by Daniel X. Thomas
The referring decision T 1286/23
In this decision the board referred the following question to the EBA:
After withdrawal of all appeals, may the proceedings be continued with a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings? In particular, may the third party acquire an appellant status corresponding to the status of a person entitled to appeal within the meaning of Article 107,
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 212 515 B1 relates to a device, in particular for closing a top portion of a food container consisting of a laminate with a peeled and folded back edge region.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was maintained according AR18.
Both proprietor and the second opponent appealed.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 2 828 218 B1 relates to “Method of lowering the error rate of massively parallel DNA sequencing using duplex consensus sequencing.
Brief outline of the case
The OD admitted the MR filed during OP, but held that in infringed Art 123(2).
The patent was revoked and the proprietor appealed.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 2 493 466 B1 relates to the antitumoral use of cabazitaxel in the treatment of prostate cancer, especially for patients who are not catered for by a taxane-based treatment.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was originally opposed by 12 opponents under Art 100(a), (b) and (c).
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 589 420 B1 relates to a system and method for performing predictive maintenance on a paint finishing system.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was maintained according AR17, itself derived from AR14.
AR 17 was filed during the OP before the OD as a modified version of the then AR 14.