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

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.

Both decisions are interesting as they relate the principle of the prohibition of the reformation in peius to questions of admissibility of the opposition.

In both decisions the opponent was the sole appellant.

The first decision, T 803/17, deals with the case of the opposition being rejected.

The second decision,

Brief outline of the case

The ESR mentioned inter alia E1=Nexans: “Nexans holt Gigabit-Ethernet an den Arbeitsplatz”, 10. March 2008, XP002595111 | and E5=DAFÜR Gesellschaft für IT Systemtechnik: “ISABEL 1000TP – Einbau Switch für Kabelkanal oder Unterflur”, 6. Mai 2008, XP002595110 as highly relevant.

The OD revoked the patent. For the OD the opposition was admissible and claim 1 as granted (MR) lacked N.

To opt-out or not to opt-out, that is the question

The proprietor can decide, at least during the transitional period, to opt-out or not from the competence of the UPC.

With or without opt-out the granted EP remains a EP, the only difference being that it may produce either

• unitary effects in contracting states of the UPCA
• effects only in contracting states in which it has been validated,