harmonisationof national law inthe Member States. Thus,with particular referenceto point (1) above, the CPL have played an important rolein preparing EPC 2000, and, as a follow-up to that,up-dating the Implementing Regulations.Mr Ficsor is happy that the Committee seems to workvery well. It carries out background work which can thenbe presented to the AC, which generally can then agreeon acceptance of that work without further detaileddiscussion. If, however, there is still some debate on aparticular point the CPL puts forward possible alternativesolutions. We put the question of client/attorney privilegeto Mr Ficsor. He replied that while this is not directlyin the mandate of the CPL, nevertheless the Committeewould not necessarily be averse to discussing it, as it is alegal question related to patents.epi had imposed a guideline set of questions inadvance of the interview. Each one was discussed duringthe interview and Mr Ficsor kindly set out his answers inwriting, which are set out below, our questions being initalics:Replies to the epi’s questionsby Mihály Ficsorin his capacity as Chair of the Committee on Patent Law1. How do you see your committee interacting with thework of the Administrative Council (AC) as a whole,and the NPOs? What is your/your committee’s role inthe AC Board (B28)?The tasks of the Committee on Patent Law are clearlydefined by the AC Decision setting up the Committee.The Committee has to advise the Administrative Councilon proposals for amending the legal framework of theEuropean patent system. The Committee did play acrucial role in preparing the 2000 Diplomatic Conferencefor the revision of the EPC as well as in managing thelegislative follow-up to the revision, including, but notlimited to, the refinement of the Implementing Regulationsprior to the entry force of the EPC 2000. Changesto the Implementing Regulations are regularly discussedin the Committee, and I am of the view that, in thatrespect, it performs its duties in a rather satisfactorymanner. On the basis of the preparatory work performedby the Committee, the Council can usually proceed to asmooth adoption of the proposed rule changes. In thoseexceptional cases where substantive differences of viewremain within the Committee, and, as a result, theCouncil has to take a decision dictated by policy considerationsof its members, the Committee also preparesthe ground for such decisions in an appropriate manner,namely by setting out the political alternatives againsttheir legal background.International patent law, in particular global harmonisation,also lies within the remit of the Committee onPatent Law. However, maybe due to some institutionalconstraints of the Organisation, the Committee has sofar only been used as a forum for internal discussion.Externally, these discussions have not resulted in a commonposition of EPC Contracting States that could havebeen represented as such to the negotiating partners onissues such as harmonisation of substantive patent law.This weakens Europe. Everybody knows this. However,little progress has been made in achieving that Europeshould at last speak with one voice on internationalpatent law issues. In my opinion, the Committee’s currentmandate is broad enough to cover the developmentof co-ordinated, joint positions of Contracting States onsubstantive patent law harmonisation or other globalissues related to patents.I also have to mention that, in principle, the Committeeis also mandated to advise the AdministrativeCouncil „on matters concerning the harmonisation ofnational law in the Contracting States relating to theimplementation of the EPC“. Nevertheless, the Committeeis not very active in that regard, and seems to take amost careful approach to legal issues falling within thesovereignty of Contracting States. What the Committeecan do is to draw attention to some legal problems thatcan, and should, be resolved at the level of nationallegislation. For instance, this is what the Committee hasdone with respect to the payment of national renewalfees in the context of a successful petition for reviewunder Article 112a EPC.Under Article 28 EPC, the Board of the AdministrativeCouncil has been set up with the task of assisting theCouncil’s Chairman in preparing and ensuring the continuityof the AC’s work. Thus, the Board has to contributeto preparing the Council’s work programme,co-ordinating the work of the Council and its bodies,and facilitating cohesion and consensus within theOrganisation. This requires that the chairpersons of theCouncil’s committees be regularly involved in the Board’s

116 125 th Administrative Council meeting Information 4/2010discussions. This is what defines my role in the Board,too. I have to take part in setting agendas and ensuringsmooth collaboration between the Committee and theCouncil. I am convinced that the Board is a good forumfor achieving these goals and that its establishment wasan excellent idea.2. Users are concerned about the time scale/limits forfiling divisional applications. How does the committeereact to these criticisms from users?Allow me to start by making two general, almost „philosophical“,remarks.The first concerns the speed or frequency with whichrules can be changed. If a norm is not stable enough, it isno longer a norm. What makes a rule a rule is its stability.If it is applied only once or for an exceptionally shortperiod of time, it loses its general nature. If you keepchanging a norm, you will end up having no normwhatsoever. Therefore, stability seems an inherentquality of all, legal and non-legal, norms governinghuman life and society. This is all the more so in the fieldof patents where long-term business decisions areusually required. Stability of the legal framework is anessential part of the legal certainty much needed forinnovation and developing patenting strategies withlong-term effects.My second general remark would be that one shouldnot stick to an overly narrow interpretation of the concept„user of the patent system“. It is not only theapplicants’ or the professional representatives’ intereststhat the decision-makers of this Organisation mustproperly take into account and weigh. By definition,the interests of those who have to respect the exclusiverights conferred by patents are not articulated in thesame organised manner as those of the biggest applicants.It is the duty of the national governments representedin the EPO’s bodies to ensure that all interests thatare at stake be taken into account before importantdecisions are made. I am a great supporter of open andthorough consultations with the so-called „stakeholders“.Consultations do indeed contribute to improvingthe quality of legislative drafts. From the more anglesa legislative proposal is looked at and examined, thebetter its quality can be. In addition, consultations arealso useful for properly assessing the interests of thosepotentially affected by any new provisions. However,views expressed in consultations cannot be regarded asmandatory instructions addressed to decision-makers.The latter have to listen to all sorts of users but they willnot always necessarily act as they are told by thoseconsulted. They are under an obligation to consider allthe interests at stake.I do understand that the new regime for filing voluntarydivisional applications is a source of concern to anumber of users. Since discussions started on this issue ithas been a controversial one, I might even risk sayingthat an exceptionally hotly debated one. When, in March2009, the Council finally took a decision on the relevantamendments to the Implementing Regulations, it wasfully conscious of these controversies and the complexityof the matter. The Council had to strike a balancebetween a number of different, and sometimes evenconflicting, interests. Inaction did not seem to be anoption. The main concern was to prevent a distortion ofthe system and to stop dysfunctional practices, whichwere criticised by, among others, the European Commissionin its report on the pharmaceutical sector inquiry.As you may recall, the main objectives of revising thelegal framework for divisionals were basically the following:ensuring and strengthening legal certainty,especially for third parties; increasing procedural efficiencyand avoiding unnecessary delays in the grantingprocedure; and assisting the Office in coping with its everincreasing workload. It was, however, acknowledgedthat there was also a need to provide fair treatment for„legitimate“ voluntary divisional applications and toensure that their room of manoeuvre should not beunduly limited.Obviously, due to the changes to the legal frameworkfor divisionals, certain stakeholders of the patent systemhave had to adapt their previous behaviour to the newregime. But that is normal. In fact, changing behavioursis just exactly what changing the law is all about. What isthe point in changing the law if it results in no changewhatsoever to the actual practice?As all new pieces of legislation, the new rules ondivisionals will have to be revisited. A review of thecurrent legal framework will certainly be called for in themedium term. But for such a review to make real sense,we would need a sufficient amount of experience. Someusers are naturally concerned about the new regime butthis should not lead the EPO bodies to arrive at prematureconclusions or take action hastily. The legalframework for divisionals might need further improving.For instance, we have to make sure that, due to theinterplay between the new rules and some others,applicants should not loose their right to claim subjectmatterthey have previously disclosed in an earlierapplication. But first, we have to clearly identify theproblems occurring in the application of the new regime.This takes time. So does finding solutions.As announced at the last meeting of the Committeeon Patent Law, in early December 2010, the Office willhold a brainstorming meeting with users’ representativeswith a view to drawing up a list of areas where furtherrule changes might appear necessary. I do believe that aneven more structured, intensified dialogue with usersmay further improve the legal environment of patentingin Europe.3. The EPO published a notice on the 39th meeting ofthe CPL regarding proposed amendments of Rules36, 161, 162, 71 and 71a and the unanimouslyfavorable opinion of the CPL of the proposedamendments – is this a sign of more transparencyin the working of the AC and its bodies?Yes. This is a sign of even more transparency. Not that theCommittee would have had thus far any serious transparencydeficit. I have been chairing its meetings formore than five years and I am unable to recall anymeeting where we would have had any confidentialitems. Not a single one. No information is withheld from

Information 4/2010 125 th Administrative Council meeting 117users or the general public. But, of course, furtherimprovements can be achieved in that regard, too, andthe notice you have referred to is certainly one of them.4. Is your committee concerned about the differencesin approach of the USPTO and the EPO in respect ofbusiness method patents, which differences couldbe said to lead to impediments of the developmentof European industry?The Committee on Patent Law has not specificallyaddressed this issue. Not even in the framework ofdiscussions on substantive patent law harmonisation,as the issue of the technical character of patentableinventions does not form part of the so-called reducedpackage currently discussed within Group B+. Therefore,I am not in a position to say anything specific on this, noteven on the assumption implied in your question.In addition, it is difficult to envisage, in the short term,an objective debate in Europe on an issue like this afterthe negotiations on, and the eventual failure of, theproposed Directive on computer-implemented inventions.If adopted, that Directive would have confirmedthe established law under Article 52 EPC, namely thatbusiness methods as such are not to be regarded asinventions that can be patented.In general, I can however subscribe to the view thatpatent law issues should not be examined in isolationfrom economic, social or ethical considerations. Prior tointroducing legislative changes, it would always have tobe checked whether they in fact contribute to increasingEurope’s competitiveness on the global market. In thatrespect, nothing should be taken for granted. On theother hand, none of the current bodies of the EPO’sAdministrative Council take primary responsibility forlooking into the economic impact of patent law andpractice. The Committee on Patent Law has no explicitcompetence for that and its current composition wouldnot be optimal for that purpose, either. Even the Budgetand Finance Committee is only concerned about thefinances and the budget of the Organisation itself. Soperhaps there is some room for institutional improvementin that regard.5. Will the new guidelines for examiners be madeavailable for users?The Committee on Patent Law does not normally discussthe Guidelines for Examination or changes to them.Nevertheless, as far as I know, the Guidelines are in factpublicly available, for instance on the Office’s website. Ifyour question is aimed at the so-called internal instructionsand the availability thereof, I can only rely on theinformation I have received from the Office. They havelaunched a project for incorporating the internal instructionsinto the Guidelines. This is how they will eventuallybecome publicly accessible. There will no longer be twoseparate sets of instructions to examiners – a publiclyavailable one and another for internal use only –, butthese will be integrated into a single, publicly accessibledocument called Guidelines.6. The epi submits numerous position papers on patentlaw developments. Do you see these as a help orhindrance?As a help, of course. I personally benefit a great deal fromthe epi’s position papers in preparing for the meetings ofthe Committee. Hungary’s national delegation regularlyconsults the Hungarian members of epi before CPLmeetings. This kind of professional dialogue is invaluable.Interview with Josef Kratochvíl (CZ)Chairman of the Technical and Operational Support Committee (TOSC)of the Administrative CouncilIn general openingremarks Mr Kratochvilsaid that he welcomedthe ITaudit commissionedby the President.All Member States participatein the TOSC deliberations.The Committee’sbasic task is to advise theAdministrative Council onmatters listed in the TOSCmandate. Among others,quality of examiners workhave to play a key roleonce discussing possibilities of reusing the work alreadydone by other patent granting authorities.Replies to the epi’s questionsby Josef Kratochvílin his capacity as Chair of the Technical and OperationalSupport Committee1. How do you see your committee interacting with thework of the Administrative Council (AC) as a whole,and the NPOs?The Technical and Operational Support Committee(TOSC) was established after a thorough debate in theCouncil that had been running since 2008. The need ofwider mandate for the former WPTI has emerged from

