April 2025
07:
10th Anniversary07:
T 1907/20 - Appointing representatives and authorizations 04:
T 1841/23 - Intervention and UPC litigation02:
T 0123/23 - Food for thought - deleting alternativesMarch 2025
31:
T 1418/22 - Using your failed experiments to your advantage28:
T 0773/21 - An obligation to submit futile objections before the OD (?)27:
T 1286/22 - No French style devolutive effect of appeal26:
T 2463/22 - On evidence, the standard of proof, Re B (Children) (and Francis Bacon)25:
Pending R 16/23 - The right to oral proceedings24:
T 0774/22 - When room temparature is no CGK21:
T 0816/22 - Even more than plausibility is required19:
T 1908/22 - On T 1914/12 and whether arguments can be held inadmissible17:
T 2250/21 - Is the witness a deepfake?14:
T 0326/22 - Functional antibody claims13:
G 2/13 - On subject-matter and extent of protection12:
T 1199/22 - When must a witness be heard? 11:
Good luck to all EQE candidates10:
T 1799/21 - Too late is too late07:
T 2662/22 - When to present the auxiliary inventive step attack?05:
T 0832/22 - On evidence and when something is proven04:
T 1224/24 - When the EPO forgets the drawings and the proprietor notices in time03:
T 0423/21 - When the EPO forgets the drawingsFebruary 2025
28:
T 0294/20 - Sufficiency (plausibility) for second medical use claim27:
T 2353/22 - Traversing a data structure26:
T 1998/22 - Machine learning24:
T 0956/19 (II) - Res judicata and interlocutory appeal decisions21:
T 2620/19 - An email as a combination document (ARPES)19:
T 2157/21 - Embodied by the same originally disclosed invention17:
T 0479/22 - Video inspection of a CD-ROM14:
T 2029/22 - Clear beverage/CARGILL12:
T 2269/22 - Beverages/COCA-COLA10:
T 1295/22 - Crumb chocolate flavor composition/MARS07:
T 0228/23 - The requirements for a technical effect05:
T 0708/21 - The technical problem of matching foundation and skin tone03:
T 1318/22 - Rule 137(3) and anticipated fallback positionsJanuary 2025
31:
T 1980/22 - The prevailing proprietor and Art. 12(6) RPBA29:
T 1390/22 - Novelty of 2nd medical use based on omitting diagnostic step27:
T 1610/22 - Solution prior to the problem24:
T 0514/21 - Wire-guided torpedo24:
T 2103/22 - Interpreting 'is' in context22:
T 0228/23 - The admissibility of a technical effect20:
T 0846/22 - European Oppositions Limited17:
T 1019/22 - Obiter dicta and the right to be heard15:
T 1425/21 - Would improved machine learning be technical?13:
T 0104/23 - (The limits on) Witness prepping at the EPO10:
T 2011/21 - Incorrect video inspection of a device09:
T 0314/20 - Interpreting G 2/2108:
R 0012/20 - Length of procedure07:
T 1553/22 - Human-pig chimeras06:
T 1170/20 - Reach through claim and functional definitions03:
R 0013/21 - Review of decisions to hold inadmissibleDecember 2024
20:
T 0855/96 - Rechtsfrieden19:
T 0056/21 - Revisiting the need to adapt the description18:
T 0980/22 - A purely mental design method17:
T 0323/21 - Mathematical device16:
T 1311/21 - Standard of proof, prior use, sale by a related company13:
T 0123/22 - Rule 8011:
T 1975/19 - Transfer of priority09:
T 2036/22 - Please ignore that 'final' date for written submissions06:
T 1278/23 - Re-establishment05:
T 1741/21 - A remittal in patent year 2004:
T 1798/22 - Inventive step of intermediate products02:
G 2/24 - Referral - Intervention in appeal - T 1286/23November 2024
29:
T 2149/22 - Offering to cancel independent claims28:
T 2043/22 - Combinations of features27:
T 2053/20 - A remedy for the opponent/appellant25:
T 3122/19 - Functional compositions for second medical uses22:
T 1563/22 - The prevailing proprietor20:
T 1132/20 - A cloud-computing provider's non-technical business decision19:
R 0008/19 - Objective technical problem, length of review procedure18:
J 0003/24 - Late FP request granted15:
J 0004/23 - Getting on the list without passing the EQE (not)14:
T 1813/22 - The disappearing commercial device13:
Will we get an on sale bar in G 1/23? 12:
T 2510/18 - Traditional knowledge, alleged biopiracy, and novelty of natural products11:
T 1762/21 - On Art. 88(4) EPC08:
T 1088/21 - Oppo rejected, ARs not admitted07:
T 0967/22 - Decision after four months06:
D 0001/22 - A disciplinary case - and the UPC05:
T 2173/22 - Public prior use in the Village Grocer in Petaling Jaya Malaysia04:
T 2036/22 - Excluding admitted evidence01:
T 0160/22 - Swiss -type claims in 2024 / contraceptionOctober 2024
31:
T 0250/20 - Four oral proceedings30:
R 0005/23 - No petition for review against interlocutory decisions29:
T 2360/19 - Rebutting the presumption on priority entitlement28:
T 0964/21 - Appeal against cost apportionment25:
T 1423/22 - Calculating new medical data24:
T 1741/22 - Displaying medical data23:
T 0355/22 - Amending to restore inventive step22:
T 1050/22 - Discordant examples, and lists of possible upper and lower limits21:
T 2133/21 - Broadest in context18:
T 1941/21 - Clinical trials; Novelty after inventive step16:
J 0002/22 - Interruption of proceedings14:
T 0224/22 - Deciding on the admissibility of the lower ranking requests; obiter findings11:
T 0957/22 - An exception to the exceptions to the prohibition of reformatio in peius10:
T 1952/21 - Is AI / machine learning as such technical?09:
J 0011/20 - Correcting the drawings effectively in appeal07:
T 1354/23 - Crystalline form04:
T 0606/22 - Factory visit as (no) public prior use02:
T 2447/22 - A communication under Rule 103(2) EPC01:
T 2175/15 - (II) Further developmentsSeptember 2024
30:
T 1057/22 - Fish oil and fruit juice for the treatment of cancer27:
T 1375/22 - A range that is not narrow 25:
T 2241/19 - Choosing CPA when requested is no abandonment other attacks24:
T 2517/22 - OD did not hear offered witness23:
R 0001/20 - Petition for review case20:
T 1741/20 - Filing 106 ARs with the appeal18:
T 0419/16 - Inventive step of first medical use17:
G 1/23 - Preliminary Opinion16:
T 0439/22 - G 1/24 referral - Interpreting the claims using the description13:
T 1006/21 vs. T1774/21 - Late late-filed objections?12:
EPO Two-day Course on Taking of Evidence11:
T 2702/19 - Open-ended range10:
D 0002/24 - An effective appeal09:
T 1757/20 - Discretion under Rule 137(3)06:
T 1994/22 - The application is silent on photostability05:
T 1529/20 - Learning about the opposition after your patent is revoked04:
T 1928/22 - How many auxiliary requests03:
T 0209/22 - Post-published data for sufficiency of second medical use claims02:
T 2138/21 - Requests that would not have been discussedAugust 2024
30:
T 0778/21 - When must a witness be heard?28:
T 2149/21 - Commerical products as prior art26:
T 0205/22 - No power to disadmit admitted evidence23:
T 0731/22 - The Guidelines under Art. 12(4) RPBA21:
T 1220/22 - The uniform concept of disclosure19:
T 0924/22 - Applying the GL under Art.12(4) RPBA16:
T 0342/22 - Unable to present its complete case14:
T 0566/20 - Claim interpretation, unwarranted advantages, and requests that would not have been considered13:
Summertime reading - Servier decision (II) - Paper patents and dawn raids12:
T 1870/21 - Admitting a document is a substantial procedural violation (?)09:
T 0856/22 - Opponent must request postponement oral proceedings (?)08:
T 0919/21 - Patent maintained as granted and auxiliary requests07:
T 1348/21 - Inadmissible requests and cost apportionment06:
On oral proceedings05:
Summertime reading - Patent classification and how searches were done in a paper world02:
T 0989/22 - Seriously contemplate and overlapping ranges (alloy case)July 2024
31:
T 0924/22 - Admissibly raised before the OD29:
T2030/20 - Using the description to interpret the claims26:
T1247/21 - The possible feature in the CPA is inventive24:
T 0655/21 - The EU as opponent in an unusual case23:
T 0246/22 - What does admissibly raised mean?22:
T 1437/21 - Clinical trial protocols and inventive step19:
T 0948/19 - Remittal for inventive step18:
T 1572/21 - A bit more than three months17:
T 1135/22 - Admissibly filed before the OD16:
T 0815/22 - Second medical use is not medical15:
T 1464/21 - Implicit disclosure and interpreting a cross-sectional drawing12:
T 0431/22 - Rule 80 and splitting the independent claims10:
T 1304/22 - A therapeutic effect of VRJuly 2024
09:
T 0197/22 - First medical use claims08:
T 1338/20 - Covid extension and admissibility appeal05:
T 0521/18 - G1/22 for Art.54(3)04:
T 1208/21 - Claim interpretation03:
T 0480/21 - Debit order fails02:
T 0309/21 - Carry-over requests and proof discretionary decision01:
T 1332/21 - Agreeing with the OD, as appellant / review of decision to admitJune 2024
28:
T 1261/21 - Selections from lists27:
T 1654/22 - Counting to two with the Boards26:
T 0928/19 - Remitted for search in patent year 1725:
R 0012/22 - Why we must announce accompanying persons in advance24:
T 2124/21 - Refusal after 16 years21:
T 0447/22 - Claim interpretation and reverse positions20:
J 0001/23 - Entitled to a share19:
T 2202/21 - Admissibility, required substantiation for inventive step (and Habermas)18:
T 0177/22 - Citing the UPCA CoA case law, claim interpretation17:
T 0675/22 - Filing a divisional application during the break14:
T 0127/22 - Expert opinions13:
T 2074/22 - Disclaiming medical uses12:
T 1311/22 - Result to be achieved (vacuum cleaner quality factor)11:
J 0001/24 - Appeal against grant and divisional10:
T 1203/20 - Using the description to broaden the claim - for validity07:
T 1760/21 - Formed; deleting alternative is not admitted06:
T 1886/21 - Formed; permits other elements05:
T 1255/21 - Close reading of the clinical trial document04:
T 2703/18 - Search fee refund03:
T 0694/19 - Sale of the factory as prior art (?)May 2024
31:
T 0898/21 - Harmless error rule30:
T1435/20 - Art.83 and secret antibody29:
T 0196/22 - Goldschmidt and Habermas28:
Visser 2024 edition now shipping27:
T 0808/19 - 12 years of opposition and appeal(s)24:
T 2548/19 - The opportunity of cutting down the claims 22:
T 1220/21 - A tutorial on Art. 12(3) RPBA20:
T 0983/20 - Admissibility and admissibility 17:
T 1252/20 - A solution for forming a blockage in a blood vessel15:
T 0956/21 - Is one way of preparing a product enough?13:
T 0614/21 - Could have presented in first instance proceedings (?)10:
T 0762/20 - Is email a valid means of communication?08:
T 0602/21- Admitting a request cancelling independent claims06:
T 1324/21 - Spontaneously forming polymorphs03:
T 2046/19 - Combining in vivo and in vitro diagnostics01:
T 0686/22 - Does the Board play games?April 2024
29:
T 2020/20 - Change of ED composition between OP and decision taken in writing26:
T 1625/21 - Shuffling auxiliary requests in appeal24:
T 0600/21 - Admissibility, complexity, and matters the OD did not arrive at22:
T 1656/17 - Dealing with a partiality objection19:
T 2175/15 - The opponent submits five partiality objections17:
T0481/21 - OD selects CPA, other attacks not abandoned16:
J 0003/23 - (Not) remedying formal deficiencies in the drawings15:
T 0273/23 - Purpose of the method12:
T 0229/18 - The Chair retires before the written decision is given12:
Unsupervised mode10:
T 1920/21 - A tutorial on diagnostic methods08:
T 2004/21 - A new kind of alternative problem05:
T 0842/22 - Not admitted ground admitted in appeal04:
T 2095/21 - Strawman opponent and Art.15(9) RPBA03:
T 1823/23 - Dropping the drawings in the Rule 71(3)01:
T 1216/23 - The SME reduction as a refundMarch 2024
29:
T 0293/19 - Departing from Kawasaki Steel (?) - repost29:
T 0293/19 - Departing from Kawasaki Steel (?)27:
T 1879/21 - For inducing smoltification25:
T 0498/22 - Late filed late-filed objection22:
T 1660/22 - Disclosed disclaimer, and lacking rejoinder20:
T 1416/21 - Reworking the example from 195619:
T 0223/23 - Product claims based on inventive preparation method18:
T 1845/21 - CPA is a set of features disclosed in combination; multiple CPA15:
T 0298/20 - Specific for sufficiency, specific for inventive step14:
T 1628/21 - Claim interpretation13:
T 0433/21 - (II) Habermas and the Enlarged Board12:
R 0007/21 - Review of decisions to hold inadmissible11:
T 0712/21 - The inherent limitations of technical language08:
T 0053/22 - Bonus effects07:
R 0006/22 - How to object under Rule 10606:
T 1126/19 - The whole list as starting point04:
T 0552/22 - Functional features and G 2/2101:
T2872/19 - Need to file and substantiate carry-over requests as respondentFebruary 2024
28:
T 0910/21 - New purpose of treating same disease26:
T 0887/21 - Only in vitro so therapeutic indication not disclosed ?23:
T 1550/21 - Too short notice of oral proceedings21:
T 2235/21 - Visible in D5 but inventive19:
T 2382/19 - Direct revocation16:
T 0116/18 - After G 2/21 - Original examples and narrower claims14:
T 2833/19 - Convergence at the time of the decision?12:
An element of the history of the PSA09:
T 110/20 - Examples of amendments under G 1/9307:
T 1272/21 - Redactions in the file05:
T 0664/20 - Pre-emptive attacks? 02:
T 0953/22 - Correcting a drawing leads to an inescapable trapJanuary 2024
31:
T 0258/21 - Applying G 2/2130:
Some remarks about the speed of appeal cases29:
T 0307/22 - Partial priority and intermediate prior art26:
T 0364/20 - The admissibly-raised exception24:
T 0416/21 - Reply to the preliminary opinion23:
T 3224/19 - Technical effect23:
G 1/22 - Entitlement to priority (comments)22:
T 1118/22 - The opponent's reply19:
T 2036/21 - Preventing dementia and credible effects17:
T 1186/20 - Steam ovens and laundry machines16:
T 0438/22 - Adapting the description to the claims, and wishful thinking15:
T 1356/21 - Limits on the bonus effect rule12:
T 1231/20 - Obvious as a solution for another problem11:
T 0770/21 - Opponent should present multiple inventive step attacks10:
T 0681/21 - Synergy and G 2/2109:
T 2024/21 - The right to oral proceedings08:
T 0183/21 - Inventive training method for machine learning05:
T 0367/20 - Using the description to interpret the claims under Art. 123(2)04:
T 0728/21 - Obscure prior art for sufficiency ?03:
T 3277/19 - Video oral proceedings02:
T 1090/21 - Breadth of claim and closest prior artDecember 2023
29:
T 1438/21 - Two meanings of the term invention27:
T 0641/20 - Decisions to admit of the OD22:
T 27890/17 - Sufficiency of second medical use claim21:
T 2143/21 - Snip and Sketch with the Board20:
J 0006/22 - (I) Treaty interpretation and Article 31(3)(c) VCLT19:
T 0438/19 - (II) On the English travaux 18:
T 2735/19 - Post published evidence for sufficiency15:
T 0460/21 - A negative feature for inventive step14:
T1989/19 - Post-published data for inventive step13:
T 1076/21 - (II) Contesting facts in appealOctober 2023
23:
T 1996/20 - A blog post as prior art20:
T 1203/19 - Novelty of second medical use claims, and credibility of prior art19:
T 1147/21 - Broad but clear claims18:
T 0016/20 - Published (?) Chilean patent application17:
List of cases 202416:
T 1768/20 - Obtaining a design model by simulations13:
T 0835/21 - A valid functional antibody claim12:
T 1564/21 - Poor job of the examining division, no substantive judgment in appeal12:
G 1/22 - Entitlement to priority (preliminary post)11:
T 1198/20 - Filed the day after10:
T 1886/19 - Commerical product and Art.8310:
T 0915/19 - Basis in patent as granted is irrelevant09:
T 1662/21 - On the meaning of Rule 116(2) in opposition06:
T 2347/19 - Should have used the lunch break04:
T 1408/19 - Only new attacks in apeal; admissibility appeal02:
T 2226/19 - Auxiliary Request, Art. 123(2), so remitSeptember 2023
29:
J 0005/23 - Interpreting the EPC in the Rules, under the VCLT27:
T 1993/21 - Support under Art. 84 and the subjective technical problem25:
T 0763/20 - Baking ovens and steam ovens22:
T 1362/20 - The request filed at 19:41 before the OD21:
Ninth edition Singer/Stauder/Luginbühl EPÜ20:
T 0558/20 - Compound for surgical method19:
T 2407/19 - Sole substantive condition priority18:
T 1482/21 - Review of grant of re-establishment priority16:
New design of this weblog15:
T 1738/21 - OD should have heard witness13:
T 2381/19 - Reject, appeal, revise, repeat13:
T 0803/20 - Review of decision to admit12:
T 0450/20 - A Communication under Art.15(9) RPBA11:
T 0149/21 - Sufficiency in the mechanical arts08:
T 1946/21 - (II) A case where the OTP is not how to achieve the technical effect07:
T 1316/20 - Pendency of parent in opposition06:
T 0967/18 - Interuption of proceedings05:
T 0969/18 - Isoprenoids (and acetate)04:
T 0350/19 - OD refuses to adjourn01:
T 1946/21 - (I) Transfer of priority, partial priority, and no shield effect of priorityAugust 2023
31:
T 1137/21 - European style drafting and Art.123(2)30:
T 1586/21 - Use the rejoinder28:
T 1484/19 - Request after decision25:
T 2705/19 - Calling names (of polymers)23:
T 1906/19 - On the meaning of Art. 13(2) RPBA21:
T 1538/19 - Correction of debit order18:
T 1140/21 - Hair processing and industrial applicability16:
T 1133/21 - Drafted to provide a large reservoir of options and alternatives14:
T 0635/21 - The divisional game at the EPO11:
T 0140/21 - Rule 137(5)09:
T 2845/19 - No derogation of Art. 123(3)07:
T 0235/20 - No objections, no appeal04:
T 1283/19 - A request for conversion in appeal04:
T 0487/20 - Deleting dependent claims02:
T 0862/20 - A mental method01:
T 0433/19 - The retroactive effect of Art.13(2) bitesJuly 2023
31:
T 0939/21 - Not showing up is costly28:
T 0423/22 - Public prior use / witness hearing27:
T 0532/20 - Optional but essential26:
T 0873/21 - Applying G 2/2125:
Email notifications working again24:
T 2701/19 - Amendment in the appeal reply brief21:
T 2892/19 - Regen kits19:
T 2082/19 - Complete case on prior use / submitting sales data19:
T 0029/22 - New argument raised, auxiliary request not admitted18:
EPO Course on the taking of evidence17:
T 0151/21 - Never amend claims before the Examining Division? 14:
T 1846/20 - Trying to get the drawings in the B113:
T 1138/20 - Review of findings of fact in appeal (VI)13:
T 1700/19 - Tenofovir12:
T 0695/18 - No corrections of withdrawals of appeals (?)11:
T 0416/19 - Rule 137(5)10:
T 0670/20 - Non-analysis clauses and clinical trials07:
T 1808/21 - Joint development cooperation05:
T 0049/21 - Obiter remarks will be held against you03:
T 0524/18 - Synergistic effect would be non-inventive bonus effectJune 2023
30:
T 0172/20 - Commerical product as prior art29:
G 1/23 - Referral - Novelty of commercial products - Solar Cell ( T 0438/19)29:
T 0617/18 - Holding request inadmissible in examination appeal28:
T 0795/21 - Deleting alternative from Markush formula27:
T 2391/18 - No need to tidy up the description in opposition26:
T 1654/19 - The CPA should ideally23:
T 0933/18 - (II) Poisonous priority22:
T 0933/18 - (I) Agreeing with CPA, waiving attacks21:
T 1225/19 - Proximity-based reminders20:
T 1621/21 - PSA is not mandatory19:
T 0042/19 - Appellate review of findings of fact (V)16:
J 0003/21 - Translation does not become original14:
T 1328/20 - Endoxifen - Protocols for testing without actual results12:
T 1193/21 - Review of decision to admit09:
T 1079/18 - Febuxostat II and III08:
T 1219/19 - Patentee was notified of the objection06:
Visser's Annotated EPC 202305:
T 1065/18 - Febuxostat I / Preparative DSC 01:
J 0009/21 - Interruption of proceedingsMay 2023
31:
T 0951/19 - The OD changes opinion, opponent should request postponement30:
T 1825/21 - Inventive crystalline form29:
T 0215/20 - Dapagliflozin - plausibility requirement for prior art26:
T 0749/19 - Appeal fee reimbursement25:
T 0435/20 - Admissibility rules for OD24:
T 0116/20 - Inventive printed matter23:
T 1589/21 - Mentioned but not disclosed22:
T 0703/18 - Problem inventions are rare and somewhat at odds with the PSA19:
T 0130/19 - Correction of error appeal fee debit order18:
T 1589/21 - (I) Evidence of c.g.k. is late-filed17:
T 2916/19 - Scientific paper is invalid prior art16:
T 1045/19 - No apportionment of costs15:
T 1761/19 - Don't forget the rejoinder12:
T 1426/21 - Inconsistencies between the claims and the description11:
G 2/21 - The Enlarged Board on the basics of inventive step09:
T 1128/19 - Double patenting08:
T 2907/19 - Double patenting and dependent claims 04:
T 1889/19 - Intervention by related company03:
T 1617/20 - Fairness trumps prima facie allowability02:
T 0435/20 - Anti-IL-23 antibodies binding at conformational epitope01:
T 1634/17 - Sheets shown during presentation but no prior artApril 2023
28:
T 1614/18 - Late filed but prima facie relevant before the OD26:
T 1081/20 - Discretion independent of Rule 11625:
T 2204/18 - Was given the opportunity to comment on their admittance24:
T 0526/21 - Agreeing with choice CPA is abandoning other attacks21:
T 1841/18 - A visit of a factory as prior art20:
R 0011/21 - When to object under Rule 106?19:
T 1720/20 - The literally photographic approach to priority entitlement18:
T 0690/18 - Board confronts party, does not admit response17:
T 0149/20 - Broad claims and support14:
T 0411/19 - (II) Commercially available so anticipating?13:
List of remedies12:
J 0003/22 - Correction of withdrawal11:
Filed in 2001, granted in 2022 / appeal in 2014, decision in 202210:
T 1708/18 - Standard of proof for anticipation by inherent feature07:
T 1678/21 - (II) Correction debit order06:
T 2160/18 - Novelty: beyond doubt - not merely probable 05:
T 1678/21 - (I) Underpaid appeal fee and T 152/8203:
T 0500/20 - The argument unfortunately heard ever more oftenMarch 2023
31:
T 3048/19 - Suitable for killing P. salmonis30:
G 2/21 - The Enlarged Board on evidenceMarch 2023
03:
T 2852/19 - Reselling tickets02:
T 0956/19 (I) - (II) PhD thesis at library01:
T 1017/20 - Prima facieFebruary 2023
28:
T 0956/19 (I) - (I) No interruption of opposition period27:
T 2303/19 - The optimum format for oral proceedings24:
T 2604/18 - Second insufficiency attack is new ground for opposition ? 23:
T 1213/19 - (II) The right to be heard and amended claims22:
T 2502/19 - The broadest possible or objectively reasonable construction20:
T 0699/19 - Novelty of 2nd medical use claims17:
T 1776/18 - (IV) Review of the OD's decision16:
T 1213/19 - Article 123(1) EPC in conjunction with Rule 81(3) 15:
T 0974/20 - Annex to SoG, and conditional main request13:
T 1776/18 - (III) A close reading of Rule 116(2)09:
T 1776/18 (II) - What is late-filed ?08:
T 2012/20 - Who signs the notice of appeal06:
T 2442/17 - If you need more time, you have to ask for it02:
T 1776/18 - (I) Amended claims are facts (?)01:
T 2726/17 - Filing the notice of appeal with web-form filingJanuary 2023
31:
T 0702/20 - A neural network is (as such) a non-technical feature30:
J 0013/19 - Appeal fee and further processing under Rule 70a(2)27:
T 1473/19 - (II) Art. 69 for Art. 123(2) ?26:
T 1473/19 - (I) Killed by a lacking comma25:
T 2475/18 - Art. 123(3) and Art. 6924:
T 0652/20 - Modifed novelty attack not admitted23:
T 2941/18 - Request for correction designation of party19:
T 1924/15 - Review of evidence in appeal18:
T 2378/13 (II) - The inventive step attacks get their day in court16:
T 0467/20 - Moved through the vessel of the patient 13:
T 2803/18 - Distinguishing feature held inadmissible12:
T 1466/19 - A concise notice of appeal11:
T 3098/19 - Correction of debit orders10:
T 1688/20 - Novelty of ranges under the gold standard test09:
T 1109/18 - Auxiliary requests and SoG Patentee06:
T 0158/21 - The pre-conversion archive05:
T 0151/19 - Justification of case amendments as requirement04:
T 0874/18 - Discharging burden of proof and counter-proof03:
T 1111/19 - Correction of errors and Rule 8002:
T 1195/18 - Filing by reference, losing the original claimsDecember 2022
30:
T 0239/20 - (II) Review of findings of fact (IV)27:
T 0239/20 - (I) Complete appeal case23:
T 0732/21 - The purpose of the RPBA (and legal peace)22:
Visser's Annotated EPC - December supplement and update19:
T 0465/19 - A non-obvious alternative solution15:
T 0752/17 - No dominant patent could exist12:
T 0128/82 - Inventive step of product claims08:
T 0073/20 - Obligation to identify under Art. 12(4) RPBA 202005:
T 2610/19 - Too many inventive step attacks01:
T 1214/18 - Disclosure of a pharmaceutical compoundNovember 2022
30:
R 0003/22 - Successful petition for review28:
T 2269/19 - No review admissibility under Art. 12(4) RPBA 200725:
T 3097/19 - On the need to adapt the description21:
T 0938/20 - Making use of the 10d period to file 100+ AR's16:
T 2194/19 - On the need (or not) to adapt the description14:
T 2179/16 - Waiver of attack10:
T 0698/19 - Technical effect must be derivable from the application as a whole07:
G 2/21 - The preliminary opinion (and Ariad and Toolgen)03:
T 1031/00 - Novelty and phase III clinical trial announcement October 2022
31:
T 0424/21 - First medical use claims revisited25:
Scaling down to weekly posts24:
T 1108/20 - Closed-circuit e-commerce entity21:
T 1436/18 - (II) Legitimate reaction to appealed decision20:
T 1436/18 - No circumventing of Art. 12(4) RPBA 200719:
J 0007/21 - Co-applicants file divisional application18:
T 2785/17 - Sufficiency of a compound claim 17:
T 2300/18 - Considering the broad scope of claim 114:
T 0929/18 - Refusal without prior art search13:
T 0351/19 - (II) Not obliged to examine the dependent claims12:
T 2136/19 - Computer-implemented, so no medical method11:
T 0629/19 - Allegedly forced by the OD10:
T 2146/19 - Rule 137(5), second sentence and Euro-PCT07:
T 0464/20 - Should contest witness testimony in first instance06:
T 0882/17 - Reformatio in peius and admissibility of opposition05:
T 0071/21 - (No) correction of payment method04:
T 0351/19 - The Comvik appraoch summarized03:
T 1215/20 - 3GPP document September 2022
30:
Visser online update30:
T 0456/19 - Biological control composition29:
T 2964/18 - An illustrative example28:
CEIPI basic training course in European patent law (The Hague)28:
T 0776/17 - Should have adjourned27:
T 0017/22 - At least one Communication26:
T 1206/19 - (No) review of decision to admit23:
T 0803/17 - Appellate review of admissibility of opposition22:
T 2320/16 - (II) Inventive step chemical compound21:
T 0689/19 - (III) Intervention and res judicata20:
T 1854/16 - (II) Should have been filed after R.116 date19:
T 1854/16 - Applying Rule 99(2) EPC to individual grounds16:
T 0689/19 - (II) Intervention and Portuguese arbitration and nullity15:
T 1971/16 - Party as of right's objections disregarded14:
T 0173/19 - The Board remits for inventive step13:
J 0013/21 - RE for EP entry with FP12:
T 1307/17 - Assignment of priority09:
J 0008/21 - No proper cross-check at 1000+ attorney firm08:
T 1008/19 - No withdrawal appeal after decision is announced07:
T 1526/17 - Medical method or operating a medical device06:
T 2197/16 - No appellate review of cost apportionment05:
T 3024/19 - New attacks in appeal02:
T 1520/19 - The description must state a technical problem01:
T 0909/14 - Upgrading user accountsAugust 2022
31:
T 0234/19 - Selecting CPA, waiving attack30:
T 0899/18 - Rat embryonic stem cell29:
T 0570/18 - Dairy Nutrition with Cereals26:
T 1767/19 - In principle the subjective technical problem25:
T 1992/15 - New patentee24:
T 0308/17 - Need to substantiate carry-over requests23:
T 2920/18 - A close reading of Art.13(2) RPBA22:
T 0431/21 - Discretion under Rule 137(3) EPC19:
T 2117/18 - Attaching the Notice of opposition in appeal18:
T 0058/19 - Ideally the CPA should17:
T 0920/20 - Attacks are not personal16:
T 1042/18 - Art. 12 and 13 RPBA and G10/9115:
T 3000/19 - Youtube as prior art (and possibly the EPO mainframe)12:
T 0809/21 - Limited extent of opposition11:
T 0682/22 - Interlocutory revision and Art. 12 RPBA10:
T 0267/18 - The term therapeutic agent is unclear09:
J 8/20 - Invention by AI08:
T 0755/16 - Late filed objection is late filed05:
R 0009/21 - Effect of refused correction of minutes04:
T 2776/19 - OD was right to hold request inadmissible03:
T 3020/19 - Opponent should attack all granted dependent claims02:
T 2613/18 - Taking up the hint provided by the Board01:
T 0752/19 - Pharmaceutical composition comprising a computer programJuly 2022
29:
T 1200/20 - Ex Div going rogue28:
T 0689/19 - (I) Dasatinib III (inventive step)27:
T 1996/17 - The subclass trap revisited26:
T 1891/20 (II) - Request for correction of the minutes25:
T 0666/19 - Partial refund appeal fee for each appellant22:
T 0955/20 - (II) Better search results are not technical21:
T 0955/20 - (I) Incorrect use of interlocutory revision20:
T 1123/16 - Clinical trial document kills patent19:
T 2471/17 - An inescapable reformatio in peius trap18:
T 2344/19 - Weight gain related adverse events15:
T 0625/21 - The Examiner uses emailJune 2022
21:
T 1444/20 - Adapting the description20:
T 1474/19 - Carrying out a debit order with a mind willing to understand17:
T 1035/18 - Inventive step of simulation method16:
T 1990/18 - The three month period of Art.15(9) RPBA15:
T 0727/17 - Patenting the iPhone 114:
T 0527/17 - Muscle Derived Cells13:
T 1598/16 - Bacteriophage for acne treatment10:
T 0317/20 - The subgroup attack09:
T 0960/15 - Review of decision to admit08:
T 0127/20 - Opposition inadmissible07:
T 1546/19 - Ratio decidendi06:
J 0014/21 - Restoration of priority and authentic interpretation03:
T 1234/17 - Customizing footwear02:
T 1437/07 - The title and Art. 123(2)01:
T 0518/20 - Art.12(4) RPBA 2020 in actionMay 2022
31:
T 0449/15 - Art. 111(2) and res judicata30:
T 2175/15 - Partiality objection27:
T 0489/14 (II) - Pedestrian simulation26:
T 2361/18- Within one month of notification can also be before25:
T 0707/17 - Should have filed that request with its reply to the notice of opposition24:
T 2843/19 - On the rejoinder23:
T 2612/19 - Medical method - omitting step does not avoid Art. 53(c)20:
T 2627/17 - Sufficiency of disclosure of 1st and 2nd medical use claim19:
T 1024/18 - (II) Public prior use18:
T 2660/18 - Simulating a nuclear reactor (redux)17:
T 0464/18 - The Board examines of own motion in opposition16:
T 0024/18 - The high number of objections13:
T 0194/21 - Incorrectly applying the 10 day period12:
Visser's Annotated EPC 202212:
T 2120/18 - Filing no response to the opposition11:
T 0045/18 - Implicit disclosure10:
T 3181/19 - Farewell to Rule 49(7)09:
T 2623/17 - A full-fledged discussion of inventive step06:
T 2669/18 - Substantive assessment under admissibility05:
T 2293/18 - Support in the description04:
T 2632/18 - New objection Board and Art. 13(2)03:
T 0288/19 - Notional business person02:
T 0550/14 - Trying to prove a negativeApril 2022
29:
T 0862/16 - Secondary legislation28:
J 0005/19 - Allowed retraction of withdrawal application27:
T 0184/19 - Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007 vs. 202026:
T 0660/16 - Review of case-management measure25:
T 3120/19 - Witness hearing unjustly denied22:
T 1202/19 - Holding claims admitted by OD inadmissible21:
T 2125/18 - In principle (in Art. 13(2) RPBA)20:
T 1788/19 - CGK provides the solution19:
T 2626/17 - Party as of right vs respondent18:
T 1911/17 - Burden of proof technical effect15:
T 1447/18 - Burden of proof technical effect14:
T 2605/18 - All aimed at illustrating, refining or further developing the arguments13:
T 1995/19 - A dispute within the meaning of Rule 126(2)12:
T 0637/21 - Appeal fee12:
T 2526/19 - ViCo's forever11:
T 0988/17 - Exceptional circumstances under Art.13(2)08:
T 1564/18 - Oral proceedings Ex Div in absence07:
T 2487/17 - Adding independent claim in opposition permitted06:
T 0926/17 - (II) Rule 8005:
T 0926/17 - (I) Software as such04:
Summertime reading - Lord Hoffmann's Two Principles01:
T 0592/17 - Need to substantiate carry-over AR'sMarch 2022
31:
T 0469/19 - Putting the problem first30:
T 1024/18 - Description must be amended to be consistent with amended claims29:
T 0354/20 - Both parties' failure to properly present in writing their case28:
T 2558/16 - Appeal admissible and admissibility of requests25:
T 0364/18 - Extent of opposition; 7 independent claims after amendment24:
T 1241/18 - (III) Repeating arguments was enough23:
T 1241/18 - (II) The patentee as respondent and auxiliary requests22:
T 3261/19 - Reversal apportionment of costs21:
T 0013/20 - Proofing internet publication date 19 years later18:
T 1840/19 - Non-novel 2nd non-medical use17:
T 1265/17 - Broad claims and plausibility16:
T 1958/19 - Waiver and forfeiture of attacks15:
T 2148/18 - Successful retraction withdrawal appeal14:
T 1306/18 - Plausibility (Almirall II)11:
T 2251/13 - Slowest appeal of 202110:
T 0853/16 - No communication within the meaning of Rule 103(2) EPC09:
T 1327/19 - Support under Art. 8408:
T 2411/18 - Medical method07:
T 2282/16 - Art.123(2) and US style dependent claims04:
T 1310/18 - Apportionment of costs03:
T 0098/18 - Sale to automotive company02:
T 1131/18 - Clerical errors and Rule 8001:
T 0077/18 - Fresh grounds in appealFebruary 2022
28:
T 2951/18 - Intervention and Art.14 RPBA25:
T 2904/19 - Intervention in appeal period24:
T 1667/15 - Crystalline forms inventive23:
T 1371/16 - Applying G 1/1922:
T 1051/20 - Substantial procedural violation, no OP Board necessary21:
T 1259/17 - Deleting dependent claim is case amendment18:
T 1367/19 - CPA for different purpose17:
T 2558/18 - Rule 71(6) not applicable under Art.164(2) EPC16:
T 1101/20 - Appeal against refusal with allowable auxiliary request15:
T 2759/17 - The skilled person and the CPA14:
T 0319/19 - It would be inequitable11:
T 0494/18 - Cancelling independent claim is case amendment10:
T 0007/17 - Transfer of opposition and appellant in liquidation09:
T 0377/18 - Post-published evidence07:
T 1365/18 - Inventive step of intermediate products04:
T 1937/17 - Technical contribution, G1/93, and multiple selections03:
T 0664/17 - Cogent reasons under Art.13(2) RPBA 202002:
G 1/22 - Entitlement to priority01:
T 2056/17 - Co-marketing as 2nd medical use?January 2022
31:
T 0500/16 - Plausibility attack not admitted28:
T 1287/18 - Devolutive effect of appeal27:
T 2713/17 - Cancelling independent claims no case amendment26:
T 2002/19 - Forfeiture of attacks25:
T 1786/16 - Art. 13(2) RPBA and Art. 113(1)24:
T 2796/18 - Rule 28(2) after all21:
T 0325/16 - (II) New crystalline form inventive20:
T 2327/18 - Deleting disclaimer violates Art.123(3)19:
T 2610/18 - Rule 82(1) case18:
J 0006/21 - Computer says no, Legal Board says yes17:
T 0768/20 - (II) G 1/93 and undisclosed disclaimers14:
T 0768/20 - (I) The balance of probabilities13:
T 0466/20 - Change OD composition in the course of oral proceedings12:
T 1891/20 - Intervention by entity related to opponent11:
T 0325/16 - (I) Citing case law is no case amendment10:
T 1989/18 - No need to adapt the description (?)07:
T 2796/18 - Rule 28(2) not to be applied to applications filed before 01.07.201706:
T 2532/17 - Reformulation as long as the spirit of the original disclosure of the invention is respectedNovember 2021
24:
T 0031/18 - Imatinib and (no) plausibility23:
T 0137/17 - Art. 123(2) and claim specifying combinations22:
T 1337/18 - Correction identity appellant19:
T 1511/15 - The first summons, for Art. 25(3) RPBA 202018:
T 1112/19 - Whether a problem invention is compatible with the PSA17:
T 2170/17 - Ice cream16:
T 1802/17 - Applicant's relevant comments must not be ingored15:
T 1857/19 - Cancelling claim category14:
Please disregard the earlier post about T 2558/1813:
T 2558/18 - The Board invokes Art. 164(2) EPC12:
T 3071/19 - Youtube video used by ED no longer available11:
T 0116/18 - (II) Referral G2/21 - Plausibility10:
T 0116/18 - (I) Prior rights under Art.54(3) EPC 197309:
