All posts
IPappify.de

All posts
IPappify.de

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

Categories

CASELAW-EPO
CASELAW-UPC
EPAC
EPC
EQE
PCT
Uncategorized

Categories

CASELAW-EPO
CASELAW-UPC
EPAC
EPC
EQE
PCT
Uncategorized

Tags

Art 113(1) / Art 116 / Art 12(4) RPBA / Art 123(2) / Art 13 RPBA20 / Art 13(2) RPBA / Art 13(2) RPBA20 / Art 56 / Art 83 / Art 84 / See more ...

"Carry-over requests" / "comprising" means an open composition even if water is added to 100wt% / "Conciction" of the deciding body / "Esential features" / "Intermediate generalisation / "Normal" infant feeding formula / "Preferably" and Art 123(2) / "Preferably" is not a true alternative / "Three-point test / 10-day rule / 54(5) or 53(c) / A communication of the board is not an invitation to file further requests / Absence at OP / Accidental anticipation / Accompanying persons / ADA / ADA Point 5.5-extension of the time limit for payment / Adaptation of description / Adaptation of the description / Adaptation of the description in opposition / Added matter / Added matter and unclear or ambiguous feature / Added subject-matter at the UPC / Adherence to time limits / Admiisibility of a late filed objection / Admissibility and substantiation / Admissibility of a late submission / Admissibility of a petition for review / Admissibility of an appeal / Admissibility of an intervention / Admissibility of an opposition / Admissibility of appeal / Admissibility of AR in appeal / Admissibility of AR under Art 13(2) RPBA / Admissibility of carry over requests / Admissibility of CoR / Admissibility of late filed experimental data-submissions / Admissibility of late filed requests / Admissibility of late submissions / Admissibility of opposition / Admissibility of requests / Admissibility of requests filed in appeal / Admissibility of requests having played no role in opposition / Admissibility of requests in appeal / Admissibility/allowability of a petition for review / Admissibillity of an opposotion/appeal / Admissibilty of an appeal / Admissibilty of submissions / Admissibliy filed and maintained in opposition? / Admissibly raised / Aggregation vs. synergy / Alleged competence of the UPC for damages having occurred before the entry into force of the UPCA / Amendment in a claim in the communication under R 71(3) / Amendment to a party's case in appeal / Amendment to the proprietor's case / Amendments of the patent in revocation proceedings before the UPC / Amendments to the RPBA / And/Or links in claims / Appeal against a decision vs. appeal against an order / Appeal againt usage of the wrong form / Appellants are not treated the same / Application for a PI at a local section of the UPC / Application of Art 69 in procedures before the EPO / Application of G 1/21 and G 2/22 / Application of the PSA at the Swiss Federal Patent Court / Application of the PSA at the UPC / Appointment of a professional representative / Apportionement of costs / Apportionment of costs / Ar 12(3 and 5) RPBA / AR admissibly filed and maintained in first instancein f / AR not "used" in opposition / Art 100 / Art 100(b) / Art 100(c) / Art 101(1) / Art 101(3a) / Art 104 / Art 104(1) / Art 105 / Art 105a EPC / Art 106(1) / Art 108 / Art 109 / Art 11 RPBA / Art 11 RPBA20 / Art 111 / Art 111(1) / Art 112a / Art 113(2) / Art 114 / Art 114(1) / Art 114(2) / Art 116(1) / Art 117 / Art 117(1d) / Art 12 RPBA20 / Art 12(1) RPBA20 / Art 12(2) RPBA / Art 12(2) RPBA07 / Art 12(3 and 5) RPBA / Art 12(3) RPBA / Art 12(3) RPBA20 / Art 12(3)RPBA / Art 12(3+4) RPBA / Art 12(3+5) RPBA / Art 12(4) RPBA07 / Art 12(4) RPBA20 / Art 12(4) RPBA21 / Art 12(4)RPBA / Art 12(4+6) RPBA / Art 12(5) -13(1) or 13(2) RPBA / Art 12(6) RPBA / Art 12(6) RPBA20 / Art 121 / Art 122 / Art 123(2 and 3) / Art 123(2) and common general knowledge / Art 123(3) / Art 1232) / Art 125 / Art 13 RPBA / Art 13(1) RPBA / Art 13(1) RPBA20 / Art 13(2)RPBA21 / Art 14(2) / Art 15(1) RPBA / Art 15(1) RPBA20 / Art 15(2) RPBA20 / Art 15a RPBA20 / Art 15a RPBA21 / Art 15a(1) RPBA / Art 15a(1) RPBA20 / Art 15a(1)RPBA21 / Art 15a(3) RPBA / Art 16 RPBA / Art 2 Rrf / Art 20 RPBA20 / Art 20 RPBA20/21 / Art 22 PCT / Art 24(2) / Art 52 / Art 52(4) / Art 53(a) / Art 53(c) / Art 53(c) No distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic uses. / Art 53(c)-Surgery / Art 54 / Art 54(2) / Art 54(3) / Art 54(5) / Art 56 and common general knowledge / Art 64(2) / Art 69 / Art 69 and Protocol / Art 69 and Protocol on Interpretation / Art 69 EPC / Art 69(1) and Protocol / Art 72 / Art 76(1) / Art 8 RPBA / Art 81-2d sentence / Art 82 / Art 83 and open-ended ranges / Art 83 vs. Art 56 / Art 83 vs. Art 84 - Measureent of parameters / Art 84 2d sentence / Art 84 in opposition / Art 84-support of the claims / Art 87 / Art 87(1) / Art 88 / Art 89 / Assessment of IS / Balance of probabilities / Broadest technical