Up-to-date exam calendars can be downloaded with the link. Please pass on quickly to any EPAC candidates – the exam is on 12 Oct 2023. With a summary about the 10-d rule changes which are likely to be tested.
Calendars for EPAC 2023 & EQE 2024
Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE
T 433/21 – Withdrawal of appeal – Declaration of withdrawal cannot be corrected under R 139
by Daniel X. Thomas
The application relates to a “Slurry for Treatment of Oxyanion Contamination in Water”
Brief outline of the case
The application was refused and the applicant appealed.
The Board issued a rather negative communication, as it concluded that none of the requests on file appeared to be allowable.
Following receipt of the communication,
R 13/22 – An opponent cannot obtain a decision on a patent revoked by at the request of its proprietor
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to the field of biological and clinical testing, and particularly the imaging and evaluation of zygotes/embryos, oocytes, and stem cells from both humans and animals.
Brief outline of the case
Both opponents, which had originally requested revocation, appealed the interlocutory decision of the OD according to which the patent could be maintained in amended form on the basis of a MR.
T 312/21 – National case law in procedural matters irrelevant – A fast paced OP
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to communication systems, in particular, the control of communication sessions in an IP multimedia subsystem, and more specifically it relates to a method for handling service failures.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided maintenance in amended form according to AR2 filed during the OP.
The opponent appealed the decision and subsequently withdrew the opposition.
T 620/19 – Not “taking into account” of a request for procedural reasons rather than substantial reasons under the RPBA 07 (and 20/21).
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to improvements insecurity substrates for security documents.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided that claim 1 as granted was lacking N over D1=WO2004/056582 not mentioned in the ISR established by the EPO.
The patent was maintained according to AR6.
Both the opponent and the proprietor appealed the OD’s decision.