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

The CD-Paris Section had issued an order (ORD_591040/2023) refusing a stay of proceedings in view of a parallel opposition at the EPO. This order was commented in the present blog.

In an order issued on 28.05.2024, the CoA refused as well the stay of the proceedings.

The only difference in the outline of the case is that an appeal was filed by the proprietor on the refusal of the stay decided by the CD-Paris Section.

Patent EP 3 293 124 B1 relates to a high power packaging method and device, in particular for small pieces like pralines.

Brief outline of the case

The opponent appealed the rejection of its opposition.

In its decision the board held that claims 1 (method) and 9 (device) as granted lacked IS over D3=DE 10 2008 019 605+D1=US 4 947 617.

Patent EP 3 293 124 B1 relates to a high power packaging method and device, in particular for small pieces like pralines.

Brief outline of the case

The opponent appealed the rejection of its opposition.

In its decision the board held that claims 1 (method) and 9 (device) as granted lacked IS over D3=DE 10 2008 019 605+D1=US 4 947 617.

The patent relates to an agent for use in the prophylaxis or improvement of frailty in elderly person.

Brief outline of the case

The OD decided that claims 1 and 11 of the main request did not meet the requirements of Article 123(2). The same applied to AR1-7. Cl5 of AR8 was lacking clarity.