Selected decisions
The list of “Selected decisions” alerts users to all newly published decisions for which a headnote or a catchword has been provided by the board. Usually, a board will add a headnote or catchword if it wishes to provide a brief summary of a particular point of law or to draw attention to an important part of the reasons for the decision. The list contains all decisions with a headnote or catchword published in the last three years and can be viewed by year by selecting the year from the menu on the left.
The list below contains all decisions with a headnote or catchword that have been released for publication in the last six months (newest first).
February 2022
New explanation not regarded as an amended case
Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Inventive step - reformulation of the technical problem
Inventive step - main request (no)
Inventive step - auxiliary request (yes)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (nein)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - naheliegende Alternative
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag (nein)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hilfsantrag (nein)
Spät eingereichter Antrag - divergierende Anspruchsfassungen
Spät eingereichter Antrag - eingereicht in der mündlichen Verhandlung
Spät eingereichter Antrag - zugelassen (nein)
Novelty - Main request (no)
Inventive step - First auxiliary request (no)
Late-filed request - second and third auxiliary requests not admitted in first instance proceedings
Late-filed request - not admissible
Novelty - implicit disclosure (no)
Inventive step - (yes)
Grounds for opposition - late-filed ground for opposition
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
I. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC?
II. If question I is answered in the affirmative
Can a party B validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT-application for the purpose of claiming priority rights under Article 87(1) EPC
in the case where
1) a PCT-application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States, including regional European patent protection and
2) the PCT-application claims priority from an earlier patent application that designates party A as the applicant and
3) the priority claimed in the PCT-application is in compliance with Article 4 of the Paris Convention?
Priority
Correction of error
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
I. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC?
II. If question I is answered in the affirmative
Can a party B validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT-application for the purpose of claiming priority rights under Article 87(1) EPC
in the case where
1) a PCT-application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States, including regional European patent protection and
2) the PCT-application claims priority from an earlier patent application that designates party A as the applicant and
3) the priority claimed in the PCT-application is in compliance with Article 4 of the Paris Convention?
Priority
Correction of error
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal
January 2022
Sufficiency of disclosure
Novelty
Inventive step
Ausreichende Offenbarung - (ja)
Änderungen - Erweiterung über den Inhalt der Anmeldung in der eingereichten Fassung hinaus (nein)
Neuheit - (ja)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (ja)
Spät vorgebrachte Argumente - zugelassen (ja)
Spät eingereichte Beweismittel - Umstände der Beschwerdesache rechtfertigen Zulassung (nein)
Angefochtene Entscheidung - ausreichend begründet (nein)
Wesentlicher Verfahrensmangel - Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr (ja)
Decision in written proceedings without oral proceedings - (yes)
Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes)
Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (yes)