Quick Navigation

 

The European Patent Convention

 
 

Annex I
Index of decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal published in the Official Journal of the EPO

 

 

Case number, 
date,  
publication 
 
Headword/Subject 
 
Article, Rule of the  
EPC 1973 

G 5/83
Decision of 05.12.1984
OJ EPO 1985, 64

 

"Second medical indication/EISAI"

Interpretation of the EPC/Vienna Convention – therapeutical use claims

 

Art. 52(1)(4), 54(5), 52, 57 EPC;
Art. 31, 32 Vienna Convention (see Art. 54(5) EPC 2000)

G 1/86
Decision of 24.06.1987
OJ EPO 1987, 447

 

"Re-establishment of rights of opponent/
VOEST ALPINE"

Re-establishment of rights of appellant as opponent – Time limit for filing grounds of appeal

 

Art. 108, third sentence, 112(1), 122 EPC

G 1/88
Decision of 27.01.1989
OJ EPO 1989, 189

 

"Opponent’s silence/HOECHST"

Admissibility of appeal by opponent – Silence in response to an invitation under Rule 58(4) – Application of Rule 58(4)

 

Art. 102(3), 107 EPC
R. 58(4) EPC

G 2/88
Decision of 11.12.1989
OJ EPO 1990, 93
Corr. OJ EPO 1990, 469

 

"Friction reducing additive/MOBIL OIL III"

Amendment in opposition proceedings – change of category (here: from "compound" and "composition" to "use of compound for a particular purpose") – Novelty of such a use claim over disclosure of same compound for different purpose – Second non-medical indication

 

Art. 54, 64, 69, 112(1)(a), 123 EPC

G 4/88
Decision of 24.04.1989
OJ EPO 1989, 480

 

"Transfer of opposition/MAN"

Transfer of rights – status of party in opposition proceedings – dissolution of opposing company – legal person

 

Art. 99(4), 112(1)(a) EPC
R. 60(2) EPC

G 5/88, G 7/88, G 8/88
Decision of 16.11.1990
OJ EPO 1991, 137

 

"Administrative Agreement/MEDTRONIC"

Treatment of documents intended for the EPO and received by the German Patent Office in Berlin – Functions and powers of the President – Principle of good faith – Protection of the legitimate expectations of users of the EPO

 

Art. 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 33, 99(1), 112 EPC

G 6/88
Decision of 11.12.1989
OJ EPO 1990, 114

 

"Plant growth regulating agent/BAYER"

Second non–medical indication – Novelty of second non–medical use with same technical means of execution

 

Art. 54, 69, 112(1)(a) EPC

G 1/89
Decision of 02.05.1990
OJ EPO 1991, 155

 

"Polysuccinate esters"

Competence of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in protest cases under the PCT – Non–unity a posteriori

 

Art. 112(1)(a) and (b), 154(3) EPC
Art. 17(3)(a) PCT
R. 13, 33, 40 PCT

G 2/89
Opinion of 02.05.1990
OJ EPO 1991, 166

 

"Non–unity a posteriori"

Competence of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in protest cases under the PCT – Non–unity a posteriori

 

Art. 112(1)(b), 154(3) EPC
Art. 17(3)(a) PCT
R. 13, 33, 40 PCT

G 3/89
Opinion of 19.11.1992
OJ EPO 1993, 117

 

"Correction under Rule 88, second sentence, EPC"

Correction of the parts of a European patent application or of a European patent relating to the disclosure

 

Art. 100(c), 117(1), 123(1) (2), 138(1)(c) EPC
R. 86, 88, second sentence, EPC
(see however Rule 56(3) EPC 2000)

G 1/90
Opinion of 05.03.1991
OJ EPO 1991, 275

 

"Revocation of the patent"

Revocation of the patent by a decision – Revocation, failure to meet formal requirements when the patent is maintained as amended – Termination of opposition proceedings – Loss of rights – legal fictions

 

Art. 102(4)(5), 106, 112(1)(b) EPC
R. 58(5), 69(1) EPC

G 2/90
Decision of 04.08.1991
OJ EPO 1992, 10

 

"Responsibility of the Legal Board of Appeal/KOLBENSCHMIDT"

Responsibility of the Legal Board of Appeal – Appeals against decisions of the formalities officer

 

Art. 21 EPC
R. 9(3) EPC

G 1/91
Decision of 09.12.1991
OJ EPO 1992, 253

 

"Unity/SIEMENS"

Unity in opposition – legally irrelevant

 

Art. 82, 102(3) EPC
R. 61a EPC

G 2/91
Decision of 29.11.1991
OJ EPO 1992, 206

 

"Appeal fees/KROHNE"

Reimbursement of appeal fees where several parties have filed an appeal

 

Art. 107 EPC

G 3/91
Decision of 07.09.1992
OJ EPO 1993, 8

 

"Re–establishment of rights/FABRITIUS II"

