- The Issue
- Our Position
- Case Law Search
- 4 SMEs
Search 4iP Articles
Patent System and Patent Quality SMEs IP Enforcement Standardisation Licensing IP and Competition Law Trade Law and Regulation Digital Single Market Infographics Open Source software Artificial intelligence and data Digital platforms European Commission FRAND Policy Legislation Regulation Access
Research: The examination of computer implemented inventions and artificial intelligence inventions
by Jean-Marc Deltorn, Andrew Thean, Markus Volkmer
Computer-implemented inventions and applications of artificial intelligence have become an important part of the current innovation landscape. This trend is demonstrated by a significant increase in patents filings in a variety of technical areas, from self-driving vehicles to applications supporting the fourth industrial revolution. The EPO, as the patent granting authority for the contracting states to the EPC, has developed, over time and in line with the case law of the Boards of Appeal, a stable practice regarding the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. This practice now also applies to applications in the field of artificial intelligence, where it offers a stable platform on which applicants and practitioners can secure patent protection for AI inventions at the EPO, with predictable outcomes. This paper provides guidance about the patentability of artificial intelligence at the EPO.
Research: Patent Quality: Does One Size Fit All?
by Naina Khanna, Phd Candidate at Maastricht University, the Netherlands under the European IP Institutes Network Innovation Society (EIPIN-Innovation Society)
In this article a broad range of literature is analysed to answer the question; what the term "patent quality" may encompass and whether there could be one size fits all definition? The paper seeks to facilitate the identification of factors that influence the quality of patents, especially from a sound policy perspective.
Research: The practice of claiming a court injunction ordering an implementer to cease and desist from infringing a patent - German version.
by Uwe Scharen, Former Presiding Judge of the Federal Court of Justice in Germany. German version.
Die Erstveröffentlichung dieses Aufsatzes erfolgte in der Zeitschrift „Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte“, Heft 09/2018, S. 369, herausgegeben vom Vorstand der Patentanwaltskammer, erschienen bei Wolters Kluwer Deutschland – Carl Heymanns Verlag
Research: The practice of claiming a court injunction ordering an implementer to cease and desist from infringing a patent
by Uwe Scharen - Former Presiding Judge at the Federal Court of Justice of Germany.
This paper looks at the practice of the German courts regarding the provision of injunctive relief to patent holders. After a brief analysis of the German substantive law governing patent holders’ claims for injunctive relief, the author presents the legal remedies available to the patent holder under German law for protecting and enforcing such claims. It was first published: - in German in the journal "Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte“, Issue 09/2018, page 369, which is edited by the Board of the German Chamber of Patent Attorneys (Patentanwaltskammer) and published by Wolter Kluwer Deutschland – Carl Heymanns Verlag. - in English in the "Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice", Oxford University Press, jpy127, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy127
Research: Are PAEs a Threat to Europe?
by Igor Nikolic
Patent Assertion Entities are often negatively portrayed as harmful “patent trolls” that engage in speculative and abusive patent litigation against manufacturing companies. Although mass PAE litigation has mainly been US phenomenon, a recent study indicated that PAEs are on the rise in Europe and a number of changes to the European patent and litigation system have been recommended. This paper provides a different perspective on PAEs. It will first show that not all PAEs engage in harmful activities and that most are in the legitimate business of patent licensing. Further, Europe has in place different patent and litigation incentives than the US, which effectively guard against any abusive patent litigation. Finally, the available evidence does not in fact show the presence of mass and harmful PAE litigation in Europe.