Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> IPKat

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Intellectual Property Law

: IPKat

G 3/08 Observations - Your Last Chance

By Johanna Gibson, David Pearce, Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon.

ADVERTISEMENTS

If you want to have your say about whether patents for computer-implemented inventions are a good thing or not, it's time to get your skates on. The final date for filing observations (or amicus curiae briefs, if you prefer) on the EPO President's referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is 30 April 2009. See the IPKat's previous notes on the subject here, here, here and here for more details, and the EPO website here for the official lowdown.

As of the date and time of this post, the following observations have been filed:

Bakels, R. (PDF, 1.9 MB)
Balos, I. (PDF, 360 KB)
Bayer, C. (PDF, 270 KB)
BIKT et al (PDF, 4 MB)
Combeau, J. (PDF, 630 KB)
Cowsley, C. (PDF, 230 KB)
De Keyzer (PDF, 84 KB)
Duhme,Torsten, Dr. (PDF, 1 MB)
epi (PDF, 280 KB)
Gustavson, Stefan (PDF, 220 KB)
Hallén, Jacob (PDF, 225 KB)
HISPALINUX (PDF, 460 KB)
IBM (PDF, 970 KB)
intellect (PDF, 585 KB)
Lawrence, William (PDF, 915 KB)
Philips (PDF, 390 KB)
Piratenpartei (PDF, 400 KB)
Piratpartiet (PDF, 160 KB)
ScriptumLibre (PDF, 410 KB)
Sterckx, Sigrid, Prof. Dr. (PDF, 2.7 MB)
Straus, Joseph, Prof. Dr. (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Sylvestris, T. (PDF, 525 KB)
Thum, Simon (PDF, 170 KB)
Wessel, A. (PDF, 81 KB)

Of these, some are very interesting, some are fairly pedestrian, some are horribly wordy and full of legal 'analysis', footnotes and references, some are fairly predictable ill-informed anti-patent rants, while others are merely irrelevant. The IPKat (who still can't see what on Earth TRIPs has to do with the EPO) will let his readers decide which are which.

One brief in particular, submitted by the IPKat's maverick sidekick Tufty Sylvestris (a.k.a. Tufty the Cat), argues that the referral is inadmissible because it does not comply with Article 112(1)(b) EPC. This view, although in a small minority, appears to be shared by at least one other observer. The IPKat prefers to remain on the fence, largely due to being completely bamboozled by all that legalspeak. He hopes, however, that the Enlarged Board, whichever way they decide to go, will come up with some reasoning that we can all understand, instead of trying to impress us with their footnoting skills.

More legalspeak here. Doublespeak here.

Full post as published by IPKat on April 29, 2009 (boomark / email).