Grant procedure before the European Patent Office

Last updated
Graph of European patent applications filed and granted between 1998 and 2007. The average time from filing to grant in 2007 was 43.7 months (3.6 years). EPO patents 1998-2007.png
Graph of European patent applications filed and granted between 1998 and 2007. The average time from filing to grant in 2007 was 43.7 months (3.6 years).

The grant procedure before the European Patent Office (EPO) is an ex parte , administrative procedure, which includes the filing of a European patent application, [1] the examination of formalities, [2] the establishment of a search report, [3] the publication of the application, [4] its substantive examination, [5] and the grant of a patent, [6] or the refusal of the application, [7] 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. [8] The patents granted in accordance with the EPC are called European patents. [9]

Contents

In other words, the grant procedure before the EPO is the procedure leading to the grant of a European patent [6] or to the refusal to grant a European patent. [7] The procedure starts with the filing of an application [1] and ends with the grant of a European patent [6] or the refusal of the patent application [7] by the EPO, or the withdrawal of the application by the applicant, or its deemed withdrawal. [notes 1] The prosecution of European patent applications until grant typically takes several years. [10]

Main procedural steps

Filing

EPO headquarters in Munich Europaisches Patentamt in Munchen.jpg
EPO headquarters in Munich

European patent applications can be filed at the EPO at Munich, Germany, at The Hague, Netherlands, [11] at Berlin, Germany, [12] or "if the law of a Contracting State so permits, at the central industrial property office or other competent authority of that State". [13] This latter provision is important in some countries. For example, in the United Kingdom, it used to be required to obtain clearance for all inventions but now it is only prohibited for a UK resident to file an overseas patent application for inventions in certain sensitive technical areas without obtaining clearance through the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office first. [14] European patent applications cannot be validly filed at the EPO in Vienna, Austria. [15]

Within one month after the filing of an application, a filing fee and a search fee are due. [16] Additional fees may also be due depending on the size of the application and the number of claims. Namely, if the application comprises more than 35 pages, an additional fee is due (of 16 Euros, as of August 2021) for the 36th and each subsequent page. [17] Furthermore, if the application contains more than fifteen claims at the time of filing, claim fees are due. [18] As of August 2021, a claims fee of 245 Euros is due for the 16th and each subsequent claim up to the limit of 50, and a claims fee of 610 Euros for the 51st and each subsequent claim. [19]

European patent applications may be filed in any language, in accordance with Article 5 of the Patent Law Treaty (PLT). [20] However, if an application is filed in a language other than one of the three official languages, namely English, French and German, a translation must be filed into one of the official languages within two months from the date of filing. [21] The official language of filing (or of the translation) becomes the "language of proceedings" and is used by the EPO for communications. [22]

Formalities examination

The examination of whether the requirements for the accordance of a filing date [23] and other formal requirements are satisfied is carried out by the EPO in accordance with Article 90 EPC. If a date of filing cannot be accorded, the application is not dealt with as a European patent application. [24] If the European patent application has been accorded a date of filing, but if there are other formal deficiencies, the applicant is offered an opportunity to correct these deficiencies. [25] If the deficiencies are not corrected, the European patent application is refused, unless a different legal consequence applies. [26]

Oral proceedings may exceptionally take place before the Receiving Section, [27] to give an opportunity to the applicant to be heard on an issue involving formality requirements.

Publication and provisional rights

A European patent application is published as soon as possible "after the expiry of a period of eighteen months from the date of filing or, if priority has been claimed, from the date of priority", or "at the request of the applicant, before the expiry of that period". [28] While early publication of a European patent application can be requested, there are no provisions in the EPC which would permit any delaying of the publication. [29] There is indeed an overriding public interest in the timely publication of the application. [29]

As from its publication, a European patent application may confer to the applicant some provisional rights in the contracting states designated in the application. [30] These rights include at least the right for the applicant to "claim compensation reasonable in the circumstances from any person who has used the invention in that State in circumstances where that person would be liable under national law for infringement of a national patent." [31] In relation to some contracting states however, a translation of the claims is required for the provisional rights to come into effect. [32]

