Menu
Browse Options
EPO: T 1756/11, European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, T 1756/11, 14 January 2015

An EPO board held that observations filed by third parties during inter parte appeal must be disregarded by the board, unless they concern amendments during opposition or appeal, in which case the board had discretion whether or not to consider the observations in the examination of the amendments. Also when a party to the appeal took position on third party facts and evidence, the board had to exercise its discretion. In contrast, EPO policy required opposition divisions to take position on the relevance of the third party observations in any case, treating them like late filed submissions.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
EPO: R2/14, European Patent Office, Enlarged Board of Appeal, ECLI:EP:BA:2015:R000214.20150217, 17 February 2015

A panel of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the EPO rejected a request to replace the EBA chairman for suspected partiality. The reasons for allowing such a request in decision R19/12 had since been removed because the chairman had discontinued all his managerial activities in the senior management committees of the EPO. Under the new circumstances it remained for the chairman to judge in each individual case to preserve a balance between his potentially conflicting judicial duties and his duties as vice-president of the EPO. Until proven otherwise, the chairman was presumed thus to avoid partiality.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
EPO: T236/12, European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, 05291183.1, 14 November 2014

During examination poor quality drawings had been replaced by drawings that made more details visible. The opponent argued that replacement of these drawings by the original drawings, to overcome Article 123(2) objections, extended the scope of protection (Article 123(3)). The board concluded that the skilled person remained clearly able to determine what was protected, because the technical features of the claims had been discussed extensively and with sufficient detail in relation tothe drawings as filed with the application.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

 

[...]
EPO: T1938/09, European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T193809.20141002, 2 November 2014

A panel of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the EPO rejected a request to replace the EBA chairman for suspected partiality. The reasons for allowing such a request in decision R19/12 had since been removed because the chairman had discontinued all his managerial activities in the senior management committees of the EPO. Under the new circumstances it remained for the chairman to judge in each individual case to preserve a balance between his potentially conflicting judicial duties and his duties as vice-president of the EPO. Until proven otherwise, the chairman was presumed thus to avoid partiality.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

 

[...]
EPO: T773/10, European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, T773/10, 24 October 2014

The Board of Appeal rejected an attempt to apply the fiction of novelty of “medical” substances and compositions of article 54(5) EPC to a dialysis membrane. Contrary to T2003/08 the claimed dialysis membrane did not contain any further substance that might constitute an active ingredient. With reference to arguments in T2003/08, the board noted that it was not decisive that the dialysis membrane could perform the same function as a drug. The board also did not consider the membrane a single-use product consumed during use, because the reason for not re-using merely was fouling, which could theoretically be removed.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
EPO: T0025/13, European Patent Office (EPO), Board of Appeal, T0025/13, 20 November 2014

The Board emphasized that there was a relation between who was to be considered to be the skilled person for judging inventive step on one hand and the choice of the closest prior art on the other hand. A general problem to modify a product from one field so that it could be used in any field failed to incite the relevant skilled person to select application to the specific other field of the patent, and directing the problem to a specific other field would add an impermissible pointer to the solution.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...