
Logic Patents > Reviews > EuroParl 03-09-24 > Amendments > JURI > Contribution > Unpatentable Invention?
Contribution	Not Contribution	Inventive Step	Unpatentable Invention?

Replace "invention" with "innovation" where patentability is not established

An "invention" in the sense of patent law is an innovation (a solution, a teaching) which fulfills the requirements of statutory subject matter as laid down (for example) in Art 52 EPC. The text of the EPO supporters often uses the term "invention" in contexts where patentability has yet to be tested, thus contributing to the confusion of patentability requirements which has progressed in EPO caselaw since the 1990s, especially since IBM 1 & 2 and Controlling Pension Benefits System. This must be corrected rather than codified.

Amendment 206

submitted by:: Piia-Noora Kauppi
provision:: rec 11
language:: English
topic:: Unpatentable Invention?

amendment
In order for any invention to be considered as patentable it should have a technical character, and thus belong to the field of technology.	In order for any innovation to be considered a patentable invention it should have a technical character, and thus belong to a field of technology. In order to be patentable, inventions in general and inventions which can be realized by a computer program in particular must be susceptible of industrial application, new and involve an inventive step.
justification
The references to industrial application and inventiveness are necessary for the technical aspect to be sufficiently highlighted.

Amendment 207

submitted by:: Andrzej Jan Szejna
provision:: rec 11
language:: Polish
topic:: Unpatentable Invention?
recommendation:: o

amendment
In order for any invention to be considered as patentable it should have a technical character, and thus belong to the field of technology.	In order for any invention to be considered as patentable it should have a technical character, that is, it should apply to material systems such as structures and materials, as well as materials, substances and energy, and their manufacture and processing.
justification
It is essential to define "technical character", as this concept is central to all the other technical or technological terms. The concept of "technology" is narrower than that of "technics" and is subsumed in the latter. Patentability under current patent law is concerned with material systems and the processes falling under the framework of these systems. Referring to a "field of technology" is obsolete and imprecise.

Critique

Good intentions but poor means:

Uses the term "invention" for unpatentable subject matter.
Reference to "field of technology" helps concretise TRIPs.
"Structures" are immaterial and therefore not technical. "forces of nature" terminology is more exact as based in physics as well as (old and new

caselaw|Even pure mathematics such as that of linear optimisation is designed for application to material objects. Inventions can not be distinguished from non-inventions by the domain of application.)

Amendment 208

submitted by:: Evelin Lichtenberger, Monica Frassoni
provision:: rec 11
language:: English
topic:: Unpatentable Invention?

amendment
In order for any invention to be considered as patentable it should have a technical character, and thus belong to a field of technology.	In order for any invention to be considered as patentable it should have a technical character, and thus belong to a field of technology. It must also be capable of industrial application, be new, and involve an inventive step.
justification
This amendment is a reminder of the conditions of patentability.

Amendment 209

submitted by:: Barbara Kudrycka, Tadeusz Zwiefka
provision:: rec 11
language:: English
topic:: Unpatentable Invention?

amendment
In order for any invention to be considered as patentable it should have a technical character, and thus belong to a field of technology.	In order for any innovation to be considered a patentable invention it should have a technical character, and thus belong to a field of technology.
justification
The Council text is not in line with Art 52 EPC. Art 52(2) EPC lists examples of non-inventions. It is not permissible to subsume these under

Amendment 210

submitted by:: Fausto Bertinotti
provision:: rec 11
language:: English
topic:: Unpatentable Invention?

amendment
In order for any invention to be considered as patentable it should have a technical character, and thus belong to a field of technology.	In order for any innovation to be considered a patentable invention it should have a technical character, and thus belong to a field of technology.
justification
The Council text is not in line with Art 52 EPC. Art 52(2) EPC lists examples of non-inventions. It is not permissible to subsume these under "inventions" and then test their technical character. Moreover, while it can not be inferred from Art 52 EPC that all technical innovations are inventions, it can, based on a unanimous tradition of patent law, be assumed that all inventions have technical character.

Amendment 211

submitted by:: Manuel Medina Ortega
provision:: rec 11
topic:: Unpatentable Invention?

amendment
Para que una invención se considere patentable, deberá tener carácter técnico y pertenecer, por tanto, a un campo de la tecnología.	Para que una innovación se considere patentable, deberá tener carácter técnico y pertenecer, por tanto, a un campo de la tecnología.
justification
El texto del Consejo no coincide con el artículo 52 CEP. El artículo 52 (2) CEP enumera ejemplos de no invenciones. No procede incluir éstos bajo el concepto de "invenciones" para probar así su carácter técnico. Por otra parte, mientras que no puede deducirse del artículo 52 CEP que cualquier innovación técnica sea invención, sí se puede asumir, basándonos en una tradición unánime del derecho de patentes, que todas las invenciones tienen carácter técnico.

[ Definitions of Technical Contribution | Negative Definitions of "Contribution" / "Invention" | Untangling Technical Contribution and Inventive Step | Replace "invention" with "innovation" where patentability is not established ]

http://localhost/swpat/papers/europarl0309/amends05/juri0504/patinv.en.html
© 2005-06-12 Hartmut PILCH
english version 2005-03-20 by Hartmut PILCH