The Search Divisions of the EPO establish search reports, named "European search reports", on the basis of the claims, "with due regard to the description and any drawings". [33] The European search report established for a patent application is transmitted to the applicant together with copies of any cited documents. [34]

"The search is an essential element of the grant procedure, being designed to identify prior art relevant to the application. The intention is to make it possible to determine, on the basis of the documents mentioned in the search report, whether and to what extent the invention is patentable (...). Knowledge of the prior art forms the basis for examination of the application by the examining divisions. It is also important for applicants, giving them a basis for deciding whether to continue prosecuting their applications and have them examined. Lastly, it is also important for the public and especially for competitors, enabling them to gain an idea of the scope of any protection that might be granted." [35]

In exceptional cases, a declaration that no search report can be performed is issued, for example because carrying a meaningful search is not considered possible by the Search Division. [36]

Before the search, communications between the search division and the applicant were not foreseen prior to April 1, 2010. However, under new Rules 62a and 63 EPC, [37] if there are more than one independent claim per claim category (and if the provisions of Rule 43(2) EPC are considered not to be met) or if the search division considers that it is impossible to carry out a meaningful search based on the subject-matter claimed, communications between the search division and the applicant are possible. [38] Under Rule 137(1) EPC however, no amendments to the application can be made before the search "unless otherwise provided". [39]

Along with the search report, a search opinion is also established. [40] The search opinion and the search report form together the so-called extended European search report. [41] Before April 1, 2010, a response to the search opinion was optional. [42] Currently however, [37] under new Rule 70a EPC, a reply to the search opinion is mandatory, [43] within six months "after the date on which the European Patent Bulletin mentions the publication of the European search report" (which is also the time limit for requesting examination). [44] If no reply is filed to the search opinion, the application is deemed to be withdrawn. [45] The search opinion is therefore a conventional office action with a given time period to respond.

Designation of States and examination request

All the Contracting States party to the EPC at the time of filing of a European patent application are deemed to be designated in the request for grant of a European patent, i.e. upon filing of the application. [46] A flat designation fee must then be paid within six months of the date on which the European Patent Bulletin mentions the publication of the European search report. [47]

Under Article 94(1) EPC and Rule 70(1) EPC, an examination request must also be made within six months from the date on which the European Patent Bulletin mentions the publication of the European search report. The examination fee is also due at that time. [48] The examination request may not be withdrawn (although the application may be withdrawn at any time). [49] If no examination request is made, the application is deemed to be withdrawn. [50]

Substantive examination

The substantive examination of European patent applications includes the examination of patentability of the claimed invention, [51] i.e. whether the invention is not excluded as unpatentable subject-matter by policy, [52] whether the invention is new, [53] involves an inventive step, [54] and is susceptible of industrial application. [55] In addition, the invention must be sufficiently disclosed in the application, [56] and the claims must be clear and concise. [57]

Unless the application is directly ready for grant, communications under Article 94(3) EPC are issued by the Examining Division and notified to the applicant or the appointed representative. [58] In such communications, the Examining Division invites the applicant to reply within a given period, [59] by correcting the "deficiencies noted and [amending] the description, claims and drawings", where appropriate. [60] If amendments are filed, the amendments must not extend the content of the application as filed, or, in other words, there must not be any added subject-matter. [61] In that context, the applicant is master of its own application in that the decision to amend or not, and how to amend the application, is a decision of the applicant alone (although the Examining Division may apply pressure to have amendments made). [62]

During examination, oral proceedings may take place at the EPO's own behest or at the request of the applicant. [63] [notes 2] They are held before the Examining Division itself, [65] in Munich or the Hague, [66] and are not public, [67] in contrast to oral proceedings in opposition, which are public unless very particular circumstances apply. [68] The right to oral proceedings is a specific and codified part of the procedural right to be heard. [69] A decision is typically rendered at the end of the oral proceedings.

