24 european highrank patent judges calls for the EPLA

Venice, Italy, October 14-16 2005. 24 judges all member of the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW) promoted in a resolution the creation of a unified European patent court through the ratification of the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA). This judicial lobbying action includes the UK's most senior IP judges, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Justice Jacob, as well as members of Germany’s Federal Court, the Italian Supreme Court, the Court of First Instance in the Hague, the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Paris and the Commercial Court of Zurich.

Links

• http://www.eplaw.org/

• http://www.eplaw.org/Downloads/Venice%20Resolution.pdf

The EPLAW

The European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW) was originally formed in the year 2001 as an interest groups promoting the creation of a unitary European patent litigation system. Originally, the name of the association waw to be the European Patent Litigators Association EPLA as referred to the EPLAW articles of incorporation. Members of the Association must be lawyers admitted to a bar or similar law society in a country in the European Economic area and Switzerland and have substantial litigation experience in patent law.

The EPLAW and the European Patent Office EPO jointly organised aa Forum for European Judges involved in patent cases taking in Venice on 14-16 October 2005. The 24 present judges signed a the "Venice resolution", supporting the implementation of proposals of the Working Party for a European Patent Litigation Agreement as soon as practical and urging use of the Enhanced Co-operation procedure pursuant as referring to the Art. II of the EC Treaty.

The EPLAW has already made about ten resolutions following the EPO policy and supporting the Community patent, the London agreement and the European Patent Litigation agreement

• Community Patent "Common Political Approach" EPLAW Position Paper, adopted by the Board on 14 March 2003

• Resolution on languages, adopted by the Congress on 21 November 2003

• Resolution urgently asking for co-operation between the EU Commission, the EU Council and the European Patent Office to make progress on EPLA, adopted by the Congress on 2 December 2005

The "24 Venice Judges"

Leonard Hubert Hoffmann, Lord Hoffmann of Chedworth

• House of Lords, UK
  • Leader of the "judges resolution"

  • Lord Hoffmann on Wikipedia

Dr Marina Tavassi

• Supreme Court, Italy

Lord Justice Jacob

• Court of Appeal, UK
  • He seems to oppose software patentability.

  • 2006-01-13 EU [Zdnet: Judge dreads software patentshttp://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:zOE2Zt6-AkAJ:news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39247187,00.htm+%22Lord+Justice%22+%22computer-implemented+inventions%22&hl=en&gl=be&ct=clnk&cd=3]

Dr Massimo Scuffi

• High Court judge - Court of Appeal of Milan - IPR division (Italy)
• Legal member of the enlarged Board of Appeal - EPO(Munich)
• Contact: mascuffi at tin.it
• Supreme Court, Rome, Italy

  • He examined the judicial procedures available to defend IPRs on the Internet. He spoke on the Distinctive Signs of Enterprises, infringement proceedings, procedural rules in IPR litigation, summary proceedingsand provisional measures, proceedings on merits and legal sanctions, and the calculation of damages

  • He participated to an EPO seminar in september 2001, "The Role of an Expert in Patent Litigation"

Dr Peter Meier-Beck

• Federal Court, Germany

• CV

Ms Gabriella Muscolo

• High Court, Rome, Italy

Dr Klaus-Jürgen Melullis

• Federal Court, Germany

  • The German caselaw (including “Kommunikationslosung” and other cases of 2004)uses the “conrollable forces of nature” definitions of “technology” and the presidingjudge of the highest court, Dr. Klaus-Jurgen Melullis, has recently once more stressedthat without this definition the courts have no reliable way to exclude patents on abstractconcepts and business methods these days. At the same time, Melullis stressed that thedefinition alone does not exclude much. It is just a basis. On this basis, almost anypatent can be granted. To really exclude software and business methods, additionalelements need to come in, namely the concept of “invention” or “contribution”

Hon Judge I Sancho Gargallo

• President of the 15th Section of the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona, Spain

Dr Klaus Grabinski

• Düsseldorf Regional Court, Germany

Hon Judge L Rodriguez Vega

• Juzgado Mercantil Germany NO.4 de Barcelona, Spain

Mr Ernest Numann

• Supreme Court of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, The Netherlands

Dr 0 Brändle

• Commercial Court of Zurich, Switzerland

Mr Russel Van Peursem

• Court of First Instance, The Hague, The Netherlands

Mr F Nyfeler

• Bundesrichter, Schweizerisches ~ Bundesgericht, Switzerland

Mr Jan Brinkhof

• Former Vice President of the Court of Appeal, The Hague, The Netherlands

• Curriculum Vitae on the CIER website

  • Quoted in a working paper, "The patentability of computer-implemented inventions. Discussion of European level legislation in the field of patents for software". Jan J. Brinkhof, ‘Die Schlichtung Patentstreitigkeiten in Europa. Über Traum und Wirklichkeit’, GRUR 2001, p. 600-604

Mr Maurer

• Commercial Court of Bern, Switzerland

Madame C Vallet

• Presiding Judge, Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, France

Dr A Knecht

• Commercial Court of Aargau, Switzerland

Judge Jens Feilberg

• President of the Maritime and Commercial Court, Denmark

• CV

• http://myndigheder.danmark.dk/person.asp?page=person&objno=200065

• http://myndigheder.danmark.dk/myndighed.asp?page=orgenh&objno=104130

Prof. Dr Leuenberger

• Commercial Court of St Gallen, Switzerland

Judge Thomas Norström

• District Court of Stockholm

Mr I Gunes, Judge

• Ismir, Turkey

Mr B Nilsson

• Retired District Court Judge, Sweden

Mr T Alca

• Judge, Ankara, Turkey