Applicability of Article 122(5) EPC to the time limits under Rule 104b(1)(b) and (c) EPC (107(1)(c) and (e) EPC) together with Articles 157(2)(b) and 158(2) EPC

 

Art. 78(2), 79(2), 122(5), 157(2)(b), 158(2) EPC
R. 104b(1)(b)(c) EPC
(107(1)(c)(e) EPC)
(see however G 5/93)

G 4/91
Decision of 03.11.1992
OJ EPO 1993, 707

 

"Intervention/DOLEZYCH II"

Intervention (in opposition proceedings by an assumed infringer)

 

Art. 105, 107 EPC

G 5/91
Decision of 05.05.1992
OJ EPO 1992, 617

 

"Appealable decision/DISCOVISION"

Suspected partiality of a member of an Opposition Division – ground of appeal?

 

Art. 19(2), 24 EPC

G 6/91
Decision of 06.03.1992
OJ EPO 1992, 491

 

"Fee reduction/ASULAB"

Entitlement to fee reduction

 

Art. 14(2) and (4) EPC
R. 6(3) EPC

G 7/91
Decision of 05.11.1992
OJ EPO 1993, 356

 

"Withdrawal of appeal/BASF"

Effect of withdrawal of the appeal (by the sole appellant, who was the opponent in the first instance)

 

Art. 113(2), 114(1) EPC
R. 60(2), 66(1) EPC

G 8/91
Decision of 05.11.1992
OJ EPO 1993, 346
Corr. OJ EPO 1993, 478

 

"Withdrawal of appeal/BELL"

Effect of withdrawal of the appeal (by the sole appellant)

 

Art. 113(2), 114(1) EPC
R. 60(2), 66(1) EPC

G 9/91
Decision of 31.03.1993
OJ EPO 1993, 408

 

"Power to examine/ROHM AND HAAS"

Extent of power to examine opposition

 

Art. 101, 102, 110, 114 EPC
R. 55, 56 EPC

G 10/91
Opinion of 31.03.1993
OJ EPO 1993, 420

 

"Examination of oppositions/appeals"

Extent of obligation and power to examine grounds for opposition

 

Art. 99 to 102, 110, 114 EPC
R. 55, 56, 66 EPC

G 11/91
Decision of 19.11.1992
OJ EPO 1993, 125

 

"Glu–Gln/CELTRIX"

Correction of errors

 

Art. 100(c), 117(1), 123(1)(2), 138(1)(c) EPC
R. 86 and 88, second sentence, EPC
(see however R. 56(3) EPC 2000)

G 12/91
Decision of 17.12.1993
OJ EPO 1994, 285

 

"Final decision/NOVATOME II"

Conclusion of written proceedings – Handing over of decision by formalities section to EPO postal service

 

R. 68 EPC

G 1/92
Opinion of 18.12.1992
OJ EPO 1993, 277

 

"Availability to the public"

Novelty – state of the art – availability – composition of product – public prior use

 

Art. 54(2), 112(1)(b) EPC

G 2/92
Opinion of 06.07.1993
OJ EPO 1993, 591

 

"Non–payment of further search fees"

Lack of unity of invention – consequences of non–payment of further search fees

 

Art. 82 EPC
R. 46 EPC

G 3/92
Decision of 13.06.1994
OJ EPO 1994, 607

 

"Unlawful applicant/LATCHWAYS"

Dissenting opinion – Final decision by a national court – Party other than applicant entitled to patent – Third parties’ interests – Withdrawal of original application by unlawful applicant – Filing of new application by lawful applicant

 

Art. 60, 61, 167 EPC
R. 13, 14, 15, 16 EPC;
Art. 1, 9 Protocol on Recognition;
Art. 12a RPEBA

G 4/92
Opinion of 29.10.1993
OJ EPO 1994, 149

 

"Basis of decisions"

Right to comment – Party absent from oral proceedings

 

Art. 113(1), 114(1)(2) EPC
R. 71(2) EPC

G 5/92
Decision of 27.09.1993
OJ EPO 1994, 22

 

"Re–establishment/HOUPT"

Applicability of Article 122(5) EPC

 

Art. 122(5) EPC

G 6/92
Decision of 27.09.1993
OJ EPO 1994, 25

 

"Re–establishment/DURIRON"

Applicability of Article 122(5) EPC

 

Art. 122(5) EPC

G 9/92; G 4/93
Decision of 14.07.1994
OJ EPO 1994, 875

 

"Non–appealing party/BMW"

Reformatio in peius – Patent maintained in amended form in accordance with auxiliary request – Opposing parties each adversely affected – Appeal by one party – Requests by a non–appealing party which go beyond the appellant’s requests in the notice of appeal – Minority opinion

 

Art. 101(2), 107, 111, 114(1) EPC
R. 58(2), 64(b), 65(1), 66(1) EPC

G 10/92
Opinion of 28.04.1994
OJ EPO 1994, 633

 