A decision by an Examining Division to refuse a European patent application, like any other final decisions of first instance divisions, is appealable. [70]

Communication under Rule 71(3) EPC and grant, or refusal

If the Examining Division reaches the conviction that the European patent application satisfies all the requirements of the EPC so that a European patent may be granted, [71] it issues a communication under Rule 71(3) EPC. [72] By issuing such a communication, the Examining Division informs the applicant of the intention to grant a patent based on the prosecuted application. [73] The claims must then be translated in the other two official languages of the EPO, and fees for grant and publishing must be paid. [73] If the applicant pays the fees for grant and publishing and files the translation of the claims in due time, he is deemed to have been approved the text intended for grant. [73] If not, the European patent application is deemed to be withdrawn. [73] The time limit for paying the fees for grant and publishing, and for filing the translation of the claims is four months. [73] This time limit is non-extendable. [72] [74]

The decision of the Examining Division to grant a European patent takes effect on the date on which the mention of the grant is published in the European Patent Bulletin. [75] The Examining Division is then bound by its final decision on an application, which can be set aside only following an admissible, allowable appeal. [76] The decision to grant ends the examination procedure. The European patent is then published in the language of the proceedings (i.e., the language used during the examination proceedings) together with a translation of the claims in the other two EPO official languages. [77] The text of the published patent can always be brought into line with the text approved by the applicant if an error occurred when preparing the publication. [78] [79]

In contrast, if the Examining Division considers that the application does not meet the provisions of the EPC, the application is refused. [7] As mentioned above, as any other first instance decision terminating the proceedings, [notes 3] a decision to refuse an application is appealable. [70] If an appeal is lodged against the decision of refusal and if the Examining Division regards the appeal to be admissible and well founded, the Examining Division has to rectify its decision. This is called an "interlocutory revision". [80] Otherwise, the appeal is remitted to the Board of Appeal "without delay, and without comment as to its merit". [80]

After grant

Once granted, a European patent effectively comes into existence as a group of national patents in each of the designated Contracting States, and the European patent is enforceable on a country-by-country basis. [81] The European patent may be centrally opposed at the EPO before the expiry of a nine-month period following the publication of grant. [82] Once the nine-month opposition period has ended, third parties wishing to challenge the validity of a European patent have to institute revocation proceedings in each country in which they wish to invalidate the European patent. Filing a revocation action at the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is also possible if the European patent has not been opted out.

Once a European patent is granted or more precisely within three months from the date of grant, the European patent must also be translated in an official language of each country in which the patentee wants patent protection –unless a translation is not required by application of the London Agreement. If the translation of the European patent is not provided to the national patent office within the prescribed time limit, the patent is deemed to be void ab initio in the corresponding country. [83]

The patent proprietor may also file a request for unitary effect at the EPO to obtain a European patent with unitary effect in the countries participating the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA). The request for unitary effect "must be filed within one month of the date of publication of the mention of the grant in the European Patent Bulletin". [84]

Additional considerations and special cases

Renewal fees

Renewal fees are payable to the European Patent Office in respect of pending European patent applications in respect of the third year from the date of filing. [85] These fees are paid in advance of the year in which they are due (such that the renewal fee for the third year falls due two years from the date of filing) and fall due on the last day of the month containing the anniversary of the date of filing. [86]

Observations by third parties

After the publication of a European patent application, anyone can file observations regarding the patentability of the invention which is the subject of the application or, after grant, subject of the patent. [87] This is a form of public participation in the examination of patent applications. A person filing observations during examination proceedings does not however become party to the proceedings. [87] This notably means that such person has no right to attend oral proceedings before the Examining Division, which are not public. [67] This contrasts with the filing of a post-grant opposition, wherein the opponent becomes party to the proceedings, therefore acquiring, notably, the right to be heard before any decision is taken. Observations by third parties, which must be filed in writing, [88] may be filed by post or online. [89]

Divisional applications

A divisional application of a European patent application can be filed as long as the latter is still pending. [90] European divisional applications must be filed directly or by post with one of the filing offices of the EPO, i.e. at the European Patent Office at Munich, The Hague, or Berlin. [91] It may also be filed using the so-called epoline online filing software. The filing of a European divisional application with a national authority has no effect in law. [92]

Stay of the proceedings when entitlement proceedings are initiated

The grant proceedings may be stayed if national proceedings have been instituted before a national court or authority by a third party seeking a judgment recognizing its entitlement to the grant of the European patent in lieu of the applicant on record. However, grant proceedings are not stayed before the publication of the application. [93] If a final decision is issued recognizing the entitlement of the third party to the grant of the European patent, the third party may

