Opposition systems are closely related to the patent granting procedure, and offer third parties an opportunity to oppose the grant of a patent, by giving notice of opposition to the granting authorities. In some states, there is a pre-grant opposition procedure, in others it is a post-grant procedure. Reasons for opposition may be that the invention is not new, does not involve an inventive step, is not susceptible of industrial application, is excepted from patentability, that the patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art, or that the subject-matter of the patent extends beyond the content of the application as filed, for instance.
The objection raised by the opponent that the protected subject matter of a divisional application extends beyond the content of the parent application does not represent a “fresh ground for opposition”,. This bbecause in the present case i.c. the opposition division hadhas earlier raised an unrelated objection earlier, holdinstating that the patent based on the…
The EPO Boards of Appeal distinguish between the anonymous character of third party observations in ex parte and inter partes appeal proceedings.
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…
As the readers will know, the complex architecture of the European patent system allows third parties to challenge the validity of a patent by filing an opposition before the European Patent Office (“EPO”), by filing a revocation action before national Courts, or by using both routes. In some cases, this has given rise to the…
To stay, or not to stay, that is the question. But not in the recent Danisco v. Novozymes case before the District Court of The Hague. On the face of the Court’s decision of 22 June 2011, the question whether to stay the national proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings at the EPO on…
During EPO opposition proceedings, patentees have historically been able to avoid discussing clarity by combining granted claims rather than using the description as basis for amendments. The landmark cases T 227/88 and especially T 367/96 have been relied on to support this position. However, some technical boards of appeal are now starting to engage in…
The decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office which revokes a European patent due to lack of inventive step, is a supra-national legal instrument which can be the object of a complaint to the German Constitutional Court. Such complaints are only admissible if the protection of fundamental rights is no longer…
Imagine: Wouldn’t it be fantastic to have one single patent which you could apply for at the WPO, the World Patent Office? A World Patent, which would be valid worldwide and which could be enforced in each single country of the world with worldwide effect? Decisions of the national local chambers of the World Patent…
The Court held that in order to decide that a patented invention is novel, it is not sufficient that the wording in the patent description is different from the wording in the prior art. The technical subject-matter of the prior art must be different. Moreover, it had to be assessed whether publicly accessible information could…
Do we need a Community Patent? Do we need a European Patent Litigation System? Or does the current fragmented system have a hidden wisdom behind it? Judge for yourself!