"Divisional application"

Filing of divisional application: time limit

 

R. 25 EPC

G 1/93
Decision of 02.02.1994
OJ EPO 1994, 541

 

"Limiting feature/ADVANCED SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS"

Conflicting requirements of Article 123, paragraphs 2 and Article 123, paragraphs 3, EPC

 

Art. 123(2), (3) EPC

G 2/93
Decision of 21.12.1994
OJ EPO 1995, 275

 

"Hepatitis A Virus/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA II"

Sufficiency of disclosure – Culture deposit information

 

Art. 83 EPC
R. 28 EPC

G 3/93
Opinion of 16.08.1994
OJ EPO 1995, 18

 

"Priority interval"

Priority – document published during the priority interval – State of the art – document published during the priority interval – Invalid priority – different invention – Obiter dictum – admissibility of the referral

 

Art. 54(2), 87 to 89 EPC

G 5/93
Decision of 18.01.1994
OJ EPO 1994, 447

 

"Re–establishment/NELLCOR"

Applicability of Article 122(5) EPC

 

Art. 122(5), 150, 157(2)(b), 158(2) EPC
R. 104b(1)(b), EPC (107(1)(c) EPC)

G 7/93
Decision of 13.05.1994
OJ EPO 1994, 775

 

"Late amendments/WHITBY II"

Amendments after a Rule 51(6) communication – discretion of Examining Divisions – Reservations under Article 167(2) EPC

 

Art. 96(2), 113(2), 123(1), 167(2) EPC
R. 51(4) (6), 86(3) EPC

G 8/93
Decision of 13.06.1994
OJ EPO 1994, 887

 

"Withdrawal of opposition/SERWANE II"

Withdrawal of opposition without withdrawal of appeal – Termination of appeal proceedings

 

Art. 114(1) EPC
R. 60(2), 66(1) EPC

G 9/93
Decision of 06.07.1994
OJ EPO 1994, 891

 

"Opposition by patent proprietor/PEUGEOT AND CITROEN"

Opposition filed by proprietor against own patent – receivability

 

Art. 99 EPC

G 10/93
Decision of 30.11.1994
OJ EPO 1995, 172

 

"Scope of examination in ex parte appeal/SIEMENS"

Inclusion of new grounds in ex parte
proceedings – Reformatio in peius

 

Art. 96(2), 97(1), 110, 111(1), 114(1) EPC

G 1/94
Decision of 11.05.1994
OJ EPO 1994, 787

 

"Intervention/ALLIED COLLOIDS"

Admissibility of intervention during appeal proceedings

 

Art. 105 EPC

G 2/94
Decision of 19.02.1996
OJ EPO 1996, 401

 

"Representation/HAUTAU II"

Oral submissions by an accompanying person in ex parte proceedings – Oral submissions by a former member of the board of appeal in either ex parte or inter partes proceedings

 

Art. 116, 133, 134 EPC

G 1/95
Decision of 19.07.1996
OJ EPO 1996, 615

 

"Fresh grounds for opposition/DE LA RUE"

No power to examine fresh grounds for opposition without agreement of patentee

 

Art. 99, 100(a)(b)(c), 114(1) EPC
R. 55, 56 EPC

G 2/95
Decision of 14.05.1996
OJ EPO 1996, 555

 

"Replacement of application documents/ATOTECH"

Substitution of complete documents forming an application by other documents by way of a correction under Rule 88 EPC (no)

 

Art. 14(1)(2), 80(d), 87(2), 100(c), 123(2), 138(1)(c), 164(2) EPC
Art. 4A(2) Paris Convention
R. 88 EPC
R. 91.1(c) PCT

G 3/95
Opinion of 27.11.1995
OJ EPO 1996, 169

 

"Inadmissible referral"

Patentability of plant and animal varieties – No conflicting decision – Inadmissible referral by the President of the EPO

 

Art. 53(b), 112(1)(b) EPC

G 4/95
Decision of 19.02.1996
OJ EPO 1996, 412

 

"Representation/BOGASKY"

Oral submission by an accompanying person in opposition or opposition appeal proceedings

 

Art. 116, 117, 133, 134 EPC

G 6/95
Decision of 24.07.1996
OJ EPO 1996, 649

 

"Interpretation of Rule 71a(1) EPC/GE CHEMICALS"

Interpretation of Rule 71a(1) EPC vis–à–vis the boards of appeal

 

Art. 23, 33(1)(b), 112(1)(a), 164(2) EPC
Art. 11(2), 18 RPBA
R. 10(2), 11, 66(1), 71, 71a(1) EPC

G 7/95
Decision of 19.07.1996
OJ EPO 1996, 626

 

"Fresh grounds for opposition/ETHICON"

No power to examine fresh grounds for opposition without agreement of patentee

 