118 125 th Administrative Council meeting Information 4/2010the growing importance of technical and operationalaspects of patent proceedings, patent information infrastructuresand related international cooperationbetween patent offices within and outside the Organisation.This cooperation aggregates opportunities forthe Office as to how to manage limited sources of theOrganisation more efficiently. There are many parallelinitiatives in this field throughout patent offices andrespective international and regional organisations andour task is to provide a necessary technical advice to theCouncil that would help further development of ourEuropean Patent Organisation. I hope that we are fulfillingour mandate by the desired way and that we willaccept new challenges of closer coordination with allmember states in the coming period.What is your/your committee’s role in the AC Board(B28)?Let me start by summing up to the most important role ofthe B28 as such. It is designed to help the Chairperson ofthe Council manage its deliberations in the most effectiveway. Now we are almost 40 countries, this becomesquite challenging. The Council decided to invite both thechairperson of the CPL and the one of the TOSC to getboth the legal and technical expertise on board. Helpingthe other Board members to find out possible technicaland operational priorities and problems ahead seems tome of high importance.2. How far do different examination „clusters“ cooperate,so that a uniform approach to say obviousness isspread over the whole office?I suppose that the compliance of the Office’s examinationprocedures with the condition of inventive step/non-obviousness is in competence of the President of theOffice and his Vice-president for DG1 „Operations“.From the Committee’s point of view, it could affect thisissue indirectly only – for example, by recommendationshow to improve an application of quality standards forexamination products. Might not be a bad idea to askdetails from the PD Quality Management.3. Does internal job mobility come within the remit ofyour committee?NO because it is the competence of the European PatentOffice management.4. The mandate of TOSC extends into trilateral cooperation;assumingly also the IP5 cooperation?We should be aware that a decisive political direction ofcooperation, between the Organisation and other patentsystems lays in hands of the Council. In this respect,the Council authorizes the President of the Office whorepresents the organisation in these affairs. The Committee„shall provide the Council with opinions on operationalaspects of trilateral technical co-operationbetween the EPO, the USPTO and the JPO, as well asother forms of technical co-operation in international„fora“ that naturally includes subsequent cooperationwithin the IP5.In my view there is a lot of substance in what is goingon in the IP 5framework and would be helpful for Europeto learn from and select what could be in a way copied orwe can learn from. The role of the TOSC is then directlythere.5. Is the TOSC a fundamental player in the EPN?We are convinced that further development of the EPN isneeded. Our committee has an important role in theexploration of elements of the EPN. Let me rememberthat an explicit field of our competence includes „operationalissues concerning quality, especially monitoring ofthe European Quality System as well as technical arrangementsfor reuse of available patent procedure results (e.g.searches, examination communications). In performing itsduties as outlined above, the TOSC shall inform andsupport the Council on technical issues pertaining tothe concept of the European Patent Network, withinthe policy framework defined by the Council.“ This meansthat we have to focus our attention on technical side ofthe EPN concept. The key role in this respect is of coursethe political decision which stays with the Council. Withoutpolitical support and enthusiasm for the EPN idea, wecan hardly move on. I see the EPN as a network ofstakeholders, patent offices in particular, having a commonultimate target to serve clients best. Ways to achieveare numerous, once the political will is with us, which I amconvinced it is the case, technical „DETAILS“ are remainingonly, and here I see the role of the TOSC.6. How do you see the role of epi in furthering the workof your committee?The TOSC welcomes every possibility to learn fromexperienced users in particular. Inputs of whatevernature, including pointed criticism would help us to stayin the real world. If we want to make a good work, weneed qualified contributions from a wide spectrum ofEuropean patent system users. We look forward tocooperate with the epi as closely as possible.We on behalf of the epi are extremely grateful to our interviewees for giving up their valuable time, not just for theinterviews themselves, each of which took over an hour, but also for their advance preparation, which from the qualityof their answers was clearly considerable. For our part, we took a lot from the interviews, which we hope to haveconveyed in some small way to our members. It is clear to us that there is great transparency in the work and conduct ofthe AC and its committees, which is clearly healthy for the good of the European Patent Organisation.Kim Finnilä,Terry Johnson(Reporter)

Information 4/2010 Council Meeting 119Pre-Meeting Session69th Council Meeting, Berlin, 19 November 2010Terry JohnsonEditorial CommitteeThe meeting took place in the afternoon of Friday 19November, 2010 and comprised two sessions, namely:1. The nature, structure and aims of committees of epi;and2. Educational activities of the epiThe first session was opened by Paul Rosenich, Chairmanof the epi Disciplinary Committee, who gave a comprehensiveoverview of the committee which has a legalbasis for its existence in Art. 134 a of the ImplementingRegulations. The committee members must beappointed after each Council election, the complementbeing one member from each member state, with thecaveat that the Committee must not include a memberof the epi Board. Any amendment to the Regulations canonly be made by a decision of the epi Council with a 2/3majority, that decision then having to be ratified by theAC of the EPO.Breaches of the epi Code of Conduct are to bebrought to the attention of the Committee, which issplit up into Chambers to which cases are allocated forconsideration. The Committee can impose various sanctions,e.g. it can issue a reprimand, can impose a fine ofnot greater than 10,000 EUR, can issue a warning, andcan refer a case to the Disciplinary Board of Appeal of theEPO. Each Chamber usually comprises 4 members (3 plus1 substitute).The Committee has the power to conduct oral proceedings,which the EPO and epi Presidents can attend,or give written advice in advance of the proceedings. TheChairman Paul Rosenich reported that there were notenough French speakers to form the number ofChambers required to hear „French“ cases. He mentioned,too, that there is about one new case per month,and moreover that an increasing number of cases couldbe considered „difficult“, which puts a strain on theCommittee. Most complaints came from clients, notfellow epi members. It would be helpful to ensureefficient working if Mr Rosenich was advised of memberswho would be willing to work on his Committee.There was a discussion during which the possibility ofwhether „cross-border“ action could be taken wasraised, i. e. could national groups consider cases, particularlywhere a party, or two or more in an adversarialcase, are in one State. This is not possible as the Committeedeals with EPO attorneys, not national attorneys,and moreover there is no legal basis for referral. On theother hand, there seems to be no reason why partiescould not be asked if they would consider having thematter decided nationally without formal referral to theCommittee. Despite the (increasing) work-load on theChambers, some cases never get to a Chamber as thematter is resolved in correspondence between the Committeeand the party/ies.The By-Laws do not restrict member states to have onerepresentative, they can recommend nil, one, or moremembers.For the future Mr Rosenich suggested that after eachcommittee election, a pool of members willing to be amember of the Committee could be drawn up. Thiswould be a help in forming a Chamber as the need arose.A most interesting and informative presentation forwhich Mr Rosenich was warmly thanked by the meeting.The next topic was a report of the Task Group onpossible reorganisation of the epi as set out by thePresident, Kim Finnilä, in his proposals presented tothe 68 th Council meeting in Strasbourg. Dieter Speiserwas the main presenter as leader of the Group, Mr LeVaguerèse and Mr Lyndon-Stanford adding additionalcomments.Mr Speiser made the point in his opening remarks thatthe Council of the Institute governs the working of theepi, so Council is the body which determines anychanges in structure of the epi.In this regard the Secretariat was, as suggested by thePresident, understaffed and would be strengthened byan additional member, and also additionally by the hiringof a professional who could support the work of thecommittees.Committees are part of epi and essentially are its„engines“, so their size, composition and duties are ofimportance, the Group being charged with looking atthese components. The Group had looked at the committeesand concluded that those with fewer members,e.g. up to about 10 , were more effective than those witha larger membership, some of the reasons for this beingthat not enough members of larger committees werefully active in the work of the committee. Also, some ofthe larger committees required under their terms ofreference one member per member state, which couldlead to unwieldiness. As a result of these studies theGroup came up with a set of proposals which can besummarised as (i) members must agree to be activebefore elected; (ii) size of committees to be reducedand those proposed as members must produce to Councila CV and a note setting out their motivation to be onthe committee to which they are to be elected; (iii)substitute members must agree to proposal; (iv) eachconstituency of the epi can nominate an associatemember; (v) committees can elect further associates; (vi)the chair of a committee can elect up to three associatesas full members; and (vii) committee chairs can inviteII – Information concerning epi

120 Council Meeting Information 4/2010substitute and associate members to committee meetings,expenses for their attendance to be reimbursed.The aim was to provide flexibility for the Chairs in anendeavour to promote efficiency. There was a lengthydiscussion on this complex matter, some participants inthe meeting not being convinced that CVs and „motivation“letters would cure the problem of „silent“ ornon-working Committee members. The President was ofthe view that the Chairs had to have more flexibility ofoperation, must themselves be suitable as leaders, andthat a pool of possible members should always be availablefrom which Committee members could be drawn.National groups should also be made aware of „sleeping“members as in general it is they who nominateCommittee members and could therefore take action toreplace an ineffective member.The President reported that he had had a meeting withCommittee Chairs to discuss the issues and a furthersuch meeting should ideally be held after the nextCouncil election. The meeting was of the view that aprofessional support person should be engaged to assistthe Committees in their work by, for example, reportinglaw and rule changes to them. This had been proposedpreviously by the President. The meeting did not form apositive view on the seven proposals put forward by theGroup.The second session was opened with a presentation byWalter Holzer, a former epi President who has recentlybeen appointed „Responsible“ for international relationsand development of the CEIPI and who has been amember of the AC of CEIPI for the last eleven years.He informed the meeting that CEIPI is part of theUniversity of Strasbourg, and provides basic coursesfor sitting the EQE, and Master courses on matters suchas litigation. In 2007 a Memorandum of Understanding(MoU) was concluded with epi, CEIPI also participating inthe work of the Academy set up by the EPO. In additionto training courses, CEIPI also has courses on re-sitting,and „cramming“ for the EQE, all assisted by a network oftutors. There are three „head“ tutors and ten othertutors from DGI of the EPO, which pays for them. Heobserved that there was a need for more tutors fromnational groups, and a problem on training for candidateswho would not physically go to Strasbourg. Therewas also the problem of a relative low pass rate, and adisparity of pass rate between Member States, e.g. apass rate of 52% in the UK, 40% in Germany and 36%in France in 2009.Jean-Michel Zilliox, Director Operations and CustomerCare at the European Patent Academy, then gave a veryinteresting and well-received presentation on the Academy,which was set up by the AC of the EPO in 2004 andoperates under the EPO President and the AcademySupervisory Board of the AC. He observed that theAcademy would not have been set up without the activesupport and participation of the epi. The target audiencesidentified by the Academy were: Institutionalstrengthening (national patent offices), Professional representatives,Innovation support, Judicial training andAcademia. The Academy co-operates with 40 nonmemberstates of the EPC, and with European Judges(to promote harmonisation of jurisprudence). The Academyalso seeks to teach its students the commercialimplications of patent ownership as a business asset. TheAcademy has close co-operation with CEIPI, and inaddition to preparation for the EQE, aims inter alia toprovide training for „grandfathers“ in new memberstates, training for patent attorney support staff, and aTutors’ Network, a new generation of tutors beingsought. E-training had been introduced which whilstnot replacing the classroom, does provide a 24hr trainingopportunity via an EQE Forum, which has 1800 candidatesand often up to 300 are online simultaneously.Mr Zilliox sees enhanced co-operation and partnershipwith the epi in the future. He concluded by reporting thatThe German Institute for Invention (DIE) has nominatedthe European Patent Organisation’s European PatentAcademy for the prestigious „Diesel Medal“, also knownas the German „Inventors’ Oscar“.Mr Fritz Schweinzer (Chair of the PQC) then followedwith an interesting presentation on the work of hisCommittee, which is concerned inter alia about thelow EQE pass rate, the difficulty of teaching candidatesin all the member states, and the training of „grandfathers“in new member states. The PQC had increasedthe number of „mock“ EQEs, the training of supervisorsand the mentoring of candidates. Early registration forthe EQE and the sending of information to all candidateshad also been implemented. The committee was alsoworking at CPE, and how best it might be implemented.After this presentation, there was a long discussion,during which it emerged that, as one long-term EQEexaminer put it, the examination has become less andless relevant for what attorneys need for everyday practice.This is partly due to the length and complexity ofsome questions/papers, the seeming lack of appreciationby EPO EQE examiners as to the work of an attorney,which is not limited to the EPC, these and other reasonsleading to an overall lack of fairness in testing a candidate’sability to be granted a „right to practice“. MrZilliox said the Academy would look at the pass rate andtry to find reasons to improve it, and would also look atmeans to enhance tutor education, which might improvematters in the long run.No conclusion as such was reached, but the overviewof education and this opportunity to voice concernsabout the exam were by general consensus muchappreciated by the participants.

