(other than re-establishment of rights cases)
J 0016/14 - Undoing registration of transferWhen a title to a European patent or patent application has been transferred and the European Patent Register has been amended to reflect this, it is not justified, if doubt later arises as to sufficient proof of succession in title,to undo the registration of the transfer. Nevertheless a request,(by the party having been registered before), for staying the grant and/or the opposition proceedings could be taken into consideration. link
J 0002/15 - Retraction of withdrawalThe withdrawal of an application cannot be retracted once it has been published in the European Patent Register. link
J 0001/15 - Payment
The fourth renewal fee was considered to be not paid, a Rule 112(1) EPC communication was issued. The applicant filed an appeal. The appeal is rejected as inadmissible, because a Rule 112(1) Communication is not a decision of the Examining Division.
As a comment, the applicant had in parallel requested that the payment was considered to be made in time under Rule 7(3)(a) RFees, because it had duly given a payment order to its bank, but somehow the bank had failed to process that order. After the appeal decision, the Examining Division followed up on that request and noted that the renewal fee had still not been paid. The applicant paid the renewal fee, three years later, which was considered in time under Rule 7 Rfees. link
J 0012/14 - Low quality drawings are not missing drawings
1. The filing of drawings where the re-production of the figures is of low visual quality cannot be remedied by Rule 56 EPC (adding missing drawings based on priority document).
2. It is within the responsibility of the applicant to determine the scope of the disclosure by selecting a readable version of the application documents including the figures reproduced in the drawings. However, the question of what technical features the figures in the drawings show with respect to the claimed invention is not part of the formal examination procedure before the Receiving Section. link
J 0023/13 - Divisional after refusal
As a comment, the applicant had in parallel requested that the payment was considered to be made in time under Rule 7(3)(a) RFees, because it had duly given a payment order to its bank, but somehow the bank had failed to process that order. After the appeal decision, the Examining Division followed up on that request and noted that the renewal fee had still not been paid. The applicant paid the renewal fee, three years later, which was considered in time under Rule 7 Rfees. link
J 0012/14 - Low quality drawings are not missing drawings
1. The filing of drawings where the re-production of the figures is of low visual quality cannot be remedied by Rule 56 EPC (adding missing drawings based on priority document).
2. It is within the responsibility of the applicant to determine the scope of the disclosure by selecting a readable version of the application documents including the figures reproduced in the drawings. However, the question of what technical features the figures in the drawings show with respect to the claimed invention is not part of the formal examination procedure before the Receiving Section. link
J 0023/13 - Divisional after refusal
After a refusal, a divisional application can be filed after filing the Notice of appeal (and paying the appeal fee) and before the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of grounds, even no statement of grounds is filed. link
J 0022/13 - Divisional after refusal
However, a divisional application can not be filed after expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of grounds after refusal of the parent application and filing a notice of appeal against that refusal. link
J 0008/13 - Substantial procedural violation
Considering the appellant's arguments the Board would like to emphasise that an incorrect interpretation of a provision of the EPC dealing with formal requirements of application documents, as alleged by the appellant, does not per se constitute a substantial procedural violation within the meaning of Rule 103 EPC. An error in the application of law cannot be equated with a procedural violation. link
J 0014/14 - Notification
J 0007/13 - Search fee
Considering the appellant's arguments the Board would like to emphasise that an incorrect interpretation of a provision of the EPC dealing with formal requirements of application documents, as alleged by the appellant, does not per se constitute a substantial procedural violation within the meaning of Rule 103 EPC. An error in the application of law cannot be equated with a procedural violation. link
J 0014/14 - Notification
" It is clear that the EPO has been unable to discharge the burden of proving that the appellant's representative received the communication of 5 December 2013. It is well established in the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal that in such circumstances the appellant must be given the benefit of the doubt" link
J 0007/13 - Resumption
The board orders resumption of proceedings stayed under Rule 14. [The Legal Division has ordered a new stay on the date that the Board had decided that the proceedings were to be resumed] link
For the purpose of the reference in Article 2(1), item 2, first indent RFees to applications filed before 2005, the relevant date is the date of filing of the divisional application and not the filing date. link
No comments:
Post a Comment
Do not use hyperlinks in comment text or user name. Comments are welcome, even though they are strictly moderated (no politics). Moderation can take some time.