"(a) prosecute the European patent application as his own application in place of the applicant;
(b) file a new European patent application in respect of the same invention; or
(c) request that the European patent application be refused." [94]

Under Rule 14(3) EPC, the European Patent Office may resume the grant proceedings at any time [95] "regardless of the stage reached in the national proceedings", taking all valid interests into account. [96]

Interruption of the proceedings

The proceedings may also be interrupted under Rule 142 EPC in the event that "an applicant for (or proprietor of) a European patent (...) is temporarily unable to act in proceedings before the European Patent Office", [97] such as in the event of "the death or legal incapacity of the applicant for or proprietor of a European patent" or, if "the applicant for or proprietor of a patent, as a result of some action taken against his property, [is] prevented by legal reasons from continuing the proceedings". [98] The interruption is declared ex officio by the EPO, is retroactive (even if the EPO declares the interruption several years after the occurrence of the loss of rights), and it allows the affected party to later remedy, when the proceedings are resumed, "any loss of rights which occurred during this period". [97]

Euro-PCT applications

The grant procedure before the EPO can also be initiated by filing an international (PCT) application and then entering the so-called EP national phase (also called "European phase"). [99] An international application that has entered the EP national phase is often called a "Euro-PCT application". [99] For the entry into EP phase, a translation of the international application in one of the EPO official languages (English, French or German) must be filed if the international application was not already in one of these languages. [99]

The EPO performs, for each Euro-PCT application, a supplementary European search unless the EPO prepared the international search report (or a supplementary international search report). [100] If a supplementary European search is performed, the applicant must reply to the search opinion contained in the supplementary European search report. [100] If no supplementary European search is performed, the applicant must reply to the written opinion accompanying the international search report or, if an international preliminary examination was performed, to the International Preliminary Examination Report (Chapter II). [100]

PACE programme

The programme for accelerated prosecution of European patent applications, or PACE programme, "enables applicants who want their applications processed rapidly to obtain the European search report plus opinion under Rule 62(1) EPC, the first examination report and any communication under Rule 71(3) EPC within tight deadlines". [101] As of January 1, 2016, a written, online request ("PACE request") must be filed, using a "dedicated request form (EPO Form 1005)", to request acceleration under the PACE programme. [101] The PACE requests are excluded from public inspection. [101] As of 2009, accelerated processing under PACE was reported to be requested in only 6.3% of files. [102] An enquiry by the applicant to know when the next communication is to be expected is not regarded as a request for accelerated prosecution. [103]

BEST programme

Under the so-called "Bringing Examination and Search Together" programme or BEST programme (also referred to as "BEST system"), the EPO's examination procedure was reorganized in 1990, with the primary examiner of the Examining Division being the examiner who had carried out the search. [104]

Withdrawal of an application

Withdrawal of an application is the gravest procedural step that can be taken, since the application becomes dead without possibility of revival. [105] A European patent application may be withdrawn at any time by the applicant, except when a third party has initiated proceedings concerning entitlement to the grant of the European patent. [106] One reason for withdrawing an application may be to avoid its publication, if for instance it has been decided to keep the invention secret instead of applying for a patent. [107] To avoid publication, the withdrawal must occur before "the termination of the technical preparations for publication". [108] Another reason for withdrawing an application may be to obtain a refund of the search fee and/or examination fee, [109] if it has been decided not to pursue the application further. According to the EPO Guidelines, [110]

"The application may be withdrawn by means of a signed declaration, which should be unqualified and unambiguous (...). The applicant is bound by an effective declaration of withdrawal (...), but may make it subject to the proviso that the content of the application is not made known to the public."

