CASELAW-EPO - reviews of EPO Boards of Appeal decisions

Brief outline of the case

The patent was revoked and the proprietor appealed.

The opponent was a firm of patent attorneys.

The proprietor argued that the opponent was not a true opponent and hence the opposition was not admissible.

The board disagreed and confirmed the revocation.

The proprietor’s point of view

The proprietor submitted that the opposition filed in the name of the firm of patent representatives constituted a circumvention of the law by abuse of process in the sense of decisions G 3/97,

The application relates to the configuration of malfunction prediction for components and units of technical entities.

Brief outline of the case

The ED refused the application for lack of IS and the applicant appealed.

Prior to the refusal, the EPO published a non-search report under R 33.3 and 39PCT.

The patent relates to an “Automated passenger conveying system manipulation via an automated remote activation and validation of controller software”.

Brief outline of the case

The patent was maintained according to AR1.

Both proprietor and opponent appealed.

The board confirmed that claim 1 as granted was lacking IS over E1=JP 2006-264877 (Not mentioned in the ESR).

The patent relates to filling devices, systems and methods for transferring hazardous waste material in a sealable container.

Brief outline of the case

The OD decided that the opposition was deemed not to have been filed for lack of payment in due time of the opposition fee.  

The potential opponent appealed this decision.

The application relates to load distribution in distributed database systems.

Brief outline of the case

The sole request underlying the decision under appeal was refused for

(a) lack of compliance with Art 123(2),

(b) lack of compliance with Art 84, clarity and conciseness, the latter in conjunction with R 43(2)(a),