I took the liberty of compiling all the messages that I could find on the
PIUG list and the EPO list concerning the EPO Hearing in Munich on March 7,
1997 on "The future patent information policy of the European Patent
Organization" Originally, I created this compilation for my own use.
However, these messages are so scattered and have such strange titles, that
I thought others might benefit from seeing a compilation of these messages
in one place.
The key issues appear to be that the EPO would no longer be involved in any
interaction with the actual users of the databases/information that the EPO
produces. The EPO information would be made available exclusively through
"a) the national patent offices and their regional information centres
b) the commercial sector"
Apparently, comments or letters from European companies or companies with a
strong European presence will have more influence than from just U.S.
organizations. My understanding is that letters expressing opionins on this
matter can still be sent to Ingo Kober, the president of the EPO.
There is some additional information on the web
http://www.luna.co.uk/~patmg/newton.htm
I applogize in advance if I missed any significant contributions on this
subject. In preparing this compilation, I included only the date, address
and title from the original posting. I did no editing of the content of the
following messages other than to delete extra carriage returns and large
message headers/footers.
Sandra Unger
ssunger@erenj.com
(908) 474-6605
--------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:48:38 +0100
From: Hans Geelback Andersen <infoco@infoco.dk>
Subject: Patent information on the internet /2
EPO on the internet was an important part of the strategy hearing at the 7.
march in Munich where I asked for initiatives from EPO.
My opinion is that this information will be avaible either as:
I/ "worst case" supplied by 18 national/ private suppliers on 18 different
adresses using 10 different pieces of software supplying information - or
not on ie applications, 'gebrauchmuster', status on ??, updatet, I hope, at
different intervals and that in 12 languages.
II/ "much better case" supplied by a central autority ( EPO in Wienna!)
using standard software with all information in a standard form / language
and updated as soon as possible.
The role of the national offices, - they seems to have a lot of ressources
for use on these things - could in this case be to make avaible on internet
information about granted patents and their status and with abstract and
claims in the local language as the french office is doing on their local
collection of CD's. This information is 'live' and very well suited to the
internet media.
Yours
Hans Geelback Andersen
inFoco System A/S
infoco@infoco.dk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:55:50 +0000
From: David Newton <David.Newton@mail.bl.uk>
Subject: Hearing 97
Hearing 97 on the future patent information policy of the European Patent
Organisation
(see <http://www.luna.co.uk/~patmg/hearing> for the background documentation.)
I attended the hearing and give below my personal impressions.
The Hearing was held on 7 March in Munich and was chaired by the President
of the European Patent Office, Mr Ingo Kober. About one hundred delegates
attended and many presented the views of themselves or their organisation.
The submissions which had been sent in writing before the Hearing were
issued at the close of the business. A number of European Patent Office
personnel were present but none commented or made any statements about the
policy or the presentations apart from a comment from Mr Kober about the
European Patent Office's agreement to maintain the Inpadoc service and a
paper distributed by the European Patent Office Staff Committee. Many of the
national patent offices of the member countries of the European Patent
Convention were present but none spoke. The President reported that the
views expressed at the meeting would be recorded and submitted to the
European Patent Office Administrative Council along with the written
submissions for the Council's consideration. Any further submissions sent to
the European Patent Office in the near future would also be taken into
account. There were some calls for further consultations with interested
parties.
Some of the participants were privately sceptical that the views expressed
would carry any weight with the Administrative Council but some of the
points were so frequently and strongly expressed that it is difficult to see
that they will not at least be listened to.
Most of the delegates who spoke seemed content with the pricing policy
proposal at least as it affects commercial information providers (this would
allow them access to all data at marginal cost) but there was some
opposition to the national patent offices receiving data at no cost in case
this distorted competition (and increased European Patent Office costs). An
alternative view form British patent agents was that the European Patent
Office should recoup the investment it had made in patent information
provision ultimately to reduce the cost to the applicants.
