Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Contemporary arguments have focused on ways that patents can slow innovation by: blocking researchers' and companies' access to basic, enabling technology, and particularly following the explosion of patent filings in the 1990s, through the creation of "patent thickets"; wasting productive time and resources fending off enforcement of low-quality patents that should not have existed ...
The process of objection and response is repeated until the patent is in a form suitable for grant, the Applicant abandons the applications, [15] or a hearing is arranged to resolve the matter. For 2021, the patent grant rate was 62.7% for the EPO, 74.8% for the JPO, 74.0% for the KIPO, 55.0% for the CNIPA, and 79.2% for the USPTO. [16]
The patent, however, may not be amended in such a manner that the amendment would lead to an extension of the protection conferred by the patent. [32] If amendments are made to the patent during the opposition proceedings, the patent (and the invention to which it relates) must meet the requirements of the EPC.
Article 84 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) [1] specifies that the "matter" for which patent protection is sought, i.e. requested, in an application - the purported invention - shall be stated ("defined") in the claims. This legal provision also requires that the claims must be clear and concise, and supported by the description. [1]
An opposition proceeding is an administrative process available under the patent and trademark law of many jurisdictions which allows third parties to formally challenge the validity of a pending patent application ("pre-grant opposition"), of a granted patent ("post-grant opposition"), or of a trademark.
The issue of novelty often arises during patent examination, because of inadvertent and/or partial disclosures by inventors themselves prior to filing a patent application. [citation needed] Unlike the laws of most countries, the US patent law provides for a one-year grace period in cases of inventor's own prior disclosure. [28]
Under the former version of Rule 36 EPC, an objection of lack of unity of invention raised in a communication of the Examining Division could trigger a 24-month period for filing a divisional application, if the particular objection was raised for the first time. However, under the amended version of Rule 36 EPC which came into effect in April ...
Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), a petition for review is a request to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) to review a decision of a board of appeal. The procedure was introduced in Article 112a EPC when the EPC was revised in 2000, to form the so-called "EPC 2000". [1]