|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
"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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
G 1/89
Decision of 02.05.1990
OJ EPO 1991, 155
|
|
|
Competence of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in protest cases under the PCT - Non-unity a posteriori
|
|
|
|
G 2/89
Opinion of 02.05.1990
OJ EPO 1991, 166
|
|
|
Competence of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in protest cases under the PCT - Non-unity a posteriori
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
G 1/91
Decision of 09.12.1991
OJ EPO 1992, 253
|
|
|
Unity in opposition - legally irrelevant
|
|
|
|
G 2/91
Decision of 29.11.1991
OJ EPO 1992, 206
|
|
|
Reimbursement of appeal fees where several parties have filed an appeal
|
|
|
|
G 3/91
Decision of 07.09.1992
OJ EPO 1993, 8
|
|
|
"Re-establishment of rights/FABRITIUS II"
|
|
|
|
G 4/91
Decision of 03.11.1992
OJ EPO 1993, 707
|
|
|
"Intervention/DOLEZYCH II"
|
|
Intervention (in opposition proceedings by an assumed infringer)
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
G 6/91
Decision of 06.03.1992
OJ EPO 1992, 491
|
|
|
Entitlement to fee reduction
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
G 9/91
Decision of 31.03.1993
OJ EPO 1993, 408
|
|
|
"Power to examine/ROHM AND HAAS"
|
|
Extent of power to examine opposition
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
G 11/91
Decision of 19.11.1992
OJ EPO 1993, 125
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Right to comment - Party absent from oral proceedings
|
|
|
|
G 5/92
Decision of 27.09.1993
OJ EPO 1994, 22
|
|
|
Applicability of Article 122(5) EPC
|
|
|
|
G 6/92
Decision of 27.09.1993
OJ EPO 1994, 25
|
|
|
"Re-establishment/DURIRON"
|
|
Applicability of Article 122(5) EPC
|
|
|
|
|
"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
|
|
|
|
G 10/92
Opinion of 28.04.1994
OJ EPO 1994, 633
|
|
|
Filing of divisional application: time limit
|
|
|
|
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 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
|
|
|
|
G 3/93
Opinion of 16.08.1994
OJ EPO 1995, 18
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
G 5/93
Decision of 18.01.1994
OJ EPO 1994, 447
|
|
|
"Re-establishment/NELLCOR"
|
|
Applicability of Article 122(5) 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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
G 1/94
Decision of 11.05.1994
OJ EPO 1994, 787
|
|
|
"Intervention/ALLIED COLLOIDS"
|
|
Admissibility of intervention during appeal proceedings
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
G 3/95
Opinion of 27.11.1995
OJ EPO 1996, 169
|
|
|
Patentability of plant and animal varieties - No conflicting decision - Inadmissible referral by the President of the EPO
|
|
|
|
G 4/95
Decision of 19.02.1996
OJ EPO 1996, 412
|
|
|
Oral submission by an accompanying person in opposition or opposition appeal proceedings
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
G 2/97
Decision of 12.11.1998
OJ EPO 1999, 123
|
|
|
Fee for appeal - Principle of good faith - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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)EPCArt 87(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
|
|
|
|
G 4/98
Opinion of 27.11.2000
OJ EPO 2001, 131
|
|
|
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), 123(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
|
|
|
|
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 of Directorate-General 2 dated 28.4.1999, points 4 and 6
|
|
|
|
"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. 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
|
|
|
G 1/03
Decision of 08.04.2004
OJ EPO 2004, 413
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
