Posted: February 19th, 2010
EPO, Enlarged Board of Appeal, 16 February 2010, Decision No. G 04/08
If an international PCT application has been filed and published in one of the official EPO languages, it is not possible to
Posted: February 17th, 2010
The EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal handed down its long awaited decision relating to the interpretation of the exclusion for patentability under article 53(c) EPC “method for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery”. Questions were asked to the Enlarged Board in a case about a medical imaging method, whereby a contrast agent was injected into the heart. The referring Board questioned whether this essentially diagnostic method involving a step consisting in a physical intervention was nevertheless excluded from patentability. This question was answeredREAD MORE
Posted: January 12th, 2010
Human Genome Sciences (patentee) v. Eli Lilly (opponent), Cooperation between Board of Appeal and National Court / Acceleration of appeal proceedings, EPO Board of Appeal, 21 October 2009, Case No. T0018/09
In this case, the UK Court of Appeals requested the Board of Appeal to accelerate the parallel EPO appeal proceedings in order to have that appeal decided prior to the UK appeal hearing (which was then scheduled for December 2009, see Eli Lilly and Company v. Human Genome Sciences, Inc.  EWCA Civ 168).
The Board acknowledged the practical and economic benefit of the national court’s request and stated that it agrees entirely with the national appeal court that parties to such parallel proceedings should inform both tribunals of the position as early as possible and ask the
Posted: January 8th, 2010
Nickel-based metallic material/Leibniz Institut für Festkörper- und Werkstofforschung, Enlarged Board of Appeal, EPO, 3 December 2009, Docket No. R 12/09, not to be published in OJ In this case, a petitioner objected for the first time to the way in which the EBA is composed in review cases. The EBA dismisses the objections as it […]READ MORE
Posted: April 1st, 2009
EPO, Board of Appeal 3.5.01, 1 April 2009, Docket No. T 1143/06 – Data selection system
The Board confirmed a strict approach regarding the treatment of features relating to a presentation of information in view of inventiveness and confronted the more liberal view expressed by a different Board. In the present case, the deciding Board held that a feature which relates to the manner how cognitive content is conveyed to the user on a screen normally does not contribute to a technical solution to a technical problem.