CH+AT als harter Kern der europäischen Patentbewegung

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

Unter

	http://www.aippi.org/reports/report-EPO-Dipl.Conf.htm

findet man einen Bericht über die EPÜ-Revisionskonferenz vom November
2000, den Ralph Nack vom MPI (Max-Planck-Institut für Internationale
Patent-, Urheber- und Wettbewerbsrecht, München) als federführender
AIPPI-Berichterstatter schrieb.

Im Gegensatz zu Eurolinux, Greenpeace u.a. war die AIPPI als
Beobachter zur Konferenz zugelassen und konnte daher aus erster Hand
berichten. 

Aus Nacks Bericht ergeben sich u.a. folgende Erkenntnisse:

- Die Delegationen von Österreich und der Schweiz setzten sich als einzige
  energisch für eine sofortige Streichung von Art 52.2c ein.  Sie behaupteten,
  das sei von den Betroffenen ihrer Länder so gewünscht, und ohne eine
  explizite Patentierbarkeit von Computerprogrammen entstünden Europa 
  Standortnachteile

- Alle vom EPA als Beobachter zugelassenen Organisationen forderten
  ebenfalls nachdrücklich die Streichung der Nichtpatentierbarkeit von 
  Programmen für Datenverarbeitungsanlagen.

- Alle Delegationen betonten, dass die Nichtstreichung keineswegs als
  Kritik an der Rechtsprechung des EPA zu verstehen sei, und dass Herr
  Grossenbacher (EPA-Verhandlungsführer) dies in der
  Abschlusserklärung klarstellen solle.

- Die "vorläufige Beibehaltung" des Computerprogramm-Ausschlusses wurde
  u.a. als ein Zugeständnis an "massive Proteste von Softwareentwicklern"
  begründet
 
- Die BMJ-Delegation drängte auf Änderung von Art 35 im Sinne einer
  weiteren Abtretung nationaler Souveränität an den
  EPA-Verwaltungsrat.  Die schwedische Delegation wehrte sich dagegen,
  stieß dabei aber auf energische Widerrede der BMJ-Delegation
 
- Alle Delegationen waren sich einig, dass die TRIPS-Formel, die
  meistens als Forderung nach grenzenloser Patentierbarkeit
  interpretiert wird, in Art 52(1) hineingeschrieben werden muss.
  Der Konsens der Weltpatentbewegung kam hier ohne Widerrede zum Tragen.

Hier ein paar einschlägige Zitate von Nacks AIPPI-Bericht: 

   The following issues are the most important elements of the revision:
     * Computer programs have not been deleted from Article 52 (2) (c)
       EPC; the respective provision of the Basic Proposal was overruled
       by 16 of 20 votes.
     * The patentability of a known pharmaceutical for a new specific use
       has been affirmed (2nd medical use), Article 54 (4) and (5) rev.
       version.
     * The doctrine of equivalents is now mentioned in Article 2 of the
       protocol on Article 69 EPC, but there is no definition of
       "equivalence", and the file wrapper estoppel is not mentioned.
     * The wording of Article 52 (1) has been brought in line with
       Article 27 (1) of the TRIPS-agreement.
     * A petition for review of the Boards' of Appeal decisions by the
       Enlarged Board of Appeals is now possible. The petition may only
       be filed on the grounds expressly named in the EPC and the
       Implementing Regulations.
     * The central limitation procedure for European Patents has been
       adopted.
     * Patent applications can be filed in any language (see the recently
       signed Patent Law Treaty); a translation into one of the official
       languages of the EPO will not be required until a later date in
       accordance with the Implementing Regulations.
     * The separation of search and examination has been removed from the
       EPC. Both tasks can be performed by the same examiner located
       either in The Hague, Berlin or Munich (BEST-project). A protocol
       on the staff complement of the EPO at The Hague has been annexed
       to the EPC.
     * The Administrative Council has been authorized to adapt the EPC to
       international treaties or Community Law, albeit with wide
       restrictions.
     * The ministerial conference has been made a permanent institution
       of the EPC.
     * Special agreements concerning European patent law between two or
       more contracting states are now explicitly recognized.
     * Many provisions have been transferred from the EPC to the
       Implementing Regulations.

...

   The traditional way to implement EC Law and international treaties in
   the EPC is convening a Diplomatic Conference of the member states for
   the adoption of a revised convention, a very time consuming and
   expensive procedure. Therefore, the Administrative Council has been
   empowered to amend EPC provisions concerning patent law and procedural
   law by a unanimous vote of all member states. In order to ensure the
   sovereignty of the member states and the rights of the national
   legislative bodies in particular, each Contracting State has a period
   of 12 months from the time the decision is adopted in which to declare
   that it wishes not to be bound by the decision.
   