Information 4/2010 Council Meeting 121Report of the 69th Council Meeting20 November 2010, BerlinTerry Johnson, Editorial Committee1. The President opened the meeting, thanked theGerman group for their organisation, and welcomedthe delegates.2. The meeting stood in silence for a minute to honourthe passing of Mr Koitel from Estonia.3. The Agenda was adopted with the addition of twofurther topics relating respectively to (1) a motion ofMr Leyder that articles in epi Information of morethan half a page in length in one official languageshould be accompanied by a precis in the other twoofficial languages, and (2) that a decision on attendanceat an upcoming SACEPO Working Party onRules should be taken.4. The minutes of the last Council Meeting (in Strasbourg)were approved as were decisions from thatmeeting following a discussion to include as a decisionMr. Mercer’s motion in paragraph 13 of theStrasbourg minutes for the Task Group on reorganisationof the epi to provide proposals by spring 2011to include reduction of Council membership to lessthan 100 with a minimum of one member percountry and to provide rules for split constituencies.5. The Treasurer reported, including reference to thebudget for 2011. The former book-keeper hasadmitted his offence, court and proceedings are intrain. As a result of the activities of the formerbook-keeper, it was decided in conjunction withthe epi Finances Committee to appoint a new firmof external auditors. After considering the credentialsof possible firms, one, Consilia, was deemed tobe the most suitable and the Board confirmed theirappointment towards the end of September 2010.Consilia will have an expanded role from that of theformer firm, including restructuring of the bookkeepingdepartment so as to be able to conductbookkeeping according to the German HGB (Handelsgesetzbuch)standard, which would be of benefitto the epi and its members. To assist in this, newsoftware has been brought in. Restructuring is nearlycomplete. The exercise will cost an additional EUR35,000. Part of the restructuring and the initialproblem has resulted in the epi no longer acceptingcheques for example for annual subscriptions. If acheque is sent in, it is returned to sender as a matterof course. In the future, each member will be sent anumbered invoice for his/her membership fee. Consiliahope to provide a final report by the end of thisyear for 2009.Despite the foregoing, the Treasurer reportedthat the budget for 2011 did not require any drasticincrease and indeed that as the membership was justover 10,000, he saw no need to increase the membershipfee for 2011, which would thus stay at EUR160. The epi Finances Committee confirmed that itapproved maintenance of this fee at EUR 160for2011.Council voted on maintenance of the membershipfee of 160 EUR and acceptance of the budget asproposed, as follows: For: 110; Against: 0; Abstentions:2The motion was thus carried and will be effectivefor 2011.6. The President reported on his and the Presidium’sactivities since the last Council meeting. He has beenvery busy, as usual. Some points may be of particularinterest to members:(i)The report included his PowerPoint slides presentedby him to the AIPLA/FICPI colloquium inEdinburgh, 17-18 June 2010 on the PatentOffices’ Backlog Crisis. (See issue 3/2010for areport on that meeting).(ii) He mentioned a disciplinary case, on which hehad filed a Notice of Appeal. There is no outcomeon this case yet. The Board has asked theDisciplinary Committee to consider publicationof cases after final decision.(iii) The Presidium met with the Chairs of Committeesto see how the work of the Committeescould be enhanced. This had been welcomed bythe Chairs, particularly the proposal to employ aprofessionally qualified person to assist them intheir work.(iv) He had had a fruitful meeting with the Presidentof the „Patentanwaltskammer“ to exchangeviews on topics of mutual interest.(v) The 125 th meeting of the AC of the EPO hadbeen attended (see further report in this issue).The topic of machine translation was discussedin the AC and the epi Board had discussed itpreviously too, without coming to a firm view onto whether epi should support this or not. In themeantime, the AC approved at the 125 th meeting!a project (in co-operation with the EC) toinvestigate machine translation (see report ofthat meeting).(vi) A meeting had been held with the new Presidentof the EPO (see report in 3/2010). PresidentBattistelli is supportive of continuing with regularmeetings. Mr Battistelli had accepted aninvitation for him and his management teamto attend the next epi Board meeting (Budapest,March 2011).(vii) The President reported that on the occasion ofthe 125 th AC meeting, the opportunity had been

122 Council Meeting Information 4/2010taken, with their prior agreement, to interviewthe respective chairs of the AC, CPL, TOSC andBFC. These initiatives on the part of the epi werepositively and favourably received by the interviewees.(See report in this issue).(viii)He had attended a meeting of the Task Group onpossible reform of the organisation of the epi(see report in this issue of the pre-meetingbefore the Council Meeting, and below in thisreport).(ix) A letter to National Associations regarding acomparison between procedures in the EPOBoards of Appeal and National Courts had beensent.(x) He had attended the fifth Meeting of the AcademyAdvisory Board (AAB), which discussed howto achieve a proper advisory function for theAAB.Council noted the report.7. The Secretary General gave his report.(i) Membership was now about 10100, withMembers from the latest Member State, Serbia(RS), to be added to the total list of members.(ii) The EPO President had, as he is required to do,on a proposal from the National Office,appointed two members of the San Marinodelegation to the epi Council. However, neitherhad appeared at the meeting, and no explanationfor their absence had been given.(iii) Regarding the Secretariat, Ms ClaudiaSchweiger had now been employed as an assistantto the Board primarily to assist it and Councilat and before Council Meetings in all administrativeaspects.The post of bookkeeper/accountant is at themoment filled on a temporary basis. The post isadvertised in a local (Munich) newspaper and via aninternet portal.The following next epi meetings are scheduled for:19 March 2011, 84 th Board, Budapest (HU)23-24 May 2011, 70 th Council Meeting, Dublin (IE)5 November 2011, 71 st Council Meeting,Darmstadt (DE)8. Report of the epi Task Group on reorganizationMr Speiser (DE) reported on the work of the Group inresponse to President Finnilä’s proposals of June2010. This provoked a long and animated debate(see fuller report of the Council pre-meeting on 19 thNovember 2010 in this issue).(1) During the debate a motion that funds up toE 150,000 should be made available to theSecretary General to hire a professional qualifiedMember of staff to support the work of theCommittees, particularly the chairs was put tovote. The motion was carried. Council alsorejected a motion that is was necessary to reducethe size of Council in 2014.(2) Following on from this, and from a discussionthat the Board should be abolished in favour ofan enhanced Presidium, Council voted in favourof the size of the Board being reduced as of 2014within the limits set in the Founding Regulation.(3) Council then rejected a motion that the size ofthe Board be reduced, for the term of the nextCouncil (i.e from May 2011) to the minimumnumber prescribed in the Founding Regulation.(4) Council then voted „Yes“ to the question ofwhether Council foresaw any problem if a Boardmember is prevented from attending a Boardmeeting.(5) The Task Group had put forward propositions forreducing the number of committee Memberswithout sacrificing input from required nationalgroups and to provide the required number ofactive Committee members (see report of premeeting).After much discussion, Council rejected thepropositions en bloc.The Task Group having completed its work,Council disbanded it, the President havingthanked it for its work in reviewing his proposals.9. SuccessionThis being the last Meeting of the current Council,the President indicated that if elected by theirrespective constituents, he and Mr Quintelier wouldstand again for their present respective posts ofPresident and Treasurer. Ms Arkan had indicatedthat she would stand down as a Vice-president, sowould Mr Maué as Secretary General.At the invitation of the President Ms Leißler-Gerstl (DE) said that if elected by her constituency,she would be willing to stand for election as aVice-President in the next Council.10. Various papers for opinion and Decision wereapproved, Mr Leyder’s motion concerning provisionof a précis of papers over a certain length in epiInformation being withdrawn on the basis that theEditorial committee would consider each case as itarose. A discussion on rules for epi students wasdeferred to a future meeting, as was discussion for aproposal for a long term epi educational plan.There being no other business the Presidentthanked all those leaving this Council for their workover the preceding three years, to warm applause,and closed the meeting at 6.00 pm.

Information 4/2010 Reports 123The By-Laws Committee 1978 – 2010C. Eder (CH)former Chairman of the By-Laws CommitteeAt its first meeting on 8/9 April 1978 in the assemblyroomof the hotel Penta in Munich the Council (consistingof members from 11 member states) set up a By-Laws Committee with 22 members and instructed thisCommittee with the preparation of By-Laws. In its firstmeeting on 28 June 1978 at Paris, this Committee firstelected Mr H. Mulder (NL) as president and Mr D.Hijmans (NL) as secretary, since only these two personswere known by the Committee members for a goodknowledge of the three official languages. The Committeediscussed several principles to be included in theBy-Laws and made decisions on 25 September 1978 atLondon, on 12 and 13 December 1978 at Amsterdamand on 29 March 1979 at Brussels.A working group consisting of Messrs. J.S. Bushel(GB), C.E. Eder (CH), M. Lemoine (FR) and J.E. Schönhöfer(DE) held six meetings over several days (at Luxembourg,Basel, Regensdorf, London, Brussels andBasel). In these meetings, the working group workedout a first draft for By-Laws with the help of the By-Lawsof national bodies and considered the decisions of theBy-Laws Committee. The By-Laws Committee wasinformed of the work and asked for its approval. ThisCommittee had a meeting at Munich on the 18/19March 1980. It discussed the draft and brought it to theCouncil for approval. The Council asked in its meetingon 28 and 29 May 1980 at Milan for some modificationand thereafter put into force the final wording of theBy-Laws in its meeting on 4 November 1980 at Vienna.At the same meeting, the By-Laws Committee whichconsisted of 22 members was dissolved. Furthermore,the Council set up a new By-Laws Committee consistingof the four members of the working group and fixed itsterms of reference. The following persons have beenmembers of the Committee:1980–1982 J.S. Bushel1980–2010 C.E. Eder1980–1987 M. Lemoine1980–1987 J.E. Schönhöfer1983–1988 G. Edmunds1987–2000 K.-F. Dräger1987–1993 C. Madeuf1988– T.L. Johnson1993–1996 L. Nuss1996–2008 T. Schuffenecker2000–2005 L. Steiling2005– D. Speiser2008– P.J. Moutard2010– J. JantschyThe protocols show that the Council in its later meetingsvery often issued rules, set up Committees and fixedterms of reference as well as made other decisions,which had to be effective for an unlimited validity period.As it has become more and more difficult to find all thesedecisions and to get and to keep an overview, theBy-Laws Committee itself prepared a systematic collectionof all decisions made by the Council with the help ofpreliminary work by the president of the EPPC, Mr FelixJenny. The By-Laws Committee also prepared a draft fora decision for entering and keeping this collection inforce and asked the Council for approval. The Councilapproved the proposals on 3 October 1994 at Funchalwhereupon the Secretariat handed out to each Councilmember a complete loose-leaf-collection.Over the years, it has become more and more difficultand expensive to deliver the corresponding documentation,i. e. all the old and the new papers to all Councilmembers, especially to the new elected substitute Councilmembers and the new elected committee members.As the complete collection of decisions was held incomputer record of the Secretariat and was accessibleto the public through the internet, the Council decided inits meeting on 27 and 28 May 2008 at Vilnius that theupdated collection of decisions must be accessible to allmembers of the Institute via the internet and no paperedition shall be delivered. The collection of decisions hasbeen made fully accessible, not only to the members ofthe institute, but also to the public since 2010.Next Board and Council MeetingsBoard Meetings84 th Board meeting on 19 March 2011in Hungary/BudapestCouncil Meetings70 th Council meeting on 23-24 May 2011in Ireland/Dublin71 st Council Meeting on 5 November 2011in Germany/Darmstadt

124 EQE and training Information 4/2010epi member count reaches 10,000The 10,000 th member ofepi was recently registeredand it is with somepride that we look at thislarge group of peoplethat forms our truly Europeanprofession. The newmember does not comefrom one of the „bigthree“ member states,but from a smaller yetequally important countryfor the European patentsystem: the Netherlands.Mr Alexander van Loon, a Dutch national, has studied inZurich at the Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule(ETH) and at Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio(US) before obtaining a masters degree in BiomolecularSciences from the University of Utrecht, and hencestarted his career with much international exposure likemany in our profession. He is now working for OctrooibureauLIOC, a privately held intellectual property lawfirm in the Netherlands with a total of three patentattorneys and one trademark and design attorney. This IPboutique, similar to many others all over the continent, isa fine example of how our profession combines skills indifferent technical and legal fields to serve clients athome and abroad.We wish Mr van Loon success in his new professionand hope that he will be able to enjoy his work as muchas many of us do.Results of the 2010 European Qualifying ExaminationPlace of Total number PASSNOT PASSEDresidence of candidates Number % Number %AT 23 7 30,43% 16 69,57%BE 36 12 33,33% 24 66,67%CH 81 25 30,86% 56 69,14%DE 888 234 26,35% 654 73,65%DK 82 18 21,95% 64 78,05%ES 81 16 19,75% 65 80,25%FI 69 9 13,04% 60 86,96%FR 241 77 31,95% 164 68,05%GB 231 132 57,14% 99 42,86%HU 4 0 0,00% 4 100,00%IE 9 2 22,22% 7 77,78%IT 156 30 19,23% 126 80,77%LI 5 1 20,00% 4 80,00%LU 1 0 0,00% 1 100,00%Place of Total number PASSNOT PASSEDresidence of candidates Number % Number %NL 110 38 34,55% 72 65,45%NO 3 0 0,00% 3 100,00%PL 5 1 20,00% 4 80,00%PT 1 0 0,00% 1 100,00%RO 2 0 0,00% 2 100,00%SE 136 29 21,32% 107 78,68%SK 1 0 0,00% 1 100,00%TR 3 0 0,00% 3 100,00%CA 1 0 0,00% 1 100,00%JP 1 0 0,00% 1 100,00%US 1 0 0,00% 1 100,00%TOTALS 2171 631 29,06% 1540 70,94%* This table includes all candidates who fulfil the conditions of Article14(1) REE irrespective if they fulfil the conditions of Article 14(2) REE.

