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. EPC1973Art 52(1), EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 54(5), EPC1973Art 52, EPC1973Art 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. EPC1973Art 108, third sentence, EPC1973Art 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 EPC1973Reg 58(4) – Application of Rule EPC1973Reg 58(4) – Art. EPC1973Art 102(3), 107 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 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. EPC1973Art 99(4), 112(1)(a) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 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. EPC1973Art 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. EPC1973Art 112(1)(a) and EPC1973Art 112(1)(b), EPC1973Art 154(3) EPC Art. 17(3)(a) PCT R. PCR 13, PCR 33, PCR 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. EPC1973Art 112(1)(b), EPC1973Art 154(3) EPC Art. 17(3)(a) PCT R. PCR 13, PCR 33, PCR 40 PCT
G 3/89 Opinion of 19.11.1992 OJ EPO 1993, 117	"Correction under Rule EPC1973Reg 88, second sentence, EPC" – Correction of the parts of a European patent application or of a European patent relating to the disclosure – Art. EPC1973Art 100(c), 117(1), 123(1), EPC1973Art 123(2), EPC1973Art 138(1)(c) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 86, 88, second sentence, EPC (see however R. 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. EPC1973Art 102(4), EPC1973Art 102(5), EPC1973Art 106, 112(1)(b) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 21 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 9(3) EPC
G 1/91 Decision of 09.12.1991 OJ EPO 1992, 253	"Unity/SIEMENS" – Unity in opposition – legally irrelevant – Art. EPC1973Art 82, 102(3) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 107 EPC
G 3/91 Decision of 07.09.1992 OJ EPO 1993, 8	"Re-establishment of rights/FABRITIUS II" – Applicability of Article EPC1973Art 122(5) EPC to the time limits under Rule EPC1973Reg 104b(1)(b) and EPC1973Reg 104b(1)(c) EPC (EPCReg 107(1)(c) and EPCReg 107(1)(e) EPC) together with Articles EPC1973Art 157(2)(b) and EPC1973Art 158(2) EPC – Art. EPC1973Art 78(2), 79(2), 122(5), 157(2)(b), EPC1973Art 158(2) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 104b(1)(b), EPC1973Reg 104b(1)(c) EPC (EPCReg 107(1)(c), EPCReg 107(1)(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. EPC1973Art 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. EPC1973Art 19(2), 24 EPC
G 6/91 Decision of 06.03.1992 OJ EPO 1992, 491	"Fee reduction/ASULAB" – Entitlement to fee reduction – Art. EPC1973Art 14(2) and EPC1973Art 14(4) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 113(2), 114(1) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 113(2), 114(1) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 101, 102, 110, 114 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 99 to EPC1973Art 102, 110, 114 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 55, 56, 66 EPC
G 11/91 Decision of 19.11.1992 OJ EPO 1993, 125	"Glu–Gln/CELTRIX" – Correction of errors – Art. EPC1973Art 100(c), 117(1), 123(1), EPC1973Art 123(2), EPC1973Art 138(1)(c) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 86 and EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 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. EPC1973Art 82 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 60, 61, 167 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 13, 14, 15, 16 EPC Art. EPCRec 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. EPC1973Art 113(1), 114(1), EPC1973Art 114(2) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 71(2) EPC
G 5/92 Decision of 27.09.1993 OJ EPO 1994, 22	"Re-establishment/HOUPT" – Applicability of Article EPC1973Art 122(5) EPC – Art. EPC1973Art 122(5) EPC
G 6/92 Decision of 27.09.1993 OJ EPO 1994, 25	"Re-establishment/DURIRON" – Applicability of Article EPC1973Art 122(5) EPC – Art. EPC1973Art 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. EPC1973Art 101(2), 107, 111, 114(1) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Reg 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 EPC 1973 and Art. 123, paragraphs 3 EPC 1973, EPC – Art. EPC1973Art 123(2), EPC1973Art 123(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. EPC1973Art 83 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 54(2), 87 to EPC1973Art 89 EPC
G 5/93 Decision of 18.01.1994 OJ EPO 1994, 447	"Re-establishment/NELLCOR" – Applicability of Article EPC1973Art 122(5) EPC – Art. EPC1973Art 122(5), 150, 157(2)(b), EPC1973Art 158(2) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 104b(1)(b) EPC (EPCReg 107(1)(c) EPC)
G 7/93 Decision of 13.05.1994 OJ EPO 1994, 775	"Late amendments/WHITBY II" – Amendments after a Rule EPC1973Reg 51(6) communication – discretion of Examining Divisions – Reservations under Article EPC1973Art 167(2) EPC – Art. EPC1973Art 96(2), 113(2), 123(1), 167(2) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 51(4), EPC1973Reg 51(6), EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 114(1) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 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. EPC1973Art 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. EPC1973Art 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. EPC1973Art 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. EPC1973Art 99, 100(a), EPC1973Art 100(b), EPC1973Art 100(c), EPC1973Art 114(1) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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 EPC1973Reg 88 EPC (no) – Art. EPC1973Art 14(1), EPC1973Art 14(2), EPC1973Art 80(d), 87(2), 100(c), EPC1973Art 123(2), 138(1)(c), EPC1973Art 164(2) EPC Art. 4A(2) Paris Convention R. EPC1973Reg 88 EPC R. PCR 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. EPC1973Art 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. EPC1973Art 116, 117, 133, 134 EPC
G 6/95 Decision of 24.07.1996 OJ EPO 1996, 649	"Interpretation of Rule EPC1973Reg 71a(1) EPC/GE CHEMICALS" – Interpretation of Rule EPC1973Reg 71a(1) EPC vis-à-vis the boards of appeal – Art. EPC1973Art 23, 33(1)(b), EPC1973Art 112(1)(a), EPC1973Art 164(2) EPC Art. 11(2), 18 RPBA R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 99, 100(a), EPC1973Art 100(b), EPC1973Art 100(c), EPC1973Art 114(1) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 21(3) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 21, 23(1), EPC1973Art 23(3), EPC1973Art 24, 106(1), 110(1), 111(1), EPC1973Art 113, 114, 116, 121, 122, 125, 127 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 10(2), 11, 65(1), 66(2), 67, 89, 90, 92(1), EPC1973Reg 92(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. EPC1973Art 112(1)(a), EPC1973Art 108 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 99 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 99 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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 EPC1973Art 64(2) EPC not relevant for examination of product claims – Art. EPC1973Art 52, 53(b), 54, 64(2) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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 EPC1973Art 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. EPC1973Art 54(2), EPC1973Art 54(3), EPC1973Art 56, 60(2), 83, 84, EPC1973Art 87(1), EPC1973Art 87(4), 88(2), EPC1973Art 88(3), EPC1973Art 