There was considerable agreement that the European Patent Office should
supply services direct to the users rather than have to supply via the
national offices (the importance of the Inpadoc database was often cited in
this context). The current effective service from the European Patent Office
in Vienna, the importance of maintaining quality of data through contact
with the end users and the cost of duplicating infrastructure in each
country were cited. The need for standardisation and software development
was said to support the need for European Patent Office involvement. Some
said that the national offices had a role to play in providing advice,
supporting services in national languages and helping SMEs and others
stressed the need for synergy between the European Patent Office and
national offices. Fragmentation was likely to lead to a different level of
provision of services in different European Patent Convention countries
(perhaps none in some countries e.g. Italy). At least the proposal for the
European Patent Office to withdraw from direct provision should wait until
the commercial services had shown themselves to be of a suitable quality and
price.
The commercial sector representatives put the view that they could provide
the required quality of service and a faster service (if allowed by the
patent office procedures) but there was some concern that the commercial
sector could not compete with added-value products such as ESPACE sold at
marginal cost to the end users.
There was a view expressed that there would need to be several commercial
providers in the market to ensure effective competition. There were some
voices expressing the need for support for the patent libraries who were at
the sharp end of the business of help for SMEs although one commercial
supplier saw the libraries as distorting competition for the commercial sector.
David Newton
--------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 21:02:36 +0200 (EET)
From: Valters <valtsip@com.latnet.lv>
Subject: Information on Internet
Be informed -- the Vice President of the European Patent Organization
Mr.K. Edfjel has explained that the EPO patent information will be on
Internetonly after the decision will be made which body is managing the
information flow - the EPO or local offices. Only afterwards the decision
should be made on related cost matters. The explanation was given in
seminar held in Riga, Republic of Latvia on March 7, 1997.
Kind regards.
Valters Gencs
V.Gencs & Associates
Latvia
371-7-55 10 19
Fax 371-2-571285
email:valtsip@com.latnet.lv
--------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 27 Feb 1997 15:48:26 -0800
From: csg admin <csg.admin@amgen.com>
Subject: Hearing 97 at Munich
To those interested in how the European Patent Office is dealing with its
patent dissemination policy at Hearing 97:
The text of the draft proposals for discussion is now available on the PATMG
site, www.luna.co.uk/~patmg/. The EPO site still doesn't mention it. At
least 3 PATMG members are going so patent searchers' interests will be
represented. I can't make it but my colleague David Newton will be there.
Steve van Dulken
Chair, PATMG
--------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:53:45 +0000
From: Steve.vanDulken@mail.bl.uk (Steve vanDulken)
Subject: Re: strategy hearing
A copy of the papers concerning this hearing is now at the PATMG web site,
http://www.luna.co.uk/~patmg/.
I'm sorry it took so long for it to get on the web but I've been busy.
I can't get to the meeting but at least 3 PATMG members will be there to
make sure that British concerns, at least, are represented.
Steve van Dulken
Chair, PATMG
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: strategy hearing
Author: bwolter.fresenius@t-online.de (Bernd Wolter) at Internet
Date: 13/02/97 16:12
hi there,
i just now learned from normally well informed sources that there will be a
hearing on the epo policy concerning data and software on the 7th of march
in munich.does anybody else know anything about it?
why didn't the epo announce it - or did i just miss it?
who is invited?
how do you get yourself invited?
do you know somebody who is invited and would care to let me know his/her
name and adress so i could find out more?
is it true that you can hand in question and/or suggestions until the 21st
of februrary?
why does the epo keep all this a secret?
hope to hear from one of you
bernd wolter
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH Patent Department
Frankfurter Strasse 6-8
D-66606 St. Wendel / GERMANY
Phone: +49 6851 807 322
Fax: +49 6851 6048
E-mail: bwolter.fresenius@t-online.de
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Geelback Andersen
Dear patent interested friends
After much thought I have faxed the flw letter the President
To Ingo Kober
President of the EPO
D-80298 Munich
Fax +49-892399-4465
Odense d. 21.02.97
Dear Mr. Kober
I want to propose to the meeting at march 7 and further in the decision process
The possibilities to acces European patent informations must bee at least
as good as those for accessing the US, and JAP, patent informations.
Possibilities means easy acces to the new applications and patents ( now in
1997.03 ) via the internet for free or to a low price.
