Case law - Mercer notes Flashcards

1
Q

G1/92 (product not available to public in display case)

A
  1. The chemical composition of a
    product is state of the art when the product as such is available to the public and can be analysed and
    reproduced by the skilled person,
    irrespective of whether or not
    particular reasons can be identified
    for analysing the composition.
  2. The same principle applies
    mutatis mutandis to any other
    product.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

G10/91 (adding a ground of opposition outside the 9 month deadline)

A
  1. An Opposition Division or a Board
    of Appeal is not obliged to consider all
    the grounds for opposition referred to
    in Article 100 EPC, going beyond the
    grounds covered by the statement
    under Rule 55(c) EPC.
  2. In principle, the Opposition
    Division shall examine only such
    grounds for opposition which have
    been properly submitted and
    substantiated in accordance with Article 99(1) in conjunction with Rule
    55(c) EPC. Exceptionally, the
    Opposition Division may in
    application of Article 114(1) EPC
    consider other grounds for opposition
    which, prima facie, in whole or in part
    would seem to prejudice the
    maintenance of the European patent.
  3. Fresh grounds for opposition may
    be considered in appeal proceedings
    only with the approval of the patentee.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

G3/89 or G11/91 (priority document not basis for Rule 88 correction)

A
  1. The parts of a European patent
    application or of a European patent
    relating to the disclosure (the
    description, claims and drawings)
    may be corrected under Rule 88,
    second sentence, EPC only within the
    limits of what a skilled person would
    derive directly and unambiguously,
    using common general knowledge,
    and seen objectively and relative to
    the date of filing, from the whole of
    these documents as filed. Such a
    correction is of a strictly declaratory
    nature and thus does not infringe the
    prohibition of extension under Article
    123(2) EPC.
  2. Evidence of what was common
    general knowledge on the date of
    filing may be furnished in connection
    with an admissible request for
    correction in any suitable form.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

G3/97 - strawmen

A

1(a): An opposition is not inadmissible
purely because the person named as
opponent according to Rule 55(a) EPC
is acting on behalf of a third party.

1(b): Such an opposition is, however,
inadmissible if the involvement of the
opponent is to be regarded as
circumventing the law by abuse of
process.

1(c): Such a circumvention of the law
arises, in particular, if - see decision

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

G4/97 - straw men

A

1(a): An opposition is not
inadmissible purely because the
person named as opponent
according to Rule 55(a) EPC is
acting on behalf of a third party.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

pros and cons of joint oppositions (G3/99)

A

I. An opposition filed in common by two or more persons, which otherwise meets the requirements of Article 99 EPC and Rules 1 and 55 EPC, is admissible on payment of only one opposition fee.

II. If the opposing party consists of a plurality of persons, an appeal must be filed by the common representative under Rule 100 EPC. Where the appeal is filed by a non-entitled person, the Board of Appeal shall consider it not to be duly signed and consequently invite the common representative to sign it within a given time limit. The non-entitled person who filed the appeal shall be informed of this invitation. If the previous common representative is no longer participating in the proceedings, a new common representative shall be determined pursuant to Rule 100 EPC.

III. In order to safeguard the rights of the patent proprietor and in the interests of procedural efficiency, it has to be clear throughout the procedure who belongs to the group of common opponents or common appellants. If either a common opponent or appellant (including the common representative) intends to withdraw from the proceedings, the EPO shall be notified accordingly by the common representative or by a new common representative determined under Rule 100(1) EPC in order for the withdrawal to take effect.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

G2/99 the basic date for the period specified in Art55

A

For the calculation of the six-month
period referred to in Article 55(1)
EPC, the relevant date is the date of
the actual filing of the European
patent application; the date of
priority is not to be taken account of
in calculating this period.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

G4/98 - effect of non-payment of designation fees

A

I. Without prejudice to Article 67(4)
EPC, the designation of a contracting
state party to the EPC in a European
patent application does not retroactively lose its legal effect and is not
deemed never to have taken place if
the relevant designation fee has not
been paid within the applicable time
limit.

