Where there’s a patent, there’s always the question of how to interpret that patent. The answer seems simple: just check the patent and you’ll know what is protected and what is infringing. But reality shows that the interpretation of a patent is serious business.
For a proper elucidation of Article 69 the European Patent Convention (EPC), a judge should refer to the protocol on its interpretation: “Article 69 should not be interpreted as meaning that the extent of the protection conferred by a European patent is to be understood as that defined by the strict, literal meaning of the wording used in the claims, the description and drawings being employed only for the purpose of resolving an ambiguity found in the claims.
"Nor should it be taken to mean that the claims serve only as a guideline and that the actual protection conferred may extend to what, from a consideration of the description and drawings by a person skilled in the art, the patent proprietor has contemplated.”
On the contrary, according to this protocol a judge has to take a position between these extremes, in order to “combine fair protection for the patent proprietor with a reasonable degree of legal certainty for third parties”.
To continue reading, you need a subscription to WIPR. Start a subscription to WIPR for £455.
In-house feature articles, the archive and expert comment require a paid subscription. Subscribe now.
Want to give it a try? We are offering a two week free trial to the WIPR website – register and select “Free Trial” to begin access to the full WIPR archive and read the latest news, features and expert comment. Begin your free trial here.
Is your 2 week free trial about to end? Upgrade to a 12 month subscription for £455 now.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email James Lynn on email@example.com.
EPC, harmonisation, patent interpretation