| G 1/05 and G 1/06 | ||
|---|---|---|
 Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office Contents | ||
| Issued 28 June 2007 | ||
| Board composition | ||
| ||
| Headwords | ||
| ||
G 1/05 and G 1/06 are decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the European Patent Office (EPO) that were issued on 28 June 2007 and answer questions relating to divisional applications under the European Patent Convention (EPC). The two decisions were published in the Official Journal of the EPO in May 2008. [1]
Article 76(1), second sentence, EPC states that a divisional application
Two similar sets of legal questions have been referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal and have been considered by the Board in consolidated proceedings. [3]
In case T 39/03, Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.02 referred the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (considered under case number G 1/05):
In case T 1409/05, Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03 referred the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (considered under case number G 1/06):
The Enlarged Board of Appeal held that non-compliance of a patent application with a substantive requirement for grant, such as the requirement regarding the content of a divisional application when filed, [6] does not cause the application to be "invalid", but only leads to its refusal [7] "if the deficiency is incurable or is not removed by amendment". [8] Such non-compliance "cannot raise an automatic presumption that the application is to be refused without any prior possibility of amendment (...)." [9]
The Board further held that Article 76(1), second sentence, EPC had a double purpose:
and that none of these purposes justified the invalidity of a divisional application on the grounds that it would, on filing, extend beyond the content of the earlier application. [11]
Divisional applications are to be treated in the same manner as ordinary applications and subject to the same requirements, unless specific provisions of the EPC require something different. [12] In other words, a divisional application is a new application which is separate and independent from the parent application, if not specifically provided otherwise. [13]
Regarding the sequences of divisional applications, the Board held that:
The Enlarged Board eventually decided in G 1/05 that:
In G1/06, the Board answered to the question (1) in the affirmative: [16]
The whole contents of each preceding divisional application in a sequence may be included in a new divisional application and an applicant is not restricted only to subject matter that was encompassed by the claims of a preceding divisional. In reaching this decision, the EBA confirmed that subject matter which was omitted on filing one member in a sequence of divisional applications cannot be reintroduced later and, conversely, that subject matter which was introduced on filing one member in the sequence cannot be maintained.
The EBA also considered some additional issues of fairness to third parties in relation to divisional applications:
The patentability of software, computer programs and computer-implemented inventions under the European Patent Convention (EPC) is the extent to which subject matter in these fields is patentable under the Convention on the Grant of European Patents of October 5, 1973. The subject also includes the question of whether European patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) in these fields (sometimes called "software patents") are regarded as valid by national courts.
The European Patent Office (EPO) is one of the two organs of the European Patent Organisation (EPOrg), the other being the Administrative Council. The EPO acts as executive body for the organisation while the Administrative Council acts as its supervisory body as well as, to a limited extent, its legislative body. The actual legislative power to revise the European Patent Convention lies with the Contracting States themselves when meeting at a Conference of the Contracting States.
In patent law, industrial design law, and trademark law, a priority right or right of priority is a time-limited right, triggered by the first filing of an application for a patent, an industrial design or a trademark respectively. The priority right allows the claimant to file a subsequent application in another country for the same invention, design, or trademark effective as of the date of filing the first application. When filing the subsequent application, the applicant must claim the priority of the first application in order to make use of the right of priority. The right of priority belongs to the applicant or his successor in title.
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.
The opposition procedure before the European Patent Office (EPO) is a post-grant, contentious, inter partes, administrative procedure intended to allow any European patent to be centrally opposed. European patents granted by the EPO under the European Patent Convention (EPC) may be opposed by any person from the public. This happens often when some prior art was not found during the grant procedure, but was only known by third parties.
A divisional patent application, also called divisional application or simply divisional, is a type of patent application that contains subject-matter from a previously filed application, the previously filed application being its parent application. While a divisional application is filed later than the parent application, it retains its parent's filing date, and will generally claim the same priority. Divisional applications are generally used in cases where the parent application may lack unity of invention; that is, the parent application describes more than one invention and the applicant is required to split the parent into one or more divisional applications each claiming only a single invention. The ability to file divisional applications in cases of lack of unity of invention is required by Article 4G of the Paris Convention.
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.
G 1/03 and G 2/03 are two decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), which were both issued on April 8, 2004.
Double patenting is the granting of two patents for a single invention, to the same proprietor and in the same country or countries. According to the European Patent Office, it is an accepted principle in most patent systems that two patents cannot be granted to the same applicant for one invention. However, the threshold for double patenting varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application is a judgment by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The judgment was passed down on 27 October 2006 and relates to two different appeals from decisions of the High Court. The first case involved GB 2171877 granted to Aerotel Ltd and their infringement action against Telco Holdings Ltd and others. The second case concerned GB application 2388937 filed by Neal Macrossan but refused by the UK Patent Office.
The grant procedure before the European Patent Office (EPO) is an ex parte, administrative procedure, which includes the filing of a European patent application, the examination of formalities, the establishment of a search report, the publication of the application, its substantive examination, and the grant of a patent, or the refusal of the application, in accordance with the legal provisions of the European Patent Convention (EPC). The grant procedure is carried out by the EPO under the supervision of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation. The patents granted in accordance with the EPC are called European patents.
Article 84 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) specifies that the "matter" for which patent protection is sought in an application - the purported invention - shall be stated ("defined") in the claims. This legal provision also requires that the claims must be clear and concise, and supported by the description. The function, form and content of the claims are defined by Article 84 supplemented by Rule 43 EPC.
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.
Under case number G 3/08, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO issued on May 12, 2010 an opinion in response to questions referred to it by the President of the European Patent Office (EPO), Alison Brimelow, on October 22, 2008. The questions subject of the referral related to the patentability of programs for computers under the European Patent Convention (EPC) and were, according to the President of the EPO, of fundamental importance as they related to the definition of "the limits of patentability in the field of computing." In a 55-page long opinion, the Enlarged Board of Appeal considered the referral to be inadmissible because no divergent decisions had been identified in the referral.
During the grant procedure before the European Patent Office (EPO), divisional applications can be filed under Article 76 EPC out of pending earlier European patent applications. A divisional application, sometimes called European divisional application, is a new patent application which is separate and independent from the earlier application, unless specific provisions in the European Patent Convention (EPC) require something different. A divisional application, which is divided from an earlier application, cannot be broader than the earlier application, neither in terms of subject-matter nor in terms of geographical cover.
In case G 1/15, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) affirmed the concept of partial priority. That is, a patent claim in a European patent application or European patent may partially benefit from the priority of an earlier application.
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 1/12 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 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.