II. The deemed withdrawal of the designation of a contracting state provided for in Article 91(4) EPC takes
effect upon expiry of the time limits
mentioned in Article 79(2), Rules
15(2), 25(2) and 107(1) EPC, as applicable, and not upon expiry of the
period of grace provided by Rule 85a
EPC.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Priority test G2/98

A

The requirement for claiming priority
of ”the same invention”, referred to
in Article 87(1) EPC, means that
priority of a previous application in
respect of a claim in a European
patent application in accordance with
Article 88 EPC is to be acknowledged
only if the skilled person can derive
the subject-matter of the claim
directly and unambiguously, using
common general knowledge, from
the previous application as a whole.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Allowability of disclaimers G2/10

A

The question referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is answered as follows:

1a. An amendment to a claim by the introduction of a disclaimer disclaiming from it subject-matter disclosed in the application as filed infringes Article 123(2) EPC if the subject-matter remaining in the claim after the introduction of the disclaimer is not, be it explicitly or implicitly, directly and unambiguously disclosed to the skilled person using common general knowledge, in the application as filed.

1b. Determining whether or not that is the case requires a technical assessment of the overall technical circumstances of the individual case under consideration, taking into account the nature and extent of the disclosure in the application as filed, the nature and extent of the disclaimed subject-matter and its relationship with the subject-matter remaining in the claim after the amendment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Status of priority based on WTO countries G03/02

A

The TRIPs Agreement does not entitle the applicant for a European patent application to claim priority from a first filing in a State which was not at the relevant dates a member of the Paris Convention but was a member of the WTO/TRIPs Agreement.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

patentability of in vivo diagnostic methods G1/04

A

I. In order that the subject-matter of a claim relating to a diagnostic method practised on the human or animal body falls under the prohibition of Article 52(4) EPC, the claim is to include the features relating to:

(i) the diagnosis for curative purposes stricto sensu representing the deductive medical or veterinary decision phase as a purely intellectual exercise,

(ii) the preceding steps which are constitutive for making that diagnosis, and

(iii) the specific interactions with the human or animal body which occur when carrying those out among these preceding steps which are of a technical nature.

II. Whether or not a method is a diagnostic method within the meaning of Article 52(4) EPC may neither depend on the participation of a medical or veterinary practitioner, by being present or by bearing the responsibility, nor on the fact that all method steps can also, or only, be practised by medical or technical support staff, the patient himself or herself or an automated system. Moreover, no distinction is to be made in this context between essential method steps having diagnostic character and non-essential method steps lacking it.

III. In a diagnostic method under Article 52(4) EPC, the method steps of a technical nature belonging to the preceding steps which are constitutive for making the diagnosis for curative purposes stricto sensu must satisfy the criterion “practised on the human or animal body”.

IV. Article 52(4) EPC does not require a specific type and intensity of interaction with the human or animal body; a preceding step of a technical nature thus satisfies the criterion “practised on the human or animal body” if its performance implies any interaction with the human or animal body, necessitating the presence of the latter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

G1/06 - sequence of divisionals

A

In the case of a sequence of applications consisting of a root (originating) application followed by divisional applications, each divided from its predecessor, it is a necessary and sufficient condition for a divisional application of that sequence to comply with Article 76(1), second sentence, EPC that anything disclosed in that divisional application be directly and unambiguously derivable from what is disclosed in each of the preceding applications as filed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

application is formally pending 1/09

A

In the case where no appeal is filed, a European Patent application which has been refused by a decision of the Examining Division is thereafter still pending within the meaning of Rule 25 EPC 1973 (Rule 36(1) EPC) until the expiry of the time limit for filing a notice of appeal.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

essentially biological processes G1/08

A

The questions of law referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:

  1. A non-microbiological process for the production of plants which contains or consists of the steps of sexually crossing the whole genomes of plants and of subsequently selecting plants is in principle excluded from patentability as being “essentially biological” within the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC.
  2. Such a process does not escape the exclusion of Article 53(b) EPC merely because it contains, as a further step or as part of any of the steps of crossing and selection, a step of a technical nature which serves to enable or assist the performance of the steps of sexually crossing the whole genomes of plants or of subsequently selecting plants.
  3. If, however, such a process contains within the steps of sexually crossing and selecting an additional step of a technical nature, which step by itself introduces a trait into the genome or modifies a trait in the genome of the plant produced, so that the introduction or modification of that trait is not the result of the mixing of the genes of the plants chosen for sexual crossing, then the process is not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC.
  4. In the context of examining whether such a process is excluded from patentability as being “essentially biological” within the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC, it is not relevant whether a step of a technical nature is a new or known measure, whether it is trivial or a fundamental alteration of a known process, whether it does or could occur in nature or whether the essence of the invention lies in it.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Treatment regimens G2/08

A

The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:

Question 1: Where it is already known to use a medicament to treat an illness, Article 54(5) EPC does not exclude that this medicament be patented for use in a different treatment by therapy of the same illness.

