by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 285 690 B1 relates to percutaneous mitral valve replacement device.
Brief outline of the case
The OD considered that claim 1 as granted was not infringing Art 123(2), but dependent claims 5-7 were. The patent was maintained according to AR1, which comprised claim 1 as granted.
The proprietor appealed.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 222 595 B1 relates to a hot plate device.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided maintenance according to AR1. The proprietor appealed.
The board set aside the decision of maintenance and maintained the patent as granted. In other words, the opposition was thus rejected.