EP 3 380 042 B1 relates to an assembly for replacing the tricuspid atrioventricular valve.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
The board held that claim 1 as granted lacked IS over D5=US 2014/0194983, the first document classified X in the ISR established by the EPO.
Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE
T 250/20 – Binding character of an admissibility decision - Estoppel or not estoppel, that is the question
EP 2 430 207 B1 relates to a process for manufacturing a coated metal plate having an improved appearance.
Brief outline of the case
Opponent I attacked 1 all claims and Opponent II only attacked claims 8-11.
The oppositions were rejected and both opponents appealed.
The bord decided maintenance according to AR1 filed in appeal.
T 1893/22 – Admissibility of an opposition by a professional representative in the name of its own firm
Brief outline of the case
The OD revoked the patent and the proprietor appealed.
The OD found that the opposition was admissible and that the claimed subject-matter did not involve an inventive step.
The board held the opposition admissible and confirmed the revocation.
The board refused a request for enlargement by at least one additional legally qualified member.
T 2510/18 – Traditional Knowledge and Art 53(a) - Novelty of substances of natural origin
EP 2 443 126 B1 relates to a molecule, simalikalactone E (SkE), and its use as medicament.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponents appealed.
The board confirmed the revocation.
Background of the patent
It was acknowledged in the patent that the Quassia amara plant had been used in traditional medicine against fevers and malaria throughout the north-western Amazon and as far afield as Central America.
T 2535/22 – Late objections and a way to handle them so that cannot be used at one’s disadvantage
EP 3 338 077 A1=WO 2017/029344 A1 relates to a system and method for laser based internal analysis of gases in a human body.
Brief outline of the case
The ED refused the application by not admitting some requests, considered one comprising added-matter and the last one lacking (AR3a) clarity.
The applicant appealed.