This HTML5 document contains 117 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
n23http://fi.dbpedia.org/resource/G_3/
n10http://dbpedia.org/resource/T_204/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n36http://dbpedia.org/resource/File:
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n34https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
n22http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/DC6171F182D8B65AC125772100426656/$File/
n21http://dbpedia.org/resource/G_1/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
n29http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n32http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_3/
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n9http://dbpedia.org/resource/T_190/
n16http://dbpedia.org/resource/T_424/
n27http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n26https://web.archive.org/web/20091221065952/http:/www.epo.org/patents/appeals/eba-decisions/pending/
n8http://dbpedia.org/resource/T_172/
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
n12http://dbpedia.org/resource/T_1177/
n7http://dbpedia.org/resource/T_163/
n20http://dbpedia.org/resource/T_833/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
n13http://dbpedia.org/resource/T_125/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n33http://dbpedia.org/resource/T_258/
n2http://dbpedia.org/resource/G_3/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/
n19http://dbpedia.org/resource/T_769/
n11http://www.epo.org/patents/appeals/
n30http://www.recht.uni-jena.de/z10/gb/gbarchiv/
n35http://dbpedia.org/resource/T_1173/
n25http://www.european-patent-office.org/epo/pubs/oj009/03_09/

Statements

Subject Item
n2:08
rdfs:label
G 3/08
rdfs:comment
Under case number G 3/08, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO issued on May 12, 2010 an opinion in response to questions referred to it by the President of the European Patent Office (EPO), Alison Brimelow, on October 22, 2008. The questions subject of the referral related to the patentability of programs for computers under the European Patent Convention (EPC) and were, according to the President of the EPO, of fundamental importance as they related to the definition of "the limits of patentability in the field of computing." In a 55-page long opinion, the Enlarged Board of Appeal considered the referral to be inadmissible because no divergent decisions had been identified in the referral.
foaf:homepage
n22:G3_08_en.pdf
foaf:depiction
n27:Scale_of_justice_2.svg
dcterms:subject
dbc:2008_in_Europe dbc:Software_patent_case_law dbc:2008_in_case_law dbc:Case_law_of_the_Enlarged_Board_of_Appeal_of_the_European_Patent_Office
dbo:wikiPageID
19923738
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1117639032
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Symbian's_Patent_Application n7:85 n8:03 dbr:General_Electric_Company n9:94 n10:93 dbc:2008_in_Europe dbr:Pitney_Bowes dbr:Alison_Brimelow n12:97 dbr:Pirate_Party n13:01 dbr:ECLI dbr:IBM dbc:2008_in_case_law dbr:ITechLaw n16:03 dbr:DIGITALEUROPE n19:92 dbc:Software_patent_case_law dbr:BT_Group n20:91 dbr:Foundation_for_a_Free_Information_Infrastructure dbr:Lord_Justice_Jacob dbr:Directive_on_the_patentability_of_computer-implemented_inventions dbr:United_Kingdom n21:19 dbr:André_Klein dbr:European_Patent_Institute dbr:BUSINESSEUROPE dbr:Donald_Knuth dbr:New_York_Times dbr:Chartered_Institute_of_Patent_Attorneys dbr:Uwe_Scharen dbr:Red_Hat dbr:Computing_Technology_Industry_Association dbr:American_Intellectual_Property_Law_Association dbr:Amicus_curiae_briefs dbr:Canonical_Ltd. dbr:Peter_Messerli dbr:Siemens dbr:Alain_Pompidou dbr:Free_Software_Foundation_Europe dbr:Association_for_Competitive_Technology dbr:Computing dbr:Japan_Intellectual_Property_Association dbc:Case_law_of_the_Enlarged_Board_of_Appeal_of_the_European_Patent_Office dbr:Legal_certainty dbr:International_Association_for_the_Protection_of_Industrial_Property dbr:International_Federation_of_Intellectual_Property_Attorneys dbr:Prof._Joseph_Straus dbr:Michael_Dorn_(external_member_of_the_Enlarged_Board_of_Appeal_of_the_EPO) dbr:Apple_Inc. dbr:Irish_Free_Software_Organisation dbr:England_and_Wales_Court_of_Appeal dbr:France_Télécom dbr:Leave_to_appeal dbr:Computer_&_Communication_Industry_Association dbr:Patentability dbr:UNION_of_European_Practitioners_in_Industrial_Property dbr:Jean-Pierre_Seitz dbr:Ericsson n33:03 dbr:UK_Intellectual_Property_Office dbr:Rapporteur dbr:Enlarged_Board_of_Appeal_of_the_EPO dbr:European_Patent_Office dbr:House_of_Lords dbr:Software_patent_under_the_European_Patent_Convention dbr:Philips dbr:Accenture dbr:Licensing_Executives_Society_International dbr:Polish_Patent_Office dbr:SAP_AG dbr:Martin_Vogel dbr:Official_Journal_of_the_EPO dbr:List_of_decisions_of_the_EPO_Boards_of_Appeal_relating_to_Article_52(2)_and_(3)_EPC dbr:Case_law dbr:Claim_(patent) dbr:Microsoft_Corporation dbr:Dai_Rees_(member_of_the_Enlarged_Board_of_Appeal_of_the_EPO) n35:97 dbr:Appeal_procedure_before_the_European_Patent_Office n36:Scale_of_justice_2.svg
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n11:eba-decisions.html n22:G3_08_en.pdf n25:03_1429.pdf n26:briefs.html n29:g080003ex1.html n30:GB_03_2010_screen.pdf%23page=23
owl:sameAs
wikidata:Q5515115 n23:08 n34:4jZEk freebase:m.04q2j28
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Decisions_and_opinions_of_the_Enlarged_Board_of_Appeal_of_the_European_Patent_Office dbt:EPC_Article dbt:ECLI dbt:Main dbt:One_source dbt:Quote dbt:Reflist dbt:In_lang
dbo:thumbnail
n27:Scale_of_justice_2.svg?width=300
dbo:abstract
Under case number G 3/08, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO issued on May 12, 2010 an opinion in response to questions referred to it by the President of the European Patent Office (EPO), Alison Brimelow, on October 22, 2008. The questions subject of the referral related to the patentability of programs for computers under the European Patent Convention (EPC) and were, according to the President of the EPO, of fundamental importance as they related to the definition of "the limits of patentability in the field of computing." In a 55-page long opinion, the Enlarged Board of Appeal considered the referral to be inadmissible because no divergent decisions had been identified in the referral. The referral had been quoted as relating to the "deeply contentious question about how to assess the patentability of software-related inventions". Alison Brimelow had been reported to have been considering referring the issue to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for almost two years. Some amicus curiae briefs had anticipated that the referral would be considered inadmissible under the legal provisions of the EPC, and in particular Article 112(1)(b) EPC.
prov:wasDerivedFrom
n32:08?oldid=1117639032&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
21336
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
n32:08