J 17/12 - Registrez vous, qu'ils disaient...

Quand je travaille sur ma CBE, il y a des choses qui rentrent "relativement" facilement, et d'autres qui n'accrochent pas. Le Registre Européen des Brevets appartient, pour moi, à cette dernière catégorie (avec un paquet d'autres détails, je dois le confesser...).

Pourtant, au départ, la situation semble simple. L'art.127 CBE dispose que l'OEB tient un registre. Aucune mention n'est portée avant que la demande de brevet n'ait été publiée.

Comme les R.22-R.24 CBE ne concernent que les demandes, on en déduit fort logiquement que plus rien n'est inscrit au REB une fois le brevet délivré.

Jusque là, tout va bien. Sauf que... certaines inscriptions qui concernent le brevet européen peuvent tout de même être portées au REB.

La R.85 CBE indique que la R.22 CBE s'applique au transfert du brevet européen pendant la phase d'opposition.

De plus, la rectification/radiation de la désignation d'un inventeur dans le REB peut être faite à tout moment (R.21 CBE et Dir.A-XI.4). Tout comme sont indiquées la date et la nature de décisions de limitations ou de révocations (R.143(1)(x) et (y) CBE et Dir.A-XI.4).

Si l'on en croit la formulation de la R.143(1)(f) et (h) CBE, on devrait également pouvoir modifier les informations concernant le titulaire ou le mandataire à tout moment. Pour le demandeur ou le titulaire, la formulation est confirmée par les Dir.E-XII-4.

Revenons au cas simple, où nous n'avons affaire qu'à une demande de brevet. Est-ce qu'un transfert de cette demande peut être enregistré au REB alors que la procédure est suspendue au titre de la R.14 CBE ?

La réponse n'était pas si simple, puisque qu'il a fallu aller en recours pour trancher... (au final, la réponse est négative).

La décision citée a déjà été fort bien commentée par le blog du droit européen des brevets et K's Law. Je ne vais donc pas m'attarder.

Ce qui est intéressant (entre autre) dans cette décision, c'est le lien qui est fait entre cette inscription au registre, l'art.61(1) CBE, et la protection des tiers.

Et l'on comprend que la CBE doit être prises dans son ensemble, et non morceau par morceau.

Et l'on comprend que le chemin va être long avant de pouvoir se présenter dignement à l'EEQ (ou EQE, comme on dit plus souvent)...

Citations de la décision J 17/12

6.2 The core provision of the EPC so far as entitlement proceedings are concerned is Article 61(1) EPC, which provides various remedies if "by a final decision it is adjudged that a person other than the applicant is entitled to the grant of the European patent". In this respect it seems to the Board that if the EPO is to be required to act on such a decision, it needs to be a decision which establishes that the third party rather than "the applicant" is entitled to the grant. The Board considers that "the applicant" here can only mean the person entered on the register as applicant. The Board considers that a decision establishing that the third party rather than the former applicant, or indeed some other person, was entitled to the grant would not be sufficient for this purpose. It seems to the Board that if Allergan was correctly registered as the applicant, it was indeed necessary for Ferring to bring proceedings against Allergan, with all the increased costs which that involved. There would then also be nothing to prevent the application being subsequently transferred and registered in the name of another applicant. It follows that if the registered applicant can be freely changed while proceedings for grant are stayed, the third party's attempts to obtain the remedies available under Article 61(1) EPC could be repeatedly frustrated.

6.5 [...] Rather, Allergan argued that if a transfer of the application was registered during the national entitlement proceedings, or even after a final decision was obtained, the third party could simply institute fresh entitlement proceedings and obtain a decision against that new applicant. It seems to the Board that this is the opposite of protecting the interests of the third party, given the expense and delay involved, and taking into account the fact that such proceedings would have to be brought in whatever was the appropriate jurisdiction according the Protocol on Recognition. A similar point arose in J 20/05, where it was argued, in the context of a divisional application being filed during suspension of the parent grant proceedings, that a third party could simply bring entitlement proceedings in respect of such divisional application, and apply to stay grant proceedings on that divisional application. The Board said:

"It has to be noted that it is not possible for the claimant third party to apply to the EPO for an automatic and immediate suspension of the divisional application proceedings by way of an extension of the suspension of the parent application proceedings. On the contrary, in order to have the divisional application proceedings suspended the third party would first have to bring ("open") new national proceedings against the applicant in which it sought a judgment that it is entitled to the grant of a patent on the divisional application. The third party would then have to provide evidence that it had brought such proceedings and finally the matter would have to be decided by the EPO. All this would clearly put an additional heavy and undue burden on the third party and would be contrary to the objective of the suspension of the parent application proceedings, which is to protect its interests." 

See also J 9/12, point 7 of the Reasons

6.6 Allergan argued that it was important in the public interest that the register should reflect the true position so that, for example, if someone wished to acquire a licence in this case they would know that they should apply to Allergan and not Reprise. The Legal division also considered this informational role of the register to be an important factor. However, quite apart from the fact that anyone wishing to obtain a licence would presumably be re-directed by Reprise to Allergan, there is nothing to stop the filing, during the suspension of grant proceedings, of a request to transfer the application. The effect of a stay in the light of the Board's decision will simply be that no action will be taken on the request during the suspension. While the fact of the transfer may not be apparent from the register, it will be apparent from an inspection of the public file, as will the decision to stay the grant proceedings itself. The public will therefore be sufficiently informed."