List of decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a list of decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) in chronological order of the dates when the decisions were issued. The list is incomplete.

Keys[edit]

Keys: Decision(s), after referral by a Board of Appeal under Art. 112(1)(a) EPC Opinion, after referral by the President of the EPO under Art. 112(1)(b) EPC Decision and opinion, in consolidated or identical cases

1980 – 1989[edit]

Reference Date Keywords and/or comments Sources
G 1/83
G 2/83
G 3/83
G 4/83
G 5/83
G 6/83
G 7/83
12 May 1984 Patentability - Art. 52(4) - first and second medical indications
(G 1/83, G 5/83 and G 6/83 have been published, respectively in German, English and French, the three official languages of the EPO. The four other decisions have not been published.)
[1]
[2]
[3]
G 1/84 24 July 1985 Opposition by proprietor - overturned by G 9/93 [4]
G 1/86 24 June 1987 Art. 122 - Restitutio in integrum - opponent not barred - time limit statement grounds of appeal [5]
G 4/88 24 April 1989 Opposition - transfer - part of the business assets [6]
G 2/88 12 November 1989 Art. 123(3) - change of category - use claim novel by its purpose [7]
G 6/88 12 November 1989 Novelty - second non-medical indication yes
(Partially identical to G 2/88.)
[8]

1990 – 1994[edit]

Reference Date Keywords and/or comments Sources
G 1/89
G 2/89
21 February 1990 Patent Cooperation Treaty - unity of invention - a priori and a posteriori [9]
[10]
G 5/88
G 7/88
G 8/88
16 November 1990 Filing of notice of opposition at the DPMA before July 1, 1989 [11]
[12]
[13]
G 7/91
G 8/91
11 May 1992 Appeal - withdrawal of sole appellant - termination [14]
[15]
G 3/89
G 11/91
19 November 1992 Art. 123(2) - strictly declaratory nature of Rule 88 corrections [16]
[17]
G 1/92 18 December 1992 Novelty - availability to the public - prior use [18]
G 9/91 31 March 1993 Framework of opposition and appeal - extent [19]
G 10/91 31 March 1993 Framework of opposition and appeal - grounds [20]
G 4/92 22 October 1993 Oral proceedings - party absent - new facts or evidence [21]
G 1/93 21 February 1994 Art. 123(2) & (3) - conflict - inescapable trap [22]
G 9/93 7 June 1994 Opposition by patent proprietor - no - overturning G 1/84 [23]
G 9/92
G 4/93
14 July 1994 Framework of appeal - extent (decision) - reformatio in peius
(With an indication of a minority opinion.)
[24]
[25]
G 1/94 5 November 1994 Intervention during pending appeal proceedings - fresh grounds [26]
G 10/93 30 November 1994 Framework of appeal - ex parte - main aim: examination of the contested decision but no ban from introducing new grounds, facts or evidence [27]

1995 – 1999[edit]

Reference Date Keywords and/or comments Sources
G 4/95 19 February 1996 Oral proceedings - representation - accompanying person ("Oral submissions by an accompanying person in opposition or opposition appeal proceedings") [28]
G 1/95
G 7/95
19 July 1996 Framework of opposition and appeal - Art. 100(a) - collection of grounds [29]
[30]
G 3/97
G 4/97
2 January 1999 Opposition on behalf of third party - strawman - circumvention of law by abuse of process [31]
[32]
G 1/97 12 October 1999 Appeal - request to review a final decision, not provided for in the EPC [33]

2000 – 2004[edit]

Reference Date Keywords and/or comments Sources
G 1/99 4 February 2001 Framework of appeal -extent (decision) - reformatio in peius - exception [34]
G 2/98 31 May 2001 Priority - same invention - direct and unambiguous derivation [35]
G 1/03
G 2/03
8 April 2004 Allowability of disclaimers [36]
[37]

2005 – 2009[edit]

