Talk:London Agreement (2000)

Untitled discussion
"In addition, a country party to the Agreement would also keep the right to require that in case of a dispute relating to a patent translation should be provided by the patentee in one of the official languages of the country."

Why not translating the whole patent? Only with the claims, it is nearly impossible to understand the patent... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.193.162.190 (talk • contribs)

Moving this page
The 'London Agreement' also refers to an agreement signed in 1987 between Shimon Peres and King Hussein of Jordan. In order to prevent conflict, this page will have to be renamed whereas the 'London Agreement' page will be changed to a disambiguation page pointing to both articles. I am not familiar with this topic at all, however reading this article I propose the following name: 'European Patent Translation Agreement'.

Any objections/other suggestions?

Amirig 23:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To make things simple, I moved it to London Agreement (2000).

Amirig 11:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ratification by France, not yet?
Technically, as of today (December 2, 2007), I think the French National Assembly and Senate have only autorized ratification by the French government of the London Agreement. The title of the bill voted at the French National Assembly is
 * Projet de Loi autorisant la ratification de l’accord sur l’application de l’article 65 de la convention sur la délivrance de brevets européens

while the bill voted at the French Senate is
 * Projet de loi autorisant la ratification de l’accord sur l’application de l’article 65 de la convention sur la délivrance de brevets européens

Therefore, saying that France has ratified the London Agreement is wrong IMHO. Am I missing something? --Edcolins 14:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I reworded the article to avoid the problem for now. See also Ratification of international treaties by France. --Edcolins 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I read today that a European Commission spokesperson said that France had now ratified the London Protocol. --Gronky (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the London Protocol the London Agreement?
Wikipedia has an article about London_Protocol but there's no mention of this London Agreement (2000) article. Are they not the same thing? --Gronky (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Interesting. I'd never heard it called that, but I found a source for the name and posted it on that article. Thanks for the heads up. GDallimore (Talk) 11:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Originally, the idea was to create an optional "protocol". The official name was later changed to Agreement, but the name "protocol" is still (sometimes) informally used today. I have updated the article. Thanks for the question. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Translation of claims under Rule 71(3) EPC (prior to grant)
Some of the information in this article is technically accurate but in practice it is misleading. EPC rules require translation where the London Agreement does not. In particular EPC rule 71.3 requires claims to be translated into all 3 official languages of the EPO: English, German, & French. Therefore, stating that parties that recognize one of those languages as an official state language "require no translation" is misleading. It is technically true that the party itself does not require the translation, but the EPC does require it, so the net effect is the same for anyone designing a patent filing strategy with the London Agreement in mind. Luketpeterson (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this remark. good point. I have added the following paragraph in the section "Content":
 * "The agreement has not altered other language provisions applying prior to grant of a European patent, such as the requirement that the claims of a European patent application have to be translated "in the two official languages of the European Patent Office other than the language of the proceedings" after receiving the communication under indicating that the EPO intends to grant a European patent."
 * as well as a corresponding note after the map. Is it clearer now? --Edcolins (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I miss the point, but why is this relevant only for the parties that don't require translation. I guess the note technically would fit at every point of the legend (and is thus better placed at none of them)... L.tak (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right! Thanks. I have just removed the note and slightly expanded the article's lead section. That should now suffice to clear up any confusion, I hope. --Edcolins (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)