| G 1/15 | ||
|---|---|---|
 Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office Contents | ||
| ECLI:EP:BA:2016:G000115.20161129 Order issued on November 29, 2016; full reasoned decision issued in February 2017 | ||
| Board composition | ||
| ||
| Headwords | ||
| ||
In case G 1/15, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) affirmed the concept of partial priority. [1] That is, a patent claim in a European patent application or European patent may partially benefit from the priority of an earlier application.
The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 112(1)(a) EPC sought "to clarify how Article 88(2), second sentence, EPC is to be applied in the light of the Enlarged Board's decision G 2/98 in cases where a claim encompasses, without spelling them out, alternative subject-matters having all the features of the claim (known as a generic "OR"-claim), and whether parent and divisional applications may be prior art under Article 54(3) EPC against one another in respect of subject-matter disclosed in a priority application but not entitled to priority." [2]
The case, triggered by decision T 557/13 issued on 17 July 2015 by Board of Appeal 3.3.06, [3] had led the President of the EPO to decide that "all proceedings before EPO examining and opposition divisions in which the decision depends entirely" on the outcome of the case were to "be stayed ex officio until the Enlarged Board issues its decision". [2] [4] The case attracted more than thirty amicus curiae briefs. [5] [6] Oral proceedings were held on 7 June 2016 at the EPO in Munich, Germany. [7] [8]
The order, which was issued on November 29, 2016, reads:
Under the EPC, entitlement to partial priority may not be refused for a claim encompassing alternative subject-matter by virtue of one or more generic expressions or otherwise (generic "OR"-claim) provided that said alternative subject-matter has been disclosed for the first time, directly, or at least implicitly, unambiguously and in an enabling manner in the priority document. No other substantive conditions or limitations apply in this respect. [9]
The full reasoned decision was issued in February 2017. [10] [11]
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.
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.
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 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".
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.
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.
In European patent law, the limitation and revocation procedures before the European Patent Office (EPO) are post-grant, ex parte, administrative procedures allowing any European patent to be centrally limited by an amendment of the claims or revoked, respectively. These two procedures were introduced in the recently revised text of the European Patent Convention (EPC), i.e. the so-called EPC 2000, which entered into force on 13 December 2007.
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 going 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. In addition, Rule 80 EPC limits the types of amendments that can be done during opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO), and Rule 139 EPC relates to the correction of errors in documents filed with the EPO.
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.
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 2/98 is an opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued on May 31, 2001, after a point of law was referred to it by the President of the EPO. The case pertains to the interpretation of the legal concept of "the same invention" in Article 87(1) EPC. The Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 2/98 provided clarity to that concept. Namely, the Board held that
The requirement for claiming priority of "the same invention", referred to in Article 87(1) EPC, means that priority of a previous application in respect of a claim in a European patent application in accordance with Article 88 EPC is to be acknowledged only if the skilled person can derive the subject-matter of the claim directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the previous application as a whole.
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 1/11 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 4/95 is a decision issued on 19 February 1996 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO). The decision deals with oral submissions by an accompanying person in opposition or opposition appeal proceedings, and more specifically the extent and the circumstances under which an accompanying person or similar may add to the authorized representative's submissions during oral proceedings. The Enlarged Board of Appeal held that an accompanying person may be allowed to make oral submissions in relation to either legal or technical issues provided that the authorized representative maintains overall control at all times and "under the overall discretionary control of the EPO".