88(4), EPC1973Art 89, EPC1973Art 93, EPC1973Art 112(1)(b), EPC1973Art 123(2), EPC1973Art 123(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 EPC1973Art 55 EPC – relevant date – date of actual filing of the application – Art. EPC1973Art 54(2), EPC1973Art 54(3), EPC1973Art 55(1)(a), EPC1973Art 56, 89, EPC1973Art 112(1)(a) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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 EPC1973Art 67 EPC – Deemed withdrawal takes effect upon expiry of the time limit for payment of designation fees – Art. EPC1973Art 66, 67, 76, 79, 80, 90, 91, 112 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 15, 25, 85a, EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 100, EPC1973Art 101(1), EPC1973Art 102(1), EPC1973Art 102(2), EPC1973Art 102(3), EPC1973Art 106(1), 107, 108, EPC1973Art 112(1)(a), EPC1973Art 114(1), EPC1973Art 123(2) EPC1973Art 123(3), 125 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 57a, EPC1973Reg 58(2), EPC1973Reg 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 EPC1973Art 55 EPC – relevant date – date of actual filing of the application – Art. EPC1973Art 54(2), EPC1973Art 54(3), EPC1973Art 55(1)(a), EPC1973Art 56, 89, EPC1973Art 112(1)(a) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 58, 99, EPC1973Art 99(1), EPC1973Art 104, 107, EPC1973Art 110(1), EPC1973Art 112(1)(a), EPC1973Art 133, EPC1973Art 133(4), EPC1973Art 134 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 1, EPC1973Reg 26(2)(c), EPC1973Reg 36(3), EPC1973Reg 55, EPC1973Reg 55(a), EPC1973Reg 56(2), EPC1973Reg 60(2), EPC1973Reg 66(1), EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 10(2)(a), EPC1973Art 10(2)(i), EPC1973Art 15, EPC1973Art 18(2), EPC1973Art 19, EPC1973Art 19(1), EPC1973Art 19(2), EPC1973Art 21, EPC1973Art 21(3)(a), EPC1973Art 21(3)(b), EPC1973Art 21(3)(c), EPC1973Art 21(4), EPC1973Art 33(3), EPC1973Art 90, 91, EPC1973Art 91(3), EPC1973Art 99(1), EPC1973Art 102(5), EPC1973Art 106, EPC1973Art 112(1)(b), EPC1973Art 164(2) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 9, EPC1973Reg 9(3), EPC1973Reg 51(4), EPC1973Reg 55(c), EPC1973Reg 56(1), EPC1973Reg 56(2), EPC1973Reg 56(3), EPC1973Reg 57(1), EPC1973Reg 69(1), EPC1973Reg 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 1973 – The position under the PCT – The EPO not party to TRIPS – Interpretation of Article 87 EPC 1973 – according to principles of public international law – in the light of obligations of contracting states under TRIPS – Art. EPC1973Art 23(3), EPC1973Art 33, EPC1973Art 66, EPC1973Art 87(1) and EPC1973Art 87(5), 88, EPC1973Art 112(1)(a), EPC1973Art 150(2), EPC1973Art 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) EPC 1973 and EPC1973Art 54(3)/EPC1973Art 54(4) – accidental anticipation – exclusion of subjectmatter not eligible for patent protection Drafting of disclaimers – requirements of clarity and conciseness – Art. EPC1973Art 52, EPC1973Art 53, EPC1973Art 54(2), EPC1973Art 54(3) and EPC1973Art 54(4), EPC1973Art 56, EPC1973Art 57, EPC1973Art 60(2), EPC1973Art 84, EPC1973Art 87(1), EPC1973Art 112(1), EPC1973Art 123(2) and EPC1973Art 123(3), EPC1973Art 139(2) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 27(1)(b), EPC1973Reg 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) EPC 1973 and EPC1973Art 54(3)/EPC1973Art 54(4) – accidental anticipation – exclusion of subjectmatter not eligible for patent protection Drafting of disclaimers – requirements of clarity and conciseness – Art. EPC1973Art 52, EPC1973Art 53, EPC1973Art 54(2), EPC1973Art 54(3) and EPC1973Art 54(4), EPC1973Art 56, EPC1973Art 57, EPC1973Art 60(2), EPC1973Art 84, EPC1973Art 87(1), EPC1973Art 112(1), EPC1973Art 123(2) and EPC1973Art 123(3), EPC1973Art 139(2) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 27(1)(b), EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 21, EPC1973Art 106, EPC1973Art 107, EPC1973Art 108, EPC1973Art 109, EPC1973Art 111(1) and EPC1973Art 112(1) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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 1973 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 1973 – 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 1973 – 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. EPC1973Art 4(3), EPC1973Art 52(1), EPC1973Art 52(2), EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 57, EPC1973Art 84, EPC1973Art 112(1)(b) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 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. EPC1973Art 58, EPC1973Art 99(1), EPC1973Art 105, EPC1973Art 107, EPC1973Art 108, EPC1973Art 112(1)(a), EPC1973Art 114(2), EPC1973Art 134 EPC R. EPC1973Reg 20, EPC1973Reg 60(2), EPC1973Reg 61, EPC1973Reg 64(a), EPC1973Reg 65(2), EPC1973Reg 88, EPC1973Reg 101(1), EPC1973Reg 101(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. EPC1973Art 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 1973 – 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. EPC1973Art 24(1), EPC1973Art 24(2), EPC1973Art 24(3), EPC1973Art 24(4), EPC1973Art 76(1), EPC1973Art 105(1), EPC1973Art 112(1)(a), EPC1973Art 123(2) EPC R. EPC1973Reg 66(2)(g) EPC RPEBA Art. 1(2) RPBA Art. 13, third sentence, 15 Business distribution scheme EBA 2006 Art. 2(3) ECHR Art. 6(1) Rules of Court ECHR R. 28(2)(a), (d), (3) Federal Constitution (AT) Art. 87(3) Federal Constitution (CH) Art. 30(1) Federal Constitution (DE) Art. 101(1) 2 Jurisdiktionsnorm (AT) § 20 Patentgesetz (AT) § 76 Zivilprozessordnung (DE) § 41 Codice di procedura civile (IT) Art. 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 1973 on filing a divisional application (no) – Amendment to conform with Article 76(1) EPC 1973: 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. EPC1973Art 54(3), EPC1973Art 75(2), EPC1973Art 76(1), , EPC1973Art 76(2), , EPC1973Art 76(3), EPC1973Art 77(5), EPC1973Art 82, EPC1973Art 96(2), EPC1973Art 97(1), EPC1973Art 100(c), EPC1973Art 102(3), EPC1973Art 112(1)(a), EPC1973Art 113(1), EPC1973Art 123(1), , EPC1973Art 123(2), EPC1973Art 138(1)(c) and EPC1973Art 138(2) R. EPC1973Reg 25(1), EPC1973Reg 25(2), EPC1973Reg 51(2), EPC1973Reg 86(3) EPC1973Reg 86(4) 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 1973 on filing a divisional application (no) – Amendment to conform with Article 76(1) EPC 1973: 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. EPC1973Art 54(3), EPC1973Art 75(2), EPC1973Art 76(1), EPC1973Art 76(2), EPC1973Art 76(3), EPC1973Art 77(5), EPC1973Art 82, EPC1973Art 96(2), EPC1973Art 97(1), EPC1973Art 100(c), EPC1973Art 102(3), EPC1973Art 112(1)(a), EPC1973Art 113(1), EPC1973Art 123(1), , EPC1973Art 123(2), EPC1973Art 138(1)(c) and EPC1973Art 138(2) R. EPC1973Reg 25(1), EPC1973Reg 25(2), EPC1973Reg 51(2), EPC1973Reg 86(3), EPC1973Reg 86(4) 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. EPCArt 23(3), EPCArt 53(a), EPCArt 164(2) R. EPCReg 26, EPCReg 26(1), EPCReg 28, EPCReg 28(c), EPCReg 29 EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 53(a),EPC1973Art 112(1)(a) R. EPC1973Reg 23b, EPC1973Reg 23b(1), EPC1973Reg 23d, EPC1973Reg 23d(c), EPC1973Reg 23e Consolidated version of the Treaty establishing the European Community, in force since 1 February 2003 under the Treaty of Nice signed 26 February 2001: Art. 234 Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998: Art. 6, 6(1), 6(2), 6(2)(c), Recital 42 TRIPS: Art. 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 – Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Art. 31, 32 TRIPS: Art. 27.3(a) 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) EPC: Art. EPCArt 4(3), EPCArt 53(b), EPCArt 53(c), EPCArt 56, EPCArt 83, EPCArt 84, EPCArt 123(2), EPCArt 123(3) R. EPCReg 43 PCT R. PCR 39.1, PCR 67.1 Swiss PatG: Art. 2(2) German PatG: § 5(2) UK Patents Act 1977: Section 4(2) EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 52-EPC1973Art 57, EPC1973Art 52(2), EPC1973Art 52(3), EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 53(b), EPC1973Art 84, EPC1973Art 112(1), EPC1973Art 177(1)
