Amendments to a patent (application) are bound to strict rules under the European Patent Convention (EPC). According to Art. 123(2) of the EPC, a European patent (application) may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed. Adding subject-matter which is not disclosed would give an applicant an unwarranted advantage and could be damaging to the legal security of third parties. (G 1/93, OJ 1994, 541) The ‘gold standard’ of the European Patent Office’s Board of Appeal is that any amendment can only be made within the limits of what a skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of the documents as filed (G 3/89, OJ 1993,117; G 11/91, OJ 1993, 125).
In Medeva (C-322/10 of 24 November 2011) the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had ruled that a Supplementary Protection Certificate relating to a combination of active ingredients can only be granted in view of Art. 3(a) of the Regulation (EC) No. 469/2009, if the active ingredients are “specified” in the wording of…
The main principles applicable for assessing whether a non-disclosed disclaimer meets the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC have been laid out in the decision G 1/03 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the EPO. In the recent decision G 2/10 dated September 19, 2011 a new test for assessing the allowability of non-disclosed disclaimers, the so called “Remaining Subject-Matter Test”, has been established. In applying this test, disclaimers which in the past would have been considered to be allowable in view of G 1/03 may now be (and actually have been)found to actually be in violation of Article 123(2) EPC.
Syngenta Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Syngenta”), a company governed by the laws of England and Wales, is the holder of European patent No. 0 382 375 entitled “Fungicides”. On 28 September 2009, it submitted to the Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI; French Industrial Property Office) a request for limitation of a claim of the French designation of…
Co-authored by Gemma Wooden Environmental Recycling Technologies Plc v Upcycle Holdings Ltd [2013] EWPCC 4 – 5 February 2013 Summary This decision of the UK Patents County Court provides insight into the differences between UK and EPO practice. It demonstrates a possibly more lenient approach to amendments based solely on the drawings and confirms that…
Article 123(3) EPC stipulates that a European patent may not be amended in such a way as to extend the protection it confers. A special case of extension of the protective scope may occur in claims which define both the type of and the amount of a specific component. An issue addressed in a series…
Since Rule 140 EPC is not available to correct the text of a patent, a patent proprietor’s request for such a correction is inadmissible whenever made, including after the initiation of opposition proceedings. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
Fairly recent case law of the EPO suggests that the concept of individualized disclosure may reach further than many people think. This can have severe implications for the validity of patents and patent applications, especially in the field of chemistry and life sciences. In the following these decisions and their potential consequences are analyzed and…
The fees of the EPO will shortly be increased by about 5%. The EPO compensates the fees for inflation each two years; the period of two years is a compromise between frequent compensation for inflation and administrative effort of such a fee change. The increased amounts will apply to payments made on or after 1…
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…
The question of whether or not a claim in a patent deriving from a divisional application covering or embracing something which was not specifically disclosed in the parent application, is not the proper standard for determining whether there has been an inadmissible extension of subject-matter. Although broadening of individual features is not prohibited by Art….
