Supplementary publication 5, Official Journal 2015: 17th European Patent Judges' Symposium
Article | Page(s) | View |
|---|---|---|
| The participants at the 17th European Patent Judges' Symposium | 1-3 | |
OPENING OF THE SYMPOSIUM AND WELCOMING ADDRESSES | ||
| Ants KULL | 4-7 | |
| Wim VAN DER EIJK | 8-23 | |
REPORT ON PROCEEDINGS | ||
| Stefan LUGINBÜHL | 24-41 | |
WORKING SESSION | ||
The Unified Patent Court | ||
| Carl JOSEFSSON Preselection and training of UPC judges | 42-45 | |
| Sir David KITCHIN Development of a common judicial culture and judgecraft among the judges of the UPC | 46-60 | |
| Sir Richard ARNOLD A patent held in a binding ruling to have been infringed is subsequently revoked: what happens next? National practice and what will the UPC do? | 61-68 | |
| Marie COURBOULAY Different practices at national courts: a challenge for the UPC | 69-72 | |
| William CHANDLER Patentability of computer-implemented inventions (CIIs): state of play and developments | 73-79 | |
| Klaus GRABINSKI Comparison and interaction between EPO boards of appeal and national courts – state of play in German practice | 80-95 | |
Latest case law concerning supplementary protection certificates | ||
| İlhami GÜNEŞ Supplementary protection certificates in EU law: a compensation mechanism and Turkey's position | 96-104 | |
| Massimo SCUFFI Supplementary protection certificates: the evolution of European case law on the terms of patent extension and the scope of protection | 105-119 | |
| Rian KALDEN Discussion of recent CJEU case law on SPCs: the three 12 December 2013 cases | 120-134 | |
What amendments are permissible in order to be in line with the requirements under Article 123(2) and (3) EPC? | ||
| Fritz BLUMER What amendments are permissible in order to be in line with the requirements under Article 123(2) and (3) EPC? | 135-144 | |
| Klaus BACHER What amendments are admissible under Article 123(2) and (3) EPC? | 145-157 | |
NATIONAL JUDGES' PRESENTATIONS | ||
Recent developments in European and national patent law and case law | ||
| CH Switzerland Dieter BRÄNDLE | 158-166 | |
| DK Denmark Hans Christian THOMSEN | 167-169 | |
| EPO European Patent Office Yvonne PODBIELSKI | 170-176 | |
| FR France Sophie DARBOIS | 177-198 | |
| GB United Kingdom Richard HACON | 199-210 | |
| IT Italy Gabriella MUSCOLO | 211-222 | |
| NL Netherlands Edger BRINKMAN | 223-228 | |
| RO Romania Andreia Liana CONSTANDA | 229-243 | |
| SE Sweden Peter STRÖMBERG | 244-246 | |
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS | ||
| LIST OF PARTICIPANTS | 247-250 | |
ANNEX | ||
Case study "Extractor hood" | ||
| Case study Contents | 251 | |
| Introduction – Case study: 'Extractor hood' Dieter BRÄNDLE | 252-253 | |
| 1. Presentation of the case study | 254-255 | |
| 2. Statement of claim | 256-274 | |
| 3. Defence | 275-300 | |
| 4. Patent in suit – English translation of EP 1 234 567 B1 | 301-310 | |
| 5. Citation – English translation of EP 1 134 501 A1 | 311-325 | |
| 6. Questions | 326 | |
| 7. Patent legislation | 327-338 |