by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 071 722 B1 relates to an integrated sintering process for microcracking and erosion resistance of thermal barriers.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
Before the OD, the opponent had requested a different apportionment of costs which was refused by the OD
The opponent appealed the OD’s decision not to allow a different apportionment and requested a different apportionment of costs in appeal.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 2 879 636 B1 relates to a wound dressing.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was maintained according to AR 13.
The OD decided a different apportionment of costs against the proprietor.
The proprietor and two opponents appealed the decision.
The board decided that then valid MR=AR12op was infringing Art 123(2).
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 2 356 730 B1 relates to a “Method for using a mining vehicle, and arrangement in mine, a rock drilling rig and a mining vehicle.
Brief outline of the case
Both proprietor appealed the decision of maintenance according to AR1.
The board eventually revoked the patent for lack of N respectively IS.
by Daniel X. Thomas
Patent EP 3 194 674 B1 relates to a plastic infiltration unit, and a system comprising a plurality of plastic infiltration units. Plastic infiltration units are used for the temporary storage of excess rainwater, enabling controlled discharge.
Brief outline of the case
The patent proprietor and the opponent appealed against maintenance according to AR2 by the OD.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to methods of characterizing peptides, peptide mixtures, and polypeptide mixtures
Brief outline of the procedure
The OD decided to reject the opposition.
Both opponents appealed this decision.
In a communication pursuant to Art 15(1) RPBA20 the board made clear that claim 1 as granted was infringing Art 123(2).