Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE

Brief outline of the case

The ED rejected applicant’s request for re-establishment of rights in respect of the time limit for the payment of the renewal fee for the thirteenth year with surcharge and stated that European patent application No. 06755766.0 was deemed to be withdrawn as of 01.12.2019. For the ED the request for re-establishment was not even admissible.

Brief outline of the procedure

Both proprietor and opponent appealed the decision of the OD to maintain the patent according to AR1.

Claim 8 as granted was held to infringe Art 123(2) so that the patent could not be maintained as granted.

The proprietor filed new AR in response to the opponent’s statement of grounds of appeal,

The decision is interesting in that the board found the Guidelines inconsistent with case law when it comes to Interlocutory Revision under Art 109.

Brief outline of the case

The applicant appealed the decision of the ED that claim 1 of the sole request was lacking N over D5, PA under Art 54(3).

Brief outline of the procedure

The OD decided to reject the opposition.

In its preliminary opinion, the Board expressed the view that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the MR and AR I appeared to lack novelty.

In its decision, the board held that claim 1 as granted lacked N over A1=EP 2 142 232,

Brief outline of the procedure

The application was refused by the ED and the applicant appealed the decision.

For the ED, claim 1 of each of a MR and an AR lacked inventive step. The board raised different objections.

The applicant requested that the appealed decision be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the claims of the MR subject to the appealed decision or,