The Boards of Appeal have dealt in a great number of decisions with the question of whether the withdrawal of a European patent application can be retracted, because it was made erroneously. [111] [112] In particular, the Boards have held that the "withdrawal of a European patent application can only be retracted as long as the public has not been officially informed about the withdrawal". [113] In other words, in the interests of legal certainty, it is generally too late to request retraction of a notice of withdrawal after the withdrawal has been registered and notified to the public in the European Patent Bulletin, since in that case the retraction of withdrawal would adversely affect the public interest or the interests of third parties. [112]

Responsibilities within the EPO

An Examining Division is normally made up of three technically qualified examiners: a primary examiner, [notes 4] who draws up the search report and conducts most of the correspondence (written or on the telephone) with the applicant; a Chairman who has overall control of the examination of the application and who chairs any oral proceedings that are held; and a second examiner who is responsible for taking the minutes of any oral proceedings. All three members have a vote on any issues that have to be decided, including the main decision of whether to allow or refuse the patent application. If the Examining Division is augmented with a legally qualified member, so that the Division consists of four members, then the Chairman has a casting vote. [114]

Statistics

The EPO received its first application in 1978. The one millionth application was published on May 17, 2000, [115] and two millionth one on December 10, 2008. [116] Over 70% of the patent applications filed in 1991 have been finally granted. [117]

Notes

  1. ↑ The application may for instance be deemed withdrawn under Article 94(4) EPC, if the applicant fails to respond to a communication of the Examining Division in due time.
  2. ↑ It is common for an applicant to have a standing (precautionary) request for oral proceedings on file "to avoid a nasty surprise in the form of a [written decision of] refusal of the application", without having had the opportunity to present any arguments orally in front of the whole, usually three-member Examining Division. [64]
  3. ↑ A first instance decision to grant a patent can even be appealed if the granted text is not the text approved by the proprietor. In such case "the proprietor is adversely affected [within the meaning of Article 107 EPC] by that decision and is entitled to appeal (G 1/10, point 12 of the reasons)". [78]
  4. ↑ The primary examiner (a term used 21 times in the EPO Guidelines, March 2021 edition) is sometimes called "first examiner".

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Patent Office</span> One of the two organs of the European Patent Organisation

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Patent Convention</span> International patent treaty

The European Patent Convention (EPC), also known as the Convention on the Grant of European Patents of 5 October 1973, is a multilateral treaty instituting the European Patent Organisation and providing an autonomous legal system according to which European patents are granted. The term European patent is used to refer to patents granted under the European Patent Convention. However, a European patent is not a unitary right, but a group of essentially independent nationally enforceable, nationally revocable patents, subject to central revocation or narrowing as a group pursuant to two types of unified, post-grant procedures: a time-limited opposition procedure, which can be initiated by any person except the patent proprietor, and limitation and revocation procedures, which can be initiated by the patent proprietor only.

The EPC 2000 or European Patent Convention 2000 is the version of the European Patent Convention (EPC) as revised by the Act Revising the Convention on the Grant of European Patents signed in Munich on November 29, 2000. On June 28, 2001, the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation adopted the final new text of the EPC 2000. The EPC 2000 entered into force on December 13, 2007.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Representation before the European Patent Office</span>

The European Patent Convention (EPC), the multilateral treaty providing the legal system according to which European patents are granted, contains provisions regarding whether a natural or juristic person needs to be represented in proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO).

This is a list of legal terms relating to patents and patent law. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention claimed therein, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or their successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.

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.

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 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 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.

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 Article 82 EPC, a European patent application must "...relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept." This legal provision is the application, within the European Patent Convention, of the requirement of unity of invention, which also applies also in other jurisdictions.

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.

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.

The fees due at the European Patent Office (EPO) in relation to a European patent application are laid out in the Rules relating to Fees of 20 October 1977, as adopted by decision of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation of 7 December 2006 and as last amended by decision of the Administrative Council of 12 December 2018.

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), a petition for review is a request to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) to review a decision of a board of appeal. The procedure was introduced in Article 112a EPC when the EPC was revised in 2000, to form the so-called "EPC 2000". A petition for review can essentially only be based on a fundamental procedural defect. Its purpose is not to obtain a reconsideration of the application of substantive law, such as points relating to patentability. The petition is a restricted form of judicial review, limited to examining serious errors of procedure which might have been committed by the Legal or Technical Boards of Appeal, prejudicing the right to a fair hearing of one or more appellants. Before the entry into force of the EPC 2000 in December 2007, it was not possible for a party who did not have his requests granted in an appeal to challenge the final decision of the Legal or Technical Board of Appeal on any grounds.

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), any third party –i.e., essentially any person– may file observations on the patentability of an invention which is the subject of a European patent application or, after grant, subject of a European patent, especially to draw the attention of the European Patent Office (EPO) to some relevant prior art documents. This is a form of public participation in the examination of patent applications.

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 1/09 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.

References

  1. 1 2 Article 75 EPC
  2. ↑ Article 90 EPC
  3. ↑ Article 92 EPC
  4. ↑ Article 93 EPC
  5. ↑ Article 94 EPC
  6. 1 2 3 Article 97(1) EPC
  7. 1 2 3 4 Article 97(2) EPC
  8. ↑ Article 4(3) EPC
  9. ↑ Article 2(1) EPC
  10. ↑ Richard Howson, Points and prizes, or how to Play Your Cards Right at the European Patent Office, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2007 2(3):170-173; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpl237
  11. ↑ Article 75(1)(a) EPC
  12. ↑ Decision of the President of the European Patent Office dated 10 May 1989 on the setting up of a Filing Office in the Berlin sub-office of the European Patent Office, OJ 1989, 218.
  13. ↑ Article 75(1)(b) EPC
  14. ↑ United Kingdom Patents Act 1977, ss 22-23: Security and safety.
  15. ↑ Notice from the European Patent Office dated 4 March 1992 concerning the Vienna sub-office, OJ 1992, 183, Important Notice.
  16. ↑ Article 78(2) EPC
  17. ↑ Article 2.1a of the Rules relating to Fees.
  18. ↑ Rule 45(1) EPC (previously Rule 31(1) EPC 1973)
  19. ↑ Article 2.15 of the Rules relating to Fees.
  20. ↑ Article 14(2) EPC; Guidelines for Examination in the EPO , section a-vii, 1.1 : "Admissible languages on filing; General": "European patent applications can be filed in any language."; Special edition No. 4 OJ EPO 2007, p. 14: "The revised Article 14(2) EPC provides that an application must be filed in one of the EPO official languages, or be translated into one of these languages (if the application has been filed in another language). The words "any other language" imply that an application may be filed in any language, in accordance with Article 5 PLT which states that, for the purpose of obtaining a filing date, a description of the invention in a language of the applicant's choice must be accepted."
  21. ↑ Article 14(1) EPC; Article 14(2) EPC; Rule 6(1) EPC; Guidelines for Examination in the EPO , section a-vii, 1.1 : "However, if filed in a language other than an official language of the EPO (English, French or German), a translation into one of the official languages must be filed within two months of the date of filing (Rule 6(1))."
  22. ↑ Article 14(3) EPC; Guidelines for Examination in the EPO , section a-vii, 2 : "Language of the proceedings": "The official language of the EPO (English, French or German) in which the application is filed, or into which it is subsequently translated, constitutes the "language of the proceedings".
    The language of the proceedings is the only language used by EPO departments in written proceedings on that application (G 4/08)."
  23. ↑ See Article 80 EPC and Rule 40 EPC.
  24. ↑ Article 90(2) EPC
  25. ↑ Article 90(3) and (4) EPC
  26. ↑ Article 90(5) EPC
  27. ↑ Decision T 689/05 of 7 September 2010, point 5.17, referring notably to Article 116(1),(2) EPC 1973 and Rule 71(1) EPC 1973.
  28. ↑ Article 93(1) EPC
  29. 1 2 See for instance Decision J 2/08 (27 May 2009) of the Legal Board of Appeal of the EPO, Reasons 60 and 61.
  30. ↑ Article 67 EPC
  31. ↑ Article 67(2) EPC
  32. ↑ Article 67(3) EPC
  33. ↑ Article 92(1) EPC
