In this case the Board ruled that features providing a displayed icon of a three-dimensional appearance have technical character and thus should be considered when assessing inventive step. According to the Board these features specify how the information is displayed and not what is displayed so that these features do not fall under the category…
The IP deadline management system should ensure that the system is noting the new deadlines for European Divisional Applications properly. According to revised Rule 36(1) and Rule 36(2) being effective on April 1st , 2010 all divisional applications must be filed within 24 months from either the issuance of the first communication from the Examining…
In this case, the Board of Appeal had to decide whether a claim containing a feature for which the description contained erroneous figures only met the requirements of Article 83 EPC (sufficiency of disclosure) and Rule 27(1)(e) EPC 1973 (corresponding to Rule 42(1)(e) EPC 2000). The Board of Appeal decided that a patent application should…
The Enlarged Board of Appeal answers three questions of law as follows: Question 1: Where it is already known to use a medicament to treat an illness, Article 54(5) EPC does not exclude that this medicament be patented for use in a different treatment by therapy of the same illness. Question 2: Such patenting is…
The Enlarged Board of Appeal in reply to three questions of law submitted to it, concludes as follows: Question 1: When an international application is filed and published under the PCT in an official language of the EPO, it is not possible upon entry into the regional phase to file a translation of the application…
1. The Enlarged Board of Appeal considered the meaning that is to be given to the exclusion of patents on methods for ‘treatment by surgery’ (Article 53(c) EPC). The current construction used by the boards and the EPO as any non-significant intervention on the structure of an organism by conservative procedures was found to be…
Correction of a letter of withdrawal under Rule 139 EPC is only possible if the public has not yet been officially informed about the withdrawal. A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
The patent proprietor appealed a decision of the Opposition Division, wherein the Opposition Division decided to maintain the patent in amended form. In appeal the patent proprietor filed a new main request and seven auxiliary requests. The second auxiliary request corresponded to the request that was found allowable by the Opposition Division. The Board of…
In this case the board ruled that a claimed measurement method was excluded as a method of treatment by therapy under Article 53(c) EPC because it encompassed administering a compound that could have a therapeutic effect. It did not matter that the purpose of the relevant claim feature was not therapeutic, or that the proprietor…
In case of parallel proceedings before a national court and the Boards of Appeal, parties should inform both tribunals of this position as early as possible. In order to avoid duplication of proceedings, the parties should ask the appropriate tribunal for acceleration. Whether acceleration is requested by one party, or both or all parties in…
