EP 2 476 607 B1 relates to a scooter for a small child.
Brief outline of the case
In a first decision, T 2538/16, the board decided to remit to the OD on the basis of the MR=former AR 2 in order to adapt the description.
Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE
T 2597/22 – Intervention before filing the statement of grounds of appeal and remittal to the OD
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 289 627 B1 relates to a method for recycling used batteries, especially rechargeable batteries and battery processing plant.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided maintenance according to AR2, with a decision dated 29.09.2022. No objection of lack of N has been raised in the procedure leading to the OD’s decision.
T 308/23 – Admissibility of intervention – Triggering infringement action
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 2 628 464 B1 relates to a prosthetic valve
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
The patent was eventually maintained according to AR 6’’.
The case is interesting as it deals with the admissibility of an intervention.
T 1809/22 – Admissibility of an intervention in appeal – Reordering AR in appeal
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent which is based on a divisional application EP 2 212 067 and relates to a conveyor drive for food slicing machine.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was maintained according to AR 0. Both proprietor and opponent appealed.
A notice of intervention was filed during appeal and considered admissible.