  34. ↑ Article 92(2) EPC
  35. ↑ Board of Appeal of the EPO, Decision of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01 dated 20 October 2006 T 1242/04 – 3.5.01, Reasons 8.2, OJ EPO 7/2007, p. 421
  36. ↑ Guidelines for Examination in the EPO , section b-viii, 3 : "No meaningful search possible"
  37. 1 2 Decision of the Administrative Council of 25 March 2009 amending the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention (CA/D 3/09), Article 2(1).
  38. ↑ Decision of the Admin. Council, CA/D 3/09, Articles 1.1 and 1.2.
  39. ↑ Rule 137(1) EPC
  40. ↑ Rule 62(1) EPC
  41. ↑ Rule 62 EPC, see title
  42. ↑ EPO web site, Notice from the European Patent Office dated 15 October 2009 concerning amendments to the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention (EPC) Archived 19 October 2009 at the Wayback Machine , 15 October 2009, point 5.1.1.
  43. ↑ Decision of the Admin. Council, CA/D 3/09, Articles 1.5.
  44. ↑ Decision of the Admin. Council, CA/D 3/09, Articles 1.5. and Rule 70(1) EPC.
  45. ↑ New Rule 70a(3) EPC.
  46. ↑ Article 79(1) EPC
  47. ↑ Article 79(2) EPC and Rule 39(1) EPC
  48. ↑ Article 94(1) EPC
  49. ↑ Rule 70(1)(second sentence) EPC
  50. ↑ Article 94(2) EPC
  51. ↑ Article 52(1) EPC
  52. ↑ Article 52(2) and (3) EPC and Article 53 EPC
  53. ↑ Article 54 EPC
  54. ↑ Article 56 EPC
  55. ↑ Article 57 EPC
  56. ↑ Article 83 EPC
  57. ↑ Article 84 EPC
  58. ↑ Rule 130(1) EPC (formerly Rule 81(1) EPC 1973)
  59. ↑ Article 94(3) EPC (formerly Article 96(2) EPC 1973)
  60. ↑ Rule 71(1) EPC (formerly Rule 51(2) EPC 1973)
  61. ↑ Article 123(2) EPC
  62. ↑ EPO Board of Appeal decision T 1099/06, Reasons 6.
  63. ↑ Article 116(1) EPC
  64. ↑ Pearce, David (19 November 2015). "A Cautionary Tale". Tufty the Cat. Retrieved 1 December 2015.
  65. ↑ Article 18(2)(third sentence) EPC
  66. ↑ Decision T 1012/03 of December 1, 2006, catchword 2.
  67. 1 2 Article 116(3) EPC
  68. ↑ Article 116(4) EPC
  69. ↑ "The right to oral proceedings according to Article 116 EPC is a specific and codified part of the procedural right to be heard according to Article 113(1) EPC." in Decision T 1012/03 of December 1, 2006, Reasons 25.
  70. 1 2 Article 106 EPC
  71. ↑ "Decision T 1849/12 of 3 December 2012" (in German). Reasons 3.1. Retrieved 31 July 2015.; Randl, Oliver (18 March 2013). "T 1849/12 – Bad News For Early Birds". K’s Law. Retrieved 31 July 2015. (...) the EPC provides for a mandatory examination with respect to all the requirements of the EPC before a patent can be granted. It is only when the ED is of the opinion that all requirements that are to be examined are fulfilled that it may arrange for a grant.
  72. 1 2 Guidelines for Examination in the EPO , section c-v, 1.1 , "Text for approval".
  73. 1 2 3 4 5 Rule 71(3) EPC, formerly Rule 51(4) EPC 1973.
  74. ↑ Special edition No. 5 OJ EPO, page 122.
  75. ↑ Article 97(3) EPC
  76. ↑ Decision T 493/08 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.02 of 29 September 2009, Reasons 6.2.1, third paragraph.
  77. ↑ Article 14(6) EPC
  78. 1 2 Petrucci, Luigi (June 2016). "Correcting the Text of a Published Patent" (PDF). Epi Information. Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (2/2016): 43–44. ISSN   1434-8853.
  79. ↑ Guidelines for Examination in the EPO , section h-vi, 4 : "Errors in publication"
  80. 1 2 Article 109 EPC
  81. ↑ "Any infringement of a European patent shall be dealt with by national law." Article 64(3) EPC
  82. ↑ Article 99(1) EPC
  83. ↑ Article 65 EPC
  84. ↑ "Applying for a Unitary Patent | Epo.org". www.epo.org. Retrieved 4 February 2024.
  85. ↑ Article 86(1) EPC
  86. ↑ Rule 51 EPC (previously Rule 37 EPC 1973).