Information 4/2010 Information from the Secretariat 1252011 Mitgliedsbeitrag/2011 epi membership fee/Cotisation epi 2011Es wurde in der 69. Sitzung des epi-Rates am 10. November 2010 beschlossen, dass der epi-Mitgliedsbeitragfür das Jahr 2011 E 160 betragen wird. Alle Mitglieder werden vom Schatzmeister eine Rechnungüber den Mitgliedsbeitrag 2011 erhalten. Aus der Unterlassung der Sendung der Rechnung kann dasMitglied keine Ansprüche herleiten.Information zur Zahlungsmodalitäten entnehmen Sie bitte der epi-Webseite www.patentepi.comAt the 69th epi Council Meeting on 20 November, 2010 it was decided that the epi membership fee for2011 will be E 160. The Treasurer will send to each member an invoice relating to the payment of the 2011membership fee. Whilst the member’s attention is drawn to the sending of this invoice, he or she may notinvoke the omission of such an invoice.For information concerning payment, please see the epi website www.patentepi.comLors de la 69ème réunion du Conseil de l’epi, le 20 novembre 2010, il a été décidé que le montant de lacotisation pour l’année 2011 serait de E 160. Le Trésorier enverra une facture pour le paiement de lacotisation à tous les membres de l’epi. Le membre ne peut se prévaloir de l’omission de l’envoi de cettefacture concernant un tel paiement.Pour toute information concernant les modalités de paiement, merci de consulter le site de l’epiwww.patentepi.comClaude QuintelierSchatzmeister – Treasurer – TrésorierList of Professional Representatives as at 31.10.2010by their place of business or employment in the Contracting StatesNo. Contr. State Total Repr. % of Tot.Repr.1 AL 11 0,112 AT 121 1,203 BE 174 1,724 BG 72 0,715 CH 437 4,336 CY 12 0,127 CZ 105 1,048 DE 3393 33,639 DK 187 1,8510 EE 28 0,2811 ES 170 1,6912 FI 156 1,5513 FR 914 9,0614 GB 1939 19,2215 GR 26 0,2616 HR 27 0,2717 HU 96 0,9518 IE 60 0,5919 IS 23 0,2320 IT 436 4,32No. Contr. State Total Repr. % of Tot.Repr.21 LI 17 0,1722 LT 30 0,3023 LU 17 0,1724 LV 21 0,2125 MC 3 0,0326 MK 58 0,5727 MT 7 0,0728 NL 437 4,3329 NO 110 1,0930 PL 358 3,5531 PT 44 0,4432 RO 67 0,6633 RS 0 0,0034 SE 315 3,1235 SI 31 0,3136 SK 38 0,3837 SM 44 0,4438 TR 104 1,03Total : 10.088 100,00

126 Articles Information 4/2010Filing date requirements under the EPC – filingby reference to a previously filed applicationC. Mulder 1 ) (NL) and D. Visser 2 ) (GB)III – Contributions from epi members and other contributionsIntroductionThe Patent Law Treaty (PLT) aims at harmonizing andstreamlining formal procedures relating to national andregional patent applications and maintenance of patents.In spite of the goal of harmonization, the PLT doesnot establish a uniform procedure for all parties to thePLT by leaving many requirements optional, allowingdivergence in implementation between parties. TheEuropean Patent Convention (EPC) was aligned withthe PLT in the EPC 2000 revision. This article comparesthe requirements for obtaining a date of filing whenfiling by reference to a previously filed application set bythe PLT and its implementation in the EPC. The freedomin implementation has resulted in an increased complexityof the filing date requirements.This article is a sequel to the article „Filing daterequirements under the EPC – an option to extendsubject-matter?“ in epi Information 2/10, p. 44-48,and focuses on filing by reference.Filing by reference to a previously filed application– Article 5(7) and Rule 2(5) PLTArticle 5 of the PLT governs the requirements for theaccordance of a date of filing. 3 In particular, Article 5(1)PLT prescribes the elements of an application required foraccording a date of filing. Article 5(7)(a) PLT obliges aContracting Party to accept, at the time of filing, thereplacement of the description and any drawings in anapplication by a reference to a previously filed application,subject to certain formal requirements. 4Rule 2(5) PLT provides two different types of requirements:5 obligatory requirements (indicated by „shall“),and optional requirements (indicated by „may require“).Each PLT Contracting Party can decide which optionalrequirements it incorporates into its law as compulsoryrequirements for the accordance of a filing date.Article 5(7)(b) PLT permits a Contracting Party to regard1 Dr. Cees A.M. Mulder is a European Patent Attorney and Lecturer inIntellectual Property Law at the Department of International and EuropeanLaw at the Faculty of Law of Maastricht University and specializes inprocedural patent law of the EPC, the PCT, the PC and the PLT.2 Dr. Derk Visser is a European Patent Attorney. He is partner of EIP in Londonand Lecturer in EPC and PCT for CEIPI; he specializes in drafting legalopinions on procedural and substantive issues regarding the EPC.3 The Patent Law Treaty was adopted on 1 June 2000 at a DiplomaticConference in Geneva; the Treaty entered into force on 28 April 2005.See http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/plt/.4 „Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations under thePatent Law Treaty adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on June 1, 2000“(prepared by the International Bureau), Diplomatic Conference for theadoption of the PLT, Document PT/DC/48 Prov. (November 2000), Note 5.23.See http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4057.5 Ibid., Note R2.05.an application as not having been filed if the applicantfails to comply with the obligatory and any optionalrequirements under Rule 2(5) PLT implemented as compulsoryby a PLT Contracting Party. 6A PLT Contracting Party may decide that any remainingnon-compulsory requirement in Rule 2(5) PLT isregarded as a formal requirement. Failure to meet aformal requirement does not result in a (retroactive) lossof the filing date but in the application being refused orconsidered withdrawn. 7 The filing date accorded will notbe affected by the loss of rights.Rule 2(5)(a) PLT mentions two obligatory requirementsand one optional requirement for the accordance of afiling date when filing an application by reference to apreviously filed application:(i) The reference to the previously filed application shallindicate that the description and any drawings arereplaced by the reference to the previously filedapplication;(ii) The reference shall also indicate the number of thatapplication and the Office with which that applicationwas filed;(iii) A PLT Contracting Party may require that the referencealso indicates the filing date of the previouslyfiled application.A PLT Contracting Party may decide which of theoptional requirements mentioned in Rule 2(5)(b) PLTare made compulsory for the accordance of a filing date:(iv) Filing a copy of the previously filed application and,where the previously filed application is not in alanguage accepted by the Office, a translation ofthat previously filed application, be filed with theOffice within a time limit which shall be not less thantwo months from the date of receipt of the application;(v) Filing a certified copy of the previously filed applicationwith the Office within a time limit which shall benot less than four months from the date of thereceipt of the application.In addition, a PLT Contracting Party may make theoptional requirement in Rule 2(5)(c) PLT compulsory forthe accordance of a filing date:(vi) Requiring that the previously filed application hadbeen filed by the applicant or his predecessor orsuccessor in title. 86 Ibid.; authors’ interpretation of Note 5.24.7 Cf. Article 6(8) PLT and the „Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty andRegulations under the Patent Law Treaty adopted by the Diplomatic Conferenceon June 1, 2000“, Note 5.23.8 This requirement is, e.g., implemented in The Patents Act (GB), Article15(1)(c)(ii): „a reference … to an earlier relevant application made bythe applicant or a predecessor in title of his.“

Information 4/2010 Articles 127The requirements under Rule 2(5)(a) PLT must be compliedwith on the filing date of the application; anyrequirements under Rule 2(5)(b) PLT must be compliedwithin the stated time limit. 9Implementation of Rule 2(5) PLT in Rule 40 and 55EPCArticle 80 EPC 1973 did not permit filing by reference.The implementation of the PLT in the EPC 2000 hasmade this special type of filing possible. Thereto therequirements set out in Article 5 and Rule 2 PLT havebeen incorporated in Rule 40 EPC, implementingArticle 80 EPC (all further references to the EPC are tothe EPC 2000). Rule 40(1)(c) EPC states that „a descriptionor reference to a previously filed application“ isrequired for according a date of filing.Rule 40(2) and (3) EPC deal with further requirementswhen the applicant refers to a previously filed application.In particular, Rule 40(2) EPC states that in this casethe applicant must state the filing date and number ofthat application and the Office with which it was filedand indicate that the reference replaces the descriptionand any drawings. Rule 40(2) EPC is a combination of theabove-mentioned items (iii), (ii) and (i), respectively. Inparticular, the EPO has chosen to make the furnishing ofthe „filing date“ of the previously filed application compulsoryfor a reference filing [see item (iii) above].In addition, Rule 40(3) EPC requires an applicant to filea certified copy of the previously filed application within2 months of filing the application. This requirementcorresponds to item (v) above, although the EPO appearsnot to comply with the prescribed time limit inRule 2(5)(b)(ii) PLT which prescribes for the filing of thecertified copy „a time limit which shall not be less thanfour months from the date of receipt of the application“.However, when the applicant does not provide thecertified copy of the previously filed application withintwo months of the filing date (and the certified copy isnot already available to the EPO), he will be invited underRule 55 EPC to file it within a non-extendable period oftwo months. 10 Effectively, the EPO gives the applicantmore than four months to file the certified copy of thepreviously filed application.When an applicant files a European patent applicationby reference to a previously filed application, the EPOimmediately accords the date of receipt of the referencefiling as the date of filing (provided that all requirementsof Rule 40(1) and (2) EPC have been met).If the applicant has to rectify any deficiency for theaccordance of a date of filing, e.g. because he omitted toindicate the number of the previously filed application orthe Office where it was filed, the EPO will accord as thedate of filing the date on which the required correction is9 „Explanatory Notes on the Patent Law Treaty and Regulations under thePatent Law Treaty adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on June 1, 2000“(prepared by the International Bureau), Diplomatic Conference for theadoption of the PLT, Document PT/DC/48 Prov. (November 2000), Note 5.24.See http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=4057.10 Guidelines for Examination in the EPO (April 2010); Part A, Chapter II,§ 4.1.4; see http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/guidelines.html.received. Only in one situation, the correction of adeficiency will not result in a re-dating of the application.Where the application is filed by reference to a previouslyfiled application and the applicant files the certified copyof the previously filed application within two months ofthe filing date as required by Rule 40(3) EPC, or where hecomplies with the subsequent invitation to file the certifiedcopy within two months from a communicationaccording to Rule 55 EPC, the application maintains itsoriginal date of filing. 11 , 12 Hence, it appears contradictoryto call the requirement of filing a certified copy a„filing date requirement“, i. e. a requirement that mustbe complied with on the date of filing.Since the EPO has chosen to make the filing of acertified copy of the previously filed application compulsoryfor the accordance of a filing date, the sanction onnot providing the certified copy in due time is that theapplication will not be treated as a European patentapplication, as provided in Rule 55 EPC [cf. Article 90(2)EPC]. This implies that the filing date which was initiallyaccorded upon receiving the reference filing is taken awayretroactively. 13 Hence, the date of filing communicated tothe applicant under Rule 55 EPC may be the original dateof filing or the date of receipt of the missing item.The sanction on late provision of an item in responseto the Rule 55 EPC invitation, i.e. re-dating or no redating,is provided in the Guidelines only. 14 It is doubtfulwhether the mention of a sanction merely in the Guidelinesis sufficient as legal basis, because, as a matter ofprinciple, sanctions affecting the application or patentmust have a legal basis in the EPC. Moreover, the broadpossibilities of amendment of the Guidelines may notprovide the desired legal certainty for parties about animportant issue as the date of filing.In the last sentence of Rule 40(3) EPC reference ismade to Rule 53(2) EPC applying mutatis mutandis. Thisimplies that the EPO will include a copy of the previouslyfiled application into the file where this application isalready available to the EPO under the conditions specifiedby the President, 15 and the applicant need not file acopy. The conditions appear to be the same as foravailability of a priority document to the EPO. 16 However,the Guidelines state that the availability of US applicationsis „subject to the document exchange agreementwith the USPTO“. 17 Whereas a US provisional or nonprovisionalpatent application is regarded as availableunder Rule 53(2) EPC when claiming priority, 18 thisapplication is not regarded as available Rule 40(3) EPCwhen filing by reference. Additionally, applications filedwith receiving Offices other than the EPO are regarded asnot available. For example, when filing a divisional by11 Ibid., Part A, Chapter II, § 4.1.5.12 The statement in epi Information 2/10, p. 45 left column that the applicationwill be re-dated after filing the certified copy in response to the Rule 55 EPCinvitation is incorrect.13 Guidelines for Examination in the EPO (April 2010); Part A, Chapter II,§ 4.1.5.14 Ibid., Part A, Chapter II, § 4.1.515 Ibid., Part A, Chapter II, § 4.1.3.1. Also see Rule 4(3) PLT.16 Ibid., Part A, Chapter III, § 6.7.17 Ibid., Part A, Chapter II, § 4.1.3.1 (e) and Chapter III, § 6.7(v).18 OJ EPO 2009, page 236.