Art. 99, 100(a)(b)(c), 114(1) EPC
R. 55, 56 EPC

G 8/95
Decision of 16.04.1996
OJ EPO 1996, 481

 

"Correction of decision to grant/US GYPSUM II"

Relative competence of the Technical and Legal Boards of Appeal – Refusal of a correction of the decision to grant

 

Art. 21(3) EPC
R. 89 EPC

G 1/97
Decision of 10.12.1999
OJ EPO 2000, 322

 

"Request with a view to revision/ETA"

Administrative or jurisdictional measures to
be taken in response to requests based on the
alleged violation of a fundamental procedural
principle and aimed at the revision of a final decision taken by a board of appeal having the force of res judicata – Entry in the Register of European Patents

 

Art. 21, 23(1) (3), 24, 106(1), 110(1), 111(1), 113, 114, 116, 121, 122, 125, 127 EPC
R. 10(2), 11, 65(1), 66(2), 67, 89, 90, 92(1) (2) EPC
Art. 10 RPBA
Art. 11a, 11b RPEBA
Art. 23 RDR
Art. 31, 32, 62(5) TRIPS
Art. 31(3) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (see however Art. 112a EPC 2000)

G 2/97
Decision of 12.11.1998
OJ EPO 1999, 123

 

"Good faith/UNILEVER"

Fee for appeal – Principle of good faith – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

 

Art. 112(1)(a), 108 EPC
R. 69(1) EPC

G 3/97
Decision of 21.01.1999
OJ EPO 1999, 245

 

"Opposition on behalf of a third party/INDUPACK"

Admissibility of opposition – acting on behalf of a third party – Circumvention of the law by abuse of process

 

Art. 99 EPC
R. 55 EPC

G 4/97
Decision of 21.01.1999
OJ EPO 1999, 270

 

"Opposition on behalf of a third party/GENENTECH"

Admissibility of opposition – acting on behalf of a third party – Circumvention of the law by abuse of process

 

Art. 99 EPC
R. 55 EPC

G 1/98
Decision of 20.12.1999
OJ EPO 2000, 111

 

"Transgenetic plant/NOVARTIS II"

Claims comprising but not identifying plant varieties – Plant varieties as products of recombinant gene technology – Article 64(2) EPC not relevant for examination of product claims

 

Art. 52, 53(b), 54, 64(2) EPC
R. 23b EPC
Art. 2(b) Strasbourg Patent Convention
Art. 2 UPOV Convention 1961
Art. 1(vi) UPOV Convention 1991

G 2/98
Opinion of 31.05.2001
OJ EPO 2001, 413

 

"Requirement for claiming priority of the ’same invention’"

Interpretation of the concept of "the same invention" referred to in Article 87(1) EPC – Consistency of the interpretation with the Paris Convention and the EPC – Conformity of the interpretation with principles of equal treatment and legal certainty and with the requirement of consistency as regards assessment of novelty and inventive step

 

Art. 54(2)(3), 56, 60(2), 83, 84, 87(1)(4), 88(2) (3) (4), 89, 93, 112(1)(b), 123(2)(3) EPC
Art. 4A(1), 4C(4), 4F, 4H, 19 Paris Convention 
Art. 11b RPEBA

G 3/98
Decision of 12.07.2000
OJ EPO 2001, 62

 

"Six–month period/UNIVERSITY PATENTS"

Admissibility of referral – significance of the point of law in the appeal proceedings (yes) – Calculation of the six–month period under Article 55 EPC – relevant date – date of actual filing of the application

 

Art. 54(2)(3), 55(1)(a), 56, 89, 112(1)(a) EPC
R. 23 EPC
Art. 17(2) RPBA
Art. 2, 4 Paris Convention
Art. 4 SPC
Art. 6 EHRC

G 4/98
Opinion of 27.11.2000
OJ EPO 2001, 131

 

"Designation fees"

Failure to pay designation fees – No retroactive effect of deemed withdrawal except for Article 67 EPC – Deemed withdrawal takes effect upon expiry of the time limit for payment of designation fees

 

Art. 66, 67, 76, 79, 80, 90, 91, 112 EPC
R. 15, 25, 85a, 107, 108 EPC
Art. 4 Paris Convention 

G 1/99
Decision of 02.04.2001
OJ EPO 2001, 381

 

"Reformatio in peius/3M"

Reformatio in peius – exception to the prohibition – Status of appellant/opponent – Status of appellant/patent proprietor

 

Art. 100, 101(1), 102(1)(2)(3), 106(1), 107, 108, 112(1)(a), 114(1), 123(2) (3), 125 EPC
R. 57a , 58(2), 64(b), 66(1), 87 EPC

G 2/99
Decision of 12.07.2000
OJ EPO 2001, 83

 

"Six–month period/DEWERT"

Admissibility of referral – significance of the point of law in the appeal proceedings (yes) – Calculation of the six–month period under Article 55 EPC – relevant date – date of actual filing of the application

