Background In T 1063/18 (Peppers), the Board held that Rule 28(2) EPC should be disregarded, and that plants produced by essentially biological processes should be considered patentable. Specifically, the Board found that the EPO Administrative Council’s...
The information in this article is believed to be correct at the time of writing (1 May 2020). Please visit the EPO, UKIPO and EUIPO websites that are being continually updated for the most up-to-date information: EPO: https://www.epo.org/news-issues/covid-19.html...
In this case, the Technical Board of Appeal has confirmed that claims directed to new uses of known non-medical products may be patentable and have clarified the approach that should be taken when assessing the novelty of such claims. Claim 1 of EP 1 865 998 is for...
In a pair of Decisions that seems very likely to be appealed, the EPO has stated that the requirements for an inventor can only be fulfilled by a natural person. The naming of the inventor protects their rights associated with the invention, including their right to...
Division was held to be enough for remittal to be ordered. T 688/16 T 688/16 relates to an appeal of the Decision of an Opposition Division to revoke EP2053959, a patent related to a method for assessing and guaranteeing the thermal hygiene efficiency in a multi-tank...
On 16 January 2020, the TBA upheld long-standing EPO law and practice regarding the right to claim priority. Schlich represented Opponent 1 in the opposition and appeal proceedings and is pleased to present our report here. In addition we analyse how interpretation of...
Recent Comments