Opposition

Opposition systems are closely related to the patent granting procedure, and offer third parties an opportunity to oppose the grant of a patent, by giving notice of opposition to the granting authorities. In some states, there is a pre-grant opposition procedure, in others it is a post-grant procedure. Reasons for opposition may be that the invention is not new, does not involve an inventive step, is not susceptible of industrial application, is excepted from patentability, that the patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art, or that the subject-matter of the patent extends beyond the content of the application as filed, for instance.

Added matter, Amendments, Disclaimer, EPC, Germany, Netherlands, Opposition, Revocation, United Kingdom, Validity

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

Litigation and EPO Oppositions/Appeals surrounding a controlled-release dosage form of the drug oxycodone, a morphine-like opioid analgesic developed in 1918, has kept Europe’s Pharma IP Lawyers busy for a couple of years. One of the key EP patents in this battle has been EP 722 730, and almost everything about this patent is out of…

European Union, Opposition, Spain, Validity

(Clifford Chance)/

As the readers will know, the complex architecture of the European patent system allows third parties to challenge the validity of a patent by filing an opposition before the European Patent Office (“EPO”), by filing a revocation action before national Courts, or by using both routes. In some cases, this has given rise to the…

(Indirect) infringement, Biologics, Inventive step, Netherlands, Novelty, Opposition, Procedure, Revocation, Scope of protection, Validity

(Brinkhof)/

To stay, or not to stay, that is the question. But not in the recent Danisco v. Novozymes case before the District Court of The Hague. On the face of the Court’s decision of 22 June 2011, the question whether to stay the national proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings at the EPO on…

Amendments, EPC, Opposition

(Hoffmann Eitle)/ /1 Comment

During EPO opposition proceedings, patentees have historically been able to avoid discussing clarity by combining granted claims rather than using the description as basis for amendments. The landmark cases T 227/88 and especially T 367/96 have been relied on to support this position. However, some technical boards of appeal are now starting to engage in…

Case Law, Germany, Inventive step, Mechanical Engineering, Opposition

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

The decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office which revokes a European patent due to lack of inventive step, is a supra-national legal instrument which can be the object of a complaint to the German Constitutional Court. Such complaints are only admissible if the protection of fundamental rights is no longer…

Case Law, Mechanical Engineering, Novelty, Opposition, Revocation, Slovenia, Validity

/

The Court held that in order to decide that a patented invention is novel, it is not sufficient that the wording in the patent description is different from the wording in the prior art. The technical subject-matter of the prior art must be different. Moreover, it had to be assessed whether publicly accessible information could…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, (Indirect) infringement, Austria, Enforcement, European Union, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Novelty, Opposition, Priority right, Revocation, Spain, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, United States of America, Validity

(Rospatt Osten Pross)/

Do we need a Community Patent? Do we need a European Patent Litigation System? Or does the current fragmented system have a hidden wisdom behind it? Judge for yourself!

Amendments, Case Law, Estonia, Opposition

(V.O.)/ /2 Comments

Questions submitted to the Enlarged Board. During opposition the Proprietor announced that it wanted a correction of the decision to grant from the examining division. The opposition division decided to stay proceedings and the Opponent appealed the decision to stay. The Board submitted questions to the Enlarged Board, asking (1) whether a request for correction…