128 Articles Information 4/2010reference to a Euro-PCT application filed with the USPTOas receiving Office, the applicant must file a certified copyof the Euro-PCT application with the EPO.It should be noted that the period of more than fourmonths to file a copy of the previously filed applicationmay be too short for procuring a certified copy from somepatent offices. To avoid losing the date of filing, it isrecommended to file by reference only when the applicanthas the certified copy available on the date of filingor when the EPO will include the copy into the file. Anapplicant may even consider using filing by reference onlywhen the EPO will include a copy of the previously filedapplication into the file, because the advantage of filingby reference may not outweigh the expense andadditional risk of having to file a certified copy.Rule 40(3) EPC contains the additional requirementthat the applicant must file a translation of the previouslyfiled application where that application is not in anofficial language of the EPO. This requirement correspondsto item (iv) above.Although both the filing of the copy and the translationof the previously filed application are mentioned in onesentence of the optional requirement in Rule 2(5)(b) PLT[see item (iv) above], the EPO has decided to treat theserequirements differently. 19 Whereas the EPO has madethe filing of the copy compulsory for the accordance ofthe date of filing, the filing of the translation is consideredas an issue of formalities. In spite of the fact that the filingof the translation is mentioned in Rule 40 EPC, titled„Date of filing“, it is not regarded as a filing date requirement,because Rule 55 EPC does not refer to it. 20 Thisinterpretation can be derived from the Guidelines. 21Hence, if the applicant does not furnish a requiredtranslation of the previously filed application, the date offiling already accorded to his application is retained. Inthe case of a missing translation pursuant Rule 40(3) EPC,the EPO will not send the applicant a communicationunder Rule 55 EPC but a communication under Rule 58EPC, informing him that the required translation has notbeen filed [Rule 57(a) EPC referring to Rule 40(3) EPC,second sentence] and inviting him to file the translationwithin a non-extendable period of two months. Noncomplianceresults in the European patent applicationbeing deemed withdrawn under Article 14(2) EPC [cf.„different legal consequence“ in Article 90(5) EPC]. 22When filing by reference, care must be taken toprovide the correct application number of the previouslyfiled application. A wrong number is (probably) notcorrectable, because a change in number amounts toreplacing the filed application by another application,which was prohibited by G2/95. In contrast, an incorrectapplication number of a priority application when filing a19 Cf. „Filing date requirements under the EPC – an option to extend subjectmatter?“by Cees Mulder and Derk Visser in epi Information 2/10, p. 44-48.20 In Rule 55 EPC reference is made to the first sentence of Rule 40(3) EPCrelating to the filing of a certified copy of the previously filed application.However, Rule 55 EPC does not refer to the second sentence of Rule 40(3)EPC relating to the filing of a translation of the previously filed application.21 Guidelines for Examination in the EPO (April 2010); Part A, Chapter II,§ 4.1.4, last paragraph and Chapter III, § 14.22 Ibid., Part A, Chapter III, § 14.complete application can be corrected under Rule 53(3)EPC within at least four months from the date of filing.Similarly, a missing or wrong number of the parentapplication when filing a complete divisional applicationcan be corrected under Rule 58 EPC. 23About 0.8% of all European applications filed withthe EPO since the entry into force of the EPC 2000 hasbeen filed by reference; 80% of these were divisionalapplications. Since 5% of all filed applications are divisionalapplications, only one in eight divisional applicationsis filed by reference. The limited use of this newfiling option in the EPC 2000 is explicable.Filing by reference is advantageous when transmittingthe application by fax, since the description and figuresneed not be sent anymore. However, when using electronicfiling, the effort to include a copy of the applicationis relatively small. Hence, the advance in technologyaway from fax transmission appears to have taken awaythe main advantage of filing by reference. Moreover,filing the complete application does not have the disadvantagesof the risk of uncorrectable errors and theobligation to provide a certified copy of the previouslyfiled application. If filing by reference were optional inthe PLT, filing by reference in Rule 40(1)(c) EPC and,consequently, Rule 40(2) and (3) EPC should be deletedfrom the EPC, thereby simplifying the procedure andremoving the inherent confusion around the secondsentence of Rule 40(3) EPC.For the sake of completeness, the EPO has not implementedthe optional requirement under the aboveitem (vi) that the previously filed application need befiled by the applicant or his predecessor or successor intitle. This raises the question whether the right to thepatent may be transferred from a predecessor who filedthe previous application to the present applicant afterthe date of filing by reference. In the case of a priorityclaiming application filed by another applicant than thepriority application, the claim to priority must be transferredbefore filing the priority claiming application,according to EPO case law. 24 The same applies to filinga divisional application. 25ConclusionThe PLT is designed to streamline and harmonize formalrequirements of national and regional patent Offices forthe filing and processing of national and regional patentapplications, the maintenance of patents and certainadditional requirements related to patents or patentapplications. One of the crucial issues of a patentapplication is the accordance of a filing date. The mixof obligatory and optional requirements in the PLT andthe freedom of choice for a PLT Contracting Party toimplement (part of the) optional requirements as compulsoryinto its national law allows widely varying23 Ibid., Part A, Chapter IV, § 1.3.2.24 Ibid., Part A, Chapter III, § 6.1 and decision Legal Board of Appeal J 19/87;see http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/biblio/j870019eu1.htm.25 Decision Legal Board of Appeal J 2/01,see http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/biblio/j010002ep1.htm

Information 4/2010 Articles 129implementations in national or regional patent laws(compare e.g. the EPC and the PCT), leading away fromthe intended harmonization.Although the implementation of filing date requirementsin the EPC 2000 closely follows the PLT provisions,it has resulted in a system that is substantially morecomplicated than under the EPC 1973, defying the aimof streamlining of the PLT.Filing by reference appears already to have becomeoutdated by advances in transmission technology andshould not be regarded as a preferred option for filing apatent application with the EPO.No Teaching Without Disclosing – a response to StellbrinkH. Sendrowski 1 (DE)1. IntroductionIn a recent article, Stellbrink 2 highlights a number ofissues concerning inventions relating to industry standardssubject to a non-disclosure and licensing agreement,and invites comments. Specifically, he observesthat EPO examiners habitually refuse patent applicationsclaiming an invention in the field of DVD technology;such refusals are based on Art. 83 EPC due to an allegedinsufficient disclosure of the invention. In a nutshell,Stellbrink agrees that the DVD standard specification –albeit being an important teaching for carrying out theinvention – is not described in the respective patentapplication due to the non-disclosure agreement coveringthe standard. However, he maintains that the inventionis still sufficiently disclosed in accordance withArt. 83 EPC as every skilled person can get access tothe standard specifications, and the specifications themselvesare clear and enabling.Indeed, the situation described by Stellbrink is set toraise eyebrows, as in other fields of technology referencesto industry standards traditionally are a suitablemeans of ascertaining sufficiency of disclosure. Furthermore,it is not compelling that a standard shouldcease to be enabling just by subjecting it to a non-disclosureagreement while still every interested party canget full access to and make full use of the standardspecifications.Alas, this is not the whole story. There are gravearguments supporting the EPO examiners’ position.2. The need for sufficient disclosureAccording to a theory widely promulgated, patents aregranted in exchange for the complete disclosure of aninvention. The inventor is encouraged to invent bygranting him an exclusive right to make use of theinvention for up to 20 years. Without patent protection,1 German and European Patent Attorney, Bremen2 epi Information 2010, 91-94an inventor would be tempted to withhold key elementsof his teaching for fear of competitors who, by sheerfinancial and economic power, could otherwise forcehim out of the respective market, thereby effectivelypreventing him from earning the fruits of his labour.This encouragement and protection comes with aprice tag: The inventor is required to disclose the inventionin such precision that another skilled person couldwork according to the teaching and thus make practicaluse thereof. There would not be a reason for granting aprivilege like a patent to an inventor who chooses not todisclose the invention. Instead, the scope of protectionmust be commensurate to the scope of enabling disclosure3 .Accordingly, Articles 83 and 100 b EPC stipulate thata European patent application and a European patent,respectively, shall disclose the invention in a mannersufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried outby a person skilled in the art.3. The standards of sufficient disclosure3.1. There is no touchstone to measure sufficiency ofdisclosure against. Instead, the EPC relies on the notorious„person skilled in the art“. This has consequenceswith respect to the volume and detail of informationrequired to achieve sufficiency of disclosure.3.2. A problem not discussed by Stellbrink is the technicalfield to be considered „the art“, and correspondinglythe capabilities attributed to the skilled person.According to T 422/93, the skilled person (when decidingon inventiveness) is to be defined in view of the technicalproblem to be solved on the basis of what the closestprior art discloses 4 . However, such reasoning does notseem appropriate for selecting the skilled person whendeciding on sufficiency of disclosure. A major differencebetween the analysis of inventive step and of enabling3 T 409/91, section 3.54 T 422/93, section 3.6.1

130 Articles Information 4/2010disclosure is that in the latter case the skilled personalready knows the contents of the patent application inquestion, whereas in the first case such content isunknown to him 5 . The closest prior art and the technicalproblem to be solved therefore are of no relevance whenpondering sufficiency of disclosure. In addition, the solutionprovided by the invention may be taken from adifferent technical field compared to the field of theclosest prior art (as analysed with respect to inventiveness).For this reason, the skilled person constructed inthe process of deciding on inventiveness may have a verydifferent common technical knowledge compared to theskilled person in the field the invention is taken from 6 .Moreover, industry standards being day-to-day businessof the first skilled person may be unknown to or notsufficiently comprehended by the second skilled person.Thus, the mere label „industry standard“ does not entaila guarantee that a technical teaching is sufficiently disclosedaccording to the relevant skilled person’s judgement.The Boards of Appeal would still have to consider ifthe specifications provided by a standard are sufficient toenable the skilled person to carry out an invention. Even ifproducts according to a standard had been available onthe market for a long time before the relevant date of thepatent application, this cannot be as such indicative thatthe average skilled person would be able to transfer anyprior knowledge to the special circumstances of aninvention. It should not be forgotten that by its verydefinition an invention surpasses the average skilledperson’s abilities. Concluding, sufficiency of disclosurehas to be decided on a case by case basis even ifapplicants claim that by reference to an industry standardthe invention has been sufficiently disclosed.3.3. Another requirement imposed by Art. 83/100 bEPC is that it is forbidden to impose an „undue burden“on the skilled person when trying to carry out theinvention. The degree of detail required by a patentapplication or patent document, respectively, to avoidundue burden has to be judged in view of the inventionin question. A rough outline of an invention may besufficient in one case, e.g. when a problem can surprisinglybe solved by means already familiar to the skilledperson in some other context, whereas a plethora ofexamples and instructions may be required in othercases, e.g. where the standard merely consists of acompilation of requirements, leaving it to the skilledperson to develop by himself means for living up to theserequirements in the frame of the invention in question.Again, just referring to an „industry standard“ may ormay not provide the skilled artisan with enoughinformation to carry out the invention.5 cf. also T 694/92, section 76 The thesis that the standard for the skilled person’s knowledge is generallythe same for the requirements of inventive step and sufficiency of disclosureis thus untenable. The mistake seems to result from a translation errorconcerning decision T 60/89, section 3.2.5, which unfortunately has alsocrept into the German version of the „Caselaw book“. The Board held – inthe language of the proceedings – that the same level of skill has to beapplied when, for the same invention, the two questions of sufficientdisclosure and inventive step have to be considered. This was erroneouslytranslated into „der gleiche Wissensstand“, i. e. the same knowledge.But even disregarding difficulties in understanding thespecifications of an „industry standard“, undue burdenmay also be imposed circumstantially. This is an importantdifference when comparing state of the art-relatedobstacles to patenting like novelty and inventive stepwith the requirement of sufficient disclosure. Even gravedifficulties of finding and accessing a document are of nointerest for qualifying a document as prior art 7 . Contraryto this, such difficulties may result in the very samedocument being left out of consideration when ponderingsufficiency of disclosure. The inventor shall not berewarded for cunningly hiding key teachings of theinvention in documents unduly difficult (or costly 8 )toobtain, as such behaviour would again not be commensurateto the scope and ease of protection granted by apatent. Otherwise the inventor could profit twice: Hewould own a patent, and he could make a fortune byselling the necessary instructions to carry out the invention.If such sales were made under a non-disclosureagreement, he could even continue to sell the instructionslong after the patent itself has expired. As Stellbrinkcorrectly points out, once the level of detail of suchinstructions is sufficient, these instructions could not bedeveloped a second time by another party without anycriminal offence.It may be surprising that mere formalities like themode of access to information could influence thedecision on enabling disclosure 9 . However, it should beremembered that Art. 83/100 b EPC stipulates that theinvention should be disclosed clearly and completely inthe application or patent document, and anything reliedupon other than the literal content of the applicationdocuments or patent document needs justification to betaken into consideration. It would therefore be up to theadvocates defending the righteousness of relying onstandards subject to non-disclosure agreements andsubject to the need for obtaining a licence to showconvincingly how the intention underlying the EPC couldbe achieved, which is that all inventions shall becomefree art in their entirety („clear and complete“) once thecorresponding patents lapse. In particular, the Boards ofAppeal may consider that requiring the skilled person toobtain a license before disclosing the invention clearlyand/or completely to him generally puts him under apersistent obligation 10 to pay royalties, to grant thirdparty accounting experts access to his business records,and maybe even to abstain from invalidating patentsheld by the licensor or other licensees. Such obligationsmay be considered an undue burden for a skilled person7 T 165/96, section 1.1.1.48 This was deliberately left undecided in T 82/07, section 6.5. DecisionsT 50/02 and T 1030/00 do not seem to be applicable, as they are onlyconcerned with the question of whether or not a document belongs to thestate of the art. Stellbrink himself argues (correctly) that „state of the art“ isnot a subject of Art. 83 EPC.9 It is important to note that decision T 50/02 does not stand in the way of suchconsiderations. That decision was concerned with defining the prior art; it didnot attempt to abolish the established bar against undue burden withregards to enabling disclosure.10 This is clearly different from other industry standards, e.g. those proclaimedby ISO or DIN. Even though such standard specifications also can only beobtained from one or few sources, any person interested in such standardmerely has to buy a copy thereof.

