Home » Posts tagged 'epo' (Page 4)
Tag Archives: epo
EPO prosecution delays and the European Convention on Human Rights
A recent case decided by the EPO’s Board of Appeal has tackled the issue of delays in prosecution and noted that, for the application in issue, the duration of the first instance proceedings (12 years) amounted to an excessive delay. Reference was made in the reasons of the decision to other cases in which the Applicant’s rights under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights have been infringed. (more…)
Changes to accelerated prosecution (PACE) at the EPO
The EPO offers a number of mechanisms for expediting the grant procedure. As noted in the EPO’s November 2015 notice these include:
- PACE (see below for changes)
- Waiving the confirm to proceed notification under rule 70(2) EPC
- Waiving the rules 161/162 EPC communication
- Waiving a further communication under rule 71(3) EPC
- Early entry into the European phase
During post grant proceedings the above EPO Notice also highlights accelerated processing of oppositions where infringement proceedings have been instituted and accelerated processing before the Boards of Appeal.
From 1 January 2016, (Happy New Year everyone!), the EPO has tweaked the operation of the PACE programme slightly. Full details can be found in the EPO’s PACE Notice dated 30 November 2015. The highlights are as follows: (more…)
2015’s Top 10 Posts on IPcopy
Yeah, of course I’m excited it’s Christmas….
As we contemplate the possibility that another recipe from “101 Things to do with Cold Turkey” is going to be needed to shift the last of the Christmas food, we thought we’d take a quick look back at the top 10 most read posts that we published this year. (more…)
EPO Guidelines 2Day Roadshow – Review Part Part 3 – Added Matter
Our final post covering the EPO’s recent roadshow for professional representatives around Europe is on the subject of added matter. The first article in this series looked at the rule 164 procedure and the second article covered early processing, PCT Direct and rule 71(3).
European patent applications, of course, should disclose the invention in a sufficiently clear and complete manner that the invention can be carried out by a skilled person. Applications should not be amended such that they contain subject matter that extends beyond the content of the application as filed. Extended added matter is both a ground for opposition under Art 100(c) and revocation under Art 138(1) EPC.
The EPO representative at the roadshow confirmed the general approach the Examiners take when assessing whether an amendment represents added matter. The practice at first instance is: (more…)
EPO Guidelines 2Day Roadshow – Review Part 2 – Early processing, PCT Direct & Rule 71(3)
The EPO is currently running a roadshow for professional representatives around Europe covering changes to the Guidelines for Examination and other matters such as rule 164 EPC, “Doing business with the EPO electronically”, early entry into the European phase, effective use of procedural options, the rule 71(3) EPC procedure and Article 123(2) EPC.
Recently the roadshow made it to London and in this post we take a look at early processing, PCT Direct and rule 71(3) EPC. The first post in this series looked at the rule 164 procedure and some fee related changes. (more…)
EPO Guidelines 2Day Roadshow – Review Part 1 – Rule 164 and General Changes
The EPO is currently running a roadshow for professional representatives around Europe covering changes to the Guidelines for Examination and other matters such as rule 164 EPC, “Doing business with the EPO electronically”, early entry into the European phase, effective use of procedural options, the rule 71(3) EPC procedure and Article 123(2) EPC.
Recently the roadshow made it to London and in this post we take a look at the changes to the rule 164 procedure and also some of the fee related changes. (more…)
EPO putting applications in the renewal grace period on hold?
The EPO apparently has a new internal procedure that debuted at some point in the last year which applies when a European patent application enters the six-month grace period for payment of an overdue renewal fee. Once this happens the case file is apparently put on hold so that the Examiner is unable to work on it until the renewal fee has been paid.
IPcopy has heard that a colleague recently tried to briefly discuss a case with an Examiner to see if the claims looked in good shape from the Examiner’s point of view and also when the next exam report might issue. However the case in question was in the grace period for the renewal payment and so the Examiner was prevented from even opening the file to answer what were relatively basic questions. (more…)
UPC Court Delivers Swift Justice
On 2nd April 2015 we saw, for the first time, an approximation of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in action during an excellent live-from-Paris webinarized event set up by a plethora of French IP institutions. Indeed, the sheer number of acronymical institutions (thirteen!) representing the interests of the French IP industry was almost as impressive as the high quality of the broadcast itself. (more…)
EPO & Added Matter: Board of Appeal pooh-poohs Examination Guideline Update
The EPO’s Guidelines for Examination were updated in November last year. Section H-IV, 2.3 covers the general rules for assessing amendments for conformity with Article 123(2) EPC. Following general grumbles that the EPO was becoming a bit too strict when assessing whether amendments comprised added matter, section H-IV, 2.3 was updated to say that literal support is not required (based on T667/08) and that an added matter assessment which “disproportionally focusses on the structure of the claims” should be avoided (this position being taken from T2619/11).
However, a recent Board of Appeal decision, T1363/12, that was published shortly after the Exam Guidelines update, has reaffirmed the “gold standard” test in G2/10, has downplayed the significance of T2619/11 and has effectively suggested that the Guidelines do not accurately reflect the position in G2/10. (more…)
The Unitary Patent, Spain and the EPO Boards of Appeal
The Advocate General released his opinions on the two Spanish challenges to the unitary patent system in November last year and in December there was much discussion online about the independence of the Boards of Appeal at the EPO.
Anyone curious about whether the developments at the EPO might be relevant to the Spanish challenges to the unitary patent are encouraged to head over to Dr Ingve Stjerna’s website (link below) and read his latest paper ” Unitary patent and court system – Advocate General’s Statements of Position: Superseded by reality”.
Dr Stjerna has kindly given permission for us top reproduce the introduction to his paper below: (more…)
IPcopy 