I am manager in a small danish company servicing many danish SME's and very
small industries with monthly supplies of new application- and other patent
information. My users also run patent searches via the internet and finds a
lot of information on US Patents but none on European applications. - And I
presume this is a very general situation in the european industry now
This is a very unhappy situation that has to be corrected now and in the
future as new technology works and new intiatives is taken.
Please give EPO the possibility to be on level with the competition or
maybee even ahead, as they was with the implementation of the CD ROM in the
patent world.
Yours
Hans Geelback Andersen
inFoco Systems
Odense DK
infoco@infoco.dk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 04:09:12 +0100
From: giroud <giroud@epo.co.at>
Subject: European Union: Innovation action plan.
The following will be important for the patent system in Europe and for
patent information:
"On 20 November 1996, the Commission adopted the First Action Plan for
Innovation in Europe following the wide ranging public debate stimulated by
the Green Paper on Innovation which was launched in December 1995.
The Action Plan provides a general framework for action at the European and
Member State level to support the innovation process. A limited number of
priority measures, to be launched immediately by the Community, are
identified. The plan also sets out those measures which are already underway
or which have been announced since the launch of the Green Paper.
Three main areas for action have been identified:
Fostering an innovation culture: education and training, easier mobility for
researchers and engineers, demonstration of effective approaches to
innovation in the economy and in society, propagation of best management and
organizational methods amongst businesses, and stimulation of innovation in
the public sector and in government;
Establishing a framework conducive to innovation: adaptation and
simplification of the legal and regulatory environment, especially with
respect to Intellectual Property Rights, and providing easier access to
finance for innovative enterprises and ion;
Gearing research more closely to innovation at both national and Community
level: as far as action at the Community level is concerned, the Commission
proposes to establish within the Fifth Framework a single, simplified
horizontal framework for integrating "innovation" and "SME" dimensions.
Outside of the Framework Programme, all Community instruments are to be
mobilized to support innovation."
The full document in the following languages: EN, DE, FR, ES, DK, SE, NL,
IT, FI, GR, PT can be downloaded at:
http://www.cordis.lu/innovation/src/action.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:45:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Stu Kaback <smkabac@erenj.com>
Subject: EPO update
Grapevine communication has it that figures at EPO are impressed by the
level of communication regarding potential changes. The more I think about
it, the more my thoughts center on the potential cut-off of direct
communications between a major source of patent information and those who
make use of that info. Lack of a means of direct communication makes it
difficult to solve problems and even more difficult to effect needed change.
Thus, for example, a problem I have with using INPADOC legal status info
really resides in the manner in which EPO provides that info to
intermediaries, who ultimately market it (i.e., the chain of EPO to FPO to
Questel.ORBIT to me; it would be similar with a different version of the
database...the root of the problem lies with EPO).
Anyway, the 2/21 deadline is approaching (I don't know to what extent late
comments will be considered), and those of you with concerns should raise
them. Your comments can be faxed to the EPO VP Mrs. Renate Remandas; her
fax # in Munich is +4989 2399 5003. The grapevine tells me that comments
received in writing will definitely be taken into account during the
upcoming meeting.
Yours for improvements in information flow.
Stu Kaback
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Simmons, Edlyn S." <edlynsimmons@mmd.com>
To: Alan Engel <aengel@intlscience.com>,
"'Gerald E. Kosmin'" <gek@kosminassociates.demon.co.uk>,
"piug-l%derwent.tecc.co.uk@internet.kc.mmd.com" <piug-l@derwent.tecc.co.uk>
Subject: RE: EPO Changes
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:33:00 -0600
Gerald Kosmin's comment on Stu Kaback's posting is an excellent example of
context sensitive comprehension. Mr. Kosmin is talking about the EPO as a
patent examining authority. Stu is talking about EPIDOS, the EPO as a
producer and distributor of patent data.
In its role as a patent examining authority, the EPO communicates only with
registered European patent agents. Their communications relate to the
business of filing and examining European patent applications and the
opposition to and maintenance of European patents.
In its role as a patent data distributor, the EPO keeps records of the
status of European patents (the Register file) and collects data on the
patents published by both the EPO and dozens of other patent offices
(INPADOC). This data is provided to everyone in the world, through the
EPO's own computers and subscription services, through individual patent
offices, and through commercial databanks.