Information 4/2010 Articles 131who merely tries to carry out an invention, particularlywhen the patent pertaining to the invention has lapsed.And promising that licenses will be dispensed on everyinterested party does not vindicate from allegations thatthe licensing conditions (or the very requirement ofhaving to ask for a licence) impose an undue burden.4. The means for sufficient disclosure4.1. It is thus necessary to pay attention to the meansallowable under the EPC for disclosing an invention.Obviously, nothing can go wrong when the invention isdisclosed sufficiently clearly and completely in the originalapplication documents and the patent document,respectively. However, this is not possible for such inventionswhich have to rely to a significant extent onteachings subject to a non-disclosure agreement.4.2. Stellbrink also considers that „a reference to adocument [is] sufficient to provide an enabling disclosure“,and indeed such references are commonly used toaugment the literal content of application documents.However, this strategy is only successful when certainadditional conditions established by the Boards ofAppeal 11 are met. Some of these conditions prima faciemay be difficult to comply with in cases as described byStellbrink:First, it is indispensable that the document referred tocan be unambiguously identified. This can be a problemparticularly where the document contents are allowed tochange over time, e.g. when some parts of an industrystandard specification are made obsolete or are otherwiseamended in a revision of the standard.Second, the document referred to must have beenavailable to the EPO on the date of filing 12 , and to thegeneral public upon publication of the application at thelatest 13 . Now it is at least doubtful that a licensor – whoconsistently requires his licensees to accept a non-disclosureagreement – would at all be inclined to grant alicense to the EPO, whose obvious intention is to makethe licensed standard known to prospective patentapplicants, e.g. in search reports 14 ; and according tothe facts of T 82/07 (section III), the Office has alreadytried in vain to obtain a copy of the DVD standardspecifications 15 . However, and insofar I agree with Stellbrink,the inability of the Office to get hold of some11 The Enlarged Board of Appeal have so far refused to give a ruling in suchmatters. For a discussion of „incorporation by reference“ during analysis ofadmissibility of amendments, see e.g. T 374/96, section 5.12 T 737/90, section 413 T 429/96, section 414 certainly the EPO cannot rely on examiner affidavits as a substitute to thepresentation of relevant prior art to the applicant15 In fact, the EPO was informed by DVD FLLC that „execution of the nondisclosureagreement is limited to private companies that can vigorouslyprotect the confidentiality of the Proprietary Information in the DVD Books“.In addition certainly the EPO could not rely on laws regarding unfaircompetition or cartels to get access to the DVD standard specifications.And given the information of DVD FLLC, it is highly questionable if indeedevery interested skilled person would readily be granted such access: TheDVD FLLC seems unwilling to grant access to self-employed engineers andscientists in public institutions (cf. summons in appeal regarding applicationEP98302034).document is not indicative for a corresponding inabilityof the skilled person. But matters being as they are, thefacts discussed above at least do not readily support theassumption that the second criterion actually is met inthe DVD standard case.Third, the document referred to must have beenavailable „easily“, i. e. without undue effort. Thisrequirement again has to be analysed on a case by casebasis, as was emphasised by section 5 of decisionT 737/90 16 . As discussed above, there are some argumentsavailable indicating that access to an industrystandard subject to licensing and non-disclosure requirementsshould not be considered „easy“. And given thevolume of the DVD standard, the Boards of Appeal mayconsider that undue effort is required to find the relevantsection of the standard applicable to the invention.Thus, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that anyreference to a document is sufficient to provide anenabling disclosure.4.3. As a last resort an inventor may appeal to the skilledperson’s general knowledge. Certainly, the skilled personneeds not be taught what he already effortlesslyknows to do. However, any appeal to the general knowledgeleads again to the problem of defining the skilledperson. According to Stellbrink, the skilled person in thefield of digital storage media may well not have comeinto contact with – let alone know effortlessly – theexact specifications of the DVD standard. In the absenceof convincing arguments that „the“ skilled person willconsider the DVD standard part of his general knowledge,such appeal must fail.5. An exception for industry standards?Stellbrink argues that it would be in the European patentsystem’s own interest to impose less stringent conditionson inventions that have to rely on an industry standardsubject to a non-disclosure and license agreement. Afterall, the inventor generally has not chosen to impose suchcurfew; instead, he is a victim of the restrictions himself.And if inventors are prevented from obtaining patentsfor their inventions in the field of such industry standards,then this would result in an unnecessary impedimentto the advancement of the arts: As inventorscannot hope to capitalise on their innovations, they willturn to some other technical field. In addition, industrystandards may not even contain any above-average„progress“ at all, so they should not be able to blockinnovations from patent protection.These arguments, interesting as they are, cannotpossibly justify an exception for „industry standard relatedinventions“ from the requirements of sufficiency of disclosureapplied to any other invention. First of all, how is anindustry standard eligible for privileged (i. e. limited) examinationto be defined, and who is to decide in case an16 affirmed e.g. by T 429/06, section 5. See T 276/99for a decision particularlyemphasising that not disclosing something critical for the invention in apatent specification may impose a burden contrary to the provisions ofArt. 83 EPC

132 Reports Information 4/2010opponent alleges that the so called standard is not astandard at all? Then, why should it be indispensable thatthe standard is subject to a combined non-disclosure andlicensing agreement? Simply put, the restrictions lamentedin the DVD cases have not resulted from the singularintervention of some supernatural power; instead, therestrictions are devised and implemented by those companieswho gathered to create what they choose to call astandard. These restrictions may not be fair to inventorswho find themselves unable to obtain patent protection.But then again, such unfairness can hardly be blamed onthe European patent system in general or on the Office inparticular. Instead, industry tries to simultaneously havethe best of two mutually exclusive worlds, i. e. the world oftrade secrets and the world of (published) patents. Runninginto difficulties when pursuing this approach shouldrather come as no surprise.The situation of non-disclosed industry standards alsohardly compares to that of deposition of biologicalsamples. For example, compliance with an industrystandard like the DVD standard can readily be verified,but such verification may be virtually impossible in thefield of biological production strains, as no identifiabletrace of a production strain may be found on the purifiedproduct sold by an alleged infringer.6. ConclusionIt is neither desirable nor possible within the currentframework of EPC regulations to define inventions asbeing sufficiently disclosed merely because they refer toand rely on an industry standard, particularly when suchstandard is subject to a non-disclosure and licensingagreement. It remains to be seen if the effort requiredby the skilled person to access all or parts of the DVDstandard is undue or not 17 . For the time being, it seemsprudent not to set high hopes on a technical field whereindustry has chosen to act against the letter and spirit ofthe European patent system.17 As pointed out by Stellbrink, the Board did not have to decide on thisquestion in decision T 82/07.Centenary Celebration of Dutch Patent LawParticipants in the 125 th AC Meeting were cordially invitedby the Director of the Dutch Patent Office to celebrate onehundred years of Dutch Patent Law. The event took placein The Hague in a fine building which houses the PublicLibrary, a fitting venue for such an event. A memorableevening was enjoyed by all the participants, who witnessedpresentations of a book celebrating the centenaryto both Mr Battistelli and Mr Kongstad. Each participantwas also given a copy at the end of the function. Theoccasion is summarised in the following press release,kindly provided by the Dutch Patent Office:A century of patents in the NetherlandsThe year 2010 marks the 100th anniversary of the DutchPatent Law. Several initiatives have been taken to celebratethis special year. On October 26th 2010 theEnglish version of the jubilee book ’A century of patentsin the Netherlands’ was presented in the Public Library inThe Hague.Chris Buijink, Secretary General of the Ministry ofEconomic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, presentedthe first two copies of the book to Mr Battistelli, Presidentof the European Patent Office (EPO), and Mr Kongstad,Chairman of the Administrative Council of the EPO.Chris Buijink, Benoît Battistelli, Jesper Kongstad & GuusBroesterhuizenphoto: Ellen GrootesIn his opening speech, Chris Buijink stated that patentsmore and more help spread knowledge, and that patentsand licenses have become drivers of open innovation. Asan example Buijink mentioned the SonoDrugs project ledby Philips. This is a European R&D project involvingfifteen companies, university medical centres and universitiesfrom all over Europe. R&D projects like Sono-Drugs would benefit tremendously from an affordable

Information 4/2010 Letters to the Editor 133single European Union patent. Buijink stressed, that theNetherlands believe the single EU patent should complementthe national patents and should be released assoon as possible. It should include a harmonised systemto settle disputes. Buijink said he was confident that theEPO is well-equipped to meet the challenges it faces inthe future.The Chairman of the Administrative Council of theEPO, J. Kongstad, as well as the President of the EPO, B.Battistelli, underlined the important role of the NetherlandsPatent Office in the patent world. This rolebecomes evident not only in the number of patentapplications (20 000 annually) and granted patents.The Netherlands have always promoted cooperationon a European level. Also, the Netherlands was one ofthe founding members of the EPO and its predecessor,the IIB. In his speech, Benoît Battistelli mentioned thatthe city of The Hague was chosen for establishing the IIBfor having an excellent library of patent documents.With Jesper Kongstad, the EPO Président also recalledthe role of Bob Van Benthem, the first president of theEPO and one of its architects.Among the invitees of the book presentation wereheads of delegations of the member states of the EPO;Ms van der Wel-Markerink, the mayor of Rijswijk wherethe EPO has several offices and Mr Berger and MrGeijzers, former heads of the NL Patent Office. Mr GuusBroesterhuizen, director of the NL Patent Office, hostedthis event.The book is one of the steps to mark the 100thanniversary of the Dutch Patent Law (Rijksoctrooiwet).In 1817, the first Patent Act came into force in theNetherlands. In 1869, the Act was abolished once againand the Netherlands acquired the image of a freespiritednation. The new act did not enter into forceuntil 1910, the Patent Act 1910.The authors, various members of the Dutch patentcommunity, give their vision on the past, present andfuture of patent law. The book reflects the value ofintellectual property and shows how a patent law from1910 can still be of high value in the 21th century. TheDutch version was presented on October 7 th to a gatheringof professionals from the Dutch patent community.As part of the celebrations of one hundred years of theDutch Patent Law, TNT issued a special series of stampsfeaturing 10 unique Dutch inventions. Furthermore thePatent Parade, an interactive exhibition of Dutch inventions,is on a one year-journey travelling through theNetherlands. The exhibition visits the libraries of ten largecities in the Netherlands, thereby reaching around 1.2million people.NL Patent Office is part of NL Agency which is adepartment of the newly formed Ministry of EconomicAffairs, Agriculture and Innovation. NL Patent Officegrants patents in the Netherlands, informs about thepatent system and represents Dutch interests in Europeanand international organisations.How can we take the brakes off?(Can your own priority application become your prior art?)M. Rots (NL) 1My problem started when I read the article of Portal in epiinformation 2/09 pages 56-59. I hope to receive aresponse from Members clarifying that my concern isunfounded or suggesting a solution.Portal describes decision T1443/05 according to whichone’s own priority application may become lethal for thecomplete application if the priority application is allowedto be published and priority is denied. The case underlyingT1443/05 is a complex one and involves a disclaimer,but if I understand the logic correctly, it appliesmore widely. Apart from T1443/05, there have beensome comparable decisions but as far as I am aware only1 European Patent Attorney at Unilever (NL); email: marianne.rots@unilever.comin opposition, e.g. on EP 1009795 and EP 1370633, notin appeal.In these decisions the patent is fatally hit by its ownpriority application, the date of which is claimed but notacknowledged, which earlier application is then held tobe novelty destroying because it was allowed to publish.(It does not matter whether the publication is of thepriority application itself or via a complete applicationthat is entitled to the priority date.) This is hard to digest.If priority is denied, how can the same priority applicationbe novelty destroying?An example may illustrate how this works. A processinvention is made, e.g. reducing the environmentalimpact, and an application is filed for it. It contains 5