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 – Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Art. 31(1), 32 Paris Convention: Art. 4G Strasbourg Patent Convention: Art. 2b International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention) Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions: Art. 2(2), 7, recitals 17, 33 Decision of the Administrative Council of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under Article 7 of the Act revising the EPC: Art. 1(1) Decision of the Administrative Council of 7 December 2006 amending the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention 2000: Art. 2 Notice dated 1 July 1999 concerning the amendment of the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention: Point 19, explanatory notes to Rule 23b(5) EPC: Art. EPCArt 52, EPCArt 52(1), EPCArt 52(2), EPCArt 52(3), EPCArt 53, EPCArt 53(b), EPCArt 83, EPCArt 164(2) R. EPCReg 26 (1), EPCReg 26(2), EPCReg 26(3), EPCReg 26(5), EPCReg 27(c) EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 33(1)(b), EPC1973Art 52, EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 53(b), EPC1973Art 76, EPC1973Art 83, EPC1973Art 164(2) R. EPC1973Reg 23c(c), EPC1973Reg 23b(1), EPC1973Reg 23b(5), EPC1973Reg 25(1), EPC1973Reg 28
G 1/08 Decision of 09.12.2010 OJ EPO 2012, 206	"Tomatoes/STATE OF ISRAEL" (Keywords: see G 2/07) – Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Art. 31(1), 32 Paris Convention: Art. 4G Strasbourg Patent Convention: Art. 2b International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention) Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions: Art. 2(2), 7, recitals 17, 33 Decision of the Administrative Council of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under Article 7 of the Act revising the EPC: Art. 1(1) Decision of the Administrative Council of 7 December 2006 amending the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention 2000: Art. 2 Notice dated 1 July 1999 concerning the amendment of the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention: Point 19, explanatory notes to Rule 23b(5) EPC: Art. EPCArt 52, EPCArt 52(1), EPCArt 52(2), EPCArt 52(3), EPCArt 53, EPCArt 53(b), EPCArt 83, EPCArt 164(2) R. EPCReg 26 (1), EPCReg 26(2), EPCReg 26(3), EPCReg 26(5), EPCReg 27(c) EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 33(1)(b), EPC1973Art 52, EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 53(b), EPC1973Art 76, EPC1973Art 83, EPC1973Art 164(2) R. EPC1973Reg 23c(c), EPC1973Reg 23b(1), EPC1973Reg 23b(5), EPC1973Reg 25(1), EPC1973Reg 28
G 2/08 Interlocutory decision of 15.06.2009 OJ EPO, not published	– – Art. EPCArt 24 RPEBA: Art. 4 EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 24
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. EPCArt 53(c), EPCArt 54(4), EPCArt 54(5) EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 54(5) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Art. 31, 32
G 3/08 Interlocutory decision of 16.10.2009 OJ EPO, not published	– Objection to a member of the EBA, suspicion of partiality – Art. EPCArt 24 RPBA: Art. 4 EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 24
G 3/08 Decision of 12.05.2010 OJ EPO 2011, 10	"Programs for computers" – – Art. 31 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 52(1) Art. EPCArt 4(2), EPCArt 4(3), EPCArt 10 ff., EPCArt 15, EPCArt 21- EPCArt 23, EPCArt 24(4), EPCArt 31, EPCArt 52, EPCArt 56, EPCArt 112(1), EPCArt 112a, EPCArt 123(3), EPCArt 177(1) RPEBA: Art. 4(1), 10 RPBA: Art. 20(1)
G 4/08 Decision of 16.02.2010 OJ EPO 2010, 572	"Language of the proceedings/MERIAL" – Language of the proceedings – Art. EPCArt 14(1), EPCArt 14(3), EPCArt 153 R. EPCReg 3, EPCReg 4, EPCReg 157(2), EPCReg 159 EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 14(1), , EPC1973Art 14(3), EPC1973Art 150(3), EPC1973Art 153, EPC1973Art 158 EPC 1973: R. EPC1973Reg 1, EPC1973Reg 2, EPC1973Reg 107(1)(a) PCT: Art. 3(4) PCT, Art. 22 PCT, Art. 23 PCT R. PCR 12(1), PCR 49(1), PCR 49(2)
G 1/09 Decision of 27.09.2010 OJ EPO 2011, 336	"Pending application/SONY" – Pending application - Definition – Divisional application – Appeal period – Art. EPCArt 112(1) R. EPCReg 36(1), EPCReg 111(1) PCT: Art. 22 PCT, Art. 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) EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 60, EPC1973Art 64(1), EPC1973Art 67, EPC1973Art 67(4), EPC1973Art 71, EPC1973Art 76, EPC1973Art 97(1), EPC1973Art 97(4), EPC1973Art 106, EPC1973Art 108, EPC1973Art 125, EPC1973Art 150(2), EPC1973Art 175(2), EPC1973Art 175(3) R. EPC1973Reg 13(1), EPC1973Reg 13(3), EPC1973Reg 25(1), EPC1973Reg 29(2), EPC1973Reg 48(2), EPC1973Reg 51, EPC1973Reg 51(4)
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. EPCArt 2(2), EPCArt 19(1), EPCArt 70(1), EPCArt 70(3), EPCArt 97(1), EPCArt 100, EPCArt 109(1), EPCArt 112(1)a), EPCArt 113(2), EPCArt 123(2), EPCArt 123(3), EPCArt 138 R. EPCReg 71, EPCReg 91, EPCReg 95, EPCReg 103(1)a), EPCReg 139, EPCReg 140 Relevant legal provisions (EPC 1973): R. EPC1973Reg 89
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. EPCArt 54(2), EPCArt 54(3), EPCArt 56, EPCArt 61(1)(b), EPCArt 76(1), EPCArt 83, EPCArt 84, EPCArt 87(1), EPCArt 123(2), EPCArt 123(3) EPC
G 1/11 Decision of 19.03.2014 OJ EPO 2014, A122	"Non-refund of further search fees/BAUER" – Appeal against decision of examining division refusing request for refund of search fees under Rule 64(2) EPC – Competence of technical board of appeal – Art. EPCArt 17, EPCArt 21(2), EPCArt 21(3), EPCArt 21(4), EPCArt 82, EPCArt 112(1)(a) R. EPCReg 44, EPCReg 64(2), EPCReg 112(2) EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 154(3) EPC 1973: R. EPC1973Reg 46(2), EPC1973Reg 9(3) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Art. 31, 32
G 1/12 Decision of 30.04.2014 OJ EPO 2014, A114	"Identity of the appellant" – Admissibility of the appeal – Identity of the appellant – Notice of appeal filed in name of person not entitled to appeal – Error alleged in identity – Deficiency under Rule 101(2) EPC and Rule 99(1)(a) EPC – Correction of an error under Rule 139, first sentence, EPC – Art. EPCArt 14(4), EPCArt 106, EPCArt 107, EPCArt 108, EPCArt 109, EPCArt 112(1), EPCArt 133(2) and EPCArt 133(3) R. EPCReg 5, second sentence, EPCReg 41(2)(c), EPCReg 76(1) and EPCReg 76(2), EPCReg 99(1), EPCReg 100(1), EPCReg 101(1) and EPCReg 101(2), EPCReg 109, first sentence, EPCReg 116(1), EPCReg 131(2), second sentence, EPCReg 132(2), first sentence, EPCReg 137(1), EPCReg 139, first sentence EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 107 EPC 1973: R. EPC1973Reg 43, EPC1973Reg 66(1), EPC1973Reg 65(2), EPC1973Reg 71a(1), EPC1973Reg 88, first sentence
