by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
D23 and D26 were not admitted by the OD under R 116(1).
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
The opponent’s late objection as regards lack of IS over D18 against claim 1 of the granted patent was admitted into the appeal proceedings.
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
The patent was revoked and the proprietor appealed.
The opponent was a firm of patent attorneys.
The proprietor argued that the opponent was not a true opponent and hence the opposition was not admissible.
The board disagreed and confirmed the revocation.
The proprietor’s point of view
The proprietor submitted that the opposition filed in the name of the firm of patent representatives constituted a circumvention of the law by abuse of process in the sense of decisions G 3/97,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The application relates to the configuration of malfunction prediction for components and units of technical entities.
Brief outline of the case
The ED refused the application for lack of IS and the applicant appealed.
Prior to the refusal, the EPO published a non-search report under R 33.3 and 39PCT.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to an “Automated passenger conveying system manipulation via an automated remote activation and validation of controller software”.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was maintained according to AR1.
Both proprietor and opponent appealed.
The board confirmed that claim 1 as granted was lacking IS over E1=JP 2006-264877 (Not mentioned in the ESR).
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to filling devices, systems and methods for transferring hazardous waste material in a sealable container.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided that the opposition was deemed not to have been filed for lack of payment in due time of the opposition fee.
The potential opponent appealed this decision.