by Daniel X. Thomas
This decision was long awaited as the OP took place on 24.11.2022.
The patent relates to compositions exhibiting inseciticidal action, which comprise compounds represented by a general formula [Ia] or salts thereof and thiamethoxam and to methods for controlling insect pests by use of a mixture of said compounds.
Brief outline of the case
The opponent appealed the OD’s decision to reject the opposition.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a process for preparing a carbohydrate-containing nutritional powder by spray–drying.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was revoked and the proprietor appealed the decision.
The OD decided not to admit the fresh ground for opposition under Art 100(a) regarding lack of novelty.
The OD identified two differences in claim 1 as granted over D19,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent deals with polymer micro encapsulation for controlled release of active ingredients and formulations containing microcapsules.
Brief outline of the procedure
The OD decided that claim 1 as granted was infringing Art 123(2). The same applied to AR 1 and 3-13.
AR2 was not admitted in the procedure by the OD.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to safety triple glazing for building facades.
Brief outline of the case
The opponent appealed the OD’s decision of maintenance according to AR1.
The subject matter of claim 1 as upheld by the OD is essentially based on the combination of claims 1, 2, 4 and 9 as filed,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a packaged detergent composition comprising a container that at least partly disintegrates in an aqueous environment.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
The board held that claim 1 as granted lacked IS over D1=EP 0 132 726 which was the first A document in the ISR established by the EPO.