The policy change Stu is reporting is the EPO's apparent decisions to
discontinue distributing the INPADOC database directly to end users on its
own computers and hard copy and its former practice of providing user
support - information about the content of the file and its use - directly
to users. Almost all database producers provide user support, even though
the data is accessed through an intermediary service. (You can call ISI,
the producer of Scisearch, to find out about indexing policies in Scisearch
even though you search the file on Dialog). If the EPO is to continue in
the role of database producer, is it entirely appropriate to discontinue
direct distribution of the database if running an online service is
inconsistent with its goal, but it may not be appropriate to discontinue
providing support to users. (Until recently, EPIDOS was represented in the
US by IFI/Plenum, which acted as an intermediary in handling specific
questions. That arrangement was discontinued, we were told, because
customers could use email to contact the EPO directly.)
It seems to me to be inappropriate for the EPO to behave as though the only
users of EPO services are other patent offices or as though only Europeans
are customers of the EPO. All companies that obtain European patents use
its services and pay its fees, whether they are headquartered in EPO
countries or not. And the EPO's role in distributing European patent
information is not limited to providing information in Europe; it is to
provide information to anyone who might need to know what has been published
in European patents. But they didn't ask for my opinion, did they?
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Engel
Subject: EPO Changes
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 1997 1:06PM
I took the liberty of crossposting Stu Kaback's notes to the
misc.int-property newsgroup. Here is a reply.
Regarding the comments of Stu Kaback, I don't know where the rumour he
refers to originated, but I can inform you that since it opened in 1978, the
EPO has required all applicants not having either a residence or principal
place of business in one of the Contracting States (i.e.members of the
European Patent Convention), to be represented by a European Patent
Attorney, i.e. an attorney qualified as a EPA and on the Register of
European Patent Attorneys. Only applicants having a residence or principal
place of business in one of the Contracting States may (if they so choose)
act on their own behalf in proceedings before the EPO. However, in that
case, the EPO advises such applicants not having the requisite knowledge of
patent matters to use the services of an EPA.
I shal be glad to hear anything further about this "rumour".
Gerald E. Kosmin CPA, EPA
e-mail address:- gek@kosminassociates.demon.co.uk
G.E. Kosmin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:16:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Stu Kaback <smkabac@erenj.com>
Subject: EPO hearing March 7
OK--here are the basic facts. (What's best to do with them is still not
fully clear to me, but let's share.)
The EPO will have a meeting on March 7 in Munich to discuss its future
patent info policy. They welcome public comments and suggestions from
patent info users and other interested parties (but have been so very
selective about who did, and who did NOT, get notification). The reasoning:
The current policy was adopted nearly 10 years ago (1988) and an update is
appropriate. The European Commission is considering policies for
dissemination of public data, and has been working to take actions in line
with a recent green paper on improving innovation in Europe. They look for
new synergies with the various European national offices, and look to take
advantage of advances in info technology.
Main topics under consideration:
1. Policy objectives. The basis will remain the 6/88 decision, including
"The aims of European policy with regard to the production and dissemination
of patent information shall be
-primarily to improve acces to patent info in Europe for both the general
public and industry - in particular small and medium sized companies - in
order to stimulate innovative activity, thru national offices of member
states and non-commercial libraries which cooperate with the national
offices. The EPO will activbely support their activities in patent info.
- secondarily to take into account the existing European patent info
industry without distorting competition between commercial operators.
The EPO shall asusme the following functions under the supervision of the
member states. It shall refrain from competing in any way with
decentralized operators in the field of patent info, especially national
offices of member states.
In the field of patent info the EPO shall concentrate on establishing
databases and accumulating data under exchange agreements. As a central
provider or wholesaler of patent info it shall make its databases available
to other operators.
2. Pricing. EPO could make its data available to all interested parties at
marginal cost. No distinction should be made between raw and value-added
data. this approach should favor free flow of info and better dissemination
of patent info. The national offices of EPO member states and regional info
Ctrs will receive a copy of EPO data free of charge. This should favor
local disseminaion activities of the national offices of EPO member states.
