Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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 Article 112(1)(b) EPC, the President of the EPO has the power to refer a point of law to an Enlarged Board where two Boards of Appeal have given different decisions on that question. On 27 October 2006, in its judgment in Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application , the Court of Appeal of England and Wales said (at para.
Spandeck Engineering v Defence Science and Technology Agency [2007] SGCA 37 was a landmark decision in Singapore law. [1] [2] It established a new framework for establishing a duty of care, differentiating the Singaporean law of tort from past English common law precedent such as Caparo v Dickman and Anns v Merton, whilst also allowing for claims in pure economic loss, which are generally not ...
According to the case law of the Boards of Appeal, if a European patent contains a feature that was not disclosed in the application as filed (in contravention of Article 123(2) EPC) and if the removal of this feature would extend the scope of protection beyond the scope conferred by the patent as granted (in contravention of Article 123(3) EPC ...
An intervener who intervened during appeal proceedings is, however, not treated as appellant, but merely as party as of right within the meaning of Article 107(second sentence) EPC. This has the consequence that, if the sole appellant withdraws their appeal, the appeal cannot continue with only an intervener who intervened during the appeal. [72]
The procedure was introduced in Article 112a EPC when the EPC was revised in 2000, to form the so-called "EPC 2000". [1] A petition for review can essentially only be based on a fundamental procedural defect. [1] Its purpose is not to obtain a reconsideration of the application of substantive law, such as points relating to patentability.
In decision J 4/11, the Legal Board of Appeal held that "An application which has been deemed to be withdrawn for non-payment of a renewal fee is not pending within the meaning of Rule 25(1) EPC 1973 in the period for filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC 1973 in respect of such non-payment or in the period after ...