[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-310506-105":59,"doc-detail-310506-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","amicus-brief-in-accordance-with-article-10-of-the-rules-of-procedure-of-the-enlarged-board-of-appeal-case-g308","AMICUS BRIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 10 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE ENLARGED BOARD OF APPEAL - Case G3/08","","Amicus brief submitted on behalf of the Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) in relation to Case G3/08, addressing the patentability of computer programs and computer-implemented inventions. The submission emphasizes the importance of the European Patent Convention as well as the relevance and potential applicability of TRIPS obligations, arguing that harmonized eligibility and clear legal certainty support investment, transparency of published patents, and competitiveness. It also critiques the EPO’s approach as harmful to European innovation and workforce development.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":30,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/technology/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/amicus-brief-in-accordance-with-article-10-of-the-rules-of-procedure-of-the-enlarged-board-of-appeal-case-g308/310506/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/amicus-brief-in-accordance-with-article-10-of-the-rules-of-procedure-of-the-enlarged-board-of-appeal-case-g308/310506.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Taylor Morgan","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-09","2026-09-20",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":34},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the purpose of this amicus brief in Case G3/08?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It provides CompTIA’s views to assist the Enlarged Board of Appeal in clarifying legal requirements on the scope of patent-eligible subject matter for computer programs and the examination policy contours.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Which main legal framework does the brief emphasize?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The brief emphasizes the primacy of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and discusses how TRIPS provisions should relate to patent-eligible subject matter.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why does CompTIA argue for broader eligibility of computer programs?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"CompTIA argues that harmonized and legally certain computer program/software patenting supports investment attraction, transparency through published patents, and competitiveness for European innovation and economic development.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},310506,1790130518,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":29,"category_name":30,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":34,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},1099523885336,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","Registry of the Enlarged Board of AppealEuropean Patent Office (EPO)80298 MunchenGERMANY  \nDear Sirs  \n# AMICUS BRIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE10 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THEENLARGED BOARD OF APPEAL\n\nCASE G3/08  \nREFERRAL UNDER ARTICLE 112(1)(B)EPC BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE EPO TOTHE ENLARGED BOARD OF APPEAL RE THE PATENTABILITY OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS  \nOn bchalf of the Computing Technology Industry Association(CompTIA),we thank you for thisopportunity to submit views in connection with Case G3/08 and the task before the Enlarged Board ofAppeal.With this submission,we endcavor to assist the EPO in its important goal of clarifying the legalrequiremcnts concerning the scope of patcnt-cligible subject matter pcrtaining to computer programmesand the contours of its examination policy.  \n# Background\n\nThe Computing Technology Industry Association(CompTIA)is the voice of the world's $3trillion information technology industry.CompTIA membership comprises more than 250 Europeancomputer companics and software associations.Our worldwide membership extcnds into more than 100countries and includes companies at the forefront of innovation;including,the channel partners andsolution providers they rcly on to bring their products to market,and the professionals responsible formaximizing the benefits organizations receive from their technology investments.The promotion ofpolicies that enhance growth and competition within the computing world is central to CompTIA's corefunctions.Further,CompTIA's mission is to facilitale the development of vendor-ncutral standards ine-commcrce,customer service,workforcc development,and ICT (Information and CommunicationsTechnology)workforcc ccrtification.  \n04/30/2009 THU 11:01 FAX 2025433008 CompTIA Public Policy  \nCompTIA Amicus BriefEPO Case G3/08April 2009  \n—  \nCompTIA has long advocated for a strong patent system across Europe and its member states,including broad eligibility for computer programmes and computer-implemented inventions(“CIT”)at thcEPO and its member states for the following policy reasons:  \n东华藏乡  \n1)“Onc-stop shopping”:A robust computer programme and software patenting regimeharmonised across the EU simplifies the Icgal paperwork and the management of IP rights-ahallmark of any true single market.  \n2)Legal Certainty Attracts Investment:More property,more collateral;cash-poor SMEshave something they can literally bank upon.Patcnts give SMEs something to ncgotiate with.  \n3)Transparency:Patents are published and can facilitate the transfer of technical know-how.Why re-invent the wheel whcn you can license it?  \n4)   Competitiveness:Major trading partners in Japan,Western Europe,Canada andAmerica have regimes that recognize robust nights surrounding computer programme andsoftware patent eligible subject matter.All European finns need to recognise them,understandthem,and generate thcir own patents as their econonies develop.  \n# I    Introduction\n\n## A.    Current Lcgal Framework:Choice of Law,Harmonisation,and TRIPS\n\n△ fundamental issue at the heart of the Referral is thc choice of law.As a prccursor to thequestions raised by the President's Refcrral of 22 October 2009 in case G3/08,'we wish to emphasize thefollowing issues raiscd by its discussion of the current legal framework surrounding the patent law acrossEurope.The Referral emphasizes the primacy of the European Patent Convcntion(EPC).It also deniesthe applicability of the TRIPs Agreement in its work because,inter alia,\"the European PatentOrganisation itself is not a member of the WTO and is not a signatory of the agreement.”Numerousother amici curiae have discussed with in-depth analysis and precision how thc rclevant TRIPSprovisions concern the scope of patent cligible subject matter(i.e.,TRIPS,Article 27,\"in all Giclds oftechnology...patcnts shall be available and patent rights enjoyed without discrimination as to[]the ficldof technology.\")  \nIn sum,CompTIA agrees on the merits with those amici curiae that explain that the EPO's","cbCaifx3yPYT7Q2y","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifx3yPYT7Q2y","pdf",1221930,13,"English","# AMICUS BRIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 10\n## Case G3/08\n# Background\n# I Introduction\n## A. Current Legal Framework: Choice of Law, Harmonisation, and TRIPS","[{\"question\":\"What is the purpose of this amicus brief in Case G3/08?\",\"answer\":\"It provides CompTIA’s views to assist the Enlarged Board of Appeal in clarifying legal requirements on the scope of patent-eligible subject matter for computer programs and the examination policy contours.\"},{\"question\":\"Which main legal framework does the brief emphasize?\",\"answer\":\"The brief emphasizes the primacy of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and discusses how TRIPS provisions should relate to patent-eligible subject matter.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does CompTIA argue for broader eligibility of computer programs?\",\"answer\":\"CompTIA argues that harmonized and legally certain computer program/software patenting supports investment attraction, transparency through published patents, and competitiveness for European innovation and economic development.\"}]","AMICUS BRIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 10 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE ENLARGED BOARD OF APPEAL - Case G3/08 | PDF",1789882844,33]