G 1/03 and G 2/10 In G 1/03, it was decided that an amendment to a claim to introduce a disclaimer may not be refused under Art. 123(2) EPC provided that one or more of the following criteria are met: The disclaimer is introduced to restore novelty over prior art...
EPO Decision T1201/14 of 9 February 2017 was published on 5 September 2017 and provides further guidance on the issue of priority. The case is an appeal against an opposition which revoked the patent on grounds of lack of novelty. In the Opposition, the OD found no...
There were two issues in this case regarding whether the application could be reinstated. Firstly, it had to be decided whether the deadline which was to be re-established could be the additional six-month period in which the renewal fee can still be paid with a...
The applications relate to compositions for dental impression materials. Claim 1 of the granted patent read as follows: “A dental impression material comprising a base paste and a catalyst paste, wherein the base paste comprises at least one polymerizable...
Background The EPO’s Boards of Appeal have previously used the ‘essentiality test’ to determine whether after the deletion of a claim feature the remaining subject-matter is still in compliance with the content disclosed in the application-as-filed....
Recent Comments