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.
Applying G 1/99 After Remittal: T 1168/24 on the Prohibition of Reformatio in Peius
The Board of Appeal clarifies that a remittal for a violation of the right to be heard does not disapply the prohibition of reformatio in peius, and rejects multiple selections for lipid formulations under Article 123(2) EPC.
Rejecting G 2/10 for Sufficiency: T 0987/24 on the Gold Standard
The EPO Board of Appeal confirms that the G 2/10 Gold Standard applies exclusively to added matter. T 0987/24 strictly separates Article 123(2) EPC derivation from Article 83 EPC sufficiency of disclosure.
Judicial Silence and the Discretionary Review of Value Determinations
The Court of Appeal clarifies that a local division's failure to respond to a request for leave to appeal within fifteen days constitutes an effective refusal. This triggers the deadline for a discretionary review request.
Applying G 1/24 to Added Matter: T 0873/24 Refers Claim Interpretation
Board 3.3.05 has referred fundamental questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal regarding how G 1/24 applies to Article 123(2) EPC, alongside a challenge to the strict admissibility threshold for referrals.
The Limits of Hindsight: T 0424/23 on Secondary Documents and the Could-Would Approach
The Technical Board of Appeal clarifies that while a secondary document need not explicitly state it solves the objective technical problem, the skilled person still requires a concrete motivation to consult it.
Territorial Carve-Outs and the Boundaries of Claim Limitation: Two Orders from Brussels
The Brussels Local Division clarifies the procedural mechanics of dropping a national designation from a pending action. Two coordinated orders explain why limiting a claim does not automatically trigger a formal withdrawal or immediate cost awards.
The Limits of Plethoric Submissions: T 0867/24 on Clarity and Conciseness
A 143-page reply to an appeal backfires as the Technical Board of Appeal uses Article 12(5) RPBA to exclude a scattergun array of inventive step attacks.
Reviewing Discretion: R 0010/24 on Manifestly Incorrect Non-Admission
The Enlarged Board of Appeal confirms that discretionary non-admission of requests under the RPBA is subject to review for 'manifestly incorrect' application, resolving a divergence in its jurisprudence.
Calculating Fee Reimbursements for Cross-Year Settlements at the UPC
The Düsseldorf Local Division clarifies that the date of a withdrawal application, not the filing date of the original action, determines the applicable court fee reimbursement rate under amended Rule 370.9 RoP.
Data to Physical Object: T 0847/24 on Article 123(3) EPC and Manufacturing Steps
Can you save a data-generating method claim by adding a manufacturing step in opposition? In T 0847/24, the board held that such an amendment violates Article 123(3) EPC by extending product protection under Article 64(2) EPC.
The Interpretive Weight of Reference Signs: T 0903/24 on Rule 43(7) EPC
Are reference signs truly legally invisible? In T 0903/24, an EPO Board of Appeal explicitly used reference signs to interpret claim features during a novelty attack, highlighting a subtle limit to Rule 43(7) EPC.
Overturning Discretionary Decisions: T 0882/24 on Flawed Technical Assessments
When an opposition division refuses to admit a late-filed document based on a flawed technical assessment, the Board of Appeal can overturn that discretion. T 0882/24 illustrates how inherent disclosures unlock de novo review.