G 2/12 Decision of 25.03.2015 OJ EPO 2016, A27	"Tomatoes II" – Admissibility of referrals by the board of appeal (yes) – point of law of fundamental importance (yes) – effect of Article 53(b) EPC on the allowability of a product claim or a product-by-process claim directed to plants or plant material – essentially biological process for the production of plants – nterpretation of exclusion from patentability – rules of interpretation – dynamic interpretation (no) – legal erosion of the exception to patentability (no) – Art. EPCArt 52, EPCArt 53, EPCArt 54, EPCArt 56, EPCArt 57, EPCArt 64(2), EPCArt 69, EPCArt 100(a), EPCArt 112(1)(a), EPCArt 125, EPCArt 150(2), EPCArt 164, EPCArt 177 R. EPCReg 26, EPCReg 27(b), EPCReg 27(c), EPCReg 28(c) EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 53(b) EPC 1973: R. EPC1973Reg 23b(5), EPC1973Reg 23c, EPC1973Reg 23d RPEBA: Art. 13, 14(2) Decision AC of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under Art. 7 of the Act revising the EPC: Art. 1(1) Decision AC of 7 December 2006 amending the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention 2000: Art. 2 VCLT: Art. 4, 31(1), (3), 32 UPOV Convention 1961: Art. 2 UPOV Convention 1991: Art. 14(1), (2) Strasbourg Convention: Art. 2 Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions: Art. 2, 3, 4, 6(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights: Art. 5(3), 13(2) Germany: Patentgesetz 1936 (2013), § 2a France: Loi n° 2004-1338 relative à la protection des inventions biotechnologiques Art. L. 611-19 The Netherlands: Rijksoctrooiwet 1995 (2014), Art. 3 Austria: Patentgesetz 1970 (2014), § 2(2) Switzerland: Bundesgesetz über die Erfindungspatente 1954 (2012), § 2(2) United Kingdom: Patents Act 1977 (2014), Section 76a and Schedule A2
G 1/13 Decision of 25.11.2014 OJ EPO 2015, A42	"Fischer-Tropsch Catalysts/SASOL TECHNOLOGY II" – Admissibility of referral (yes) – Opponent company ceasing to exist under national law – Retrospective restoration of opponent company to existence under national law – Recognition by EPO of retrospective restoration of opponent company to existence under national law (yes) – Opposition proceedings to be continued by restored opponent company (yes) – Admissibility of appeal (yes) – Art. EPCArt 99(1), EPCArt 112(1), EPCArt 121 and EPCArt 122 R. EPCReg 152(8)
G 2/13 Decision of 25.03.2015 OJ EPO 2016, A28	"Broccoli II" – Admissibility of referrals by the board of appeal (yes) – point of law of fundamental importance (yes) – effect of Article 53(b) EPC on the allowability of a product claim or a product-by-process claim directed to plants or plant material – essentially biological process for the production of plants – interpretation of exclusion from patentability – rules of interpretation – dynamic interpretation (no) – legal erosion of the exception to patentability (no) – Art. EPCArt 52, EPCArt 53, EPCArt 54, EPCArt 56, EPCArt 57, EPCArt 64(2), EPCArt 69, EPCArt 100(a), EPCArt 112(1)(a), EPCArt 125, EPCArt 150(2), EPCArt 164, EPCArt 177 R. EPCReg 26, EPCReg 27(b), EPCReg 27(c), EPCReg 28(c) EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 53(b) EPC 1973: R. EPC1973Reg 23b(5), EPC1973Reg 23c, EPC1973Reg 23d RPEBA: Art. 13, 14(2) Decision AC of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under Art. 7 of the Act revising the EPC: Art. 1(1) Decision AC of 7 December 2006 amending the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention 2000: Art. 2 VCLT: Art. 4, 31(1), (3), 32 UPOV Convention 1961: Art. 2 UPOV Convention 1991: Art. 14(1), (2) Strasbourg Convention: Art. 2 Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions: Art. 2, 3, 4, 6(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights: Art. 5(3), 13(2) Germany: Patentgesetz 1936 (2013), § 2a France: Loi n° 2004-1338 relative à la protection des inventions biotechnologiques: Art. L. 611-19 The Netherlands: Rijksoctrooiwet 1995 (2014), Art. 3 Austria: Patentgesetz 1970 (2014), § 2(2) Switzerland: Bundesgesetz über die Erfindungspatente 1954 (2012), § 2(2) United Kingdom: Patents Act 1977 (2014), Section 76a and Schedule A2
G 1/14 Decision of 19.11.2015 OJ EPO 2016, A95	"Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal" – Admissibility of the referral of a point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no) – Rule 126(1) (as in force until 31 March 2015) – Art. EPCArt 112(1)(a) R. EPCReg 126(1), EPCReg 126(2), EPCReg 126(4) RPEBA Art. 22(2)
G 3/14 Decision of 25.03.2015 OJ EPO 2015, A102	"Examination of clarity objections" – Amendments to claims made by proprietor during the opposition proceedings before the EPO – Whether claims as amended during opposition proceedings required to meet requirements of Article 84 EPC – Meaning of the term “amendments” as used in decision G 9/91 – Meaning of the term “amendments” as used in Article 101(3) EPC – Whether combination of granted claims constitutes an amendment – General ambit of Article 101(3) EPC and the requirements of Article 84 EPC in the case of amended claims – Ambit of Article 101(3) EPC and the requirements of Article 84 EPC in the case of amended claims encompassing insertion of elements of dependent claims as granted into an independent claim as granted – Ambit of Article 101(3) EPC and the requirements of Article 84 EPC in the case of amended claims encompassing insertion of complete dependent claims as granted into an independent claim as granted – Art. EPCArt 54, EPCArt 56, EPCArt 64, EPCArt 69, 82, EPCArt 83, EPCArt 84, EPCArt 94, EPCArt 97, EPCArt 99, EPCArt 100, EPCArt 101(1), EPCArt 101(2), EPCArt 101(3), EPCArt 105a, EPCArt 111(1), EPCArt 112, EPCArt 114, EPCArt 123(2), EPCArt 123(3), EPCArt 138(1), EPCArt 138(2), EPCArt 138(3) R. EPCReg 43(1), EPCReg 43(3), EPCReg 43(4), EPCReg 80, EPCReg 86, EPCReg 95(2), EPCReg 100(1) RFees: Art. 2, item 15 RFees EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 101(1), EPC1973Art 101(2), EPC1973Art 102(1), EPC1973Art 102(2), EPC1973Art 102(3) EPC 1973: R. EPC1973Reg 29(4), EPC1973Reg 61a Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969: Art. 31, 31(1), 32
G 1/15 Decision of 29.11.2016 OJ EPO 2017, A82	"Partial priority " – Admissibility of referrals by the boards of appeal (yes) – Point of law of fundamental importance (yes) – Priority right – conditions and effects – Partial and multiple priorities – Legal basis and assessment of partial priority – Art. EPCArt 54, EPCArt 76, EPCArt 87, EPCArt 88, EPCArt 89, EPCArt 112(1)(a), EPCArt 123(2) Paris Convention: Art. 4A(1), 4B, 4C, 4F, 4H
G 1/16 Decision of 18.12.2017 OJ EPO 2018, A70	"Disclaimer III" – Allowability of undisclosed disclaimers – Applicability of the gold standard disclosure test as defined in decision G 2/10 to undisclosed disclaimers (no) – Applicability of criteria as defined in decisions G 1/03 and G 2/03 (yes) – Drafting of undisclosed disclaimers – no technical contribution to the claimed subject-matter of the application as filed may be provided – Art. EPCArt 52, EPCArt 53, EPCArt 53(c), EPCArt 54, EPCArt 54(2), EPCArt 54(3), EPCArt 54(4), EPCArt 56, EPCArt 57, EPCArt 69(1), EPCArt 84, EPCArt 87, EPCArt 100(a), EPCArt 100(b), EPCArt 100(c), EPCArt 112(1), EPCArt 112(1)(a), EPCArt 123(1), EPCArt 123(2) R. 115(2) EPC EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 54(3), EPC1973Art 54(4) RPEBA: Art. 9, 10, 13, 14(2), 14(4) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969): Art. 31(1), 32 Switzerland: Bundesgesetz über die Erfindungspatente 1954 (2017): Art 24(1)(c)
