Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A different apportionment of costs has been ordered by the Board of Appeal. The patent proprietor has requested, under Rule 88(2) EPC and Rule 100 EPC, about €26,000 to be paid by the opponent. [57] During first instance proceedings, a decision on apportionment of costs forms part of the main decision of the Opposition Division.
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."
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 ...
A Rule 62a EPC objection may however be contested by the applicant in its reply to the search division or, later, before the examining division. [17] If the search division finds that its initial objection was not justified in view of the applicant's arguments, the search will then be carried out on an unlimited basis. [17]
EPO headquarters in Munich, Germany, where the Boards of Appeal were based until 2017.. Decisions of the first instance departments of the European Patent Office (EPO) can be appealed, i.e. challenged, before the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, in a judicial procedure (proper to an administrative court), as opposed to an administrative procedure. [1]
Amendments are allowed in response to the extended European search report (i.e., in response to the communication under Rule 70a(1) or (2) EPC) and amendments are also allowed shortly after entry into European phase of a PCT application (namely, in response to the communication under Rule 161(1) EPC). [4]
Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), any third party –i.e., essentially any person [notes 1] – may file observations on the patentability of an invention which is the subject of a European patent application or, after grant, subject of a European patent, [notes 2] especially to draw the attention of the European Patent Office (EPO) to some relevant prior art documents. [2]
The European Patent Convention (EPC), the multilateral treaty providing the legal system according to which European patents are granted, contains provisions regarding whether a natural or juristic person (i.e., a party to the proceedings) needs to be represented in proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO).