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

EP 3 010 370 B1 relates to a method for determining movement patterns during a dental treatment.

Brief outline of the case

The opponent appealed the OD’s decision to maintain the patent according to a new MR filed during opposition.

The board revoked the patent as the new MR filed in appeal was not taken into account under Art 13(2) RPBA

The proprietor questioned the admissibility of the opponent’s appeal.

Application EP 3 186 762 relates to a system and method for electronic payments

Brief outline of the case

The application was refused and the applicants first appealed the refusal.

The appeal was later withdrawn and the applicants requested a reimbursement of the appeal fee of 75%. The board decided only to reimburse 50% of the appeal fee.

EP 2 628 464 B1 relates to a prosthetic valve

Brief outline of the case

The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.

The patent was eventually maintained according to AR 6’’.

The case is interesting as it deals with the admissibility of an intervention.

EP 3 666 797 B1 relates to antigen binding proteins that bind to proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin type 9 (PCSK9) and methods of using and making the antigen binding proteins.

The case is interesting not only as is a decision taken by a Section of the Central Division, but an opposition is going on in parallel at the EPO for the patent at stake and for the patent resulting from a first divisional application.

EP 2 182 898 B1 relates to treatment devices, systems, and methods for removing heat from lipid-rich cells, such as subcutaneous lipid-rich cells.

Brief outline of the case

The patent was maintained according to AR8. The opponent appealed.

The board held that claim 1 as maintained infringed Art 123(2) and eventually the board revoked the patent.