G 1/18 Opinion of 18.07.2019 OJ EPO 2020, A26	Filing an appeal – Appeal deemed filed Appeal admissible Appeal fee – reimbursement – Art. EPCArt 108, EPCArt 112(1)(b) EPC R. EPCReg 101(1) EPC EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 108 EPC 1973: R. 65(1) EPC 1973
G 1/19 Decision of 10.03.2021 OJ EPO 2021, A77 not yet published in the OJ EPO, on the EPO website available in the language of proceedings (English)	Pedestrian simulation – "Admissibility of referral - (yes)" "Transitional provisions of the EPC 2000" "Patentability of computer-implemented simulations" – Art. EPCArt 52(1), EPCArt 52(2), EPCArt 52(3), EPCArt 56, EPCArt 112(1)(a) EPC United States: 35 U.S.C. § 101
G 2/19 Decision of 16.07.2019 OJ EPO 2020, A87	"Right to be heard and correct venue for oral proceedings" – Right of a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC to oral proceedings on appeal against a lack of clarity in granted patent claims (no) – Examination by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the grounds for admissibility of a referral under Article 112(1)(a) EPC – Suspensive effect of an appeal filed by a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC against a lack of clarity in granted patent claims (no) – A means of redress is clearly inadmissible where a person without standing to file an appeal (here: a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC) relies on a grievance not recognised under the EPC (here: a lack of clarity to be removed from the patent claims for the purposes of Article 84 EPC) – Oral proceedings before the boards of appeal in Haar (permissible) – Art. EPCArt 6(2), EPCArt 15, EPCArt 16, EPCArt 17, EPCArt 84 second sentence EPC, EPCArt 106, EPCArt 107, EPCArt 112(1)(a), EPCArt 113, EPCArt 115, EPCArt 116(1) first sentence EPC
G 3/19 Opinion of 14.05.2020 OJ EPO 2020, A119	"Pepper (follow-up to 'Tomatoes II' and 'Broccoli II'" – Referred point of law re-phrased (yes) – admissibility of referral by the President of the European Patent Office (yes), after re-phrasing – uniform application of the law (yes) – Point of law of fundamental importance (yes) –different decisions by two Boards of Appeal (yes) – Application of Article 112(1)(b) EPC by analogy (no) – Rules of interpretation – Hierarchy of norms – Conflicting provisions - no of laws – Dynamic interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC (yes) – Impact of Rule 28(2) EPC on interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC (yes) – Exception to patentability of product claims or product-by-process claims directed to plants, plant material or animals, if the claimed product is exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process or if the claimed process features define an essentially biological process (yes) – Applicability of the exception to European patents granted before 1 July 2017 and pending European patent applications filed before that day (no) – Art. EPCArt 4, EPCArt 15, EPCArt 21, EPCArt 22(1)(a) and EPCArt 22(1)(b), EPCArt 23, EPCArt 33, EPCArt 33(1)(b) and EPCArt 33(1)(c), EPCArt 35(3), EPCArt 52(1), EPCArt 53, EPCArt 53(a), EPCArt 53(b), EPCArt 112(1)(a) and EPCArt 112(1)(b), EPCArt 112a, EPCArt 112a(2), EPCArt 164(2), EPCArt 172 R. EPCReg 26(1) and EPCReg 26(5), EPCReg 27(b), EPCReg 28, EPCReg 28(2) EPC 1973: R. 23b EPC 1973 to R. 2323e EPC 1973 RPEBA: Art. 10 RPBA 2020: Art. 21 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969: Art. 31, 32 Treaty of the European Union, consolidated version 2016: Art. 19(3) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: Art. 267, 288 Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions: Art. 1 to 4 Austria: Patentgesetz 1970, § 2(2) Belgium: Code de droit économique - Dispositions relatives au droit d’obtenteur 2013 (2019), Art. XI.5 § 1^er, 3° Germany: Patentgesetz 1936, § 2a France: Code de la propriété intellectuelle, Art. L611-19, Loi n° 2016-1087 du 8 août 2016 pour la reconquête de la biodiversité, de la nature et des paysages Italy: Codice della proprietà industriale (IIPC) 2005, Art. 45.4.b and 81quater(e) The Netherlands: Rijksoctrooiwet 1995, Art. 3 Norway: Lov om patenter (patentloven) 1967 nr 9), Section 1; examination guidelines of the Norwegian Intellectual Property Office, section C, chapter IV, 2a.3.2 Poland: Ustawa z dnia 30 czerwca 2000 r. Prawo własności przemysłowej, Art. 29(1)(ii); Ustawa z dnia 16 października 2019 r. o zmianie ustawy – Prawo własności przemysłowej, Art. 1(4) Portugal: Código da Propriedade Industrial 2018, Art. 52(3)(c), 53(1)(d) to (f) and (2) Serbia: Закон о патентима („Службени гласникРС”, бр. 99/11, 113/17-др. закон, 95/18 и 66/19), Art. 9(3)
G 4/19 Decision of 22.06.2021 OJ EPO 2022, A24	Double patenting – Admissibility of referral - (yes) Interpretation of Article 125 EPC Procedural provision absent from the Convention Supplementary means of interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Legal basis for a refusal under Article 97(2) EPC for double patenting – Art. EPCArt 52(3), EPCArt 54(2), EPCArt 54(3), EPCArt 60(1), EPCArt 63(1), EPCArt 64(1), EPCArt 66, EPCArt 67(1), EPCArt 76(1), EPCArt 79, EPCArt 79(3), EPCArt 87, EPCArt 88, EPCArt 90(5), EPCArt 94, EPCArt 97(2), EPCArt 112, EPCArt 112(1), EPCArt 123(2), EPCArt 123(3), EPCArt 125, EPCArt 139(3), EPCArt 177 EPC EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 64(1), EPC1973Art 67(1), EPC1973Art 87, EPC1973Art 165(1), EPC1973Art 165(2), EPC1973Art 166, EPC1973Art 167 RPEBA Art. 9, 10 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 Art. 11, 12, 14, 15, 31, 31(1), 31(2), 31(2)(a), 31(2)(b), 32, 32(a), 32(b), 33
G 1/21 Decision of 16.07.2021 OJ EPO 2022, A49 not yet published in the OJ EPO, on the EPO website available in the language of proceedings (English)	Oral proceedings by videoconference – Admissibility of referral - (yes) Oral proceedings by videoconference in case of general emergency Role of consent of the parties – Art. EPCArt 24, EPCArt 112(1)(a), EPCArt 113(1), EPCArt 116(1) EPC European Convention on Human Rights: Art. 6 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Art. 31
G 2/21 Decision of 23.03.2023 OJ EPO 2023, A85	Reliance on a purported technical effect for inventive step (plausibility) – "admissibility of referrals" – yes "re-phrasing of the referred questions" – no "extending the scope of the referred questions" – no "principle of free evaluation of evidence" – "exception to the principle required" – no "inventive step" – "reliance on technical effect" – yes, based on the application as originally filed – EPC Art. EPCArt 52(1), EPCArt 54, EPCArt 56, EPCArt 83, EPCArt 100, EPCArt 101(2), EPCArt 106(1), EPCArt 112(1)(a), EPCArt 112(2), EPCArt 113(1), EPCArt 117, EPCArt 125 EPC R. EPCReg 4, EPCReg 117-EPCReg 124, EPCReg 150 RPEBA Art. 9, 10, 13, 14(2) RPBA 2020 Art. 22 Switzerland: Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung), Art. 157 Federal Act on the Federal Patent Court - Patent Court Act (Bundesgesetz über das Bundespatentgericht – Patentgerichtsgesetz), Art. 27 Germany: Patent Act (Patentgesetz), § 93(1) Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung), § 286 The Netherlands: Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering), Art. 152(2)

