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

Brief outline of the case

The patent results from a divisional application of EP 06803097 /1 922 044 and was published as WO 2007/030599.

The opponent appealed the decision of maintenance in amended form.

Eventually the patent was revoked as claim 1 as maintained infringed Art 76(1).

Claim 1 reads:

“A wound dressing apparatus (100) comprising:

a composite wound dressing with multiple layers arranged in a superposed relation,

In a recent blog dealing with T 803/17 and T 882/17, I commented on the problem of the hierarchy of legal norms in the EPC system. It is worth noting that in T 882/17 we find a mention of J 14/19, see below.

In recent decisions, some of them, e.g.

From time to time parties request correction of the minutes of OP before a deciding body of the EPO. Sometimes they also request

This decision deals with a request for correction of the minutes of OP before a BA.

In this post, requests for recording the statement of a party will also be dealt with.

Brief outline of the case

The OD decided that:

• Claim 1 as granted lack N over D4=US 5,565,528 (Not in the ISR/EPO).
• AR1 was not admitted in the procedure.
• AR2 lacked of IS over CPA=D18=WO 02/22767 (Not in the ISR/EPO) + D21= Calculation of the proprietor based on D18 filed during OP before the OD
• AR3 was allowable.

Brief outline of the case

The proprietor and the opponent appealed the OD’s decision to maintain the patent in amended form according to AR3 filed during the OP before the OD.

The opposed patent relates to a hearing system.

The appellant/opponent requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be revoked.