EPO オフィシャルジャーナル・特別版

昨年の９月に開催された第１４回欧州特許判事シンポの内容が掲載されています。
special edition 1/2009 of the EPO Official Journal

キーノートスピーチやワークショップのスピーチをそのまま記録したスタイルのジャーナルです。
EPC2000で導入されたLimitation（訂正審判？）や Revocation（無効審判？）、EPOにおける当業者の考え方など結構興味深い内容が掲載されています。



ところでジャーナルの内容とは関係ないのですが、EPOのジャーナルは通常ドイツ語、英語、フランス語の３つの公用語で併記されています。全く同じ内容が平気されていると思うのですが文章の長さが違うんですね。
長さ（文字の量か？）を比較すると、
　ドイツ語　＞　フランス語　＞　英語
という感じです。ドイツ語よりフランス語が長くなることはありますが英語はいつでも短いですね。単語の長さが理由なのでしょうか？

Vizepräsident des Bezirksgerichts Den Haag ドイツ語
Vice President, The Hague District Court 英語
Vice-Président du tribunal de première instance de La Haye フランス語


おまけ
ジャーナルに紹介されていた判例をいくつか紹介
Effect of the London Agreement
on patent litigation
The ratification of the London Agreement
was authorised by the sole article of Law
No. 2007-1477 of 17 October 2007. It is
now possible, therefore, to enjoy the
protection of a European patent even if
the description is in a language other
than French. However, Article L.614-7
IPC, enacted by the law of 29 October
2007, provides that the description
must be translated into French for the
purposes of litigation before the national
courts.

Scope of claims: relevance of
statements made during the grant
procedure for determining the
scope
Paris Court of Appeal (Fourth Chamber,
Division B), judgment of 22 February
2008 in Thermohauser v Matfer (PIBD,
No. 872, III, p. 244 and PI JC July/
August 2008, p. 35, with comments by
Privat Vigand)
In an otherwise typical case concerning
revocation and infringement of a French
patent, the Court of Appeal sought to
remove doubt as to the scope of a claim
introduced during the grant proceedings
by reviewing the evidence taken for the
purposes of examining the application
and, in particular, statements made by
the patentee during the examination
phase to clarify the scope of the claim.
Although, when EPC 2000 was drawn
up, it was decided not to lay down any
European rule requiring systematic
consideration of the examination dossier
for the purpose of determining the scope
of claims (Article 3 of the Protocol on the
Interpretation of Article 69 EPC not
adopted), the Court took the view that
dossiers may be consulted exceptionally
where features have been added to the
claims during the examination phase.
This was all the more important in the
context of French law, under which the
applicant may not amend the description
or, in particular, the introduction in order
to outline the new technical problem said
to be solved by the invention in the new
claim.

Enforceability of amendments to a
European patent
Paris Court of Appeal (Fourth Chamber,
Division B), judgment of 19 October
2007 in Maasland v Lely industries and
C. Van der Lely NV
In this case, amendments were made
between the filing of the application and
the grant of the European patent, but
after infringement proceedings had been
instituted.
It was undisputed that the means which
were the subject of the amended
claim were essentially included in the
description.
The Court of Appeal held that, although
claims must be interpreted in the light of
the description, they must nevertheless,
under Article 84 EPC, include the
essential features of the claimed
invention.
Since that was not the case in the
circumstances in question, the Court
ruled that, although the European patent
had taken effect retroactively from the
date of the application, it was not
enforceable against third parties from
the date on which the application was
published but rather from the date on
which the patent was granted.