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. EPCArt 23(3), EPCArt 53(a), EPCArt 164(2)
R. EPCReg 26, EPCReg 26(1), EPCReg 28, EPCReg 28(c), EPCReg 29
EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 53(a),EPC1973Art 112(1)(a)
R. EPC1973Reg 23b, EPC1973Reg 23b(1), EPC1973Reg 23d, EPC1973Reg 23d(c), EPC1973Reg 23e
Consolidated version of the Treaty establishing the European Community, in force since 1 February 2003 under the Treaty of Nice signed 26 February 2001: Art. 234
Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998: Art. 6, 6(1), 6(2), 6(2)(c), Recital 42
TRIPS: Art. 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

–

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Art. 31, 32
TRIPS: Art. 27.3(a)
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)

EPC: Art. EPCArt 4(3), EPCArt 53(b), EPCArt 53(c), EPCArt 56, EPCArt 83, EPCArt 84, EPCArt 123(2), EPCArt 123(3)
R. EPCReg 43
PCT R. PCR 39.1, PCR 67.1
Swiss PatG: Art. 2(2)
German PatG: § 5(2)
UK Patents Act 1977: Section 4(2)
EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 52-EPC1973Art 57, EPC1973Art 52(2), EPC1973Art 52(3), EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 53(b), EPC1973Art 84, EPC1973Art 112(1), EPC1973Art 177(1)

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

–

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

Paris Convention: Art. 4G

Strasbourg Patent Convention: Art. 2b

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPC 1973:

Art. EPC1973Art 33(1)(b), EPC1973Art 52, EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 53(b), EPC1973Art 76, EPC1973Art 83, EPC1973Art 164(2)

R. EPC1973Reg 23c(c), EPC1973Reg 23b(1), EPC1973Reg 23b(5), EPC1973Reg 25(1), EPC1973Reg 28

G 1/08

Decision of 09.12.2010

OJ EPO 2012, 206

"Tomatoes/STATE OF ISRAEL"

(Keywords: see G 2/07)

–

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

Paris Convention: Art. 4G

Strasbourg Patent Convention: Art. 2b

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPC 1973:

Art. EPC1973Art 33(1)(b), EPC1973Art 52, EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 53(b), EPC1973Art 76, EPC1973Art 83, EPC1973Art 164(2)

R. EPC1973Reg 23c(c), EPC1973Reg 23b(1), EPC1973Reg 23b(5), EPC1973Reg 25(1), EPC1973Reg 28

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

–

Art. EPCArt 24
RPEBA: Art. 4
EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 24

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. EPCArt 53(c), EPCArt 54(4), EPCArt 54(5)
EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 54(5)
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Art. 31, 32

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

–
Objection to a member of the EBA, suspicion of partiality

–

Art. EPCArt 24
RPBA: Art. 4
EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 24

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

"Programs for computers"
–

–

Art. 31 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 52(1)

Art. EPCArt 4(2), EPCArt 4(3), EPCArt 10 ff., EPCArt 15, EPCArt 21- EPCArt 23, EPCArt 24(4), EPCArt 31, EPCArt 52, EPCArt 56, EPCArt 112(1), EPCArt 112a, EPCArt 123(3), EPCArt 177(1)
RPEBA: Art. 4(1), 10
RPBA: Art. 20(1)

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

"Language of the proceedings/MERIAL"
–
Language of the proceedings

–

Art. EPCArt 14(1), EPCArt 14(3), EPCArt 153

R. EPCReg 3, EPCReg 4, EPCReg 157(2), EPCReg 159
EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 14(1), , EPC1973Art 14(3), EPC1973Art 150(3), EPC1973Art 153, EPC1973Art 158

EPC 1973: R. EPC1973Reg 1, EPC1973Reg 2, EPC1973Reg 107(1)(a)

PCT: Art. 3(4) PCT, Art. 22 PCT, Art. 23 PCT
R. PCR 12(1), PCR 49(1), PCR 49(2)

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

"Pending application/SONY"
–
Pending application - Definition – Divisional application – Appeal period

–

Art. EPCArt 112(1)

R. EPCReg 36(1), EPCReg 111(1)
PCT: Art. 22 PCT, Art. 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)
EPC 1973:
Art. EPC1973Art 60, EPC1973Art 64(1), EPC1973Art 67, EPC1973Art 67(4), EPC1973Art 71, EPC1973Art 76, EPC1973Art 97(1), EPC1973Art 97(4), EPC1973Art 106, EPC1973Art 108, EPC1973Art 125, EPC1973Art 150(2), EPC1973Art 175(2), EPC1973Art 175(3)
R. EPC1973Reg 13(1), EPC1973Reg 13(3), EPC1973Reg 25(1), EPC1973Reg 29(2), EPC1973Reg 48(2), EPC1973Reg 51, EPC1973Reg 51(4)

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

R. EPCReg 71, EPCReg 91, EPCReg 95, EPCReg 103(1)a), EPCReg 139, EPCReg 140

Relevant legal provisions

(EPC 1973):

R. EPC1973Reg 89

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

G 1/11
Decision of 19.03.2014
OJ EPO 2014, A122

"Non-refund of further search fees/BAUER"
–
Appeal against decision of examining division refusing request for refund of search fees under Rule 64(2) EPC – Competence of technical board of appeal

–

Art. EPCArt 17, EPCArt 21(2), EPCArt 21(3), EPCArt 21(4), EPCArt 82, EPCArt 112(1)(a)

R. EPCReg 44, EPCReg 64(2), EPCReg 112(2)

EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 154(3)

EPC 1973: R. EPC1973Reg 46(2), EPC1973Reg 9(3)

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Art. 31, 32

G 1/12
Decision of 30.04.2014
OJ EPO 2014, A114

"Identity of the appellant"
–
Admissibility of the appeal – Identity of the appellant – Notice of appeal filed in name of person not entitled to appeal – Error alleged in identity – Deficiency under Rule 101(2) EPC and Rule 99(1)(a) EPC – Correction of an error under Rule 139, first sentence, EPC

–

Art. EPCArt 14(4), EPCArt 106, EPCArt 107, EPCArt 108, EPCArt 109, EPCArt 112(1), EPCArt 133(2) and EPCArt 133(3)

R. EPCReg 5, second sentence, EPCReg 41(2)(c), EPCReg 76(1) and EPCReg 76(2), EPCReg 99(1), EPCReg 100(1), EPCReg 101(1) and EPCReg 101(2), EPCReg 109, first sentence, EPCReg 116(1), EPCReg 131(2), second sentence, EPCReg 132(2), first sentence, EPCReg 137(1), EPCReg 139, first sentence

EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 107

EPC 1973: R. EPC1973Reg 43, EPC1973Reg 66(1), EPC1973Reg 65(2), EPC1973Reg 71a(1), EPC1973Reg 88, first sentence

G 2/12
Decision of 25.03.2015

OJ EPO 2016, A27

"Tomatoes II"
–
Admissibility of referrals by the board of appeal (yes) – point of law of fundamental importance (yes) – effect of Article 53(b) EPC on the allowability of a product claim or a product-by-process claim directed to plants or plant material – essentially biological process for the production of plants – nterpretation of exclusion from patentability – rules of interpretation – dynamic interpretation (no) – legal erosion of the exception to patentability (no)

–

Art. EPCArt 52, EPCArt 53, EPCArt 54, EPCArt 56, EPCArt 57, EPCArt 64(2), EPCArt 69, EPCArt 100(a), EPCArt 112(1)(a), EPCArt 125, EPCArt 150(2), EPCArt 164, EPCArt 177

R. EPCReg 26, EPCReg 27(b), EPCReg 27(c), EPCReg 28(c)

EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 53(b)