Question 2: Such patenting is also not excluded where a dosage regime is the only feature claimed which is not comprised in the state of the art.

Question 3: Where the subject matter of a claim is rendered novel only by a new therapeutic use of a medicament, such claim may no longer have the format of a so called Swiss-type claim as instituted by decision G 5/83.

A time-limit of three months after publication of the present decision in the Official Journal of the European Patent Office is set in order that future applicants comply with this new situation.

17
Q

Correction of patents G1/10

A

The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:

  1. Since Rule 140 EPC is not available to correct the text of a patent, a patent proprietor’s request for such a correction is inadmissible whenever made, including after the initiation of opposition proceedings.
  2. In view of the answer to the first referred question, the second referred question requires no answer.
18
Q

language of proceedings can be altered G4/08

A

The Enlarged Board of Appeal, in response to the three points of law referred to it, concludes that:

Question 1: If an international patent application has been filed and published under the PCT in an official language of the EPO, it is not possible, on entry into the European phase, to file a translation of the application into another EPO official language.

Question 2: In written proceedings on a European patent application or an international application in the regional phase, EPO departments cannot use an EPO official language other than the language of proceedings used for the application under Article 14(3) EPC.

Question 3: This question is redundant.

19
Q

Clarity G3/14

A

In considering whether, for the purposes of Article 101(3) EPC, a patent as amended meets the requirements of the EPC, the claims of the patent may be examined for compliance with the requirements of Article 84 EPC only when, and then only to the extent that the amendment introduces non-compliance with Article 84 EPC.

20
Q

partial priority G1/15

A

Under the EPC, entitlement to partial priority may not be refused for a claim encompassing alternative subject-matter by virtue of one or more generic expressions or otherwise (generic “OR”-claim) provided that said alternative subject-matter has been disclosed for the first time, directly, or at least implicitly, unambiguously and in an enabling manner in the priority document. No other substantive conditions or limitations apply in this respect.

21
Q

Inadmissible opposition G1/18

A
  1. An appeal is deemed not to have
    been filed in the following cases:

(a) where notice of appeal was filed
within the two-month time limit
prescribed in Article 108, first sentence,
EPC AND the appeal fee was paid after
expiry of that two-month time limit;

(b) where notice of appeal was filed
after expiry of the two-month time limit
prescribed in Article 108, first sentence,
EPC AND the appeal fee was paid after
expiry of that two-month time limit;

(c) where the appeal fee was paid
within the two-month time limit
prescribed in Article 108, first sentence,
EPC for filing notice of appeal AND
notice of appeal was filed after expiry of
that two-month time limit.

  1. In the cases referred to in answers
    1(a) to (c), reimbursement of the appeal
    fee is to be ordered ex officio.
  2. Where the appeal fee was paid within
    or after the two-month time limit
    prescribed in Article 108, first sentence,
    EPC for filing notice of appeal AND no
    notice of appeal was filed at all, the
    appeal fee is to be reimbursed.
22
Q

submissions at OP G4/95

A
  1. During oral proceedings under
    Article 116 EPC in the context of
    opposition or opposition appeal
    proceedings, a person
    accompanying the professional
    representative of a party may be
    allowed to make oral submissions
    on specific legal or technical issues
    on behalf of that party, otherwise
    than under Article 117 EPC, in
    addition to the complete
    presentation of the party’s case by
    the professional representative.
  2. (a) Such oral submissions cannot
    be made as a matter of right, but
    only with the permission of and
    under the discretion of the EPO.

(b) The following main criteria
should be considered by the EPO
when exercising its discretion to
allow the making of oral
submissions by an accompanying
person in opposition or opposition
appeal proceedings: