The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) allowed review of the conduct of the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA), since the TBA rejected a main request for lack of inventive step which had not yet been discussed during oral proceedings. The EBA decided that the petitioner had no reason to assume that the TBA would decide…
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….
The Enlarged Board confirmed that a Technical Board of Appeal may refuse a request that is filed with the grounds of opposition if – upon request by the opposition division – the applicant has declined to file such a request during first instance proceedings and there is no reason why such request could not have…
Just a few years ago, the German IP profession suddenly became very, very nervous. The Regional Court of Düsseldorf had issued its first of a handful of decisions wherein the German part of a European Patent was declared ineffective ex tunc for lack of a proper translation of the patent specification into German. This was…
Over the last few years, Spanish Courts have struggled to resolve an avalanche of cases where the core of the discussion was the legal effects of TRIPS on the effects of the Reservation made by Spain when it joined the European Patent Convention in 1986. According to this Reservation, patents filed before 7 October 1992…
This long awaited ECJ decision concerns the interpretation of the term “embryo” in the Biotech Directive (98/44/EC). According to the Court Art. 6 (2c) of the Directive excludes the patentability of use of human embryos for commercial or industrial purposes, and only use for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which is applied to the embryo for…
On August 30, 2011 the Enlarged Board of Appeal rendered its decision on the admissibility of a disclaimer whose subject-matter is disclosed as an embodiment of the invention in the application as filed. It can be expected that the EPO will change its current restrictive practice in view of this decision, again allowing disclaimers for disclosed subject-matter under certain conditions. However, the Enlarged Board of Appeal did not endorse the view that disclaiming disclosed subject-matter is always allowable. Hence, until further Board of Appeal decisions will bring more clarity as to the specific situations in which such disclaimers are allowable, there will remain a degree of uncertainty.
The opponent relied on a document that was distributed in a meeting arranged by himself. The Board of Appeal held that in the present case, it did not share the view of the patentee that it was impossible for him to prove non-distribution and that therefore the burden of proof was with the opponent. In…
The Opposition Division upheld a patent in a decision finding novelty over D1 and inventive step over D1 in combination with D3 or D4. The opponent filed a statement of grounds of appeal containing a new prior art document D5 and argued lack of novelty over D5 or lack of inventive step over the combination…
The book ‘The Granting of European Patents’ by M. van Empel has recently been added to the (subscription) website kluwerpatentlaw.com. The book was published in 1975, was out of print within a few years and has never been reprinted. This very useful book has now been made available again. The book describes the development of…