EPC 1973: R. EPC1973Reg 23b(5), EPC1973Reg 23c, EPC1973Reg 23d

RPEBA: Art. 13, 14(2)

Decision AC of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under Art. 7 of the Act revising the EPC: Art. 1(1)

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

VCLT: Art. 4, 31(1), (3), 32

UPOV Convention 1961: Art. 2

UPOV Convention 1991: Art. 14(1), (2)

Strasbourg Convention: Art. 2

Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions: Art. 2, 3, 4, 6(2)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights: Art. 5(3), 13(2)

Germany: Patentgesetz 1936 (2013), § 2a

France: Loi n° 2004-1338 relative à la protection des inventions biotechnologiques Art. L. 611-19

The Netherlands: Rijksoctrooiwet 1995 (2014), Art. 3

Austria: Patentgesetz 1970 (2014), § 2(2)

Switzerland: Bundesgesetz über die Erfindungspatente 1954 (2012), § 2(2)

United Kingdom: Patents Act 1977 (2014), Section 76a and Schedule A2

G 1/13
Decision of 25.11.2014
OJ EPO 2015, A42

"Fischer-Tropsch Catalysts/SASOL TECHNOLOGY II"
–
Admissibility of referral (yes) – Opponent company ceasing to exist under national law – Retrospective restoration of opponent company to existence under national law – Recognition by EPO of retrospective restoration of opponent company to existence under national law (yes) – Opposition proceedings to be continued by restored opponent company (yes) – Admissibility of appeal (yes)

–

Art. EPCArt 99(1), EPCArt 112(1), EPCArt 121 and EPCArt 122

R. EPCReg 152(8)

G 2/13
Decision of 25.03.2015

OJ EPO 2016, A28

"Broccoli II"
–
Admissibility of referrals by the board of appeal (yes) – point of law of fundamental importance (yes) – effect of Article 53(b) EPC on the allowability of a product claim or a product-by-process claim directed to plants or plant material – essentially biological process for the production of plants – interpretation of exclusion from patentability – rules of interpretation – dynamic interpretation (no) – legal erosion of the exception to patentability (no)

–

Art. EPCArt 52, EPCArt 53, EPCArt 54, EPCArt 56, EPCArt 57, EPCArt 64(2), EPCArt 69, EPCArt 100(a), EPCArt 112(1)(a), EPCArt 125, EPCArt 150(2), EPCArt 164, EPCArt 177

R. EPCReg 26, EPCReg 27(b), EPCReg 27(c), EPCReg 28(c)

EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 53(b)

EPC 1973: R. EPC1973Reg 23b(5), EPC1973Reg 23c, EPC1973Reg 23d

RPEBA: Art. 13, 14(2)

Decision AC of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under Art. 7 of the Act revising the EPC: Art. 1(1)

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

VCLT: Art. 4, 31(1), (3), 32

UPOV Convention 1961: Art. 2

UPOV Convention 1991: Art. 14(1), (2)

Strasbourg Convention: Art. 2

Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions: Art. 2, 3, 4, 6(2)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights: Art. 5(3), 13(2)

Germany: Patentgesetz 1936 (2013), § 2a

France: Loi n° 2004-1338 relative à la protection des inventions biotechnologiques: Art. L. 611-19

The Netherlands: Rijksoctrooiwet 1995 (2014), Art. 3

Austria: Patentgesetz 1970 (2014), § 2(2)

Switzerland: Bundesgesetz über die Erfindungspatente 1954 (2012), § 2(2)

United Kingdom: Patents Act 1977 (2014), Section 76a and Schedule A2

G 1/14
Decision of 19.11.2015

OJ EPO 2016, A95

"Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal"
–
Admissibility of the referral of a point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no) – Rule 126(1) (as in force until 31 March 2015)

–

Art. EPCArt 112(1)(a)

R. EPCReg 126(1), EPCReg 126(2), EPCReg 126(4)

RPEBA Art. 22(2)

G 3/14
Decision of 25.03.2015
OJ EPO 2015, A102

"Examination of clarity objections"
–
Amendments to claims made by proprietor during the opposition proceedings before the EPO – Whether claims as amended during opposition proceedings required to meet requirements of Article 84 EPC – Meaning of the term “amendments” as used in decision G 9/91 – Meaning of the term “amendments” as used in Article 101(3) EPC – Whether combination of granted claims constitutes an amendment – General ambit of Article 101(3) EPC and the requirements of Article 84 EPC in the case of amended claims – Ambit of Article 101(3) EPC and the requirements of Article 84 EPC in the case of amended claims encompassing insertion of elements of dependent claims as granted into an independent claim as granted – Ambit of Article 101(3) EPC and the requirements of Article 84 EPC in the case of amended claims encompassing insertion of complete dependent claims as granted into an independent claim as granted

–

Art. EPCArt 54, EPCArt 56, EPCArt 64, EPCArt 69, 82, EPCArt 83, EPCArt 84, EPCArt 94, EPCArt 97, EPCArt 99, EPCArt 100, EPCArt 101(1), EPCArt 101(2), EPCArt 101(3), EPCArt 105a, EPCArt 111(1), EPCArt 112, EPCArt 114, EPCArt 123(2), EPCArt 123(3), EPCArt 138(1), EPCArt 138(2), EPCArt 138(3)

R. EPCReg 43(1), EPCReg 43(3), EPCReg 43(4), EPCReg 80, EPCReg 86, EPCReg 95(2), EPCReg 100(1)

RFees: Art. 2, item 15 RFees

EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 101(1), EPC1973Art 101(2), EPC1973Art 102(1), EPC1973Art 102(2), EPC1973Art 102(3)

EPC 1973: R. EPC1973Reg 29(4), EPC1973Reg 61a

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969: Art. 31, 31(1), 32

G 1/15
Decision of 29.11.2016

OJ EPO 2017, A82

"Partial priority "
–
Admissibility of referrals by the boards of appeal (yes) – Point of law of fundamental importance (yes) – Priority right – conditions and effects – Partial and multiple priorities – Legal basis and assessment of partial priority

–

Art. EPCArt 54, EPCArt 76, EPCArt 87, EPCArt 88, EPCArt 89, EPCArt 112(1)(a), EPCArt 123(2)

Paris Convention: Art. 4A(1), 4B, 4C, 4F, 4H

G 1/16
Decision of 18.12.2017

OJ EPO 2018, A70

"Disclaimer III"
–
Allowability of undisclosed disclaimers – Applicability of the gold standard disclosure test as defined in decision G 2/10 to undisclosed disclaimers (no) – Applicability of criteria as defined in decisions G 1/03 and G 2/03 (yes) – Drafting of undisclosed disclaimers – no technical contribution to the claimed subject-matter of the application as filed may be provided

–

Art. EPCArt 52, EPCArt 53, EPCArt 53(c), EPCArt 54, EPCArt 54(2), EPCArt 54(3), EPCArt 54(4), EPCArt 56, EPCArt 57, EPCArt 69(1), EPCArt 84, EPCArt 87, EPCArt 100(a), EPCArt 100(b), EPCArt 100(c), EPCArt 112(1), EPCArt 112(1)(a), EPCArt 123(1), EPCArt 123(2)

R. 115(2) EPC

EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 52(4), EPC1973Art 54(3), EPC1973Art 54(4)

RPEBA: Art. 9, 10, 13, 14(2), 14(4)

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969): Art. 31(1), 32
Switzerland: Bundesgesetz über die Erfindungspatente 1954 (2017): Art 24(1)(c)

G 1/18
Opinion of 18.07.2019

OJ EPO 2020, A26

Filing an appeal
–
Appeal deemed filed
Appeal admissible
Appeal fee – reimbursement

–

Art. EPCArt 108, EPCArt 112(1)(b) EPC
R. EPCReg 101(1) EPC

EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 108

EPC 1973: R. 65(1) EPC 1973

G 1/19
Decision of 10.03.2021

OJ EPO 2021, A77

not yet published in the OJ EPO, on the EPO website available in the language of proceedings (English)

