英國繼脫歐後接續退出UPC -- UK will not be part of the UPC

媒體原文:The UK will not be part of the UPC, government confirms to IAM

首相的媒體發言人在電子郵件中表示: "I can confirm that the UK will not be seeking involvement in the UP/UPC system. Participating in a court that applies EU law and bound by the CJEU is inconsistent with our aims of becoming an independent self-governing nation."


發言人說，他可以確認英國不會尋求參與UP / UPC(Unitary Patent/Unified Patent Court)系統。參與適用歐盟法律並受CJEU(Court of Justice of the European Union)約束的法院與我們成為一個獨立的自治國家目標不一致。

從英國專利判例看歐洲專利局與美國專利商標局對於通常知識者的差別 -- U.K. Court of Appeal Aligns U.K. Sufficiency Standard with European Patent Office Standard and Sharpens Contrast with U.S. Practice

新聞原文:

U.K. Court of Appeal Aligns U.K. Sufficiency Standard with European Patent Office Standard and Sharpens Contrast with U.S. Practice

在這個 Regeneron v Kymab & Novo Nordisk判例中，英國上訴法院，採用EPO審查基準中通常知識者對於專利文件中的揭露水準，來判定Regeneron 所擁有的EP 1360287 與 EP 2264163專利中的第三個實施例未充分揭露，無法據以實施。

原文中對於歐洲專利局以及美國專利商標局對於「通常知識者」的定義中有基本的說明。兩者略有差異，要點在通常知識者是否具有創造力的差別，參考如下。

The “skilled person” under European law is a capable person with typical knowledge in the relevant field, but exercises no creativity. That skilled person will follow the instructions given in the disclosure and supplement that information only with information that is, without question, commonly known and immediately apparent to the skilled person. 

Under U.S. patent law, the person of ordinary skill is a capable person with typical knowledge in the relevant field and the typical creativity for a person in that field.

These differences in the characteristics of the skilled person (or person of ordinary skill in the art) can lead to instances where a patent application that meets the enablement requirement under the law of one jurisdiction fails to meet the requirement in another jurisdiction.

Economist's report on "Peer to Patent"

Economist 的報導：A patent improvement

如果美國專利商標局，施行的成效良好，UKPO，也會加入"Peer to Patent"的措施。

EPO回絕UK上訴法院重新審視軟體專利標準的要求

原文:EPO rejects Court of Appeal request to review software patent law

UK上訴法院在裁決了Macrossan vs UK Patent Office後，要求EPO 召開擴大上訴委員會(Enlarged Board of Appeal, Enlaged BoA)，針對EPC 第52 條第二款不予專利的標的進行定義，以解決歐洲專利局上訴委員會見解不一致的問題。

不過由於Enlaged BoA成立的發動權在EPO主席，而EPO主席 Pompidou經回覆給UK上訴法院，表示目前並未見到需要成立Enlaged BoA的理由。

註1 EPC Article 52
(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step.
(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
(d) presentations of information.
(3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.
(4) Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body shall not be regarded as inventions which are susceptible of industrial application within the meaning of paragraph 1. This provision shall not apply to products, in particular substances or compositions, for use in any of these methods.

註2 網際網路上電腦程式本身傳輸之專利
「2. EPO重新詮釋EPC第52條第2、3項的排除條款」 段