Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE
T 2432/19 – A pungent reply to T 618/21 and similar decisions
The patent relates to a disposable diaper.
Brief outline of the case
The proprietor appealed the revocation of the patent.
The OD had decided that the ground of opposition under Art 100(c) was prejudicial to maintenance of the patent as granted. The other AR were offending Art 123(2).
T 618/21 – Art 15a RPBA21 is not in contradiction with G 1/21
The patent relates to an “Assembly and method for checking rod-shaped articles from the tobacco processing industry”.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
Referring to G 1/21, the opponent requested that the OP should not take place in form of a ViCo.
T 1089/20 – Divergent application of Art 13(2) RPBA20
The patent results from a divisional application from EP06819634/EP 1 955 529
The patent relates to communication terminals capable of using different communication channels for communication with a remote party defined by a communication address, and a method for initiating a communication link to such a remote party.
Brief outline of the procedure
The patent was revoked under Art 100(c)=Art 76(1) and the proprietor appealed.
T 42/19 – Discretion of an OD about interpretation of facts – Not necessarily reviewed by a BA
The patent relates to injection devices notably to automatic or semi-automatic pen-type injectors where a rotary drive shaft driven by a torsion spring used for insulin injection.
Brief outline of the case
The opponent appealed the rejection of the opposition.
A late-filed alleged public prior use of an insulin injection pen named GensuPen labelled as D18 was submitted in reaction to the preliminary opinion of the OD was admitted in the opposition proceedings as prima facie relevant,