by Daniel X. Thomas
These two decisions are interesting as they illustrate well the role of R 80.
Brief outline of the case in T 273/17
The patent relates to a card including an electronic display.
The patent was maintained in amended form by the OD.
Both opponents appealed the decision.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to low temperature production of 2-chloro3,3,3-trifluoropropene, also known as HCFO-1233xf, or 1233xf.
Claim 1-6 as granted relate to a method of production of 1233xf and claims 7-9 as granted relate to an integrated system for the production of 1233xf.
Brief outline of the case
Due to the late-filing of experimental data during the first OP by the opponent,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a drive assembly for a drug delivery device and a drug delivery device incorporating such a drive assembly, in other words an injection pen.
The present patent claims an “internal priority” of 11.06.2010, i.e. EP 10165640 which has manifestly been withdrawn.
Brief outline of the case
All three opponents raised grounds under Art 100(a to c).
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a method for producing a three-dimensional object in general, and a stereolithography method in particular.
Brief outline of the case
The opponent appealed the decision to reject the opposition.
During the appeal procedure the opponent filed D8= EP 2 505 341 that is well after the 9 months opposition period.
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case T 2475/18
In T 2475/18, the patent relates to a device for dispensing a fluid product comprising a blockable actuation element, actually an injection pen.
The patent was revoked by the OD and the proprietor appealed.
The OD considered that none of the requests on file were in conformity with Art 123(2).