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The patent was revoked by the OD and the proprietor appealed.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).
by Daniel X. Thomas
Before discussing the decision of the admissibility of the opposition, it is worth looking at a potential conflict of interests.
A potential conflict of interests
By letter dated one day before the scheduled first OP, the proprietor complained for not having been informed that the opponent had appointed “Godemeyer Blum Lenze Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB”
by Daniel X. Thomas
As a fan of Monty Pythons, I come now with something completely different.
The UPCA is on the verge of its entry into force and the UPC of opening its doors, but the Brexit hangs over the UPC like as Damocles’ sword.
It does not bode well to see on the one hand how Brexit has been first belittled by the supporters/proponents of the UP/UPC system as some of them claimed that the UK can continue to be part of the UPCA in spite of Brexit,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The application relates to a vibrating flow device and a method for manufacturing a vibrating flow device.
Brief outline of the case
The applicant appealed the refusal of the application.
The ED considered that that the main and sole request then on file (MR 0) did not meet the requirements of Art 123(2) and 54(1).