Delegation of the European Union to the

UN and other international organisations in Geneva

EU Statement: Standing Committee on the Law of Patents 29th Session (WIPO, Geneva, 3-6 December 2018) - Quality of patents, including opposition system

Geneva, 11/12/2018 - 10:40, UNIQUE ID: 181211_10
Statements on behalf of the EU

EU Statement: Standing Committee on the Law of Patents 29th Session (WIPO, Geneva, 3-6 December 2018) - Quality of patents, including opposition system

Mr. Chair,

  1. The EU and its Member States would like to thank the Delegation of Spain for its proposal under Paragraph 8 in document SCP/24/3 as well as the Secretariat for the compilation of this document SCP/29/4. We appreciate the great amount of work undertaken by the Secretariat for illustrating the situation in different Member States and Offices in a further study in inventive step regarding the issues ´secondary indicators´, ´selection inventions´ and the concept of ´ problem inventions´.

 

  1. We also thank all Member States and Offices for providing information and explanation regarding their relevant approach. This makes the work done by this Committee even more valuable and practice-oriented. It helps to better comprehend the reason behind the decisions taken in different countries or Offices, contributes to a converged understanding and can lead to a more stream-lined patent granting process.  This proves to be very useful in possible cooperation and work sharing activities among different offices.

 

  1. We read this document with greatest interest. It provides an excellent representation of the issues in general and makes available where appropriate a list of potential indicators that are used in more than one jurisdiction. It also elaborates further on some of those indicators and points out the difficulties or limits of some approaches.  The compilation of the practice of some countries, be it important case law or examination guidelines , also gives particular insight and helps to gain better understanding of the different solutions.

 

  1. While this study as well as numerous similar studies in the past gives an excellent overview about the different patent law systems, we are keen to learn also about the practical relevance of such differences. How often differences in inventive step practice lead to different granting success? Is it possible to assess the economic impact? Answering questions like this may be a valuable input for further increasing our knowledge about the economic impact of the patent system. Thus we would like to encourage the secretariat to conduct studies to provide insight to these important questions.

 

  1. At this SCP session we are of course also keen to participate in the half-day conference on cooperation between offices as well as in the sharing session on approaches used to ensure the quality of patent grant processes and thus learn more and get a deeper understanding. For a subsequent session of this Committee we are very much interested in getting more knowledge of the inventive step and selection inventions in the chemical sector. We also support the remaining aspects of the proposal set out in SCP 28/8, specifically a study by the secretariat on approaches to the quality of the patent grant process.  We also remain interested in discussions on the use for examination and patentability of Artificial Intelligence.  We are committed to make considerable progress on Quality of Patents which constitutes one of the core elements of the patent system.

 

  1. Thus, we are looking forward to an interesting and constructive discussion on this item.

 

Thank you.

Editorial Sections: