by Juliette Boynton | Jan 27, 2025 | EPO
This issue was previously considered by the Enlarged Board in G3/04, who concluded that the Appeal could not be continued. The G3/04 decision notes that the status of an intervener is defined in Article 105 EPC which states:- Any third party may, in accordance with...
by Sean Hutchinson | Aug 30, 2024 | EPO
Background European patent no. EP 2 991 507 B1 was granted with claims directed to a mixture containing fish oil and fruit juice for use in the treatment of cancer. At opposition, the patent was found to lack novelty and the amendments proposed by the patent...
by Sean Hutchinson | Jun 12, 2024 | EPO
Background In our article of January 2024, we reported that the opponent in the case underpinning the “plausibility” referral (G 2/21) had filed a petition for review of the referring board’s decision (T 116/18) by the Enlarged Board of Appeal. That petition is...
by Carolyn Haywood | Mar 27, 2024 | EPO
Priority Historically, the EPO have assessed formal entitlement to priority quite strictly. In scenarios where a priority application is filed by joint applicants, all of them, or their respective successors in title, must be named on the subsequent priority claiming...
by Sean Hutchinson | Jan 25, 2024 | EPO
When the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal issued its decision in G 2/21 (the “plausibility” referral), many were left wondering what the requirements were for a patent applicant/proprietor to be able to rely on post-filed evidence in support of inventive step. However,...
Recent Comments