 

Art. 54(2)(3), 55(1)(a), 56, 89 and 112(1)(a) EPC
R. 23 EPC
Art. 17(2) RPBA
Art. 2, 4 Paris Convention
Art. 4 SPC
Art. 6 ECHR

G 3/99
Decision of 18.02.2002
OJ EPO 2002, 347

 

"Admissibility of joint opposition or joint appeal/HOWARD FLOREY"

Admissibility – Fee for opposition – persons acting in common in filing notice of opposition – common opposition – joint opposition – Admissibility – Fee for appeal – persons acting in common in filing notice of appeal – common appeal – joint appeal – Common representative

 

Art. 58, 99, 99(1), 104, 107, 110(1), 112(1)(a), 133, 133(4), 134 EPC
R. 1, 26(2)(c), 36(3), 55, 55(a), 56(2), 60(2), 66(1), 100, 100(1) EPC

G 1/02
Opinion of 22.01.2003
OJ EPO 2003, 165

 

"Formalities officers´ powers"

Opposition divisions – formalities officers – decisions – powers

 

Art. 10(2)(a), 10(2)(i), 15, 18(2), 19, 19(1), 19(2), 21, 21(3)(a), 21(3)(b), 21(3)(c), 21(4), 33(3), 90, 91, 91(3), 99(1), 102(5), 106, 112(1)(b), 164(2) EPC
R. 9, 9(3), 51(4), 55(c), 56(1), 56(2), 56(3), 57(1), 69(1), 69(2) EPC
Notice of the Vice-President Directorate-General 2 dated 28.4.1999, points 4 and 6

G 2/02 and G 3/02
Decision of 26.04.2004
OJ EPO 2004, 483

 

"Priorities from India/ASTRAZENECA"

International applications – priorities from India – Applicability of Article 87(5) EPC – The position under the PCT – The EPO not party to TRIPS – Interpretation of Article 87 EPC – according to principles of public international law – in the light of obligations of contracting states under TRIPS

 

Art. 23(3), 33, 66, 87(1) and (5), 88, 112(1)(a), 150(2), 172 EPC
Art. 8 PCT
R. 4.10 PCT
Art. 1 - 12, 4A(2), 19 Paris Convention
Art. 5, 26, 34, 38 Vienna Convention 1969
Art. 34, 35, 38 Vienna Convention 1986
Art. 1, 2 (1) TRIPS Agreement
Art. 38 Statute, International Court of Justice
Art. 27 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see Art. 87(1) EPC 2000)

G 1/03
Decision of 08.04.2004
OJ EPO 2004, 413

 

"Disclaimer/PPG"

Allowability of disclaimers – delimitation against state of the art under Article 54(2) and (3) (4) –
accidental anticipation – exclusion of subject–matter not eligible for patent protection
Drafting of disclaimers – requirements of clarity and conciseness

 

Art. 52, 53, 54(2), (3) and (4), 56, 57, 60(2), 84, 87(1), 112(1), 123(2) and (3), 139(2) EPC
R. 27(1)(b), 29(1) EPC

G 2/03
Decision of 08.04.2004
OJ EPO 2004, 448

 

"Disclaimer/GENETIC SYSTEMS"

Allowability of disclaimers – delimitation against state of the art under Article 54(2) and (3) (4) – accidental anticipation – exclusion of subject–matter not eligible for patent protection
Drafting of disclaimers – requirements of clarity and conciseness

 

Art. 52, 53, 54(2), (3) and (4), 56, 57, 60(2), 84, 87(1), 112(1), 123(2) and (3), 139(2) EPC
R. 27(1)(b), 29(1) EPC

G 3/03
Decision of 28.01.2005
OJ EPO 2005, 344

 

"Reimbursement of the appeal fee/HIGHLAND"

Interlocutory revision and request for reimbursement of the appeal fee – department of the first instance not competent to refuse the request for reasons of equity – competence of the board of appeal which would have been competent to decide on the substantive issues of the appeal in the absence of interlocutory revision

 

Art. 21, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111(1) and 112(1) EPC
R. 67 EPC
Art. 11 Rfees

G 1/04
Decision of 16.12.2005
OJ EPO 2006, 334

 

"Diagnostic methods"

Diagnostic methods under Article 52(4) EPC representing inventions excluded from patentability by means of a legal fiction – Proper construction of the terms "diagnostic methods" and "practised on the human or animal body" referred to in Article 52(4) EPC – requirements of clarity and legal certainty – difficulty of defining medical and veterinary practitioners on a European level within the framework of the EPC – essential features of a diagnostic method excluded from patent protection under Article 52(4) EPC – qualification of an activity as having a diagnostic character – requirements for a diagnostic method to be regarded as being practised on the human or animal body

 

Art. 4(3), 52(1), (2), (4), 57, 84, 112(1)(b) EPC
R. 29 EPC
Art. 53(c) EPC 2000

G 2/04
Decision of 25.05.2005
OJ EPO 2005, 549

 