interpretation and Art 123(2) / BSH-Electrolux CJEU C 339/22 / Business methods / Business parameters / Calendars / Cancellation of OP / Carry over equests / Carry over objection / Carry over objections / Carry over requests / Carry-over requests / Case law of the UPC vs. case law of the EPO / CGK / Change from a method to a device claim / Change from a N to an IS objection / Change from a objection of lack of N to an objection of lack of IS / Change of an objection of lack of N to an objection of lack of IS by a BA / Change of date of OP / Change of language of the proceedings before the UPC / Change of legal and factual framework / Change of order of requests in opposition / Change of status PA Art 54(3) to PA Art 54(2) / Change of the composition of an ED after holding an OP / Changes to the RPBA20 / Choice of the CPA / CII / Claim interpretation / Claim interpretation vs. description / Claim-like clauses / Claim-like-clauses / Clarity of claims at the UPC / Clinical trials / Combination of claims / Combination of different teachings of the prior art / Combination of different technical fields / Combined objection N and IS on the basis of the same document / Common general knowledge / Competence of the Receiving Section / Competence of the UPC already for signatory states / Composition of a panel of the CoA with only 3 legally qualified judges / Composition of the OD / COMVIK approach / Conditional withdrawal of an appeal / Consisting of and novelty / Content of a document at its publication date / Contradiction between Art 105 and 107 / Convergence of requests / Conviction of the deciding body / Correction of the decision / Correction of the minutes / Correction of the minutes of OP / CPA / D1 / D2 / De facto admissibility of late submissions / Deciding on damages vs. deciding on infringement / Decision by a national court / Declaration of non appearance at OP / Definition of the Objective Technical Problem / Definition of the reasons and the type of costs needed / Definition of the skilled person at the UPC / Defintion of the objective technical problem vs the subjective technical problem vs / Deletion of a disclaimer/proviso / Deletion of a feature in a granted claim / Deletion of an essential feature / Deletion of claims / Deletion of claims and/or alternatives in a claim / Deletion/combination of claims / Deteriroation of the technical effect compared to the CPA / Difference between filng and substantiation / Different apportionment of costs / Disciplinary Board of Appeal / Disclaimers / Discretion given to an OD / Discretion of the boards / Displinary Board of Appeal / Divergence in case law-deletion of claims / Divergent requests filed in opposition / Diverging case law / Diverging requests / Document in an official language of the EPO / Dosage regimen / Doubts as to the competence ratio materiae of a board / Duty of clarification / Duty of neutrality of an OD / Dynamic interpretation of the EPC / e-PCT / Early annoncement of the final decision of an OD / Ecompassed by the technical teaching / Emdodied by the same invention / Enablement of prior art / Entitlement under Art 61(1) / EPC.App / epi Code of Conduct / EQE / EQE marking deficient / EQE marking deficient-3 marks lost / EQE2023 / EQE2024 / Equivalents and Art 123(2) / Error in judgment / Essential feature / Estoppel at the EPO / Evalauation proof of public prior use / Evidence supporting a PPU by the opponent himself / Ex officio examination by a board / Ex-officio decision / Ex-officio examination by a board / Ex-officio examination of an appeal / Exceptional circumstances / Exceptional circumstances under Art 13(2) RPBA / Exercise of discretion by an OD / Exercise of discretion by the BA / Exercise of discretion by the OD / Exercise of discretion of an OD with respect of late-filed requests / Exercise of the discretion by the boards / Experimental data / Extent of examination in examination appeal / External Resources / Extra search fee / Fact-finding and evaluation of evidence / Figures based on publihed decisions of the boards / Form of OP / Free evaluation of evidence G 2/21 / Free evaluation of evidence in case of a PPU / Functional features / G 1/03 / G 1/12 / G 1/15 and deletion of features / G 1/19 / G 1/21 / G 1/22 and G 2/22 / G 1/22 and GG 2/22-Presumption of valdity not rebutted / G 1/24 / G 1/24-Provisional opinion / G 1/93-Inescapable trap / G 1/99 and Inventive Step / G 1/O3 - G 2/10 - G 1/16 / G 10/91-G 1/95-G 7/95 / G 12/91 / G 2/10 / G 2/21 / G 2/97 / G 2/98 / G 3/04 / G 3/14 / G 4/95 / G 5/91 / G-VII-12 / G-VII-7 / Gene therapy / Gold standard / Grant in numerous countries / Grant procedure / Guidelines / Hearing of witness by ViCo / Hearing of witnesses / Hearing of witnesses before a BA / Hierarchy of legal norms / Hybrid/mixed mode OP / Identification of the opponent / Incorporated by reference