National offices may provide EPO data to commercial operators, deciding the
price at which the data are to be supplied based on their national policies.
It is expected that end-users will benefit from the reduction of costs of
EPO data provided to the commercial sector. How can it be ensured that this
goal is reached?
3. It is envisaged, as a general rule, to disseminate EPO info ONLY through
(a) national offices and their regional info ctrs, and (b) the commercial
sector.
A flexible approach will be taken, if a member state wishes the EPO to
continue to supply its info products to end-users; EPO will do so under
certain conditions and in particular at marginal cost.
EPO will continue to distribute data concerning EP patent granting procedure
and certain products, such as A and B publications, the Official Journal,
the Patrent Bulletin, the online Register, and data requested ad-hoc--which
are connected with its legal obligations under the European patent granting
procedure. Online access will only be provided to the European Register,
but not to EPO databases on the EPO computer. Access to the EPO computer by
private end-users in order to consult the INPADOC databases could be
discontinued whenever the commercial sector offers equivalent possibilities.
Each member state will decide the price at which it will disseminate the
EPO's products.
That is basically it, and I'm not fully sure how to react. Does this mean
that EPIDOS user meetings will be terminated? It seems to me that EPO wants
to create the data and then cut itself off from any further involvement,
which strikes me as a dubious idea. Only by maintaining active involvement
can they understand needs to modify and improve the data. I hear that
customer service regarding the database is to vanish, surely a mistake if
true. The public needs to have a BETTER understanding of the data, not a
poorer one, and interaction with the public has to be a good thing.
Aside from that, I suggest you read, interpret, and make your feelings known
to the President of the EPO.
Stu Kaback
--------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:06:00 +0100
From: Helliwell Susan <shelliwell@montell.it>
Subject: strategy hearing
Prompted by the comments from Bernd Wolter, I would like to inform everyone
that I am aware of the EPO stratagy Hearing and received an invitation a
couple of days ago. I have no idea how it was decided who should be invited.
They have set out a list of topics under consideration and have asked for
comments by 21st February 1997. The main topics are as follows:
(1) objectives of the Policy
(11) Pricing of the European Patent Office 's data and products
- availability of data to interested parties at a marginal cost
- national offices will receive the data free of charge to favour local
dissemination activities.
- national officces could sell the data to commercia operators
- end users should benefit from price reductions of EPO data provided
through the commercial sector.
the following is copied literally from the letter sent out
(111) Dissemination to end users:
- it is envisaged, as a general rule, to disseminate EPO patent information
ONLY through
(a) the national offices and their regional information centres
(b) The commercial sector
- a flexible approach will be taken, if a member state wishes the EPO to
continue to supply its information products to end-users; the EPO will do so
under certain conditions, and in particular at a marginal cost.
A flexible "a la carte" approach
- The EPO will continue to distribute data concerning the Europan patent
granting procedure and certain products - such as A and B publications, the
Official Journal, the Patent Bulletin, the on-line Register and data
requested ad-hoc - which are connected with its legal obligations under the
European patent granting procedure. Online access will only be provided to
the European Register, but not to EPO databases on the EPO computer.
- Access to the EPO computer by private end-users in order to consult the
INPADOC databases could be discontinued whenever the commercial sector
offers equivalent possibilities.
- Each member state will decide the price at which it will disseminate the
EPO products.
(1V) Miscellaneous
Opinions, statements and suggestions on the future European patent
information policy relating to aspects not specifically mentioned in the
outline are also welcome.
If anyone has any comments or suggestions to make and hasn't been invited,
please feel free to contact me at shelliwell@montell.it or by fax at +39 532
467675 or telephone +39 532 468757, preferably before 18 February 1997 (as I
am out of the office between 19-21 Feb) and I will do my best to represent
these comments.
Re the other comments:
I have no idea who else is going to attend.
I have no idea how one gets invited
I don't know if the EPO are keeping it a secret, whether they announced
it or not. As I mentioned I received a direct mailing from the
President, although I can say that the contact person is Renate Remandas
(Vice President DG 5) EPO in Munich.
I hope this satisfies any curiosity and look forward to hearing other
comments!
