Patent EP 2 886 363 B1 relates to a security element for security documents
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided that the new MR was lacking N over no less than 4 documents D1, D4, D6 and D9. The same applied to AR 1. AR2 was lacking N over D4,
Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE
T 1654/22 – On the choice of the Closet Prior Art – No pointer needed in the CPA – Prejudice in the patent world
by Daniel X. Thomas
Patent EP 3 027 186 B1 relates to a process for the preparation of filler compositions comprising hyaluronic acid and mepivacaine hydrochloride, an anaesthetic agent.
Brief outline of the case
The OD found that claim 1 as granted lacked N over claim 36 of D2=WO 2012/104419, the first document cited in the ISR established by the EPO.
T 1079/22 - Sweeping reference to submissions in first instance – When looking into the matter this is not correct
by Daniel X. Thomas
Patent EP 2 819 699 B1 relates to controlled release compositions and their method of use, and to low viscosity controlled release compositions for use in the treatment of mastitis in lactating animals.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided that the new MR filed in opposition was infringing Art 123(2).
UPC_CoA_22/2024- Order of the CoA - Parallel revocation at the UPC and opposition before the EPO – Stay of proceedings refused by the CD Paris Section confirmed
by Daniel X. Thomas
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.
T 1690/22 – Admissibility of carry over requests - Objections under R 106
by Daniel X. Thomas
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.