Das Online-Angebot der SRG wird derzeit durch seine Einordnung im üpA (Art. 25 Abs. 3 lit. b RTVG) ausschliesslich durch die SRG-Konzession konkretisiert. Im Entwurf zum Bundesgesetz über elektronische Medien ist eine rechtliche Neuerfassung des Online-Angebots der SRG vorgesehen, wodurch die SRG-Konzession in diesem Bereich entlastet würde.

For the purposes of this Study Question, a work created in whole or in part using artificial intelligence is referred to as an artificially-generated work or an AI-­created work. The term “copyright” means the rights associated with copyright as set forth in the Berne Convention. The term “related rights” means all other copyright-type rights, e.g., “related rights”, “neighbouring rights”, “sui generis rights”, etc. The term ­“economic rights” means the exclusive rights of copyright granted to the ­author, e.g., the right of reproduction. The term “moral rights” means the rights of copyright granted to the author apart from economic rights, e.g., the right to object to distortion of the work.

While Art. 53(b) European Patent Convention (EPC) clearly excludes essentially biological processes for the production of plants and animals from patentability, it is currently a highly controversial issue whether plants which are obtained by such a process are also excluded from patentability. The Enlarged Board of Appeal held in the well-known “Tomato I” (G 1/08) and “Broccoli I” (G 2/07) decisions that genetically modified plants are indeed patentable under the EPC. In the subsequent decisions “Tomato II” (G 2/12) and “Broccoli II” (G 2/13), the Enlarged Board of Appeal affirmed that plants obtained by an essentially biological process are also patentable, even if the claim is formulated as a product-by-process claim. However, this interpretation of the EPC was regarded as not being in line with the EU Biotechnology Directive 98/44/EC of July 1998, as well as a European Commission Notice, which contradict the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s “Tomato II” and “Broccoli II” decisions. Triggered by the initiative of the former President of the European Patent Office, the Administrative Council amended the EPC Implementing Regu­lations in June 2017 with the aim to explicitly exclude plants or animals obtained by an essentially biological process from patentability. In the present case, the applicant of a European patent application directed to a pepper plant obtained by an essentially biological process appealed the decision of the Examining Division to reject the application based on the newly implemented Rule 28(2) EPC, which excludes the claimed subject-matter from patentability. The Board of Appeal granted the appeal and set aside the first instance decision, because the newly implemented Rule 28(2) EPC is in strict conflict with Art. 53(b) EPC and its cor­responding interpretation provided by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in “Tomato II” and “Broccoli II”. The Board in its role as a judiciary body sided with the EPC and Enlarged Board of Appeal jurisdiction and disregarded the European Commission, national governments and the EPO’s President and Administrative Council. The decision has triggered a heated debate. President Campinos referred T 1063/18 to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (pending Referral G 3/19) and the EPO announced a stay of all proceedings relating to plants obtained by an essentially biological process.