Just Patent Law Blog

Key points

" In any event, the Board holds that reliance on post-published evidence to demonstrate an improved technical effect of the claimed subject-matter over a further embodiment originally claimed does not normally change the nature of the invention, as long as the technical effect is derivable from the application as filed and the improvement is not in contra...

Key points

Cases about Rule 137(5) were more frequent in the past (see my article in epi Information 2018/2).The EPO was ISA and requested an additional search fee for claim 93. The applicant did not pay. Operative claim 1 is based...

Key points

With the statement of grounds of appeal, the opponent raised for the first time an objection under Article 100(c) EPC. In the appellant's [opponent]s' view, the objection should be admitted as it was closely linked to the objection of sufficiency of disclosure discussed before the opposition division (see point 1.3.1 above). Originally the features w...

Key points

The Board, in the headnote, in translation: "If the grounds for opposition under Article 100(b) EPC and Article 100(c) EPC were not raised in the opposition proceedings and the patent proprietor does not consent to their examination in the appeal proceedings, the patent may not be examined in its entirety for insufficient disclosure and added subject-matt...

Key points

The Board: "The respondent's [opponent's] reply extends over 143 pages, is overly repetitive, poorly structured, and burdened with irrelevant or tangential arguments.""The respondent's sub...