[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Grundsatzentscheidung zu Genpatenten
- To: debate@fitug.de
- Subject: Re: Grundsatzentscheidung zu Genpatenten
- From: "Axel H Horns" <horns@t-online.de>
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:07:12 +0200
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Comments: Sender has elected to use 8-bit data in this message. If problems arise, refer to postmaster at sender's site.
- In-reply-to: <0.b4e72684.2591090f@cs.com>
- Organization: PA Axel H Horns
- Reply-to: horns@t-online.de
- Sender: owner-debate@fitug.de
On 21 Dec 99, at 11:47, JOHANNESULBRICHT@cs.com wrote:
> Bedenklich:
>
> "Mit einer Grundsatzentscheidung hat das höchste europäische
> Patentgericht den Weg für die Patentierung von gentechnisch
> veränderten Pflanzen und Tieren frei gemacht. Die Große
> Beschwerdekammer des Europäischen Patentamts gab einer Beschwerde des
> Chemiekonzerns Novartis statt, der krankheitsresistente Pflanzen
> patentieren lassen will. Pflanzen seien somit grundsätzlich
> patentfähig, so ein Sprecher. Die Schutzrechte könnten auch dann
> erteilt werden, wenn der Antrag keine konkrete Pflanzensorte nenne..."
Folgendes hatte ich eigentlich nicht gepostet, da in FITUG mangels
"IT" off-topic:
From: Axel H Horns <horns@t-online.de>
To: intprop-l@listservice.net
Subject: [FYI] EPO: G001/98 in re Novartis
Send reply to: horns@t-online.de
Date sent: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:46:02 +0200
http://www.epo.co.at/news/pressrel/991220_e.htm
-------------------------------- CUT --------------------------------
Press release 7/99
Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent
Office in re Novartis
Munich, 20 December 1999 .-- The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the
European Patent Office has decided that a claim wherein specific
plant varieties are not identified is not excluded from patentability
under Article 53(b) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), even
though it may embrace plant varieties (Headnote I of decision G 01/98
issued in response to the referral of points of law by Technical
Board of Appeal 3.3.4 in case T 1054/96). The Enlarged Board of
Appeal took the view that Article 53(b) EPC defined the borderline
between patent protection and plant variety protection. The extent of
the exclusion for patents was the obverse of the availability of
plant variety rights. Since plant variety rights were only granted
for specific plant varieties and not for technical teachings which
could be implemented in an indefinite number of plant varieties, it
was not sufficient for the exclusion from patent protection in
Article 53(b) EPC to apply that one or more plant varieties were
embraced or might be embraced by the claims of the patent
application.
[...]
-------------------------------- CUT --------------------------------
G 0001/98 EBA 20 December 1999 91810144.5 Anti-pathogenically
effective compositions comprising lytic peptides and hydrolytic
enzymes A01N63/00 Keywords Claims comprising but not identifying
plant varieties Plant varieties as products of recombinant gene
technology Article 64(2) EPC not relevant for examination of product
claims
See
http://www.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/g980001ex1.pdf