134 Letters to the Editor Information 4/2010examples. In the priority year it is recognised that within asubset of the process conditions, an improved product isobtained. For 3 of the 5 examples the resulting product issuch an improved product. Time is of the essence and thepriority application is progressed to grant. During thepriority year a separate application is filed for theimproved product claiming the priority of the earlierprocess application. With the direction the EPO decisionsare taking recently, it seems that this will end in tears. Thepriority is denied because the product parameters definingthe improved product were not disclosed in the firstapplication. Because the priority application is prosecutedto grant, it is published and held to become partof the state of the art. The 3 examples inherently disclosea product falling within the scope of the claims of thelater application and therefore destroy the novelty.The critical issue here in my perception is not whetherfor a claim in the later application the right to priority canbe acknowledged. The key question to address iswhether the content of the earlier application canbecome part of the prior art of the later applicationeven though the later application claims the priority ofthe earlier one. This seems to be at odds with the intentof the Paris Convention, which aimed to offer theapplicant a year’s time to investigate his invention.In discussion on this topic, it is often said that oneshould simply not allow the priority application to bepublished. One application is enough. One should not beso greedy and then there would not be a problem. In myview that is not a satisfactory answer, especially wherethere are legitimate interests to get enforceable rightsquickly. Another comment is that one can solve theproblem with disclaimers. This is also unsatisfactory. Inthe above example, one would need three disclaimers.Disclaimers are fraught with difficulties and make theclaims difficult to interpret. Moreover, there are circumstanceswhere neither of these approaches would offer asolution.The speed of innovation has been going up in manyindustries. Increasingly R&D work is done in parallelrather than sequentially because the race to the marketis fierce and speed is more important than efficiency. Ininternational companies, especially in the chemical field,a new technology will be spread quickly over severallaboratories focussing on different but related applications.R&D teams in different parts of the world, eachwith their own patent attorney, progress the technologyin parallel. More or less simultaneously, patent applicationsare filed for different applications and benefits ofthe new technology.In the past, this way of working was also used,although less often. Inevitably in such programs, statementsare made or examples are described in one patentapplication, which end up falling within the claims of oneor more of the sister applications. The solution was forthe later applications to claim the priority of the earlierapplications that would otherwise be novelty damaging.One lost part of the priority year but that was the price topay. It did not matter whether the parallel applicationswould be published or whether the priority claim wouldbe acknowledged for any claims because the content ofthe applications of which the priority was claimed wouldnot be held to be part of the state of the art.It appears to me that this approach where the contentof the earlier application whose date is claimed is notallowed to become part of the state of the art, also not ifentitlement to priority for the claims is denied, would stillbe an effective solution today that also appears to becompatible with the EPC and most of the body ofdecisions of the Boards of Appeal. G2/98 does notaddress this issue and leaves ample space for such anoutcome. A logic that could underpin such a constructionis mentioned by Portal in his paper with reference toparagraph 3.5 of T665/00 (although the issues andcircumstances in that case are different). However, therecent series of decisions suggests that the EPO is goingin a different direction and perhaps is not aware of theproblems this development is causing.In this situation with parallel R&D work and adjacentpatent applications, the use of disclaimers is not effectiveto address the problem. Each disclaimer will leave a holein the protection. Furthermore, this direction over timewould adversely affect the clarity and conciseness of thepatents and applications, in particular of the claims. Thatwould be undesirable too.In the company I work for we have already hadoccasions where we had to postpone the filing of patentapplications for fear of causing damage to work inadjacent programs. We are also considering measuresto more strictly control the content of our patent applicationsfor fear of self-collision. It is cramping our style andslowing us down. How can we remove these brakes onthe innovation process?The line of reasoning where your own priority applicationbecomes the prior art that kills your application isalso not understood by colleagues in other parts of theworld. I hope that somehow I am misinterpreting thedecisions or am overlooking an elegant way to avoidthese problems. Any suggestions or comments would bemuch appreciated.

Information 4/2010 Letters to the Editor 135Anmerkungen zu den Beiträgen von Frischknecht/Kley inepi information 1/2010 und Vögele/Nemec in epi Information 3/2010F. Wagner (DE)In Ihren Artikeln 1 befassen sich Frischknecht und Kley bzw.Vögele und Nemec mit der Auslegung des Ausdrucks„frühesten Anmeldung, zu der ein Bescheid ergangen ist“in der neuen Regel 36(1)a) EPÜ und stellen hierzu die Theseauf, dass das EPA je nach Fallgestaltung zwischen zweiunterschiedlichen Auslegungen wechseln würde.Eine konsistente Anwendung der Regel 36(1)a) durchdas EPA in den beiden von Frischknecht und Kleybeschriebenen Fällen ergibt sich jedoch bei folgenderAuslegung der Regel 36(1)a):Schritt 1:Betrachte (nur) diejenigen Anmeldungen der Familie, zudenen ein „erster Bescheid“ ergangen ist, d. h.„streiche“ diejenigen Anmeldungen, für die (noch) keinerster Bescheid ergangen ist;Schritt 2:Wähle aus den verbleibenden Anmeldungen (für die ein„erster Bescheid“ ergangen ist) die früheste (älteste)Anmeldung aus; undSchritt 3:Berechne die 24-Monatsfrist ab dem Tag des „erstenBescheids“ dieser, im Schritt 2 ausgewählten Anmeldung.Bei Anwendung auf die von Frischknecht und Kleyvorgestellten Beispiele (Anmeldetag der StammanmeldungEP1: 01.04.2010, Teilanmeldung EP2 eingereichtam 15.04.2010) bedeutet dies:Fall 1 (siehe auch Folie 7 der EPA Präsentation):„erster Bescheid“ in der EP1 datiert vom 31.08.2012„erster Bescheid“ in der EP2 datiert vom 30.04.2012Schritt 1:Zu allen Anmeldungen ist ein „erster Bescheid“ergangen, alle Anmeldungen werden daher im Schritt 2berücksichtigt.Schritt 2:EP1 ist die früheste Anmeldung.Schritt 3:Die 24-Monatsfrist berechnet sich daher ab dem Tag des„ersten Bescheids“ zu EP1 (31.08.2012).Fall 2:„erster Bescheid“ in der EP2 datiert vom 30.04.2012EP1 wurde zurückgenommen, bevor ein erster Bescheidergangen ist1 S. Frischknecht and H. Kley, epi Information 1/2010; Vögele and Nemec, epiinformation 3/2010Schritt 1:Zu EP1 ist kein erster Bescheid ergangen, EP1 wird daherim Folgenden nicht mehr berücksichtigt.Schritt 2:EP2 ist die früheste verbleibende Anmeldung.Schritt 3:Die 24-Monatsfrist berechnet sich daher ab dem Tag des„ersten Bescheids“ von EP2 (30.04.2012).Die hier vorgeschlagene Auslegung führt daher inbeiden Fällen ohne Widerspruch zu den gleichen Ergebnissenwie die „Präsentation“ des EPA.Fall 3 („Very(!) late first communication in theearliest application“):(siehe auch: Folie 10 der EPA-Präsentation)„erster Bescheid“ in der EP2 datiert vom 30.04.2012„erster Bescheid“ in der EP1 datiert vom 30.08.2014Fall 3a:Solange zu der EP1 noch kein „erster Bescheid“ergangen ist, ist EP2 die einzige zu berücksichtigendeAnmeldung und die 24-Monatsfrist berechnet sich abdem Tag des „ersten Bescheids“ der EP2: „voluntarydivisional of EP is possible“ in einem ersten Zeitraum vom30.04.2012 bis zum 30.04.2014.Sobald in der EP1 ein „erster Bescheid“ ergangen ist,ist die EP1 die „früheste Anmeldung, zu der ein Bescheidergangen ist“ und die 24-Monatsfrist berechnet sich abdem Tag des „ersten Bescheids“ zur EP1: „voluntarydivisional of EP2 is possible“ in einem zweiten Zeitraumvom 30.08.2014 bis zum 30.08.2016.Insoweit führt die hier vorgeschlagene Auslegung zudem in der EPA-Präsentation gezeigten Ergebnis.Fall 3b:Unklar bleibt aber auch bei dieser Auslegung, warumgemäß Folie 10 der „Präsentation“ eine „freiwilligeTeilung“ der Stammanmeldung EP1 auch zwischendem Ablauf der 24-Monatsfrist ab dem „erstenBescheid“ in der EP2 (01.05.2014) und dem Tag des„ersten Bescheids“ in der EP1, d. h. zwischen dem01.05.2014 und dem 30.08.2014, möglich sein soll(„voluntary divisional of EP1 is possible“).Bliebe eine solche Teilanmeldung nach Auffassung desEPA auch zulässig, wenn EP1 nach dem Einreichen der(zweiten) Teilanmeldung aber vor dem Erlass des „erstenBescheids“ in der EP1 zurückgenommen wird und EP1 so

136 Book review Information 4/2010nie zu einer „Anmeldung, zu der ein Bescheid ergangenist“, wird?Regel 36(1) EPÜ unterscheidet in Bezug auf die „anhängigefrühere europäische Patentanmeldung“ nichtzwischen der Stammanmeldung und früheren Teilanmeldungen.Eine Rechtsgrundlage dafür, dass in der(noch anhängigen) Stammanmeldung EP1, für die nochkein „erster Bescheid“ ergangen ist, eine „freiwilligeTeilanmeldung“ auch dann noch möglich ist, wenn inder ältesten Teilanmeldung (EP2) vor mehr als 24 Monatenein „erster Bescheid“ ergangen ist, ist nicht erkennbar.C-Book – How to write a successful opposition and pass Paper Cof the European Qualification Examination,by William Chandler and Hugo Meinders 1Susan Kirsch 2The third edition of this „must have“ book is nowavailable.The C-Book is an essential tool, not only for allcandidates taking Paper C (opposition) of the EuropeanQualifying Examination (EQE), but also for any Europeanattorney with an opposition practice. Who better to tellyou how to write a successful opposition than twomembers of the Board of Appeal?The third edition of the C-Book once again providescandidates with a wealth of information relevant toopposition practice. The key changes compared to thesecond edition include updated Guidelines referencesfollowing the revised Guidelines published in April 2010and updated case law. For candidates of the EQE PaperC, a particularly useful addition is the charts given onpages 97 and 100 detailing the many required steps in awell constructed inventive step argument, both for„normal“ and „partial problem“ inventive step argumentationrespectively. The charts list each step, illustratehow each step was argued in the Examiners’ ReportC 2009 and provide an estimate of the number of marksawarded for each step with regard to use of informationand argumentation. Another addition is the hints andtips in relation to exam technique and strategy providedin the chapter entitled „Assessing your own Paper“.Bill and Hugo are both tutors for the respected CEIPIcourses. The authors teach at the Regional Pre-prepcourses, which take place in the Autumn, the mainPreparatory seminar, which is now scheduled in Novemberin Strasbourg, the „re-sitters“ course, also scheduledin November, and the „cramming“ course in early February.The various CEIPI Paper C courses aim to providecandidates of the EQE with all they need to know to passthe dreaded opposition paper. The C-Book summarisesmuch of what is taught at these seminars.Many EQE candidates have extremely limited oppositionexperience, if any, prior to sitting Paper C. As aconsequence, Paper C continues to cause candidates themost problems and has the lowest pass rate of the EQEFinal papers. It is simply impossible to pass Paper Cwithout a sound technique coupled with sufficient practice.Paper C of the EQE has undergone a remarkableevolution over the last 10 to 12 years. The ever increasingemphasis on argumentation and, in particular, bothinterpretation and the problem solution approach, mustbe appreciated and understood by candidates if they areto provide an opposition statement with sufficient detailto impress the examiners. Both these key aspects arediscussed at length in the C-Book.The specific technique or methodology explained inthe C-Book ensures that candidates focus on what isnecessary to pass the examination, namely robust analysisand detailed argumentation, with constant referenceto where the information relied upon is to be found inthe papers. On top of this, the C-Book provides usefulguidance on how to set out an opposition statement,how to tackle the legal aspects of the exam paper andprovides important tips for exam technique and strategy.The C-Book also provides information regarding essentialaspects such as added subject matter, entitlement topriority, state of the art, claim dependencies, how to dealwith ranges within a claim, etc.Candidates who read, understand and put into practicethe methodology and information provided in theC-Book will be well equipped to sail over the biggesthurdle of the EQE.1 W.E. Chandler and H. Meinders C-Book Third Edition, Carl Heymanns Verlag2010, ISBN 978-3-452-27363-52 Susan E. Kirsch, European Patent Attorney and Chartered Patent Agent,Partner, Carpmaels & Ransford, London