Pedestrian simulation
–
"Admissibility of referral - (yes)"
"Transitional provisions of the EPC 2000"
"Patentability of computer-implemented simulations"

–
Art. EPCArt 52(1), EPCArt 52(2), EPCArt 52(3), EPCArt 56, EPCArt 112(1)(a) EPC

United States: 35 U.S.C. § 101

G 2/19
Decision of 16.07.2019

OJ EPO 2020, A87

"Right to be heard and correct venue for oral proceedings"
–
Right of a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC to oral proceedings on appeal against a lack of clarity in granted patent claims (no) – Examination by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the grounds for admissibility of a referral under Article 112(1)(a) EPC – Suspensive effect of an appeal filed by a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC against a lack of clarity in granted patent claims (no) – A means of redress is clearly inadmissible where a person without standing to file an appeal (here: a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC) relies on a grievance not recognised under the EPC (here: a lack of clarity to be removed from the patent claims for the purposes of Article 84 EPC) – Oral proceedings before the boards of appeal in Haar (permissible)

–

Art. EPCArt 6(2), EPCArt 15, EPCArt 16, EPCArt 17, EPCArt 84 second sentence EPC, EPCArt 106, EPCArt 107, EPCArt 112(1)(a), EPCArt 113, EPCArt 115, EPCArt 116(1) first sentence EPC

G 3/19
Opinion of 14.05.2020
OJ EPO 2020, A119

"Pepper (follow-up to 'Tomatoes II' and 'Broccoli II'"
–
Referred point of law re-phrased (yes) – admissibility of referral by the President of the European Patent Office (yes), after re-phrasing – uniform application of the law (yes) – Point of law of fundamental importance (yes) –different decisions by two Boards of Appeal (yes) – Application of Article 112(1)(b) EPC by analogy (no) – Rules of interpretation – Hierarchy of norms – Conflicting provisions - no of laws – Dynamic interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC (yes) – Impact of Rule 28(2) EPC on interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC (yes) – Exception to patentability of product claims or product-by-process claims directed to plants, plant material or animals, if the claimed product is exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process or if the claimed process features define an essentially biological process (yes) – Applicability of the exception to European patents granted before 1 July 2017 and pending European patent applications filed before that day (no)

–

Art. EPCArt 4, EPCArt 15, EPCArt 21, EPCArt 22(1)(a) and EPCArt 22(1)(b), EPCArt 23, EPCArt 33, EPCArt 33(1)(b) and EPCArt 33(1)(c), EPCArt 35(3), EPCArt 52(1), EPCArt 53, EPCArt 53(a), EPCArt 53(b), EPCArt 112(1)(a) and EPCArt 112(1)(b), EPCArt 112a, EPCArt 112a(2), EPCArt 164(2), EPCArt 172

R. EPCReg 26(1) and EPCReg 26(5), EPCReg 27(b), EPCReg 28, EPCReg 28(2)

EPC 1973: R. 23b EPC 1973 to R. 2323e EPC 1973

RPEBA: Art. 10

RPBA 2020: Art. 21

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969: Art. 31, 32

Treaty of the European Union, consolidated version 2016: Art. 19(3)

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: Art. 267, 288 Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions: Art. 1 to 4

Austria: Patentgesetz 1970, § 2(2)

Belgium: Code de droit économique - Dispositions relatives au droit d’obtenteur 2013 (2019), Art. XI.5 § 1^er, 3°

Germany: Patentgesetz 1936, § 2a

France: Code de la propriété intellectuelle, Art. L611-19, Loi n° 2016-1087 du 8 août 2016 pour la reconquête de la biodiversité, de la nature et des paysages

Italy: Codice della proprietà industriale (IIPC) 2005, Art. 45.4.b and 81quater(e) The Netherlands: Rijksoctrooiwet 1995, Art. 3

Norway: Lov om patenter (patentloven) 1967 nr 9), Section 1; examination guidelines of the Norwegian Intellectual Property Office, section C, chapter IV, 2a.3.2

Poland: Ustawa z dnia 30 czerwca 2000 r. Prawo własności przemysłowej, Art. 29(1)(ii); Ustawa z dnia 16 października 2019 r. o zmianie ustawy – Prawo własności przemysłowej, Art. 1(4)

Portugal: Código da Propriedade Industrial 2018, Art. 52(3)(c), 53(1)(d) to (f) and (2)

Serbia: Закон о патентима („Службени гласникРС”, бр. 99/11, 113/17-др. закон, 95/18 и 66/19), Art. 9(3)

G 4/19
Decision of 22.06.2021

OJ EPO 2022, A24

Double patenting

–

Admissibility of referral - (yes)

Interpretation of Article 125 EPC

Procedural provision absent from the Convention

Supplementary means of interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Legal basis for a refusal under Article 97(2) EPC for double patenting

–

Art. EPCArt 52(3), EPCArt 54(2), EPCArt 54(3), EPCArt 60(1), EPCArt 63(1), EPCArt 64(1), EPCArt 66, EPCArt 67(1), EPCArt 76(1), EPCArt 79, EPCArt 79(3), EPCArt 87, EPCArt 88, EPCArt 90(5), EPCArt 94, EPCArt 97(2), EPCArt 112, EPCArt 112(1), EPCArt 123(2), EPCArt 123(3), EPCArt 125, EPCArt 139(3), EPCArt 177 EPC

EPC 1973: Art. EPC1973Art 64(1), EPC1973Art 67(1), EPC1973Art 87, EPC1973Art 165(1), EPC1973Art 165(2), EPC1973Art 166, EPC1973Art 167

RPEBA Art. 9, 10

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 Art. 11, 12, 14, 15, 31, 31(1), 31(2), 31(2)(a), 31(2)(b), 32, 32(a), 32(b), 33

G 1/21
Decision of 16.07.2021

OJ EPO 2022, A49

not yet published in the OJ EPO, on the EPO website available in the language of proceedings (English)

Oral proceedings by videoconference

–

Admissibility of referral - (yes)

Oral proceedings by videoconference in case of general emergency

Role of consent of the parties

–

Art. EPCArt 24, EPCArt 112(1)(a), EPCArt 113(1), EPCArt 116(1) EPC

European Convention on Human Rights: Art. 6

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Art. 31

G 2/21
Decision of 23.03.2023

OJ EPO 2023, A85

Reliance on a purported technical effect for inventive step (plausibility)

–

"admissibility of referrals" – yes

"re-phrasing of the referred questions" – no

"extending the scope of the referred questions" – no

"principle of free evaluation of evidence" – "exception to the principle required" – no

"inventive step" – "reliance on technical effect" – yes, based on the application as originally filed

–

EPC Art. EPCArt 52(1), EPCArt 54, EPCArt 56, EPCArt 83, EPCArt 100, EPCArt 101(2), EPCArt 106(1), EPCArt 112(1)(a), EPCArt 112(2), EPCArt 113(1), EPCArt 117, EPCArt 125

EPC R. EPCReg 4, EPCReg 117-EPCReg 124, EPCReg 150

RPEBA Art. 9, 10, 13, 14(2)

RPBA 2020 Art. 22

Switzerland: Code of Civil Procedure

(Zivilprozessordnung), Art. 157

Federal Act on the Federal Patent Court

- Patent Court Act (Bundesgesetz über

das Bundespatentgericht –

Patentgerichtsgesetz), Art. 27

Germany: Patent Act (Patentgesetz), § 93(1)

Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung), § 286

The Netherlands: Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke

Rechtsvordering), Art. 152(2)

Patent knowledge

Applying for a patent

Law & practice

News & events

Learning

About us

The European Patent Convention – Contents

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

Patent knowledge

Applying for a patent

Law & practice

News & events

Learning

About us

The European Patent Convention – Contents

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

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