   However, these guarantees did not satisfy the Swedish delegation for
   "constitutional reasons": Under the Swedish constitution, a three
   quarter majority in parliament is apparently required for the
   ratification of this provision. Therefore, Sweden proposed to postpone
   this matter to the "second basket". This proposal was supported by
   some member states.
   
   Germany, Switzerland and most other member states opposed this
   proposal very strongly, however, arguing that the national sovereignty
   was not endangered as the national legislative bodies have one year to
   induce the Government to revoke their vote.
   
   However, as a mutual concession, all member states agreed to amend
   Article 33 as follows: International treaties cannot be implemented in
   the EPC before they enter into force of the respective treaty; EC Law
   cannot be implemented before it enters into force or before the expiry
   of the implementation period respectively. The German delegation
   agreed to this compromise "with a bad grace" and the Swiss delegation
   called it a "self-castigation".

   In the "Conference Resolution", the Administrative Council is urged as
   a priority to make preparations for another Diplomatic Conference
   which will deal in particular, with the question of software and
   biotech patents as well as Community patents.

...

   Computer programs, Article 52 (2) (c)
   
   In the first draft of the Basic Proposal (CA/100/00), it was stated
   that "in any event, the deletion of computer programs from Article 52
   (2) (c) EPC has met with broad consensus". Furthermore, this draft
   discussed the question whether the entire paragraph (2) should be
   deleted or transferred to the Implementing Regulations.
   
   In contrast, the wording of the final version of the Basic Proposal
   (MR/2/00) is much more restraint; it is merely stated that "the
   committee on patent law and the Administrative Council have advocated
   the deletion of programs for computers from Article 52 (2) (c) EPC.
   The deletion of the entire paragraph (2) is no longer proposed.
   
   The Basic Proposal makes clear that broadening the scope of patentable
   subject matter was not intended by the deletion of computer programs:
   The deletion should merely reflect the current jurisprudence of the
   EPO's Boards of Appeal.
   
   At the Diplomatic Conference, France, Denmark, and Germany proposed to
   postpone the deletion of computer programs and all other EC member
   states except for Austria supported this proposal. The background of
   this initiative were the massive protests against software patents by
   a number of software developers. The delegations of the EC member
   states had met in Brussels on November 17 2000 (i.e. three days before
   the Diplomatic Conference) in order to agree on a common standpoint
   and to coordinate their voting with regard to computer programs. As
   the 15 EC member states represent a majority of two third of the votes
   cast by the Ordinary Member Delegations (which is needed for
   amendments of the Basic Proposal), there was no real discussion on
   this issue during the Diplomatic Conference. Apart from the Austrian
   delegation, all EC member states reasoned their voting by more or less
   identical statements:
     * Further consideration with the interested circles is needed.
     * The European Commission has recently launched a consultation
       within the member states with the purpose of having a thorough
       discussion of the issue and possibly establishing proper means for
       harmonization on this issue within the Community. The outcome of
       this initiative should be awaited before any further action on
       this matter is taken in relation to the EPC.
     * A deletion of computer programs from Article 52 (2) might be
       misunderstood as broadening the scope of patentable subject
       matter.
       
   The Austrian delegation emphasized that their interested circles
   supported patenting of computer programs. Therefore, this delegation
   abstained.
   
   The Swiss delegation vehemently criticized the behavior of the EC
   member states:
     * The postponement might be misunderstood as criticism of the
       current EPO practice concerning computer related inventions.
     * In future, Article 52 (2) (c) might be a disadvantageous
       locational factor for Europe.
     * The preparation of another Diplomatic Conference ("second basket")
       is very time consuming. This will significantly delay the revision
       process.
       
   The other delegations were not impressed by the statements of the
   Swiss delegation. However, all delegation emphasized that the
   postponement is definitely not a criticism of the current EPO practice
   concerning computer related inventions. The delegations mandated the
   chairman Dr. Grossenbacher to make this clear at the final press
   conference.
   
   All non governmental organizations representing the users were in
   favour of the deletion of the exclusion of computer programs per se
   from patentability. The AIPPI representative made a strong statement
   in referring to the resolution taken almost unanimously at the
   Executive Committee of Vienna.
   
   Finally, 18 member states supported the postponement.