by Daniel X. Thomas
In a previous blog entry of 03.08.2026, I presented this decision, T 0712/24, and my comments were rather critical.
Further thoughts about the case lead to further comments.
It is manifest that the present board showed a rather pedantic and apodictic view on the opposition procedure.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The present blog entry is rather long, but it was necessary to go into detail in view of the matter at stake.
EP 3 705 106 B1 relates to an insertable stimulation device.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was revoked for lack of N of some requests.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 2 656 524 B1 relates to a wireless communication system supporting multiple carriers.
Brief outline of the case
The OD held that claim 1 as granted was lacking N over D2, and eventually decided maintenance according to AR7.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 309 133 B1 results from a divisional application of EP 14790542/EP 3 057 909 and relates to man-made vitreous fibres.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition has been rejected and the opponent appealed.
The board confirmed the rejection of the opposition.
The case is interesting as it deals with evidence filed by the opponent before the OD,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates, inter alia, to a module unit with a sensor device for actuating a movable part, in particular a flap of a motor vehicle.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was revoked and the proprietor appealed the decision.
The OD had decided that claim 1 of the patent as granted and of AR 3 and 4 were lacking N.