[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) 
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Reply to sender(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)to list(074db819ec%END%074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email == 'jacek.gancarson@eurofresh.se' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
Is it possible to have (as a result of the software patents debate) an amendmend introduced into the directive proposal:
Members states agree that new patent revocation procedure (effected by EPO and member state courts) will be established until 1 January 2006 for the cases when it has been proven that the letter and  the spirit of the directive and EPC had been damaged by issuing particular patent.
 
(It would be a pilot case of implementation  of a procedure for effective reversal of bad and heavy decisions of administration bodies in Europe.)
Best regrads
Jacek Gancarson 

(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)