The European Patent Office (EPO) is an organ of the European Patent Organisation, an intergovernmental organisation that was set up on 7 October 1977 on the basis of the European Patent Convention (EPC) signed in Munich in 1973. The EPO is responsible for the uniform procedure to grant European patents. Once the EPO has granted a European patent, the patent holder can validate it in every single contracting state. In the future, the EPO will also be in charge of deciding on requests for unitary effect of European patents under the Unitary Patent system.
The EPO violated the fundamental right of free association of its staff in 2014 by giving (former) president Benoit Battistelli the power to determine the detailed conditions relating to the staff committee elections. The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT) has ruled this in its judgment 4482, which was published after its 133d…
Executive version: Quite a few scholars have tried to decipher the hymn sheet shown on Elias Haussmann’s famous portrait of Johann Sebastian Bach. This blog tries to decipher the latest changes in the EPO Management just announced by the President. On a peaceful, sunny morning as we had it today I sometimes indulge in the…
What were the most popular articles of the Kluwer Patent Blog in 2021? Some topics keep on returning, but new issues found their way into the chart of best read posts on this blog as well. The number ten of 2021 is the blogpost Technicality at EPO After G 1/19. This article comments on the…
Breaking News: The President of the Boards of Appeal and the President of the Office jointly propose to the Administrative Council to re-locate the Boards of Appeal from Haar to the building Pschorr-Höfe 7 in Munich, owned by the EPO, as of 2025/2026. While this pretty spectacular U-turn still has to be confirmed by the…
1. The established approach of applying the due-care criterion to the question of removal of the cause of non-compliance under Rule 136 EPC leads to an additional admissibility requirement, by expanding the scope of the substantive due-care criterion, which has no basis in the EPC. 2. Removal of the cause of non-compliance is a question…
The Enlarged Board of Appeal has now issued its long-awaited full decision in case G 1/21. Readers can access it here. The decision deserves a few comments. The Enlarged Board’s advance publication of the order of the decision in July was viewed by many as a sort of cliffhanger. This was because the question answered…
Two months after a series of ILOAT judgments stating that former EPO president Benoit Battistelli abused his power by implementing new rules to restrict the rights of staff members to strike in 2013, the EPO has detailed in which way it intends to carry out the judgments. According to a SUEPO report, EPO president António…
Although the grounds of the decision under R. 111(2) EPC do not have to deal in detail with all the arguments of the parties, at least the key points of discussion must be addressed. The grounds must respond to the relevant facts, evidence and arguments and contain the logical chain that led to the formation…
A change in the composition of the Examining Division is legally allowed. This does not jeopardize the right to be heard and to a fair trial. The ‘equality of arms’ is not hampered by the introduction in a late stage of examination and in particular during the oral proceedings before the Examining Division, of new…
In 2020 Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Dehns, Marks and Clerk and Vossius and Partner were the numbers 1 to 5 of a list based on the number of issued B1 patents where these firms were listed as the address for service on the EPO register. Company inhouse departments are included in the chart; Siemens has the…
