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

The patent relates to an Al-Zn-coated steel sheet that exhibits excellent corrosion resistance after painting.

Brief outline of the case

Claim 1 as granted was lacking N over D4=EP 2 957 648, prior art under Art 54(3) which was not mentioned in the SESR.

The patent was maintained in amended form according to AR1.

The patent relates to the use of hot-melt adhesive for the collation of containers and bottles for beverages or food into shelf ready packs of various items.

Brief outline of the case

The opponent appealed the rejection of the opposition.

In its communication under Art 15(1) RPBA21, the board expressed the opinion that claim 1 as granted lacked IS over D1=US5331038,

The referred questions

They can be summarised as follows

1. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Art 87(1,b)?
2. Is the “joint applicants approach” valid for EP applicants also valid for PCT “joint applicants”?

The patent relates to a process for the post-treatment of a zeolitic material

Brief outline of the case

The opposition division concluded that:

– the MR and AR 2 and 10 at that time (current MR and AR2 and 4, respectively) were lacking N

– AR 16 and 31 (current AR 6 and 11,

The patent relates to a nicotine oral delivery product in form a chewing gum.

Brief outline of the case

The OD rejected the opposition under R 77(2) as the for the OD the opponent was not clearly identifiable at the end of the opposition period.

For the OD, it could not be unambiguously determined whether the opponent was “Swedish Match North Europe AB”,