EPO case law: Business person and technical expert in computer-implemented inventions

The notional business person might come up with an abstract idea (in this case: avoiding the customer having to provide PIN and account information to the merchant). However, if the invention requires a new infrastructure, new devices and a new protocol involving technical considerations – linked to modified devices and their capabilities as well as … >> read more

19.10.2020

The right to be heard and the obligation to state reasons

If, for the first time in the contested decision a document is cited which in view of the patent office anticipates the claimed subject without giving the applicant the opportunity to comment on it beforehand, the applicant’s right to be heard is infringed. Rejection due to lack of novelty and inventive step requires verifiable justification. … >> read more

15.02.2018

Paradigm Shift on the Inventiveness Requirement of Utility Models

Austria is one of the countries which offers protection for technical inventions not only via patents but also utility models. When the Austrian legislator enacted the first Utility Model Act in 1994 he commented the requirement of inventiveness for utility models was lower than that for patents. Since then the Austrian Courts have struggled with … >> read more

01.06.2011
  • KEYWORDS

  • PERIOD

    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
    • 2011
    • 2010
    • 2009
    • 2008
    • 2007
    • 2006
    • 2005
    • 2004
    • 2003
    • 2002
    • 2001
    • 2000