Information 4/2010 Information from the Secretariat 137Disziplinarorgane und AusschüsseDisciplinary bodies and Committees · Organes de discipline et CommissionsDisziplinarrat (epi) Disciplinary Committee (epi) Commission de discipline (epi)AT – W. PothBE – T. DebledBG – E. BenatovCH – M. LiebetanzCY – C.A. TheodoulouCZ – V. ŽakDE – W. FröhlingDK – U. NørgaardES – V. Gil-VegaFI – C. WesterholmDisziplinarausschuss (EPA/epi)epi-MitgliederFR – P. MonainGB – S. Wright**GR – A. TsimikalisHR – D. Korper-ZemvaHU – J. MarkóIE – G. KinsellaIS – A. VilhjálmssonIT – B. MuracaLI – P. Rosenich*LT – L. KucinskasLU – P. KihnDisciplinary Board (EPO/epi)epi MembersMC – G. SchmalzMT – L. SansoneNL – A. HooiveldNO – E. AndersonPL – A. RogozinskaPT – A. J. Pissara Dias MachadoRO – C. PopSE – H. LarfeldtSI – J. KraljicSK – T. HörmannTR – T. YurtsevenConseil de discipline (OEB/epi)Membres de l’epiBE – G. Leherte DE – W. Dabringhaus DK – B. Hammer-JensenGB – J. BoffBeschwerdekammer inDisziplinarangelegenheiten (EPA/epi)epi-MitgliederDE – N. M. LenzDK – E. J. ChristiansenES – P. Sugrañes MolinéDisciplinaryBoard of Appeal (EPO/epi)epi MembersFR – P. GendraudGB – H.G. HallyboneChambre de recoursen matière disciplinaire (OEB/epi)Membres de l’epiGB – T.L. JohnsonNL – B. van Wezenbeekepi-Finanzen epi Finances Finances de l’epiAT – P. Pawloy*CH – T. RitscherDE – M. MaikowskiFR – J.-L. LagetGB – T. Powell**IE – P. KellyIT – S. BordonaroLT – M. JasonLU – J. BeisselSE – K. NorinGeschäftsordnung By-Laws Règlement intérieurBE – J. Jantschy** DE – D. Speiser*FR – P. MoutardGB –T. JohnsonStandesregelnOrdentliche MitgliederAT – F. SchweinzerBE – P. OverathBG – T. StoyanovCH – R. RuediCY – C.A. TheodoulouCZ – D. MusilDE – H. GeitzDK – L. RoerboelEE – J. ToomeProfessional ConductFull MembersES – J.A. MorgadesFI – J. KupiainenFR – J.R. Callon de LamarckGB – T. Powell*HR – A. BijelicHU – M. LantosIE – M. LuceyIS – T. JonssonIT – O. CapassoConduite professionnelleMembres titulairesLT – R. ZabolieneLU – S. LampeNL – H. BottemaNO – P. R. FlugePL – L. HudyPT – C.M. de Bessa MonteiroRO – D. TulucaSE – R. JansonSI – J. MarnTR – K. DündarStellvertreter Substitutes SuppléantsAT – E. PisoBG – N. NeykovCH – P.G. MauéDE – R. KasseckertFR – J. Bauvir*Chair/ **SecretaryGB – S.M. WrightHR – A. DlacicIS – E.K. FridrikssonIT – G. MazziniNL – E. BarteldsNO – G. ØstensenPL – J. HawrylakRO – L. EnescuSE – S. Sjögren PaulssonSI – M. Golmajer Zima

138 Information from the Secretariat Information 4/2010Europäische Patentpraxis European Patent Practice Pratique du brevet européenAT – W. KovacAT – H. NemecBE – F. Leyder*BE – O. Venite-AuroreBG – V. GermanovaBG – V. ShentovaCH – E. IrnigerCH – G. SurmelyCY – C.A. TheodoulouCZ – I. JirotkovaCZ – J. MalusekDE – G. Leißler-GerstlDE – G. SchmidtDK – E. CarlssonDK – A. HegnerEE – J. OstratEE – M. SarapES – E. ArmijoES – L.-A. Duran MoyaFI – M. HonkasaloFI – A. WeckmanBerufliche QualifikationOrdentliche MitgliederAT – F. Schweinzer*BE – N. D’HalleweynBG – E. VinarovaCH – W. BernhardtCY – C.A. TheodoulouCZ – J. AnderaDE – M. HössleDK – E. ChristiansenEE – R. PikkorES – F. SaezFI – T.M. KonkonenFR – J. BauvirFR – J.-R. Callon de LamarckGB – E. Lyndon-StanfordGB – C. MercerGR – E. SamuelidesHR – T. HadžijaHR – G. TurkaljHU – Z. LengyelHU – Z. SzentpéteriIE – L. CaseyIE – O. CatesbyIS – E.K. FridrikssonIS – R. SigurdardottirIT – F. MacchettaIT – M. ModianoLI – B.G. HarmannLI – R. WildiLT – O. KlimaitieneLT – J. PetniunaiteLU – S. Lampe**LU – P. OcvirkProfessional QualificationFull MembersFR – F. FernandezGB – J. GowshallGR – M. ZacharatouHR – Z. BiharHU – Z. KötelesIE – C. BoyceIS – S. IngvarssonIT – P. Rambelli**LI – S. KaminskiLU – D. LecomteLT – O. KlimaitieneLV – J. FortunaLV – A. SmirnovMT – D. MarlinMT – L. SansoneNL – R. JorritsmaNL – L.J. SteenbeekNO – A. BergNO – K. RekdalPL – E. MalewskaPL – A. SzafrugaPT – P. Alves MoreiraPT – N. CruzRO – D. NicolaescuRO – M. OproiuSE – L. EstreenSE – A. SkeppstedtSI – B. IvancicSK – J. GunisSK – M. MajlingováTR – H. CayliTR – A. DerisQualification professionnelleMembres titulairesLV – E. LavrinovicsNL – F.J. SmitNO – P. G. BergPL – A. Slominska-DziubekPT – J. de SampaioRO – M. TeodorescuSE – M. LinderothSI – A. FlakSK – J. KertészTR – A. YavuzcanStellvertreter Substitutes SuppléantsAT – P. KlimentBG – M. Yanakieva-ZlatarevaCH – M. LiebetanzDE – G. AhrensDK – B. Hammer JensenEE – E. UrgasFI – P. ValkonenFR – D. DavidGB – A. TomblingHU – T. MarmarosiIE – B. O’NeillIS – G. HardarsonIT – I. FerriLU – S. LampeLT – A. PakenieneLV – V. SergejevaNL – A. LandPL – A. PawlowskiPT – I. FrancoRO – C.C. FierascuSE – M. HolmbergSI – Z. RosTR – B. Kalenderli(Examination Board Members on behalf of the epi)CH – M. Seehof FR – M. Névant NL – M. Hatzmann*Chair/ **Secretary

Information 4/2010 Information from the Secretariat 139Biotechnologische Erfindungen Biotechnological Inventions Inventions en biotechnologieAT – A. SchwarzBE – A. De Clercq*BG – S. StefanovaCH – D. WächterCZ – R. HakDE – G. KellerDK – B. Hammer JensenES – F. Bernardo NoriegaFI – S. Knuth-LehtolaFR – A. DesaixEPA-FinanzenOrdentliche MitgliederGB – S. Wright**HR – S. Tomsic SkodaHU – A. PethöIE – A. HallyIS – T. JonssonIT – G. StaubLI – B. BogensbergerLT – L. GerasimovicLU – P. KihnEPO FinancesFull MembersLV – S. KumacevaNL – B. SwinkelsNO – A. BjørnåPL – J. SitkowskaPT – A. CanelasRO – C. PopaSE – L. HöglundSI – D. HodzarSK – K. Makel’ovaTR – O. MutluFinances OEBMembres titulairesDE – W. DabringhausFR – P. GendraudGB – J. Boff* NL – E. BarteldsStellvertreter Substitutes SuppléantsES – J. Botella IE – L. Casey IT – A. LongoniHarmonisierungOrdentliche MitgliederBE – F. Leyder**CH – Axel BraunLI – O. SöllnerHarmonizationFull MembersES – M. Curell AguilaGB – P. TheriasHarmonisationMembres titulairesGB – J. D. Brown*SE – N. EkströmStellvertreter Substitutes SuppléantsBG – M. Yanakieva-ZlatarevaFI – V.M. KärkkäinenGR – A. A. Bletas IT – S. GibertiIT – C. GerminarioStreitrechtOrdentliche MitgliederAT – H. NemecBE – G. VoortmansBG – M. Georgieva-TabakovaCH – P. ThomsenCY – C.A. TheodoulouCZ – M. GuttmannDE – M. WagnerDK – E. ChristiansenES – E. ArmijoFI – M. SimmelvuoLitigationFull MembersFR – A. CasalongaGB – E. Lyndon-Stanford*GR – E. DacoroniaHR – M. VukmirHU – F. TörökIE – L. Casey**IT – G. ColucciLI – B.G. HarmannLU – P. KihnLT – O. KlimaitieneContentieuxMembres titulairesLV – J. FortunaMT – D. MarlinNL – L. SteenbeekNO – H. LanganPL – M. BeslerPT – I. FrancoRO – M. OproiuSE – S. Sjögren PaulssonSI – N. DrnovsekSK – V. NeuschlTR – A. DerisStellvertreter Substitutes SuppléantsAT – W. KovacBE – P. VandersteenCZ – E. HalaxovaDE – H. Vogelsang-WenkeES – M. Curell AguilaFI – A. WeckmanFR – J. CollinGB – T. JohnsonHR – M. BunčičIT – O. CapassoLI – R. WildiLU – P. OcvirkLT – J. PetniunaiteMT – L. SansoneNL – R. JorritsmaNO – H. T. LiePL – E. MalewskaSE – N. EkströmSK – K. BadurovaTR – S. Coral Yardimci*Chair/ **Secretary

140 Information from the Secretariat Information 4/2010Redaktionsausschuss Editorial Committee Commission de RédactionAT – W. HolzerDE – E. LiesegangFR – T. Schuffenecker GB – T. JohnsonDE – L. EckeyDK – P. IndahlFI – A. VirkkalaOnline Communications Committee (OCC)FR – C. MenesGB – R. Burt*IE – D. BrophyIT – L. BosottiNL – J. van der VeerRO – D. GreavuPatentdokumentation Patent Documentation Documentation brevetsOrdentliche Mitglieder Full Members Membres titulairesAT – B. GassnerDK – P. Indahl*FI – T. LangenskiöldFR – D. DavidStellvertreter Substitutes SuppléantsGB – J. GrayIE – B. O’NeillNL – B. van WezenbeekIT – C. FraireInterne Rechnungsprüfer Internal Auditors Commissaires aux Comptes internesOrdentliche Mitglieder Full Members Membres titulairesCH – André Braun DE – J.-P. HoffmannStellvertreter Substitutes SuppléantsDE – R. Kasseckert LI – B.G. HarmannWahlausschuss Electoral Committee Commission pour les électionsCH – H. Breiter CH – M. Müller IS – A. VilhjalmssonStanding Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)epi-Delegierte epi Delegates DØlØguØs de l’epiBE – F. LeyderES – E. ArmijoFI – K. FinniläFR – S. Le VaguerèseGB –GB –GB –J. D. BrownE. Lyndon-StanfordC. MercerHU – F. TörökIT – L. BosottiTR – S. ArkanSACEPO Working Party RulesBE – F. Leyder DE – G. Leißler-Gerstl LU – S. LampeSACEPO Working Party GuidelinesDE – G. Leißler-Gerstl DK – A. Hegner GR – E. Samuelides*Chair/ **Secretary

Vorstand /Board / BureauPräsident / President / PrésidentKim Finnilä, FIVize-Präsidenten / Vice-Presidents / Vice-PrésidentsSelda Arkan, TRSylvain le Vaguerèse, FRGeneralsekretär / Secretary General / Secrétaire GénéralPaul Georg Maué, CHStellvertretender Generalsekretär /Deputy Secretary General / Secrétaire Général AdjointThierry Schuffenecker, MCSchatzmeister / Treasurer / TrésorierClaude Quintelier, BEStellvertretender Schatzmeister / Deputy TreasurerTrésorier AdjointFrantišek Kania, CZMitglieder / Members / MembresBurkhard Bogensberger, LIDavor Bošković, HRDagmar Cechvalová, SKTodor Daraktschiew, BGPaul Denerley, GBJosef Dirscherl, DELuis-Alfonso Duran-Moya, ESGunnar Örn Hardarson, ISPeter Indahl, DKBernd Kutsch, LUEdvards Lavrinovics, LVEdward Lyndon-Stanford, GBDenis McCarthy, IEFrancesco Macchetta, ITGregor Macek, SIMichael Maikowski, DEHermione Markides, CYDana Marlin, MTDaniella Nicolaescu, ROKlas Norin, SELaurent Nuss, FRHelen Papaconstantinou, GRJoão Pereira da Cruz, PTMargus Sarap, EEFriedrich Schweinzer, ATÁdám Szentpéteri, HUTony Tangena, NLDag Thrane, NOElzbieta Wilamowska-Maracewicz, PLReda Zaboliene, LT

epi / Postfach 26 01 12 / D-80058 München