Reference Date Keywords and/or comments Sources
G 2/04 25 May 2005 Transfer of opposition (i.e., of the status as an opponent), filing of an appeal when "there is a justifiable legal uncertainty as to how the law is to be interpreted in respect of the question of who the correct party to the proceedings is". [38]
G 1/05
G 1/06
28 June 2007 Divisional applications [39]
[40]
G 2/06 25 November 2008 Stem cells, non-patentability of inventions involving the use and destruction of human embryos, Rule 28(c) EPC. [41]

From 2010[edit]

Reference Date Keywords and/or comments Sources
G 1/07 15 February 2010 Methods for treatment by surgery [42][43]
G 4/08 16 February 2010 Language of the proceedings. No change of the language of a Euro-PCT application upon entry into European phase if the language of the PCT application is already in an EPO official language. [44]
G 2/08 19 February 2010 Dosage regimen [45][46]
G 3/08 12 May 2010 Patentability of programs for computers, referral dismissed [47]
G 1/09 27 September 2010 Pending application. Time limit for filing a divisional application, and meaning of "pending" in Rule 25 EPC 1973 (Rule 36(1) EPC) [1] [48]
G 2/07
G 1/08
9 December 2010 Essentially biological processes [49] [50]
G 2/10 30 August 2011 Allowability of disclaimers under Article 123(2) EPC if the disclaimed subject-matter was (positively) disclosed as an embodiment of the invention in the application as filed [51]
G 1/10 23 July 2012 Request to correct a patent under Rule 140 EPC. A patent proprietor's request for a correction of the text of a patent under Rule 140 EPC is inadmissible. [52][53]
G 1/11 19 March 2014 Competence of the Boards of Appeal: A Technical Board of Appeal -rather than the Legal Board of Appeal- is competent for an appeal against a decision of an Examining Division refusing a request for refund of a search fee under Rule 64(2) EPC. [54]
G 1/12 30 April 2014 Identity of Appellant [55]

Pending referrals[edit]

Reference Date Keywords and/or comments Sources
G 2/12 referred 31 May 2012 Tomatoes II (Biological processes for the production of plants, Article 53(b) EPC) [56]
G 1/13 referred 21 June 2013 Opponent company dissolved before issuance of the decision of the Opposition Division, and then restored -with retroactive effect under national law- after filing the appeal. [57]
G 2/13 referred 8 July 2013 Broccoli II (Biological processes for the production of plants, Article 53(b) EPC) [58]
G 1/14[2] referred 20 February 2014 Appeal lodged and appeal fee paid after expiration of the time limit under Article 108(1) EPC. Is the appeal inadmissible or not deemed to have been filed? [59]
G 2/14[3] referred 24 February 2014 "Where a notice of appeal is filed but the appeal fee is paid after expiry of the time limit of Article 108 EPC, first sentence, is this appeal inadmissible or deemed not to have been filed?" [60]
G 3/14[4] referred 2 April 2014 Examination of clarity of dependent claims in opposition proceedings [61]

Trivia[edit]

  • Case G 3/92 also led to an indication of a dissenting opinion, relating to an issue of right to the patent (Article 61 EPC)
  • Case G 9/93 reversed previous opinion laid out in G 1/84, regarding the allowability of an opposition by the patent proprietor. G 1/84 accepted such type of opposition, G 9/93 then rejected it.

See also[edit]

Legal requirements applicable to European patent applications and patents
Note: The above list of legal requirements is not exhaustive.

References and notes[edit]

  1. ^ More comments may be found on: Another EBA referral on divisionals, IPKat, 11 June 2009. Consulted on June 12, 2009 and (French) Laurent Teyssedre, Demandes divisionnaires : la Grande Chambre est à nouveau saisie, Le blog du droit européen des brevets, June 10, 2009. Consulted on June 12, 2009.
  2. ^ "Communication from the Enlarged Board of Appeal concerning case G 1/14". European Patent Office. 22 May 2014. Retrieved 24 May 2014. 
  3. ^ "Communication from the Enlarged Board of Appeal concerning case G 2/14". European Patent Office. 22 May 2014. Retrieved 24 May 2014. 
  4. ^ "Communication from the Enlarged Board of Appeal concerning case G 3/14". European Patent Office. 22 May 2014. Retrieved 24 May 2014. 

External links[edit]