Menu
Browse Options
T 1764/09, EPO (Appeals Court), 9 January 2014

The board held that a document of speculative nature could not objectively be considered as a realistic starting point or the most promising springboard towards the claimed invention: the document was no more than a speculative review of what might be potentially feasible in the future and no concrete realization of the claimed type of product was described therein.

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

[...]
T2075/11, European Patent Office (Appeals Court)

The Board of Appeal used its discretionary power to declare inadmissible an appeal based on the claims as granted after the proprietor had only defended amended claims before the opposition division. Even if this should not be construed as abandonment of the claims as granted, the request should not be admitted for reasons of procedural economy, because it would require the board to take a first instance decision. The proprietor had lost its right to a decision on the claims as granted by amending the claims to circumvent an objection by the opposition division.

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

[...]
T2259/09, European Patent Office (Appeals Court), 7 June 2013

The Board vacated  reversed a decision that deletion of drawings amounted to an extension of protection. The opposition Opposition division Division had revoked the patent with the argument that the amendment generally had an impact on the extent of protection conferred by the European patent because the drawings would be used to resolve ambiguities in the claims. The Board reversed because the impugned decision failed to identify any such ambiguity.

A full summary of this case can be found on http://www.kluweriplaw.com/

[...]
T248/12, European Patent Office (Appeals Court), 5 March 2013

The Board observed that it could not be understood that the “technical relevance” criterion, proposed by another board in T 1906/11 for judging extension of subject matter, defines a new standard for judging amendments with respect to Article 123(2) in the case of intermediate generalizations. Instead, the Board had to decide whether the technical information inferred by the skilled person was new having regard to the content of the original application as filed.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com

[...]
T1713/11, European Patent Office (Appeals Court), 12 December 2012

The Board of Appeal accepted that filing of a criminal complaint for patent infringement could meet the EPC condition of Art. 105 EPC, for intervention that ‘proceedings for infringement´ have been instituted. In the present case, the licensee of the patent raised a criminal complaint (‘Privatanklage’ under Austrian law), requesting a court to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds of patent infringement.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com

[...]
T1544/08, European Patent Office (Appeals Court), 16 November 2012

The Board of Appeal ruled that color figures contained in the application when filed could be used as a basis for amendments. The board had to deal with the problem that no original copy of the color figures was available to the board. Therefore, the board considered it appropriate to compare sets of copies of the figures to discover whether it could be consistently determined that one of these sets contained the most information and to assume that the originally filed figures contained at least the information in that one set.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com

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