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

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,

Brief outline of the case

The opponent appealed the decision of the OD to maintain the patent in amended form.

The opponent argued lack of sufficiency and lack of IS.

Some objections only raised in appeal were not admitted by the board.

At the end of the OP before the board,

Brief outline of the case

The proprietor appealed the decision of the OD to revoke the patent.

OP in-person were scheduled for 07.07.2022.

On the 27.06.2022 the proprietor’s representative requested postponement of the OP.

The OP took place as scheduled on 07.07.2022, not in-person but as ViCo.

Brief outline of the procedure

The proprietor appealed the decision of the OD to maintain the patent according to AR 3.

The opponent withdrew its appeal.

The board confirmed the OD’s decision according to which claim 1 as granted lack of N over D1=DE 10 2006 005 765 (First document X,Y in the ISR established by the EPO!).

Brief outline of the procedure

The application was refused for lack of IS. An appeal followed.

In a communication in preparation for the oral proceedings, objections under Art 56, 84 and 123(2) and R 49(10) were raised by the board.

Following the communication of the board, the applicant filed a new request which was admitted under Art 13(2) RPBA20 by the board.