"Transfer of opposition/
HOFFMANN–LA ROCHE"

Admissibility of the referral (yes) – Transfer of opponent status – free transfer (no) – transfer to subsidiary in whose interest the opposition was filed (no) – Correction of the appellant contrary to true intentions (no) – Auxiliary request concerning the person of the appellant in case of legal uncertainty

 

Art. 58, 99(1), 105, 107, 108, 112(1)(a), 114(2), 134 EPC
R. 20, 60(2), 61, 64(a), 65(2), 88, 101(1), (4) EPC

G 3/04
Decision of 22.08.2005
OJ EPO 2006, 118

 

"Intervention/EOS"

Intervention in appeal proceedings – Continuation of proceedings after withdrawal of sole appeal – Payment of appeal fee

 

Art. 99, 100, 105, 105(2), 107, 108, 112, 112(1)(a), 125 EPC

G 1/05
Decision of 07.12.2006
OJ EPO 2007, 362

 

"Exclusion and objection/XXX"

Notice of withdrawal under Article 24(2) EPC – requirements for replacement of a member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal – Suspicion of partiality against a member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal – merely based on participation of that member in a prior decision of a Board of Appeal having taken a position on the matter – suspicion not justified on an objective basis

 

Art. 24(1), (2), (3), (4), 76(1), 105(1), 112(1)(a)
123(2) EPC
R. 66(2)(g) EPC
RPEBA Article 1(2)
RPBA Article 13, third sentence, 15
Business distribution scheme EBA 2006 Article 2(3)
ECHR Article 6(1)
Rules of Court ECHR Rule 28(2)(a)(d), (3)
Federal Constitution (AT) Article 87(3)
Federal Constitution (CH) Article 30(1)
Federal Constitution (DE) Article 101(1) 2
Jurisdiktionsnorm (AT) §20
Patentgesetz (AT) §76
Zivilprozessordnung (DE) §41
Codice di procedura civile (IT) Article 51

G 1/05
Decision of 28.01.2007
OJ EPO 2008, 271

 

"Divisional/ASTROPOWER"

Invalidity as a result of non-compliance with Article 76(1) EPC on filing a divisional application (no) – Amendment to conform with Article 76(1) EPC: allowable, even if at time of amendment earlier application no longer pending – Content of a member of a sequence of divisional applications must be disclosure in each of the preceding applications in the sequence as filed – Claims of a member of a sequence of divisional applications need not be directed to subject-matter within the scope of the claims of the preceding applications in the sequence as filed

 

Art.: 54(3), 75(2), 76(1)(2)(3), 77(5), 82, 96(2), 97(1), 100(c), 102(3), 112(1)(a), 113(1), 123(1)(2) 138(1)(c) and 138(2) EPC
Rule: 25(1) (2), 51(2), 86(3) (4) EPC
RPEBA Art. 8
UK Patents Act 1977: Sections 76(1), 130(7)

G 1/06
Decision of 28.06.2007
OJ EPO 2008, 307

 

"Sequences of divisionals/SEIKO"

Invalidity as a result of non-compliance with Article 76(1) EPC on filing a divisional application (no) – Amendment to conform with Article 76(1) EPC: allowable, even if at time of amendment earlier application no longer pending – Content of a member of a sequence of divisional applications must be disclosed in each of the preceding applications in the sequence as filed – Claims of a member of a sequence of divisional applications need not be directed to subject-matter within the scope of the claims of the preceding applications in the sequence as filed

 

Art. 54(3), 75(2), 76(1)(2)(3), 77(5), 82, 96(2), 97(1), 100(c), 102(3), 112(1)(a), 113(1), 123(1)(2) 138(1)(c) and 138(2) EPC
R. 25(1) (2), 51(2), 86(3) (4) EPC
RPEBA Art. 8
UK Patents Act 1977: Sections 76(1), 130(7)

 

Case number, 
date,  
publication 
 
Headword/Subject 
 
Article, Rule of the  
EPC 

G 2/06
Decision of 25.11.2008
OJ EPO 2009, 306

 

"Use of embryos/WARF"

Admissibility of referral (yes) - Referral for preliminary ruling by European Court of Justice (no): request not admissible, as no power to make such referral under EPC - Rule 28(c) (formerly 23d(c)) EPC applicable to pending applications filed before it came into force (yes)
- Rule 28(c) (formerly 23d(c)) EPC intra vires Article 53(a) EPC and in conformity with TRIPS Article 27 (yes) - Exception to patentability of Rule 28(c) (formerly 23d(c)) EPC applicable where claimed product could be prepared exclusively by method necessarily involving the destruction of embryos even if method is not explicitly part of claims (yes) – In assessing the exception to patentability of Rule 28(c) (formerly 23d(c)) EPC technical developments after date of filing not of relevance

