What happens when the same invention is covered by a French national patent and a European patent claiming the priority of the French application and when the European patent lapses after having replaced the French national patent?
The patentee has no patent at all!
That is the bitter lesson of the 2 July 2010 decision of the Cour d’Appel of Paris.
The Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris in its 28 May 2010 decision, Institut Pasteur v Société Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, illustrates the specificity of the French doctrine of equivalents, rejecting the “file wrapper estoppel” theory as it is known in the US. However, since it applies the doctrine of equivalents although the function of the claimed means is not novel, this decision does not seem to be in line with the majority of decisions rendered on that item.
Claim 1 of the opposed patent had a limitation to a range of values with a lower bound that was slightly higher than disclosed in the priority document. The Board refused to recognize priority. As the priority document was prior art, the claim lacked novelty. The proprietor filed an auxiliary request wherein protection at the…
After surprising the patent community with a new set of rules which make life difficult for the applicants, the attorneys and, to go by EPO members’ internet blogs, also the EPO staff, some examination divisions are now introducing the ‘common knowledge’ approach to reject patents. The examiners cite the ‘common knowledge’ as closest prior art….
The Enlarged Board of Appeal states in its Opinion G3/08, reason 7.2.1 (italics added): “The European Patent Organisation is an international, intergovernmental organisation, modelled on a modern state order and based on the separation of powers principle, which the sovereign contracting states have entrusted with the exercise of some of their national powers in the…
In May 2010, in HTC Corporation v Yozmot 33 Ltd [2010] EWHC 1057 (Pat), the English High Court (Arnold J.) confirmed that it is in principle legitimate for a party to seek a judgment of the English Court on the validity of a UK designation of a European patent in the hope that the judgment…
EPO communications under Rule 161(1) and Rule 162 EPC are among those legal changes which entered into force on April 1, 2010 and are intended for realigning the European patent grant procedure. However, these communications and their legal framework seem to require considerable realignment, for several reasons. In an actual case, the EPO issues a…
The G3/08 opinion concerns the long-awaited view of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) on the patentability of computer programs. The EBoA examined various issues regarding Article 112(1)(b) EPC. The EBoA held that positions taken in T1173/97 and T424/03 were clearly contradictory on the question whether it makes a difference whether a computer program is…
The Board considered whether the introduction of the EPC 2000 raised the requirements for a notice of appeal to be admissible. Rule 99(1)(c) EPC 2000 requires that the notice of appeal contains ‘a request defining the subject of the appeal’. Rule 64 EPC 1973 required that the notice of appeal contains a statement identifying ‘the…
Since 01.04.2010 an applicant of a European patent application must respond to the search opinion drawn up by the search division as if it was a communication of the examining division (see new Rule 70a EPC). The applicant is requested to correct any deficiencies of the patent application noted in the search opinion. However, in…
