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

The UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law chaired by Sir Robin Jacob organised a forum discussion on the topic: EPO and UPC: Friends or Foes?

The panel consisted of:

Dr Ingo Beckedorf (Chairman of Legal Board of Appeal, EPO)

Florence Butin (President of CFI of UPC)

Edward Oates (partner at Carpmaels and Ransford LLP)

Annsley Merelle Ward (partner at Wilmer Hale)

Chair: Professor Sir Robin Jacob (UCL Faculty of Laws and Director of the UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law)

I booked a ticket to follow the discussion on line.

The patent relates to a dishwasher and especially to a door mechanism allowing the door leaf to extend in the vertical direction at the end of the opening process. This allows a better access to the inner volume of the dishwasher.

Brief outline of the case

The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.

The patent related to a cold/hot water supply apparatus

Brief outline of the case

The patent was revoked by the OD and the proprietor appealed.

The OD found that Art 100(c) prejudiced the maintenance of the patent as granted, that the subject-matter of claim 1 of any of AR 1 to 6 did not comply with Art 123(2),

The patent relates to compositions comprising paraffins produced from biological raw materials as well as materials and a method for producing the same.

Brief outline of the case

The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.

The OD had decided that D4=Kanokporn Sinthavarayan, “Fractionation and Characterization of Renewable Paraffinic Solvents”,

T 2719/19 is one of the decisions, the second being T 1513/17, having led to the referral and the decisions G 1/21 and G 2/22 of the EBA.

The application behind T 2719/19 is a divisional application from EP 1 755 674 leading to T 1513/17

In the present case, the ED refused the application for lack of N over D20 and D21 published in the priority interval.