 

Art. 23(3), 53(a), 164(2) EPC
R. 26, 26(1), 28, 28(c), 29 EPC
Art. 53(a), 112(1)(a) EPC 1973
R. 23b, 23b(1), 23d, 23d(c), 23e EPC 1973
European Union:
Consolidated version of the Treaty establishing the European Community, in force since 1 February 2003 under the Treaty of Nice signed 26 February 2001: Article 234
Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998: Article 6, 6(1), 6(2), 6(2)(c), Recital 42
TRIPS: Article 27, 27(2)
Germany:
Gesetz zum Schutz von Embryonen of 13 December 1990, § 8 UK:
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, Section 1(1)

G 1/07
Decision of 15.02.2010
OJ EPO 2011, 134

 

"Treatment by surgery/MEDI-PHYSICS"

Applicable provisions: Art. 112(1) EPC 1973, Art. 53(c) EPC – Admissibility of the referral (yes) – The Vienna Convention: principle of narrow interpretation of exclusions (no) – One surgical step in a multi-step method: excluded from patentability (yes) – Limited to surgery for a therapeutic purpose (no) – Meaning of the wording of the exclusion: legal history, impact of jurisprudence and practice, ratio legis – Nature of interventions: involvement of a practitioner (no) – Medical skills and health risks: further criteria – Claim left to encompass a surgical step (no) – Disclaimer under Article 53(c) EPC (yes), subject to remaining requirements of EPC – Omission: methods only concerning the internal operation of a device (yes), subject to remaining requirements of the EPC – Possible use of non-surgical method in a surgical method: irrelevant, if non-surgical method complete teaching in itself

 

Art. 31, 32 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Art. 27.3(a) TRIPS
Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions:
Art. 6(2), Recital 35
Decision of the Administrative Council of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under Article 7 of the Act revising the EPC:
Art. 1
Act revising the Convention on the Grant of European Patents: Art. 3(1), 7(1)
Art. 4(3), 53(c), 53(b), 56, 83, 84, 123(2)(3) EPC
R. 43 EPC
R. 39.1, 67.1 PCT
Art. 2(2) Swiss PatG
§ 5(2) German PatG
Section 4(2) UK Patents Act 1977
Art. 52-57, 52(2), (3), (4), 53(b), 84, 112(1), 177(1) EPC 1973

G 2/07

Decision of 09.12.2010

OJ EPO 2012, 130

 

"Broccoli/PLANT BIOSCIENCE"

Admissibility of referrals - yes - Applicable law - Article 33(1)(b) EPC and substantive patent law - Protection of 'legitimate expectations' - Rule 26(5) EPC and Article 2(2) Biotech Directive as exhaustive definitions - yes - 'Crossing' and 'selection' natural phenomena by way of a legal fiction - no

Legislative history of Article 2(2) Biotech Directive - Contradictory meaning of the provision - No guidance on the interpretation of the term 'essentially biological process for the production of plants' in Article 53(b) EPC - Meaning of that exclusion: production of plants vs. plant varieties - 'production' vs. 'Züchtung' and 'obtention' (not decided) - Interpretation of 'essentially biological': The Article 52(4) EPC 1973 analogy (no) - the computer-related inventions approach (no) - the T 320/87 approach - criteria linked to the state of the art (no) - The systematic context of Article 53(b) EPC - the legislative history of the SPC and the EPC 1973 - Conclusions from legislative history: Exclusion of processes based on sexual crossing of whole genomes and on subsequent selection of plants (yes) - Addition of technical step serving the performance of the process steps - not sufficient to escape exclusion - Inclusion within that process of a step by itself modifying the genome of the plant produced - process not excluded from patentability

 

Art. 31(1), 32 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Art. 4G Paris Convention

Art. 2b Strasbourg Patent Convention

International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention)

European Union:

Art. 2(2), 7, recitals 17, 33 Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions

Transitional provisions:

Art. 1(1) Decision of the Administrative Council of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under Article 7 of the Act revising the EPC

Art. 2 Decision of the Administrative Council of 7 December 2006 amending the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention 2000

Point 19, explanatory notes to Rule 23b(5) Notice dated 1 July 1999 concerning the amendment of the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention

Art. 52, 52(1), (2), (3), 53, 53(b), 83, 164(2) EPC

R. 26(1), (2), (3), (5), 27(c) EPC

Art. 33(1)(b), 52, 52(4), 53(b), 76, 83, 164(2) EPC 1973

R. 23c(c), 23b(1), (5), 25(1), 28 EPC 1973

G 1/08

Decision of 09.12.2010

OJ EPO 2012, 206

 

"Tomatoes/STATE OF ISRAEL"

 

Art. 31(1), 32 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Art. 4G Paris Convention

Art. 2b Strasbourg Patent Convention

International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention)

European Union:

Art. 2(2), 7, recitals 17, 33 Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions

