Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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]
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.
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 ...