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

The patent is directed to bicycles and, more particularly, to an apparatus for adjusting a position of a bicycle control device, in fact a bicycle derailleur that moves to a plurality of operating positions

Brief outline of the case

Claim 1 as granted was lacking N over O2=EP 1 426 284,

The application relates to methods and systems for performing file transfers across different domains between virtual machines when at least one of these machines is untrusted.

Brief outline of the case

The ED decided, among other things, that the subject-matter of independent claims 1 and 8 of the MR and of AR1 lacked IS over the prior art disclosed in document D5 and that claim 1 of the MR did not comply with Art 84.

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”?