Transitional provisions:

Art. 1(1) Decision of the Administrative Council of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under Article 7 of the Act revising the EPC

Art. 2 Decision of the Administrative Council of 7 December 2006 amending the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention 2000

Point 19, explanatory notes to Rule 23b(5) Notice dated 1 July 1999 concerning the amendment of the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention

Art. 52, 52(1), (2), (3), 53, 53(b), 83, 164(2) EPC

R. 26 (1), (2), (3), (5), 27(c) EPC

Art. 33(1)(b), 52, 52(4), 53(b), 76, 83, 164(2) EPC 1973

R. 23c(c), 23b(1), (5), 25(1), 28 EPC 1973

G 2/08
Interlocutory decision of 15.06.2009
OJ EPO, not to be published in OJ EPO

 


 

Art. 24 EPC
Art. 4 RPEBA
Art. 24 EPC 1973

G 2/08
Decision of 19.02.2010
OJ EPO 2010, 456

 

"Dosage regime/ABBOTT RESPIRATORY"

Admissibility of referral (yes) - Applicable law - Rules of interpretation of the EPC as an international treaty - Respective domains of prohibition under Art. 53(c) EPC and permission under Art. 54(4) and (5) EPC) - Intention of the legislator - Notional novelty concept under Art. 54(4) and (5) EPC - Meaning of any "specific use" under Art. 54(5) EPC - Technical effect of a specific use - Abolition of so called Swiss-type claims -- Time limit set for applicants to comply

 

Art. 53(c), 54(4)(5) EPC
Art. 52(4), 54(5) EPC 1973
Art. 31, 32 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

G 3/08
Interlocutory decision of 16.10.2009
OJ EPO, not to be published in OJ EPO

 



Objection to a member of the EBA, suspicion of partiality

 

Art. 24 EPC
Art. 4 RPBA
Art. 24 EPC 1973

G 3/08
Decision of 12.05.2010
OJ EPO 2011, 10

 

"Programs for computers"

 

Art. 31 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Art. 52(1) EPC 1973
Art. 4(2)(3), 10 ff., 15, 21-23, 24(4), 31, 52, 56, 112(1), 112a, 123(3), 177(1) EPC
Art. 4(1), 10 RPEBA
Art. 20(1) RPBA

G 4/08
Decision of 16.02.2010
OJ EPO 2010, 572

 

"Language of the proceedings/MERIAL"

Language of the proceedings

 

Art. 14(1) (3), 153 EPC
R. 3, 4, 157(2), 159 EPC
Art. 14(1)(3), 150(3), 153, 158 EPC 1973
R. 1, 2, 107(1) a) EPC 1973
Art. 3(4), 22, 23 PCT
R. 12(1), 49(1)(2) PCT

G 1/09
Decision of 27.09.2010
OJ EPO 2011, 336

 

Pending application/SONY

Pending application – Definition –
Divisional application – Appeal period

 

Art. 112(1) EPC
R. 36(1), 111(1) EPC
Art. 22, 23(1) PCT
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, Art. 31, 32
§705 of the German Code of Civil
Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung)
§411 of the Austrian Code of Civil
Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung)
Art. 500 of the French Code of Civil
Procedure (Nouveau Code de Procédure
Civile, NCPC)
Relevant legal provisions (EPC 1973):
Art. 60, 64(1), 67, 67(4), 71, 76,
97(1), 97(4), 106, 108, 125, 150(2),
175(2), 175(3) EPC
R. 13(1), 13(3), 25(1), 29(2), 48(2),
51, 51(4) EPC

G 1/10
Decision of 23.07.2012
OJ EPO 2013,194

 

"Request to correct patent/
FISHER-ROSEMOUNT"

Request under Rule 140 EPC to correct patent inadmissible

 

Art.: 2(2), 19(1), 70(1)(3), 97(1), 100, 109(1), 112(1)a), 113(2), 123(2)(3), 138 EPC

Rule: 71, 91, 95, 103(1)a), 139, 140 EPC

Relevant legal provisions

(EPC 1973):

Rule: 89 EPC

G 2/10
Decision of 30.08.2011
OJ EPO 2012, 376

 

"Disclaimer/SCRIPPS"

Admissibility of referral (yes) – Construction of referred question – term disclaimer – subject-matter instead of embodiment – G 1/03 and G 2/03 relating to disclaimers for disclosed subject-matter (no) – General definition for assessment under Article 123(2) EPC – applicable to disclaimers for disclosed subject-matter (yes) – Point of reference: subject-matter remaining claimed – Technical assessment of overall circumstances of the case required – same test as for positive features – Disclaimed subject-matter disclosed as part of the invention – not relevant – Importance of uniform concept of disclosure and uniform determination of rights derivable therefrom

 

Art. 54(2)(3), 56, 61(1)(b), 76(1), 83, 84, 87(1), 123(2)(3) EPC