The European Patent Convention (EPC), the multilateral treaty instituting the legal system according to which European patents are granted, contains provisions allowing a party to appeal a decision issued by a first instance department of the European Patent Office (EPO). For instance, a decision of an Examining Division refusing to grant a European patent application may be appealed by the applicant. The appeal procedure before the European Patent Office is under the responsibility of its Boards of Appeal, which are institutionally independent within the EPO.
In certain jurisdictions' patent law, industrial applicability or industrial application is a patentability requirement according to which a patent can only be granted for an invention which is susceptible of industrial application, i.e. for an invention which can be made or used in some kind of industry. In this context, the concept of "industry" is far-reaching: it includes agriculture, for instance. An example of invention which would not be susceptible of industrial application is "a method of contraception [...] to be applied in the private and personal sphere of a human being".
In patent law, a disclaimer are words identifying, in a claim, subject-matter that is not claimed or another writing disclaiming rights ostensibly protected by the patent. By extension, a disclaimer may also mean the amendment consisting in introducing a negative limitation in an existing claim, i.e. "an amendment to a claim resulting in the incorporation therein of a 'negative' technical feature, typically excluding from a general feature specific embodiments or areas". The allowability of disclaimers is subject to particular conditions, which may vary widely from one jurisdiction to another.
Article 123 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) relates to the amendments under the EPC, i.e. the amendments to a European patent application or patent, and notably the conditions under which they are allowable. In particular, Article 123(2) EPC prohibits adding subject-matter beyond the content of the application as filed, while Article 123(3) EPC prohibits an extension of the scope of protection by amendment after grant.
Article 83 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) relates to the disclosure of the invention under the European Patent Convention. This legal provision prescribes that a European patent application must disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.
The Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office are general instructions, for the examiners working at the European Patent Office (EPO) as well as for the parties interacting with the EPO, on the practice and procedure at the EPO in the various aspects of the prosecution of European patent applications and European patents. The Guidelines have been adopted, effective as at 1 June 1978, by the President of the EPO in accordance with Article 10(2)(a) EPC.
Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), European patents shall be granted for inventions which inter alia are new. The central legal provision explaining what this means, i.e. the central legal provision relating to the novelty under the EPC, is Article 54 EPC. Namely, "an invention can be patented only if it is new. An invention is considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art. The purpose of Article 54(1) EPC is to prevent the state of the art being patented again."
The restitutio in integrum or re-establishment of rights under the European Patent Convention (EPC) is a means of redress available to an applicant or patent proprietor who has failed to meet a time limit in spite of exercising "all due care required by the circumstances". The legal basis for this means of redress is provided in Article 122 EPC. If the request for restitutio in integrum is accepted, the applicant or patentee is re-established in its rights, as if the time limit had been duly met.
Art. 23 1/15, Art. 23 2/15 and Art. 23 1/16 are three related cases decided by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office concerning the removal from office of Patrick Corcoran, a member of the Boards of Appeal, who had been previously suspended by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation. According to Article 23(1) EPC, members of the Boards of Appeal may only be removed from office by the Administrative Council on a proposal from the Enlarged Board of Appeal. Two cases were successively initiated by the Administrative Council, but the Enlarged Board eventually dismissed both of them. In the third case initiated by the Administrative Council, the Enlarged Board decided not to propose the removal from office of Corcoran.
G 1/19 is a decision issued by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) on 10 March 2021, which deals with the patentability of computer-implemented simulations.
G 1/21 is a decision issued on 16 July 2021 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) regarding the legality of holding oral proceedings at the EPO by videoconference without the consent of the parties. Namely, the Enlarged Board of Appeal held that "[d]uring a general emergency impairing the parties' possibilities to attend in-person oral proceedings at the EPO premises, the conduct of oral proceedings before the boards of appeal in the form of a videoconference is compatible with the EPC even if not all of the parties to the proceedings have given their consent to the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference." The reasoning in the written decision further indicates that, if a party so requests, oral proceedings must be held in person at the EPO premises, except in absolutely exceptional cases.
G 1/10 is a decision issued on 23 July 2012 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that Rule 140 EPC cannot be used to request corrections of the text of a European patent.
G 2/10 is a decision issued on 30 August 2011 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) on the subject of disclosed disclaimers. It lies from decision T 1068/07 by Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.08, who referred a question to the Enlarged Board.
G 1/11 is a decision issued on 19 March 2014 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that 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, which has not been taken together with a decision granting a European patent or refusing a European patent application. In other words, the decision deals with the delimitation of competence between the EPO's Legal Board of Appeal and its Technical Boards of Appeal.
G 1/12 is a decision issued on 30 April 2014 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that an appellant's identity in a notice of appeal can be corrected under Rule 101(2) EPC, provided the requirements of Rule 101(1) EPC are met. The Enlarged Board of Appeal also held that an appellant's identity can be corrected under Rule 139 EPC, first sentence, under the conditions established by the case law of the Boards of Appeal.
G 1/09 is a decision issued on 27 September 2010 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that, following refusal of a European patent application, the application remains pending until the expiry of the time limit for filing a notice of appeal, so that a divisional application under Article 76 EPC may be filed before the EPO even after the refusal of an application. More specifically, the divisional application may be filed until expiry of the time limit of two months for filing a notice of appeal under Article 108 EPC.
G 1/13 is a decision issued on 25 November 2014 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that in opposition proceedings a retroactive effect of a restoration of a company must be recognised by the EPO. In other words, a restoration of a company has retroactive effect before the EPO when it has such retroactive effect under national law.
G 2/93 is a decision issued on 21 December 1994 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO). The decision deals with deposits of biological material. More specifically, the decision deals with the time limit for the deposit of such material. The current provision in Rule 32(2)(a) EPC provides for a time limit of sixteen months from the date of filing or from the date of priority, whichever expires earlier.
