Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE

It has been leaked before, but now also the text of the amended provisions according to the Administrative Council decision is published: CA/D 10/22 and preparatory document CA/30/22 Rev. 2.

As of November 2023, the 10-day rule will be history. Instead of adding ten days to the start of a period triggered by a notification from the EPO, the date which the document bears will count directly.

While the changes are supposed to support digitalisation, they will equally require adaptation of long-lived electronic notification practice in EP patent proceedings. And the amended rules are closer but not exactly in line with corresponding PCT provisions.

This is the second appeal concerning EP 2079319. At the end of the first appeal, see T 692/14, the case was remitted to the OD for further prosecution.

The proprietor and both opponents appealed against the OD’s interlocutory decision holding the then AR 7 allowable.

The decision is interesting in two respects.

This is the second appeal concerning EP 2079319.

At the end of the first appeal, see T 692/14, the case was remitted to the OD for further prosecution.

The proprietor and both opponents appealed the OD’s interlocutory decision holding the then AR 7 allowable.

The decision is interesting in two respects.

Brief outline of the case

The patent at stake is a divisional application of EP 07711716/EP 2 119 287.

The present invention relates to self-configuring and optimisation of cell neighbours in wireless telecommunications networks.

The ESR only quoted A documents. In the ESO, claims 1-10 were considered directly allowable,

Brief outline of the case

The patent relates to a polymerizable liquid composition and a process for the production of organic glass as well as the organic glass obtained from the polymerization of said compositions.

The proprietor appealed against the decision of OD of maintaining the patent according to AR1 filed during the OP before the OD.