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.
CASELAW-EPO - reviews of EPO Boards of Appeal decisions
T 262/17 – Request for correction of the minutes of OP before a BA
by Daniel X. Thomas
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.
T 776/17 – Discretion correctly exercised but nevertheless Substantial Procedural Violation
by Daniel X. Thomas
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.
T 1206/19 – Revision of the discretion of an OD in matters of late filed documents by a BA – Diverging case law
by Daniel X. Thomas
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.
T 803/17 – T 882/17 - Prohibition of the reformatio in peius and admissibility of the opposition
by Daniel X. Thomas
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,