Blog
In-depth articles on the European patent grant procedure (UP and classic), fee structures, and strategic considerations under the EPC, PCT, and the Unitary Patent system.
Inherent Jurisdiction and Divisional Strategies: The Milan Central Division on Arrow Declarations
The Milan central division has confirmed that the Unified Patent Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to issue Arrow-type declarations and procedural orders. This order provides a defensive tool to prevent patentees from using divisional applications to evade final validity rulings.
Public Access to Pending Appeals: The Court of Appeal on Rule 262 RoP
The Court of Appeal clarifies the strict requirements for third parties seeking access to written pleadings in pending cases. General competitor status and third-party enforcement threats are insufficient under Rule 262 RoP.
The Limits of Discretion: T 1211/24 on Excluding Admitted Evidence Under G 7/93
Can a Board of Appeal exclude late-filed evidence that the opposition division already admitted? T 1211/24 confirms that discretionary admission decisions are fully subject to judicial review under the G 7/93 standard.
Tender Offers and Springboard Damages: The Munich Local Division on Rule 141 RoP
The Munich Local Division clarifies the scope of an order to lay open books under Rule 141 RoP. The panel distinguishes between compensable tender substitutions and rejected springboard damages.
Territorial Scope and Rectification: The Hague local division on Article 80 UPCA
Two related orders from The Hague local division illustrate the strict territorial boundaries of provisional measures. The Court rectified a publication order after an applicant attempted to extend its reach to non-UPC EPC states.
Limits on Live Expert Testimony and the Straw Man Doctrine: Two Central Division Orders
Two procedural orders from the Munich Central Division clarify the strict limits on hearing private legal experts in person and confirm that 'straw man' objections to standing are governed by Article 47 UPCA, not national law.
The Limits of the Right to be Heard: R 0007/25 on Late Interventions
The Enlarged Board of Appeal clarifies when a late intervention triggers a fundamental procedural defect under Article 113(1) EPC. A truncated response period only violates the right to be heard if new grounds lead to revocation.
Conflicting Validity Standards: The Munich Local Division on Clinical Trial Obviousness
The Munich Local Division revoked a Sanofi prostate cancer patent, favouring a French national court's obviousness finding over an EPO Board of Appeal decision. The panel independently assessed the expectation of success.
The Burden of Proof in Petitions for Review: R 0023/24 on Negative Facts
The Enlarged Board of Appeal clarifies the burden of proof for procedural violations during oral proceedings. R 0023/24 departs from earlier case law, ruling that parties bear the burden of proving negative facts about hearings.
The Application of G 1/25: T 0384/25 on Description Adaptation and Unclaimed Embodiments
Following the Enlarged Board of Appeal's framework in G 1/25, T 0384/25 confirms that retaining unclaimed medical use embodiments in the description does not automatically create a legally relevant inconsistency.
G 2/10 and Selections from Lists: T 0201/24 on Added Matter in Divisional Applications
In T 0201/24, the EPO Technical Board of Appeal clarified that applying the gold standard of G 2/10 does not preclude assessing added matter through selections from lists. The decision highlights the strict requirements for combining component ranges.
Third-Party Revocation Actions and Stays on Appeal: Two Orders Compared
The Court of Appeal clarifies that an advanced appeal will not be stayed merely because an uninvolved third party files a new revocation action at the central division. Two parallel orders highlight the strict limits of Rule 222.2 RoP.