After a lot of work behind the scenes, the EPO and epi have published their extensive proposals for the new e-EQE. There are even mock exams for you to try. And they want your feedback ….
Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE
T 2990/18 – Correction of an error under R 139 and amendment to a party’s case under Art 13(1) RPBA20
by Daniel X. Thomas
AR 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 were submitted with letter dated 07.11.2019 replacing AR 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 filed with the reply to the statement setting out the grounds for appeal of the opponent.
The proprietor put forward, in relation to these AR, that the filing was prompted by an obvious error by mistakenly including certain features in claim 3 of its previous AR 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 of 17 July 2019 and,
Combination of granted claims – What is going on at the boards of appeal?
by Daniel X. Thomas
Reminder – Before opposition divisions
It should be kept in mind that before an opposition division combining claims as granted even during oral proceedings is not considered late but is rather considered admissible as the opponent cannot be surprised with such a combination
T 1267/14
A combination of granted claims is admissible and the discretion of the opposition division was correctly exercised.
T 2526/19-OP by ViCo-Art 15a RPBA-Common general knowledge asserted by a BA without any evidence
by Daniel X. Thomas
The present decision is interesting for two aspects:
- Holding OP in the form of a ViCo in the future and discretion given to the BA in Art 15a(1) RPBA20.
- Common general knowledge without any evidence but the personal knowledge of members of the BA.
OP by ViCo
In view of the pandemic developments and the resulting high incidences in Bavaria at the relevant time (21.03.2022),
Addendum 2: Deletion of claims – A reasonable solution
by Daniel X. Thomas
T 527/17 shows what appears reasonable and advisable in matters of deletion of claims.
In T 527/17 the board admitted the main and the second request but not the first auxiliary request.
Both the main and the second request result from the deletion of claims 7 to 9 (main request) and 6 to 9 (second auxiliary request) from auxiliary request 9A filed with the statement of grounds of appeal
The board held that these amendments do not change the patent proprietor’s case as put forward in its statement of grounds of appeal: they do not raise any new issue and stay within the legal and factual framework established at the outset of the appeal proceedings for the claims remaining on file.