in the prior art / Incorporation by reference of previous grounds of appeal in a new appeal / Incorrect exercise of discretion by an OD / Increasing production/productivity / Indication of purpose / Infringement / Infringement by equivalence / Insufficiency of disclosure vs. missing essential features in opposition / Interim decision on admissibility / Internet citations / Interplay between R 71(3) and R 71(5) / Interpreation of claims at the UPC / Interpretation by a national court / Interpretation of a feature in a claim / Interpretation of claims / Interpretation of claims at the UPC / Interpretation of claims by national courts / Interpretation of claims by the CoA of the UPC / Interpretation of G 2/21 / Interpretation of ranges / Interpretation of T 116/18 / Interpretation of the claims / Interpretationof an unclear feature in a claim / Intervention at the UPC / Intervention during appeal / Inventive step / Inventive step in opposition and opposition appeal / IP.Translator / IPQC / Is admitting a late filed document a decision or a mere opinion / IS and post-published data / IS when OTP is an alternative / Lack of clarity in a maintained claim / Lack of unity a posteriori / Late annoucement of non participation to an OP / Late filed AR by the proprietor / Late filed defense of the proprietor / Late filed evidence / Late filed ground of opposition / Late filed objection by the opponent / Late filed objections / Late filed PPU / Late filed request / Late filed request admissible under Art 13(2) RPBA / Late filed requests / Late filed requests with deleted claims / Late filed submissions / Late information on not-participation / Late submissions / Late submissions of the parties / Late withdrawal of a legitimate action / Late withdrawal of an AR for OP / Late-filed / Late-filed objections by a board / Late-filed requests / Letter of a oarty not forwarded to the other party / Level of proof of therapeutic effect / LFDA in appeal / Limitations in G 2/88 / Limits of the adaptation of the description in opposition / Limits of the interpretation of claims under Art 69 / Maintaining objections / Man of straw=CEO of a company=professionarepresentative / Mathematical model-trained or not trained / Meaning of coupled directly / Meaningless features and Art 123(2) / Measurement method for a parameter / Measuring apparatus not available / Minutes of OP / Missing page at filing / Mixed-mode Op / Mode of administration / Modelisation / Monitoring glucose values / Most promising springboard / Narrow and far removed for IS not N / Narrow interpretation following examination / Necessity of an ex-officion decion on admissibility by the board / negative features / Neither "balance of probabilities" nor "up to the hilt" / Neutrality of deciding body / New EQE / New PA cited by the B / No absolute right to OP / No AR needed in opposition / No implicit NDA for a handbookA / No obstacle to file an appeal / No PI as no infringement / No postponement of OP / No recourse to the description when interpreting a claim / No representative of choice / No Substantial Procedural Violation / Non Discloure Agreement / Not necessary to refer to the description / Notorious prior art / Novelty of products of natural origin / Novelty vs. purity / Number of differences with the CPA / obiter dictum / Objection admitted when entering appeal / Objection under Art 83 or Art 56 depends whether an effect is claimed / Objections under R 106 / Objective technical problem / Onus of proof / OP by ViCo / OP by ViCo before a board / OP by ViCo before an OD / OPneed not been held if it serves no purpose / Opposition by man of straw / Opposition for a third party / Opt-out / Opt-out after action before the UPC / Optional features / Optional vs. essential fetures / Oral hearing before the UPC / OTP / Packaging of medicines / Parallel opposition at the EPO and infringement action at the UPC / Partial abandonment of appeal case / Partial priority G 1/15 / Partial revocation at the UPC / Partiality of a member of the EBA in a petition for review / Partiality of an OD / Partiality of the OD / Patent is its own dictionary / Patent=own dictionary-No / Patenting is different from marketing / Payment of renewal fees / PCT-SAFE / PCT.App / Petition for review / Petition for review clearly not admissible / Petition for review not allowable / Petitions for review on interlocutory decisions of a board / PI requested before the UPC / Pigs-human chimeras / Plausibility / Postponement of OP and right to be heard / Postponmemt OP / PPU as CPA / Pre G 1/24 / Prediction of malfunction in technical items / Prima facie allowability/novelty / Prima facie relevance / Primacy of the claims / Prior art=declassified documents / Problem inventions / Problem Solution Approach / procedural economy / Procedural or substantial nature / Procedures before the EPO-Lugano