2. Right of priority of the applicant or its successor in title
  1. Home
  2. Legal texts
  3. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
  4. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office
  5. II. Patent application and amendments
  6. D. Priority
  7. 2. Right of priority of the applicant or its successor in title
  8. 2.6. Not all applicants for priority application named in subsequent application
  9. 2.6.2 No agreement can be implied
Print
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

2.6. Not all applicants for priority application named in subsequent application

Overview

2.6.2 No agreement can be implied

According to the Enlarged Board in G 1/22 and G 2/22, no agreement can be implied in the situation underlying T 844/18 because an agreement (regardless its form) can only be held against parties who were involved in the facts establishing the agreement. Co-applicants for the priority application who were not involved in the subsequent application may not be deemed to have consented to the reliance on the priority right by the other co-applicants. However, the subsequent applicant may still be entitled to claim priority since the rebuttable presumption of entitlement does not depend on whether the involved applicants acted as co-applicants at any stage (G 1/22 and G 2/22, point 128 of the Reasons, see also in this chapter II.D.2.5.5).

Previous
Next
Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility