There is insufficiency of disclosure if the skilled person must deliberately ignore a feature of the claim which is perfectly understandable per se in order to work the invention.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]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
[...]In order to determine whether the features that distinguish the patent claims over the prior art can be considered when assessing inventive ste p and novelty, the Board must consider whether these features make a technical contribution to the invention.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]The complexities of European patent architecture raise a number of issues relating to the interface between opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (“EPO”) and infringement proceedings before national courts. A recent case has raised one of such issues, namely: what the impact should be of the revocation of the patent by the EPO in an ongoing infringement action before the national courts.
The debate was sparked by Article 22 of the Spanish Civil Procedure Act, which states that legal proceedings may be terminated without making a decision on costs when there is a supervening loss of object (i.e. the subject matter of the case ceases to exist).
In the case before the Sp [...]
Article 123(3) EPC stipulates that a European patent may not be amended in such a way as to extend the protection it confers. A special case of extension of the protective scope may occur in claims which define both the type of and the amount of a specific component. An issue addressed in a series of recent decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO is whether and under which conditions such a claim violates Article 123(3) EPC if after grant of the patent the type of the component is restricted to preferred embodiments. The conclusions reached in the earlier decisions differ greatly, ranging from a clear yes, irrespective of the wording chosen for the claim restriction (see e.g. T2017/07), [...]
In an appeal against a decision by the Opposition Division to maintain the patent in amended form, the Board ordered the representative of the opponent to file an authorization. The representative did not do so in due time, but indicated that the opponent would take no further action. The Board held that the legal fiction of Rule 152(6) EPC meant that the opposition was deemed not to have been filed due to the representative’s failure to file the authorization, and ordered a refund of the opposition fee.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]
