Home » Posts tagged 'epo' (Page 7)
Tag Archives: epo
European Divisional Applications – Additional Fees published by EPO
As noted earlier on IPcopy, Rule 36 EPC, which was amended in 2010 to introduce 24 month time limits for filing divisional European patent applications from a parent European patent application, is to be amended from 1 April 2014 such that the 24 month deadline rule is removed and the procedure reverts back to the pre-April 2010 arrangements. As well as the change to Rule 36 EPC, an amendment to Rule 38 was proposed to provide “for an additional fee as part of the filing fee in the case of a divisional application filed in respect of any earlier application which is itself a divisional application”.
Administrative Council decision of 13 December 2013 (here) has been published on the EPO website and, as well as detailing other fee changes due to come into effect on 1 April 2014, confirms the level of the additional fee that will be payable on 2nd and higher generation divisional applications from 1 April 2014. The full list of additional fees for divisional applications, which ranges from 210 Euros to 840 Euros, is noted below
Top 10 Points from EPO case law from 2013 (CIPA Event 27 November 2013)
Following on from last week’s guest post from Suleman Ali of Holly IP and K2 about top 10 points from UK Court Decisions in 2013 we now have Suleman’s 10 points from EPO case law in 2013. This post was originally posted on the Holly IP blog and is reproduced with the permission of the author.
These decisions were discussed at a CIPA event on 27 November 2013, and the following points are based on the cases selected by the speakers.
EPO changes rules on Euro-PCT searches
Somewhat lost alongside the exciting announcement that the EPO is going to scrap the controversial 2 year divisional deadline rule was another recent decision of the Administrative Council.
Readers of the consultation section on the EPO website will have been aware that there was a consultation earlier in the year relating to Rule 164 and in a decision dated 16 October 2013 the Administrative Council duly announced a change to Rule 164 (which is reproduced in full at the bottom of the post). The amended Rule 164 is scheduled to enter into force on 1 November 2014 for any application for which the supplementary European search report under Article 153(7) EPC has not been drawn up as of 1 November 2014 or the first communication under Article 94(3) EPC and Rule 71(1) and (2) EPC or, as the case may be, Rule 71(3) EPC has not been drawn up as of 1 November 2014. (more…)
European Divisional Applications – Rule 36 EPC, As You Were? (Updated)
Updated with EPO confirmation & proposed amendments
As noted earlier on IPcopy, Rule 36 EPC, which was amended in 2010 to introduce 24 month time limits for filing divisional European patent applications from a parent European patent application, was made the subject of an EPO consultation. The consultation closed on 5 April 2013 but the EPO website has not yet been updated with any details of the responses received.
However, a number of sources (1, 2, 3) are now reporting that Rule 36 is to be amended from 1 April 2014 such that the 24 month deadline rule is removed and the procedure reverts back to the pre-April 2010 arrangements. So far there has been no official announcement from the EPO.
IPcopy’s Odds & Sods: Acronym soup – EPO/APAA/AIPLA
The EPO has launched a consultation to ensure the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal continues to meet the needs of users. The consultation runs for a while (closing date: 31 March 2014) and can be accessed here. The most recent version of the Case Law Book (the 7th version) has only just been released of course and can be found here.
Some acronym heavy overseas meetings next up:
1) 
The Asian Patent Attorneys Association (APAA) 62nd Council Meeting is to be held in Hanoi, Vietnam from 19-22 October. Shakeel Ahmad and Dev Crease from Keltie LLP will be in attendance so if you see them please say hello. Details of the meeting can be found here.
2) The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) will be holding its 2013 AIPLA Annual Meeting from 24-26 October in Washington, D.C. Michael Moore and Mark Richardson from Keltie LLP will be going along and are looking forward to the conference. AIPLA has a twitter hashtag for the more social media minded attendees to use and the marketing material suggests we include the hashtag #aiplaAM13 to be a part of the conversation!
EPO proposes changes to search rules [Updated – 11/11/13]
The European Patent Office is proposing to amend the rules regarding searches for Euro-PCT applications. The aim of the proposed changes is to make the Euro-PCT system fairer for applicants of international applications who use the EPO as the International Searching Authority. A further aim is to bring Euro-PCT search practice into line with direct European practice.
Is standardisation always a good thing in patents?
The EPO and USPTO have announced triumphantly that they have completed the Herculean task of creating a consolidated patent classification scheme that provides up to 250,000 individual definitions for areas of science and technology. This project has been the result of several years’ work to harmonise the previously divergent technical classification systems used in the US and Europe to assist patent examiners in prior art searching and examination of patent applications. In essence, every patent application filed is assessed by an examiner and allocated one or often several classifications that cover the technologies used in the invention. Until now different classification strategies were used by the US and Europe often resulting in divergence in the outcomes of patent prior art searching. The intention of the project, called the cooperative patent classification scheme (CPC), according to EPO President Benoit Battistelli, is to “…align our patent procedures more closely and deliver major efficiency gains”. The Director of the USPTO, David Kappos, is perhaps a little more pragmatic about the benefits stating the new scheme is needed to “…eliminate duplication of work between the two Offices”. In fact it represents another step towards global harmonisation of the patent system which would allow applicants to avoid the current process of prosecuting patent applications according to divergent standards in different countries. Surely from a cost perspective this has to be a good thing, right?
IPcopy 