Convention-EU Regulation 44-2001 / Product-by-process claim at the UPC / Prohibition of the reformatio in peius / Proof of CGK / Proper definition of the OTP / Protection of legitimate expectations / PSA / Public availability of a Korean patent / Public prior use / Punctuation in claim / Quality at the EPO / R 101(1) / R 103(1)(b) / R 103(2) 75% / R 103(4c) 25% / R 103(4c) 50% / R 106 / R 111(2) / R 112(1) / R 115(2) / R 116 / R 116(1) / R 117 / R 118 / R 124 / R 136(1) / R 139 / R 14(2) / R 140 / R 159(1) / R 22 / R 26-29 / R 36 / R 36(1) / R 4(5) / R 40(2) / R 41(1e) / R 42(1c) / R 43(3) / R 43(7) / R 44 / R 56 / R 56a / R 58 / R 6(4) / R 64 / R 76 / R 76(2-c) / R 76(2c) / R 77(2) / R 79(1) / R 80 / R 88 / R 89 / R 89(1) / R 91(a) application to the proprietor. / R 99(2) / R103(1)(a) / R103(1a) / R64(2) / R76(2)(c) / R80 / Re-establishment / Re-establishment in the time limit of filing an appeal / Re-establishment of priority / Reach-through claims / Reading of a claim by a skilled person / Recital 30 Directive 98/44EC / Recourse to the description / Referral to the EBA / Referral to the EBA on the application of Art 69 in assessing 'Art 52-57 / Referrl to the EBA on the adaptation of the description / Refinement of arguments vs. new arguents / Reformatio in peius / Regulatory approval and sufficiency / Reimbursement of the appeal fee / Reimbursement of the fee for reestablishment / Relation between independent and dependent claim / Remittal / Remittal for further prosecution with order to change the composition of the OD. / Remittal for lack of argumentation of the parties / Remittal or no remittl / Remittal to carry out a further search / Reopening of appeal / Reopening of the appeal procedure / Reordering AR when entering appeal / Reordering requests in appeal / Reordering requests in opposition / Repeated refusal to hold OP / Request for OP only in appeal / Requirements as to admissibility / Res judicata in cas of a changement of the composition of a board / Reserving the right to file requests / Restoration of priority / Retraction or rescission / Retroactivity of damages / Return to written procedure / Reversal of the onus of proof / Reverting from a lack of N objection to a lack of IS based on the same document a / Revocation of the patent by the Munich LS of the CD-UPCLS / Right to be heard / Role of the appointed representative / RoP 109 UPC / RoP 109.1 UPCA / RoP 109.4 UPCA / RoP 109.5 UPC / RoP 150 UPC / RoP 30 UPC / RoP 313-317 UPC / RoP 322 UPC / RPBA 07 and 20 / RPBA07 and 20 / RPBA20/21 / Same invention for a valid priority / Same/similar purpose or objective / Second medical use claim / Secondary indicators / Selection among different levels of preference / Selection from lists / Selection inventions / Sequence listing / Simulation / Simultaneous interpretation / SPV / SPV committed by an ED / SPV committed by an OD / SPV-no disccussion of AR / ST.26 / Standard of proof / Standard of proof of a public prior use / Standard/Norms in claims / Starting material / Statistical analysis and sufficiency / Status of intervener in appeal / Status of requests after remittal / Stay of proceddings before a TBA in case of a referral / Stay of procedure in view of G 1/24 / Stay of proceedings before the UPC / Subjective technical problem / Substance vs. procedure / Substances or compositions vs. Art 54(4) / Substantial procedural violation / Substantiation of AR filed in appeal / sufficiency / sufficiency of broad claims / Sufficiency vs. IS / summary of position of the parties to T 439/22 / Summary of the amicus curiae in G 1/24 / support by the description / suspected partiality of a board member / Synergistic effect / T 131/01 / T 1914/12 / T 641/01 / Taking position in writing before OP / Technical and non-technical features / Technical competence of board members / Technical contribution / Technical problems / Technical/non-technical features / Territorial competence of the UPC in infringement matters / Text "intended" in R 71(3) / The UPC a year later / Therapeutic effect / Time points in Art 12(4) vs. Art 13(2) RPBA / Timely filing / Timing of a referral to the EBA under Art 112 / Traditional knowledge / Translation in an official language / Translations from Chinese into English / Trap-like situation between lack of IS and intermediate generalisation / Two lists approach / Uncommon parameter / Undisclosed disclaimers / Unity of invention / UPC / UPC and Brexit / UPC competnece for infringement / Use in product claim / Use of a compound in the production of a product / Validity of a patent at the UPC / Validity of the priority / Validity of the transfer of priority / Various lines of case law / Way back machine / Withdrawal of a request for OP / Withdrawal of an appeal / Withdreawal of approval of all requests by a proprietor / “One way” vs. “over the whole scope claimed”

