You can navigate to the different categories using the left menu, or by clicking on the icon   if you are on a mobile device.

If you are feeling a little bit lost, please read this article first.

Date
Abstract
Download
18/09/2017

September 2017 press articles

This document provides a non-exhaustive list of some articles, blog posts or videos published in September 2017 (sorted in reverse chronological order, not necessarily by relevance). Latest additions are highlighted in yellow:

Other press articles published related to UPC - Unitary Patent - ILOAT ect.

12/09/2017

[SUEPO] 124th Session of the ILO-AT

In its 124th session the Tribunal delivered a total of 80 judgments, of which only nine (!) concern the EPO. Of those only two cases were fully reasoned. Both concerned disciplinary sanctions. Six cases, of which 5 coming from the EPO, were summarily dismissed. This paper discusses the latest cases that illustrate the on-going changes in the jurisprudence the Tribunal. We also informs about changes in the composition of the Tribunal and the recent developments in the Appeals Committee.

05/09/2017

August 2017 press articles

This document provides a non-exhaustive list of some articles, blog posts or videos published in August 2017 (sorted in reverse chronological order, not necessarily by relevance). Latest additions are highlighted in yellow:

Other press articles published related to UPC - Unitary Patent - ILOAT ect.

02/08/2017

July 2017 press articles

This document provides a non-exhaustive list of some articles, blog posts or videos published in July 2017 (sorted in reverse chronological order, not necessarily by relevance). Latest additions are highlighted in yellow:

06/07/2017

[Marc Tarabella] Office Européen des Brevets (OEB) et abus sociaux

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-002338/2017 à la Commission Européenne
European Patent Office (EPO) and social abuses
Question E-002338/2017 to the European Commission
Translations are available in English, German and Dutch.

______________________________________________


Answer by Ms Bieńkowska on behalf of the EU Commission E-002338/17 from 30 June 2017


 

30/06/2017

June 2017 press articles

This document provides a non-exhaustive list of some articles, blog posts or videos published in June 2017 (sorted in reverse chronological order, not necessarily by relevance). Latest additions are highlighted in yellow:

30/05/2017

May 2017 press articles

This document provides a non-exhaustive list of some articles, blog posts or videos published in May 2017 (sorted in reverse chronological order, not necessarily by relevance). Latest additions are highlighted in yellow:

SUEPO now addresses the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR):

Other news articles published related to SUEPO - EPO - UPC - Unitary Patent - ILOAT ect.,

23/05/2017

[SUEPO] ILO-AT: 90 years old - and in need of repair

Summary
On 5 May 2017 the Tribunal held a symposium to mark its 90th anniversary.  The program can be found at the Tribunal’s website[1].  As can be expected from such an event there was much praise for the Tribunal. While some of it is merited, not all of it is: the Tribunal is showing its age. It needs to catch up with the current legal and practical developments. The present paper explains the reasons.

09/05/2017

[SUEPO] SUEPO has filed a complaint against The Netherlands before the European Court of Human Rights

Dear SUEPO Members, dear Colleagues

As you remember, to defend the interests of its members when attacked by President Battistelli, SUEPO sought protection from the Dutch courts in the form of an injunction. An injunction is meant to prevent a violation of rights likely (if not certain) to cause irreparable damage. Disappointingl y, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the EPO’s immunity.  
 
A host state has a heavy duty of care. On the one hand, it must take reasonable steps to safeguard the immunity of an international organisation, when such immunity is necessary for the lawful operations of the organisation. On the other hand, the host state must see to it that all individuals within its jurisdiction have effective means to protect their rights when menaced.  
 
When the legal system applicable to an international organisation does not provide for protection in the form of an injunction, which is essential to prevent irreparable damage, and even worse when it is virtually indisputable that the organisation is violating rights, the host state has a serious difficulty. In our opinion, it has only two options:  either to lift the immunity of the organisation for the benefit of a party aggrieved, or to take itself action against the rogue organisation by resorting to international arbitration (in the EPO’s case, Article 23(1) PPI).  
 
Being unwilling to do either, in our opinion The Netherlands have failed (so far) to discharge their duty of care, thereby allowing a breach of fundamental rights on their soil and de facto condoning, if not endorsing, the EPO’s abuses.
 
Therefore, on 8 May 2017 SUEPO has filed a complaint against The Netherlands before the European Court of Human Rights.
 
As usual, we will keep you informed of any essential development.

Your SUEPO central

08/05/2017

[SUEPO] 123rd Session of the ILO-AT

In its 123rd session the Tribunal delivered a total of 97 judgments, of which 33[1] cases involving the EPO. Of the EPO cases, only 3 cases were partially won[2] by the complainants. Of the remaining cases 13 were summarily dismissed. In the 123rd session the Tribunal again stressed that it will only judge on “individual” decisions, thereby confirming its unwillingness to exercise normative control. Its tendency to send cases back to the EPO further contributes to the backlog at the EPO and at the Tribunal.


[1]   The high number of Judgments dealt with in this session made it impossible to report on all cases and forced us to ignore some cases that would have merited a discussion.

[2]   Only cases that were won on the substance are considered as won. Cases that only led to an award of costs and damages for procedural delays are considered lost. Note that whereas many cases are fully (even summarily) dismissed, the few cases that were won are only partially won. The present paper discusses selected cases and the overall implications.