Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (or, for short, the EPO Guidelines) are general instructions, for the examiners working at the European Patent Office (EPO) as well as for the parties interacting with the EPO, [notes 1] on the practice and procedure at the EPO in the various aspects of the prosecution of European patent applications and European patents.
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 ...
The fourth function is to propose the removal from office of a member of the boards of appeal. Under Article 23(1) EPC, a member of the Enlarged Board or of a Board of Appeal may not be removed from office during the five-year term of appointment, other than on serious grounds and if the "Administrative Council, on a proposal from the Enlarged ...
The Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office is a book, published by the European Patent Office (EPO), which summarizes the body of case law on the European Patent Convention (EPC) developed by the Boards of Appeal of the EPO since the EPC entered into force at the end of the 1970s.
The case pertains to the interpretation of the legal concept of "the same invention" in Article 87(1) EPC (i.e., a priority right claimed in a European patent application can only be enjoyed for "the same invention"). The Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 2/98 provided clarity to that concept. [1] Namely, the Board held that
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.
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.
A first aspect relating to the infringement of European patents which is prescribed in the EPC is the extent of protection conferred by a European patent. Article 69(1) EPC reads: The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the claims. Nevertheless, the description and ...