Blog archive

2025 (93)
- May (4)
- April (21)
- March (24)
- February (25)
- January (19)
2024 (249)
- December (21)
- November (18)
- October (25)
- September (15)
- August (16)
- July (26)
- June (24)
- May (27)
- April (14)
- March (29)
- February (20)
- January (14)
2023 (165)
- December (22)
- November (20)
- October (14)
- September (11)
- August (13)
- July (11)
- June (12)
- May (14)
- April (9)
- March (9)
- February (12)
- January (18)
2022 (94)
- December (7)
- November (18)
- October (10)
- September (8)
- August (12)
- July (11)
- June (9)
- May (9)
- April (8)
- March (2)

Blog team

Pete Pollard

Founder of Fireball Patents
Till Andlauer

Managing Partner at WESER & Kollegen
Daniel X. Thomas

Former Director at European Patent Office
Grzegorz Wesela-Bauman

Global IP Counsel at GE Power

Resources

            
EPC.AppThe self-editable commented
European Patent Convention
Edited and annotated by
T. Andlauer, S. Ahlers, T. Eißfeller
G. Wesela-Baumann

PCT.AppThe self-editable commented
Patent Cooperation Treaty
Edited and annotated by
T. Andlauer, S. Ahlers, T. Eißfeller, P. Pollard

Subscribe to blog posts

E-mail Address:

All categories

CASELAW-EPO

CASELAW-UPC

EPAC

EPC

EQE

PCT

Uncategorized

(608 subscribers)

Legal

Legal notice & Contact
Privacy policy

© 2018 - 2025 IP.appify GmbH