EPLAW PATENT BLOG

EPO – The location of the Boards of Appeal outside Munich – Enlarged Board of Appeal asked to decide whether the move to Haar was in conformity with the EPC

Posted: March 5th, 2019

European Patent Office, Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03, T 831/17, decision of February 25, 2019

READ MORE

EPO – Enlarged Board of Appeal asked to define the scope of the prohibition of double patenting

Posted: February 28th, 2019

  EPO, Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.01, T 318/14, decision of February 7, 2019 Reported by Dr. Rudolf Teschemacher, Bardehle Pagenberg In the oral proceedings of February 7, 2019, Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.01 decided to refer the following point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA): 1. Can a European patent application […]

READ MORE

EPO – Exceptions to patentability – Essentially biological processes for the production of plants

Posted: January 31st, 2019

EPO, Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04, decision of July 5, 2018 in case T 2435/13 – Clubroot resistant plants/SYNGENTA, by Dr. Rudolf Teschemacher, Bardehle Pagenberg After decision T 1063/18 of December 5, 2018, stating that Rule 28 (2) EPC as introduced in 2017 is in conflict with Article 53(b) EPC, (see post dated December 11, 2018, […]

READ MORE

EPO – Disclosure of the invention – Novelty – Purity of a chemical substance as a distinguishing feature

Posted: January 21st, 2019

EPO, Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.02, decision of 9 November 2018 in case T 1085/13 – Amorphous Lercanidipine Hydrochloride/Recordati Since decision T 990/96, OJ EPO 1998, 489, it has been consistent case law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO that a document disclosing a low molecular chemical compound and its manufacture makes this […]

READ MORE

EPO – recent developments and background re plant products produced by essentially biological processes

Posted: December 11th, 2018

Exceptions to patentability – Plant products produced by essentially biological processes, Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04, decision of 5 December 2018 in case T 1063/18, reported by Dr. Rudolf Teschemacher, Bardehle Pagenberg The reported decision sets the refusal of an application for new pepper plants and fruits with nutritional value aside. The ground for refusal was that […]

READ MORE

EPO – Syngenta / TBA: rule 28(2) excluding plant products from patentability is void

Posted: December 7th, 2018

At oral proceedings, which took place on 5 December 2018, Technical Board of Appeal 3304  held that Rule 28(2) EPC -excluding plant products produced by essentially biological processes from patentability- is in conflict with Article 53(b) EPC as interpreted by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in decisions G 2/12 and G 2/13. The Board referred […]

READ MORE

EPO – Revised draft of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal

Posted: November 16th, 2018

The revised draft of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA) agreed upon by Boards of Appeal Committee (BOAC) and the President of the Boards of Appeal is now available in English. This revised draft of the RPBA will provide the basis for the User consultation conference on 5 December 2018. At […]

READ MORE

EPO – Appeal proceedings – Scope of discretion to disregard late submissions

Posted: October 19th, 2018

EPO, Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.05, decision of June 13, 2018 in case T 1914/12 The patent in suit directed to a method of adhesive bonding had been revoked on the grounds of lack of inventive step starting from document D51 as closest prior art in combination with document D3. In appeal proceedings, the proprietor […]

READ MORE

EPO – New version Guidelines for Examination (2018)

Posted: October 18th, 2018

The Guidelines for Examination 2018 (in English), including an index dedicated to computer-implemented inventions and a full list of amended sections, are now available online for preview. They enter into force on 1 November 2018.

READ MORE

EPO – The scope of application of the prohibition of double patenting

Posted: August 8th, 2018

EPO, Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.01, decision of September 5, 2017 in case T 2563/11 – Double patenting The application in suit had been refused because the set of claims contained 2 claims which were identical to 2 claims contained in the patent granted on its parent application. The applicant submitted that the Examining Division […]

READ MORE