Today, decision T 1286/23 was made available online, referring questions to the Enlarged Board. Under Article 112(1)(a) EPC and Article 21 RPBA the following points of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:After withdrawal of all appeals, may the proceedings be continued with a third party who intervened during the appeal
Delta Patents Blogs
Latest from Delta Patents
T 56/21 – The end (?) of the debate on whether the description must be adapted to match allowable claims of more limited subject-matter
This decision came online earlier this week, on 14 October 2024, and the outcome was a surprise to many. Whereas it had earlier been indicated that a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal was likely (and was a reason why the Guidelines were not amended further in the last few years – see e.g.
G 1/24 – Referral: Can the description and figures be consulted when interpreting the claims to assess patentability?
Today, the Boards of Appeal published the following communication (no changes made, except for emphasis added and references to points in the referring decision added cf. the Order of the latter) on their website:
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal – G 1/24 (“Heated aerosol”)
Under Art. 112(1)(a) EPC, a Board of
No more faxing to the EPO as of 1 July 2024 :(
Hidden in a News message on MyEPO services, the EPO announced that from July onwards, the EPO will no longer accept submissions by fax. All fax services relating to EP and PCT as well as Unitary Patent procedures will thus cease completely as of July. Already since 1 March 2023, EPO no longer sends faxes in
No more 10 days :(
Overview of notification and time-limit calculation rules before and after 1 November 2023
Application of the transitional provision
Today, amended Rules 126(2)/127(2)/131(2) EPC entered into force, abandoning the 10-day legal fiction for deemed notification as applicable for time limits triggered by a notification, and replacing it by the date of dispatch and a compensation for late
G 1/22 and G 2/22 decided – Competence of EPO to assess whether a party is entitled to priority & possible implicit agreement of a transfer of priority
Yesterday, a Press Communiqué was published as the Enlarged Board had issued its decision in consolidated cases G 1/22 and G 2/22 and the decision became available in the register, and today on the Recent Decisions page. The Enlarged Board concluded, in the order, that:“I. The European Patent Office is competent to assess whether
New referral to the Enlarged Board by T 0438/19 – is product on the market prior art if undue burden to analyse composition? (G 1/13)
T 0438/19 of 27-06-2023 referred the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:1. Is a product put on the market before the date of filing of a European patent application to be excluded from the state of the art within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC for the sole reason that
T 2432/19 – Right to oral proceedings in form of a videoconference (no)
In the present opposition appeal case, the Board issued a summons to oral proceedings in Haar. The appellant (patent proprietor) requested that the oral proceedings be held by videoconference. No reasons were given for this request. The Board then issued a communication containing its provisional opinion. The parties were also informed that if the Board found
BREAKING NEWS: G 2/21 decision is out – Plausibility
Today, the Boards of Appeal have published the News message shown below (no changes made, except emphasis added):Press Communiqué of 23 March 2023 on decision G 2/21 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
23 March 2023BackgroundThe Enlarged Board of Appeal is the highest judicial authority under the European Patent Convention (EPC). Its main task
T 2303/19 – In person oral proceedings are for now (no Covid-19 related travel restrictions) the optimum format as expressed in decision G 1/21
In the present opposition appeal case, the parties were summoned to attend oral proceedings at the EPO premises. The appellant requested that the oral proceedings take place by videoconference. The respondent did not consent to this request and suggested a mixed mode format. The Board decided to hold the oral proceedings in person, as at