Suggestions Box

Whenever arguing on a legal matter, one is looking for some authority to rely on. Commentaries are a first place to look for such guidance. And, undoubtedly, it makes life easier if you can point to a commentary that supports your position. In my perception, that’s why commentaries are not only an interesting read but also a powerful and influential tool.

But still, sth is not necessarily correct just because it is written in a commentary. Once in a while, I stumble upon issues in commentaries I just cannot agree with. Typically, I would scribble a grumpy smiley right beside, and leave it as is.

But that’s surely not the most productive way to deal with such things. I feel it would be best to collect any such issues that practitioners come across, and to make the collection available i) to the public to prevent reliance on doubtful or wrong ‘authority’; and ii) to the authors / editors of the respective commentary, for consideration at the next revision.

Now, that’s what this ‘Suggestions Box’ is all about.

I will enter my picks into the database on a rolling basis. But, maybe I am wrong. And I will surely miss a lot. Thus, PLEASE use the comment box at the bottom of the page (or any other way to contact me) to let me know your thoughts on my picks — and to let me know about any issues that you come across so that I can include them in the list (with or w/o your name, that’s of course up to you to decide). Thank you!

Martin WILMING

Suggestions Box

Guidelines for Examination in the EPO (2018)
P. Heinrich: PatG / EPÜ, 2018
  • nothing in here yet
SHK Patentgesetz (PatG), 2019
Varia
  • nothing in here yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.