Susan Helliwell
--------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:48:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Stu Kaback <smkabac@erenj.com>
Subject: EPO Policy etc.
Rumor (which reached me from a source less than two hours ago) has it that
the EPO is seeking to cut virtually all ties with individual customers, and
aim at dealing in the future only with the various individual patent
offices. They offer their info to the individual offices, who can act or
not act as they see fit. EPO gets out of direct involvement, gets out of
any customer service, etc.
I have no documentation on this at the moment; am hoping for some. I do
believe that all comments on the 'plans' have to be received by EPO
President Dr. Kober by next Friday, 2/21. I can't speak for people in
Europe who might have been kept in the dark, but it is my understanding that
the intention was to keep non-Europeans in the dark; I believe that nobody
in the US was informed, with the exception of the PTO. Since there is a
galactic gulf between the USPTO and information users, that means we have
all been cut out of things.
I hope to be able to obtain some more substantive information than this. In
the meantime, I can only say that the EPO is the source of a huge amount of
invaluable patent information. It is beyond my comprehension that their
management would choose to establish policies relating to the
supply/nonsupply of that information and deliberately avoid discussing
matters with those who use that information.
Have Orwell's creatures finally taken over, 13 years late? To be continued.
Stu Kaback
smkabac@erenj.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 16:12 +0100
From: bwolter.fresenius@t-online.de (Bernd Wolter)
Subject: strategy hearing
hi there,
i just now learned from normally well informed sources that there will be a
hearing on the epo policy concerning data and software on the 7th of march
in munich.does anybody else know anything about it?
why didn't the epo announce it - or did i just miss it?
who is invited?
how do you get yourself invited?
do you know somebody who is invited and would care to let me know his/her name
and adress so i could find out more?
is it true that you can hand in question and/or suggestions until the 21st of
februrary?
why does the epo keep all this a secret?
hope to hear from one of you
bernd wolter
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH
Patent Department
Frankfurter Strasse 6-8
D-66606 St. Wendel / GERMANY
Phone: +49 6851 807 322
Fax: +49 6851 6048
E-mail: bwolter.fresenius@t-online.de
--------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 97 13:16 +0100
From: bwolter.fresenius@t-online.de (Bernd Wolter)
Subject: all quiet
hallloooo! anybody out there??
david newton of the british library writes:
As for what else should be addressed to this mailing list, I would find
views on specific, practical problems and solutions in patent information
searching (including Espace CD-ROMs) of greater interest than general
expressions of discontent.
i generally agree with him and therefore add a list with specific topics of
discontent. i have already asked those questions in my last posting but have
received no answer yet. the mailing list all in all seems not to be an very
active one - not only are questions of customers not answered - there seems
to be a general unsecurity about what to do with it. since my suggestions
(and especially my way of expressing it, i reckon) have not found much
support, i hereby ask the other members to please express their wishes of
what kinds of problems should be discussed in here.
my questions:
who in the Administrative Council of the European Organisation is
responsible and/or specially suited to act as a partner in discussion and/or
go-between in the question of downloadability of the espace cd-rom data?
where can i send complaints about blotches in patsoft and mimosa software
and hope that they will be repaired in the next version? who is resonsible
for mimosa: the epo or jouve?
why does it always take so long to receive a new version of mimosa (the
deparom software of the bundesdruckerei, who publish the german patent
cd-rom, is often rewritten within two weeks)?
i feel that as a customer of the epo i have the right to request data that
are not corrupt - the cds are expensive enough. whom do i have to write to
to request that there are taken greater pains to supply correct data and
that the existing data are repaired (especially the access cd-roms)? or does
the epo want me to do my state-of-the-art searches with database suppliers
like derwent, bertelsmann and others instead of with their products?
as a conclusion i want to share with you my favorite german title of the
week: from ep 0 755 224 (wo 96/17853): english title: bovine heat detector
-> german title: Rinderwaermeerkennung!!!
that's all for today
bernd wolter
Bernd Wolter
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH Patent Department
E-mail: bwolter.fresenius@t-online.de
-- =============================================================== Sandra Unger | Mail: ssunger@erenj.com | (908) 474-6605 ===============================================================