Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is a list of decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) in chronological order of their date of issuance. The list includes decisions under Article 112(1)(a) EPC (following a referral from a Board of Appeal), opinions under Article 112(1)(b) EPC (following a referral from the President of the EPO), "to ensure uniform application of the law ...
Under Rule 106 EPC, "a petition under Article 112a, paragraph 2(a) to (d), is only admissible where an objection in respect of the procedural defect was raised during the appeal proceedings and dismissed by the Board of Appeal, except where such objection could not be raised during the appeal proceedings."
R 7/09 [5] was a petition for review of T 27/07 [6] and is the very first case in which a petition for review was successful since the institution of the procedure. In that case, the Enlarged Board of Appeal held that a violation of the right to be heard (a right guaranteed by Article 113(1) EPC) occurred during the underlying appeal proceedings, because the Board of Appeal apparently failed ...
March 19, 1986, T 51/84 (Coded distinctive mark/Stockburger). [2] The Board held that if a claim focuses solely on procedural steps involved in applying a coded distinctive mark to an object without indicating or presupposing technical means for carrying them out, a process of this kind is excluded from patentability by Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC.
In the meantime, a special edition of the EPO Official Journal is issued each year summarizing the most recent case law of the boards of appeal. [ 4 ] Sir Robin Jacob , a former British judge specialized in intellectual property law, considered, in 2011, the book nothing short of "a very very good book (...) a super book", carrying on saying ...
The referral lies from interlocutory decision T 1145/09 [2] by Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03, who referred two questions to the Enlarged Board.. The first question was: Is a patent proprietor's request for correction of the grant decision under Rule 140 EPC which was filed after the initiation of opposition proceedings admissible?
G 3/08 is a referral of the President of the EPO under Article 112(1)(b) EPC. Under Article 52(2)(c) EPC, the patentability of programs for computers is excluded. However, Article 52(3) EPC provides that this exclusion only applies to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such programs for computers "as ...
Like the other parts of the paragraph 2, computer programs are open to patenting to the extent that they provide a technical contribution to the prior art.In the case of computer programs and according to the case law of the Boards of Appeal, a technical contribution typically means a further technical effect that goes beyond the normal physical interaction between the program and the computer.