Posted: June 5th, 2015
Reform of the BoA – User consultation From the EPLAW President's letter dated 4 June, 2015: "EPLAW is pleased to see that the Administrative Committee (AC) and the EPO are actively engaged in furthering the independence of the BoA. "We note that in the meantime the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) in its […]
READ MOREPosted: May 1st, 2015
EPO starts consultation on the President’s proposals for a structural reform of the Boards of Appeal Decision R 19/12 of April 25, 2014 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (see post dated 05/05/2014 here) prompted the Administrative Council of the EPO to discuss possible consequences for the autonomy of the Boards of Appeal. In December […]
READ MOREPosted: April 13th, 2015
A decision less green – but is it sweet yet?, Comment to Tomato II and Broccoli II by Hanna Kompagne, Danubia Patent and Law Office The much awaited twins, G 2/12 (Tomato II) and G 2/13 (Broccoli II) are out (one may read them here). The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) of the EPO has […]
READ MOREPosted: April 7th, 2015
We have reported earlier about the new book Proceedings Before the European Patent Office. The post may be read here. The publisher now kindly offers a 35% discount on the price (both hardback and paperback). In order to obtain the discount, readers may contact the publisher at: sales@e-elgar.co.uk and quote the discount code PTNR35.
READ MOREPosted: March 27th, 2015
Enlarged Board of Appeal EPO, G 2/ 12 and G 2/13, Tomatoes II and Broccoli II, 25 March 2015, with thanks to DX Thomas for alerting us to the decision 1. The exclusion of essentially biological processes for the production of plants in Article 53(b) EPC does not have a negative effect on the allowability of […]
READ MOREPosted: March 26th, 2015
Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 3/14, 24 March 2015, with thanks to DX Thomas, for sending in the decision In considering whether, for the purpose of Article 101(3) EPC, a patent as amended meets the requirements of the EPC, the claims of the patent may be examined for compliance with the requirements of Article […]
READ MOREPosted: March 25th, 2015
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha (Appellant Applicant), Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07, 18 July 2014, Case No. T 1214/09-3.5.07 "Information managing device/SHARP", by Stefan V. Steinbrener, Bardehle Pagenberg Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07 did not deny any contribution by the claimed arrangement to improved search and retrieval of stored images. However, in the Board’s judgment, the arrangement […]
READ MOREPosted: March 10th, 2015
Proceedings before the European Patent Office, a Practical Guide to Success in Opposition and Appeal, by Marcus Müller and Cees Mulder Edward Elgar Publishing recently published its new book on proceedings before the EPO. Rudolf Teschemacher, Bardehle Pagenberg, states on the cover: "…Proceedings before the European Patent Office: A Practical Guide to Success in Opposition […]
READ MOREPosted: March 3rd, 2015
EPO, Enlarged Board of Appeal, interlocutory decision of 17 February 2015 in case R 02/14 – Objections to the Chairman and members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal On May 5, 2014, this Blog reported on the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) in case R 19/12 allowing in a review case an […]
READ MOREPosted: February 2nd, 2015
The independence of the Boards of Appeal – Responsibilities of the Administrative Council, by Michael Wallinger, Wallinger Ricker Schlotter Tostmann This Blog has recently published an open letter of the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW) to the Delegations of the Administrative Council (AC) of the EPO. EPLAW joined the chorus of patent professionals expressing their […]
READ MORE