Software Patents > Reviews > Europarl 03-09-24
| |||||
| Reviews | Europarl 03-09-24 | Reactions | faq | Appeal | CEC 2003/11 |
2b. "technical contribution", also called "invention", means a contribution to the state of the art in technical field. The technical character of the contribution is one of the four requirements for patentability. Additionally, to deserve a patent, the technical contribution has to be new, non-obvious, and susceptible of industrial application. The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes.
2ba. "technical field" means an industrial application domain requiring the use of controllable forces of nature to achieve predictable results. "Technical" means "belonging to a technical field".
2bb. "industria", ai sensi del diritto dei brevetti, produzione automatizzata di beni materiali;
4.2. Member States shall ensure that a computer-implemented invention making a technical contribution constitutes a necessary condition of involving an inventive step.
4.3. The significant extent of the technical contribution shall be assessed by consideration of the difference between the technical elements included in the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole and the state of the art, irrespective of whether or not such features are accompanied by non-technical features.
4.3a. Per determinare se una data invenzione attuata per mezzo di elaboratore elettronico arreca un contributo tecnico, si applica il seguente criterio: si valuta se essa costituisce un nuovo insegnamento sulle relazioni di causa-effetto nell'impiego delle forze controllabili della natura e se ha un'applicazione industriale nel senso stretto dell'espressione, in termini sia di metodo che di risultato.
4a.2. Gli Stati membri garantiscono che le soluzioni attuate mediante elaboratore elettronico rispetto a problemi tecnici non siano considerate invenzioni brevettabili solo perchè migliorano l'efficacia nell'impiego delle risorse del sistema di trattamento dei dati.
5.1.a. Member States shall ensure that patent claims granted in respect of computer-implemented inventions include only the technical contribution which justifies the patent claim. A patent claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed.
5.1.b. Gli Stati membri assicurano che la produzione, la manipolazione, il trattamento, la distribuzione e la pubblicazione di informazioni, in qualsiasi forma, non possano mai costituire una violazione di brevetto, diretta o indiretta, anche se a tale fine sono stati utilizzati dispositivi tecnici.
5.1.c. Gli Stati membri assicurano che l'uso di un programma per elaboratore per scopi che non riguardano l'oggetto del brevetto non possa costituire una violazione di brevetto diretta o indiretta.
5.1.d. Gli Stati membri assicurano che, qualora una rivendicazione di brevetto menzioni caratteristiche che implicano l'uso di un programma per elaboratore, un'applicazione di riferimento, ben funzionante e ben documentata, di tale programma sia pubblicata come parte della descrizione senza condizioni di licenza restrittive.
6a. Gli Stati membri assicurano che, in ogni caso in cui l'uso di una tecnica brevettata sia necessario per un fine importante quale ad esempio garantire la conversione delle convenzioni utilizzate in due diversi sistemi o reti di elaboratori elettronici, così da consentire la comunicazione e lo scambio dei dati fra di essi, detto uso non sia considerato una violazione di brevetto.
8.1.a. the impact of patents for computer-implemented inventions on the factors referred to in Article 7;
8.1.b. whether the rules governing the term of the patent and the determination of the patentability requirements, and more specifically novelty, inventive step and the proper scope of claims, are adequate; and
8.1.c. whether difficulties have been experienced in respect of Member States where the requirements of novelty and inventive step are not examined prior to issuance of a patent, and if so, whether any steps are desirable to address such difficulties.
8.1.c.a. whether difficulties have been experienced in respect of the relationship between the protection by patent of computer-implemented inventions and the protection by copyright of computer programs as provided for in Directive 91/250/EEC and whether any abuse of the patent system has occurred in relation to computer-implemented inventions;
8.1.c.b. whether it would be desirable and legally possible having regard to the Community's international obligations to introduce a 'grace period' in respect of elements of a patent application for any type of invention disclosed prior to the date of the application;
8.1.c.c. the aspects in respect of which it may be necessary to prepare for a diplomatic conference to revise the Convention on the Grant of European Patents, also in the light of the advent of the Community patent;
8.1.c.d. how the requirements of this Directive have been taken into account in the practice of the European Patent Office and in its examination guidelines.
8.1.c.e. whether the powers delegated to the EPO are compatible with the need to harmonise Community legislation, and with the principles of transparency and accountability.
8.1.c.f. the impact on the conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems to allow communication and exchange of data;
8.1.c.g. whether the option outlined in the Directive concerning the use of a patented invention for the sole purpose of ensuring interoperability between two systems is adequate;
8.1a In this report the Commission shall justify why it believes an amendment of the Directive in question necessary or not and, if required, will list the points which it intends to propose an amendment to.