  87. 1 2 Article 115 EPC
  88. ↑ Rule 114 EPC
  89. ↑ Decision of the President of the European Patent Office dated 10 May 2011 concerning the filing of third party observations under Article 115 EPC by means of an online form, EPO Official Journal 7/2011, p. 418; Notice from the European Patent Office dated 10 May 2011 concerning the filing of third party observations under Article 115 EPC by means of an online form, EPO OJ 7/2011, p. 420.
  90. ↑ Rule 36(1) EPC, formerly Rule 25(1) EPC 1973.
  91. ↑ Rule 36(2) EPC
  92. ↑ Guidelines for Examination in the EPO , section a-iv, 1.3.1 "Where and how to file a divisional application?"
  93. ↑ Rule 14(1) EPC
  94. ↑ Article 61(1) EPC
  95. ↑ Rule 14(3) EPC
  96. ↑ J15/13, points 2.1, 2.5.
  97. 1 2 Mulder, C.; Van kan, J. (2020). "Amendment of the EPC Rule on interruption of proceedings puts an end to zombie applications". Epi Information (3). Retrieved 7 August 2020.
  98. ↑ Rule 142(1) EPC
  99. 1 2 3 "PCT Applicant's Guide – National Phase – National Chapter – EP" (PDF). wipo.int. WIPO. Retrieved 8 January 2022.
  100. 1 2 3 "PCT Applicant's Guide – National Phase – National Chapter – EP" (PDF). wipo.int. WIPO. Section EP.16a. Retrieved 8 January 2022.
  101. 1 2 3 "Notice from the European Patent Office dated 30 November 2015 concerning the programme for accelerated prosecution of European patent applications ("PACE")". EPO Official Journal November 2015 (A93). European Patent Office. 30 November 2015. Retrieved 30 December 2015.
  102. ↑ University College London, Lecture, London, 8 November 2010, "How can Europe be a key player at the global level in the patent field, and which role should the EPO play ?, Benoît Battistelli, President, European Patent Office, page 3. Consulted on November 12, 2010.
  103. ↑ Handbook of quality procedures before the European Patent Office, European Patent Office, February 2012, p. 25.
  104. ↑ Decision J 3/09 of the Legal Board of Appeal of 28 May 2010, point 5.8.
  105. ↑ Decision J 4/03 of 9 September 2004, Reasons 12.
  106. ↑ Rule 15 EPC, Guidelines for Examination in the EPO , section a-iv, 2.3 "Limitation of the option to withdraw the European patent application", and Guidelines for Examination in the EPO , section e-viii, 8.1 "Withdrawal of application or designation"
  107. ↑ Guidelines for Examination in the EPO , section e-viii, 8.1 "Withdrawal of application or designation"
  108. ↑ Rule 67(2) EPC
  109. ↑ Article 9(1) and 11 RFees, and Guidelines for Examination in the EPO , section a-vi, 2.5 "Refund of examination fee"
  110. ↑ Guidelines for Examination in the EPO , section a-vi, 1.2 "No publication; preventing publication", see also Guidelines for Examination in the EPO , section e-viii, 8.3 "Statement of withdrawal"
  111. ↑ Decision J 10/08 of the Legal Board of Appeal 3.1.01 of 16 November 2009, Reasons for the Decision, item 4.
  112. 1 2 Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (9th edition, July 2019), iv.b.3.8.1 , "Withdrawal of the patent application" - "General issues"
  113. ↑ Decision J 10/08, Reasons 5. See also, for example, decision J 18/10, Reasons 2, 5th paragraph; and decision J 3/22, reasons 2.1 and 2.13.
  114. ↑ Article 18 EPC
  115. ↑ EP 1000000
  116. ↑ EPO web site, European patent application no EP 2 000 000 Archived 2008-12-17 at the Wayback Machine , News, 10 December 2008. Consulted on December 11, 2008.
  117. ↑ van de Kuilen, Aalt (2013). "Successful European oppositions: Analysis for the patent information professional". World Patent Information. Elsevier. 35 (2): 126–129. doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2012.12.002.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.