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

The patent results from a divisional application of EP 09732113/2 291 195, and relates to a vaccine for protection against Lawsonia intracellularis, Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and Porcine circo virus.

Brief outline of the case

The OD held inter alia that the sole claim of the patent as granted (claim 1) did not contain subject-matter which extended beyond the content of the application and the earlier application,

The patent relates to humanized antibodies that recognize human IL-23p19 and modulate its activity, particularly in inflammatory, autoimmune and proliferative disorders.

The case is interesting as it deals with the exercise of discretion by the OD when not- admitting late filed submissions of the opponent.

Brief outline of the procedure

The patent was revoked for lack of sufficiency by the OD.

The patent relates to powdered nutritional formulations including a dryblended plant protein. At least a portion of the dryblended plant protein has been spray dried prior to being dryblended into the powdered nutritional formulation.

The decision is interesting in that the board has looked at case law and has interpreted the legal provisions relating to late-filed requests.

The patent relates to acoustic elements formed of air laid mineral fibres and their production.

Brief outline of the case

The opponent appealed the rejection of the opposition by the OD.

In appeal, the opponent requested that the decision of the OD be set aside and the patent be revoked.

Brief outline of the case

The OD decided that:

• Claim 1 as granted lack N over D4=US 5,565,528 (Not in the ISR/EPO).
• AR1 was not admitted in the procedure.
• AR2 lacked of IS over CPA=D18=WO 02/22767 (Not in the ISR/EPO) + D21= Calculation of the proprietor based on D18 filed during OP before the OD
• AR3 was allowable.