T 0139/18 - Counting to two with the Board08:
T 0234/18 - Transfer of opposition05:
T 2021/15 - Rule 137(5) case04:
T 0195/20 - Claim interpretation and Art. 123(2)03:
T 1791/16 - Ambiguous feature and Art. 123(2)02:
T 0715/16 - An objection that never is late01:
T 1635/19 - Abstract scheme of machine learningOctober 2021
28:
T 1570/20 - Removal of cause of non-compliance27:
T 0914/18 - Correction of error in opposition26:
T 1609/20 - The covid extension for renewal fees25:
T 0246/17 - OD should have heard offered witnesses22:
T 0847/20 - Late-filed-objection is late filed21:
T 1599/18 (II) - Novelty20:
T 1599/18 (I) - Right to be heard19:
T 1450/19 - Inheriting attack from minutes OP OD18:
T 0283/14 - Unclarity must be lived with (G3/14, r.55)15:
T 1866/15 - Rule 137(5) case14:
T 0894/19 - Exception to the could-would approach13:
T 2066/18 - Withdrawal opposition, main request not admitted12:
T 1166/19 - OD admits request filed at 21:3011:
T 1320/19 - A summary of Rule 99(2) case law08:
T 2147/16 - Proven further technical effect and Comvik07:
T 2593/16 - The mere possibility that a technical effect is present06:
T 0806/18 - The Search Division should not adopt a purely algorithmic approach05:
T 1066/18 - An effect that is not claimed04:
T 2174/16 - Broader dependent claim01:
T 1456/20 - The first level of convergenceSeptember 2021
30:
T 2377/19 - Comparable to a clearly inadmissible appeal29:
T 1141/17 - An example of the Comvik approach28:
T 0706/17 - Opponent must present feature analysis27:
T 2534/17 - Bitcoins at the Boards24:
T 1790/17 - Not an invention under Article 52(2)23:
T 0014/17 - The CPA for product claims22:
T 1174/18 - Equitable and causal link under Rule 10321:
T 0179/18 - Bonus effect and secondary indicators20:
J 1/20 - Removal of cause of non-compliance17:
T 0966/18 - Suitable, plausible, credible16:
Admissibility of evidence15:
T 2702/18 - Prior use and tacit secrecy14:
T 0943/17 - Double patenting13:
R 0005/19 - Successful petition for review10:
T 1724/16 - Article 133(2) and respondent09:
T 2349/17 - Article 133(2) and party as of right08:
T 1111/16 - OD did nothing for 8 years; remittal07:
T 1836/18 - Inventive step of device claim06:
G 1/19 - Inventive step of computer simulations03:
T 2218/16 - Gene therapy and result to be achieved02:
T 0518/17 - Solubilising subtilisin01:
T 0222/21 - Rule 71(6) and Rule 137(3)August 2021
31:
T 2842/18 - Verbatim statement is no basis Art. 123(2) in pharma case30:
T 1888/18 - Rule 103(4)(c) again27:
T 0172/17 - No absolute prohibition of taking late-filed submissions into account26:
The upcoming G 2/21 referral on plausibility25:
D 0003/20 - No referral to EBA from DBA24:
T 2988/18 - Arguments pertaining to the interpretation of law 23:
T 0987/17 - Burden of proof technical effect on patentee23:
Visser's Annotated EPC 2021 book20:
T 2481/19 - Length of proceedings19:
T 0282/18 - Standard textbook CGK not admitted18:
T 0222/16 - Incorrect application Rule 116 by OD17:
T 1771/17 - New request, no new attack16:
T 2249/18 - No request OP still partial refund13:
T 1345/18 - Bone adhesive not a second medical use substance12:
T 2607/17 - Virtual testing of virtual welding (after G1/19)11:
G 1/21b - The Business distribution scheme10:
T 2232/17 - New subgroup but no special therapeutic effect09:
T 2773/18 - Sufficiency in the mechanical field06:
T 0547/17 - Two, the same, partial problems05:
T 1221/19 - Clarity and amendments in the description04:
T 2371/18 - No duty to monitor the online file03:
T 0041/19 - Appellate review of findings of fact (III)02:
T 0482/18 - Clarity objection as assertion of factJuly 2021
30:
J 0014/19 - (II) Stay of proceedings29:
G 4/19 - Double patenting28:
T 2613/19 - Mandatory ViCo OP at the Boards28:
T 0256/19 - Appellate review of Rule 80 decision27:
T 0339/18 - Review decision not to admit opposition ground26:
T 2285/17 - Review additional search fees26:
Visser's Annotated EPC 2021 Edition online23:
T 1094/17 - An example of the modern PSA22:
Summertime reading - The modern problem-solution approach21:
T 0935/14 - Broad but clear vs. broad and vague20:
T 0538/20 - Filing problems in house last day19:
T 2607/16 - Only three of the thirty five documents filed16:
G 1/21 - Substantive conclusion (order)16:
T 0391/18 - When referring to earlier submissions suffices 15:
T 2264/18 - Withdrawing application after oral proceedings14:
T 1705/17 - No Art.69 for novelty13:
T 2680/18 - The Main Request is convergent12:
T 0598/19 - Whose request for oral proceedings?09:
T 0408/21 - Allowable appeal against grant08:
T 0329/16 - Respondent should reply07:
T 0096/20 - Clinical trial document as prior art06:
T 2005/16 - Documents of lesser apparent relevance05:
T 2431/19 - Rule 137(5) is not discretionary02:
T 1666/16 - Angle of repose01:
T 1573/20 - No grounds, no oral proceedingsJune 2021
30:
T 1294/16 - (II) Inventive step29:
T 1294/16 (I) - A close reading of Art. 13(2) RPBA28:
Migration to follow.it28:
T 1855/16 - Resubmitted request admitted25:
T 0247/20 - What's an amendment of a party's appeal case24:
T 0725/18 - Should file fallback positions before OD23:
R 0006/19 - Amendments in opposition22:
G 4/19 - Double patenting prohibited under Art. 125 EPC22:
J 0014/19 - (I) A tutorial on admissibility21:
T 0545/19 - If oral proceedings are to serve a purpose18:
T 1872/17 - Inspection of samples17:
T 1095/18 - Selection invention / multiple selections16:
T 0795/19 - Appeal fee refund15:
T 2277/18 - Trapped by a disclaimer14:
T 2271/18 - New clarity objections by Board in preliminary opinion14:
Message for email subscribers11:
T 2441/18 - Search fee refund appeal10:
T 0233/18 - The meaning of grounds10:
T 1780/17 - Rule 100(2) and RPBA09:
T 0716/17 - Reordering requests inadmissible09:
T 1282/16 - Conditional withdrawal request oral proceedings08:
T 2255/15 - Admissibility of third party observations07:
T 2443/18 - (II) The CPA04:
T 2443/18 - (I) Drug development03:
T 1860/17 - No remittal, Board examines 9 AR's02:
T 0474/17 - Implicit disclosure01:
T 1663/12 - A (reportedly) billion dollar re-establishment caseMay 2021
31:
T 0390/18 - Rule 137(5) discretionary?28:
T 1716/12 - Remittal for adapting the description27:
J 0012/19 - The other party under Rule 142May 2021
14:
T 0081/20 - First level of convergence13:
T 0106/16 - Art.123(2) objection raised by Board12:
T 1148/15 - A review of the PSA11:
T 0884/18 - Wayback Machine10:
T 0879/18 - New objection is new fact07:
T 0103/15 - Anonymous experimental report06:
T 1839/18 - Strawman oppositions revisited05:
T 0998/17 - It raised to prominence, for the first time04:
T 2730/16 - Losing inventive step attack03:
T 1338/18 - The discovery of the magnitude of an effect April 2021
30:
T 1399/17 - Adapting the description29:
T 1991/17 - By inducing osteogenesis28:
T 2697/16 - Inventive alternative27:
T 0646/20 - Addition of further designated states after grant (no)26:
T 2241/15 - Minutes are to be checked carefully and immediately23:
T 2486/16 - Do not supplant22:
T 1707/17 - Art. 13(2) RPBA 202021:
T 0013/19 - Courtesy owed to a Board20:
T 0028/20 - (II) First level of convergence19:
T 0028/20 - (I) The established decisive principle16:
T 1764/17 - Insufficient number of dependent claims15:
T 0816/16 - The purpose of the CPA14:
T 0505/18 - Stopping advertisment display technical13:
1786/15 - Transfer of priority12:
T 0755/18 - Machine learning09:
T 2061/19 - Old arguments inadmissible, new arguments as well08:
T 1775/18 - Dependent claims and auxiliary requests07:
T 1422/17 - Internal prior art06:
T 1638/14 - Identity opponent05:
T 2344/16 - New documents cited by Examining Division02:
T 2015/20 - Only examples for other disease01:
Online filing: new, newer, newestMarch 2021
31:
T 1984/15 - (No) German-type disclaimers30:
T 1897/16 - The proprietor may strongly disagree29:
T 1045/16 - Budapest Treaty deposit26:
T 0772/18 - Displayed information in car25:
T 2320/16 - Answering G1/21 already24:
T 1099/16 - Second use claim23:
T 3077/19 - Accidental anticipation and disclaimer22:
T 0895/18 - Full examination of Art.123(2)19:
G 1/21 - Referral - Vico oral proceedings (T 1807/15)18:
T 1193/18 - Does not distinguish yet makes inventive17:
T 0996/18 - Art. 123(2) ex officio in opposition appeal16:
T 0941/16 - Three CDR's are not enough15:
T 0346/16 - Fresh ground of opposition12:
T 2210/19 - Obvious alternative11:
Requests for conversion10:
G 1/19 - Technical simulations10:
T 0407/15 - Transfer of priority09:
T 0875/16 - Optical control of hair growth 08:
T 0944/15 - Examining the invention not the claims05:
T 1055/17 - Attacks under Art.12(4) RPBA 200704:
T 2270/17 - Admissibility arguments inadmissible?03:
T 2138/15 - The effect of a remittal02:
T 0924/17 - Authorizations under Rule 15201:
Good luck to all EQE candidates!01:
T 1832/17 - Claiming the larger thing and Art. 123(3)February 2021
26:
T 0194/17 - Applying Rule 57a EPC 1973 under RPBA 202025:
T 2284/15 - Solving a technical problem and Art.8324:
T 1809/17 - Essential features and Art. 100(b)23:
T 0966/17 - Legal basis inadmissibility amended claims in opposition22:
T 1370/15 - Ex officio objections in opposition appeal19:
T 0552/14 - The question of technical novelty18:
T 2447/18 - The subclass trap revisited17:
T 2004/17 - Patent for zoom bounce-back effect16:
T 2431/17 - Transfer of priority right15:
T 0533/17 - Conceal own earlier plublication12:
T 0444/20 - Correction of debit order appeal fee11:
J 0010/20 - Covid extension lacks clear legal basis but saved10:
T 0319/18 - Rejoinder in appeal10:
T 1679/17 - No partial inadmissibility, and checking the minutes09:
T 1388/17 - The Zone diet08:
T 0205/17 - Improving mental capacity of aged canine pets05:
T 1295/20 - Using webform filing in appeal proceedings05:
T 0115/18 - Obvious and non-obvious alternatives04:
T 0191/17 - More about the appeal fee refund03:
T 1573/20 - Clearly inadmissible appeal02:
T 2277/16 - Implicit features and novelty01:
J 0009/18 - RE request, assistant hiding lettersJanuary 2021
29:
T 2028/16 - New evidence prior use in appeal28:
T 0232/14 - Storing ranges in database27:
T 2049/16 - Review of decision to admit26:
T 0398/19 - Open-ended parameter features25:
T 0693/17 - No attacks admitted22:
T 0492/16 - Not mentioning Art. 11 RPBA21:
T 1861/17 - The subjective problem20:
T 2154/15 - The risks of appealing a refusal19:
T 0929/15 - Identifying a user issuing a voice request18:
T 2388/17 - Predictive search results15:
T 2155/17 - Fresh ground and claim amendment14:
T 1627/18 - RNA delivery13:
T 2314/16 - In order to come up with this idea (Influencers)12:
T 1180/18 - Alternative solution inventive11:
T 1768/17 - Held inadmissible and should have been filed08:
T 0333/20 - Underpayment and appeal fee refund07:
T 1622/16 - The last case of 202006:
T 1243/17 - Length of proceedings05:
T 0483/17 - Don't forget the rejoinder04:
T 0265/20 - Granted as isDecember 2020
31:
T 1214/15 - More about the appeal fee30:
T 2530/16 - Routine modifications29:
T 0777/15 - Appeal fee refund rules28:
T 1217/17 - Don't focus in your appeal reply brief24:
T 0482/19 - Merely cancelling claims: not admitted23:
T 2483/16 - Beyond what is justified by the description 22:
T 0403/14 - Should have been filed before the Examining Division18:
T 0335/18 - Article 114 not procedural?17:
T 2158/15 - Unamended claims as granted inadmissible16:
Mandatory VICO OP's Boards as of 1 January16:
T 1604/16 - Appellate review of findings of fact (II)15:
T 1418/17 - Appellate review of findings of fact (I)14:
T 0844/18 - CRISPR Cas / Priority11:
T 0517/17 - Appeal fee refund10:
T 1914/15 - Facts and evidence09:
T 1480/16 - Cancelling dependent and independent claims09:
T 0084/17 - No need to discuss prima facie allowability08:
T 0395/18 - Administering through the mother07:
T 0478/17 - Article 123(2) objection as fact04:
T 0264/17 - Inactive substance for 2nd medical use03:
T 0886/15 - Technical considerations for extracting features02:
T 2208/15 - Essential features lacking01:
T 1801/17 - No obligation to attendNovember 2020
30:
T 0225/19 - The SME appel fee declaration lacks legal basis27:
T 1503/17 - Other decisions not binding26:
T 1556/14 - Decision on cost apportionment25:
T 2620/18 - More about the SME appeal fee; debit order correction24:
T 1421/20 - Fast decision, first level of convergence23:
T 1854/19 - Implicitly overruling the Administrative Council20:
T 0492/18 - No hybrid vico appeal oral proceedings yet19:
T 0074/17 - Harmless error and much more18:
T 0421/14 - Post hoc inventive17:
T 1121/17 - Broadening claims before grant16:
Visser PDF Supplement16:
T 2337/19 - Computer-aided dental methods13:
T 1631/17 - Surgical method12:
T 0978/17 - Combining claims 1, 2 and 311:
T 2092/18 - A remittal is an attractive thing10:
T 0689/15 - New line of reasoning is exceptional09:
T 1610/15 - Withdrawal request oral proceedings06:
T 1953/16 - Reviewing the first instance procedure05:
T 0100/18 - What's an appeal case amendment?04:
T 2422/18 - The SME appeal fee rate trap03:
T 2415/16 - Withdrawal appeal during oral proceedings02:
T 0241/18 - Losing an attack in the Statement of groundsOctober 2020
30:
T 0178/16 - What is a fresh ground; are grounds facts?29:
T 1439/16 - Losing attack upon appeal28:
T 2329/15 - Unusual but not exceptional27:
T 0534/17 - Youtube as prior art in opposition 27:
T 0560/20 - Procedural violation ED26:
T 0188/16 - Substantive review decision not to admitOctober 2020
23:
Stauder/Luginbuhl EPU online 23:
T 0833/17 - Partial reimbursement appeal fee22:
T 1255/17 - No attack admitted21:
T 2337/16 - Ratio decidendi20:
T 1032/16 - Onion is obviouss19:
T 0686/18 - No pointers in the problem15:
T 0822/16 - Reformatio in peius13:
epi Committee elections reopened13:
T 0752/16 - Change of preliminary opinion Board12:
T 1154/16 - The broader, general, field of polyurethanes in dynamic mechanical applications09:
T 0984/15 - The skilled person for inventive step07:
T 2690/16 - The arbitrary imposition of a limitation05:
T 0411/17 - Dependent claims02:
T 1963/17 - Filed with the wrong descriptionSeptember 2020
30:
T 2472/17 - Non-invasive collecting of intestinal cells28:
T 0277/17 - No procedural acts by phone25:
J 0010/19 - Interruption of proceedings24:
T 1255/18 - Two lists principle is only an aid23:
J 0006/19 - Retraction of withdrawal22:
T 0471/16 - Proofing18:
T 0633/16 - Wikipedia without version17:
T 1501/15 - Admissibility of documents before the OD16:
T 0967/16 - Expectation of success15:
T 1987/16 - Need to actively maintain objections in appeal14:
T 0617/16 - Non-reviewable decision?11:
J 0003/20 - Designated states and divisional application10:
Visser's Annotated EPC September 2020 online update10:
T 3142/19 - A forest of optional features09:
J 0007/19 - Correction withdrawal rejected08:
T 0694/15 - The terminology "closest prior art" is somewhat misleading07:
T 1050/19 - Requesting oral proceedings late03:
T 0891/16 - Grounds for opposition are not personal02:
T 0568/17 - Decision according to the state of the file is no formality01:
T 0949/13 - TaxolAugust 2020
31:
Summertime reading: Perpetual motion machines 28:
T 1232/15 - Not a diagnostic method (breast examination)27:
T 1916/19 - Mixed medical methods26:
T 0141/15 - Medical method25:
T 1414/18 - The application will be refused24:
T 0041/17 - Polymorphs (II)21:
T 2437/13 - Patent pertaining to a coronavirus20:
Summertime reading: Servier decision19:
T 1111/14 - Support and sufficiency18:
T 0901/16 - Breadth of claim 117:
T 0674/20 - Appeal quickly allowed14:
T 0437/17 - Superfluous, unnecessary and misleading13:
T 1378/16 - Video oral proceedings Board12:
T 0989/19 - Missing signature11:
EU General Court 2010 - Astrazeneca decision10:
T 1549/16 - Showering with active substance not medical07:
Summertime reading: The mind of an EPO Examiner, by one06:
T 0247/17 - Res judicata, evidence CGK, and documents on appeal05:
G 2/19 - Manifestly / clearly inadmissible04:
T 2830/18 - Appeal in limitation proceedings03:
National law: CPA and procedural economy01:
Summertime writing - 2020 AIPPI Essay PrizeJuly 2020
31:
T 0072/16 - Tacit secrecy agreement30:
T 1625/17 - What substantiation entails29:
T 2012/17 - Not addressing the applicant's arguments28:
T 0682/16 - Non-human genetically engineered organisms27:
T 2884/18 - Required level of substantiation24:
T 0989/15 - The rejoinder in appeal23:
T 0876/16 - Acting courteously to the Board22:
T 0036/19 - Grant after 20 years possible21:
T 0954/17 - Art. 13(1) optional for very late submissions20:
T 2141/16 - Conditional withdrawal request oral proceedings17:
T 0161/18 - Neural network both obvious and insufficiently disclosed16:
T 2113/16 - Partial reimbursement appeal fee15:
T 2279/16 - Written submissions and not attending oral proceedings14:
T 0908/19 - Rule 79 vs Rule 11613:
T 0073/17 - Not attending oral proceedings and appeal fee10:
T 2012/17 - Not addressing applicant's arguments09:
T 1684/16 - Screening for polymorphs08:
T 1011/17 - From screening to clinical trials07:
T 0097/14 - After 18 years, further search06:
T 0406/86 - Rule 79 and Rule 8103:
T 0418/17 - No remittal02:
T 2044/16 - Partial reimbursement appeal fee01:
T 1798/13 - Simulating the weather is not technical (and G 1/19)June 2020
30:
T 0304/17 - Intervention and national court proceedings29:
T 1077/17 - Remittal after sufficiency reversal26:
T 0314/18 - OD should have heard witness25:
T 1969/17 - Fresh ground of opposition24:
T 0665/17 - Offer to present the original23:
T 1435/13 - Completeness of the search22:
T 0144/17 - Visual inspection19:
T 2114/16 - Comparative example no CPA18:
T 1928/17 - All independent claims17:
T 1177/17 - Plausible and burden of proof16:
T 2350/15 - Cost apportionment for not attending oral proceedings15:
T 0584/17 - May rely on Art.13(1) criteria12:
T 0890/17 - A summary of novelty11:
T 1930/14 - Purpose in method claim10:
T 1749/14 - Notional business person09:
T 1538/15 - From "and/or" to "and": not admitted08:
T 1601/15 - CGK doesn't need a hint05:
T 0695/16 - Support under Art 8404:
T 0369/15 - Admissibility objection is late filed03:
T 0487/16 - Document admitted by the OD02:
T 1845/16 - Reformatio in peius and clarity01:
T 2112/16 - Filing Request 1A kills ARs 2, 3 and 5-14May 2020
29:
G 0003/19 - Unpatentable plants (Pepper)28:
T 0275/15 - Let's continue the ping-pong27:
T 2676/16 - Broad but clear26:
T 1060/19 - Appeal fee25:
T 2439/17 - No response from the respondent22:
T 1959/15 - Continue opposition after lapse21:
T 0605/17 - Losing attacks upon appealing20:
T 0919/17 - No need to put attacks in Statement of grounds19:
T 1323/17 - Losing auxiliary requests upon appealing18:
T 1450/16 - We decide what the CPA is15:
T 2242/17 - Dependent claim 12 in particular14:
G 3/19 - Plants by biological process not patentable14:
T 0394/15 - Combining claims as granted13:
T 1430/15 - Perpetual motion devices and the GL12:
T 0700/15 - Claim amendments and the RPBA11:
T 2398/16 - Deleting alternative from claim 1, unexpected shift08:
T 0023/17 - Art.13(1) RPBA 2020 retroactive, but07:
T 2682/16 - Unsubstantiated requests not admitted06:
T 1657/14 - Single opposition proceedings and withdrawal opposition05:
T 0905/17 - No need for a hint in the CPA04:
T 0787/17 - Any embodiment can be used as starting point01:
T 1000/19 - Debit orders can be corrected (III)April 2020
30:
T 1171/16 - Weak presumption29:
T 0101/17 - The costs of inadmissible requests28:
T 1609/15 - We tried to settle with the opponent27:
T 0688/14 - The normal tasks of the skilled person and expectation of success24:
T 0184/16 - For plausibility it is enough23:
T 1384/16 - Extending scope by deleting from list22:
T 1050/16 - Parameter unclear, claim insufficiently diclosed21:
T 2277/19 - You get what you (don't) see20:
T 2864/18 - Appeal against grant17:
T 1518/17 - The role of the CPA16:
T 2069/18 - The rationale for renewal fees15:
T 2475/17 - Ordering a different ED composition14:
T 3003/18 - Why the description must be adapted to the claims13:
T 0193/20 - Withdrawal of appeal10:
T 3247/19 - Fast appeal10:
T 1072/11 - Slowest appeal of 201909:
T 2659/17 - OD should have heard witness of other party08:
T 2069/17 - Different technical fields07:
T 1533/15 - Lateness alone can be sufficient06:
T 0113/19 - From preferred minimum to maximum in claim03:
Video oral proceedings and online communications03:
T 1426/14 - RE refused, renewal fee refunded02:
T 0939/16 - AR's not decided on by the OD01:
T 0136/16 - Do not wait for the Board's preliminary opinionMarch 2020
31:
T 1029/16 - Not addressing applicant's arguments30:
G 0001/18 - Late appeal fee (English)27:
T 1902/13 - The business consultantMarch 2020
26:
T 2455/13 - Non-technical skilled person25:
T 0384/16 - Claim interpretation as factual allegation24:
T 0101/15 - Parties are expected 23:
T 0713/15 - Disease too broad20:
T 2111/17 - Not admitting novelty attack20:
Placeholder19:
T 1045/18 - Rule 137(3)18:
Message to readers18:
T 0598/17 - Procedural obligation to actively participate17:
T 0296/17 - Incomplete Notice of opposition16:
T 0600/18 - Paper debit order, no RE13:
T 1875/15 - New allegations of fact12:
T 0702/15 - Always keep something pending11:
T 0314/17 - Ex officio examination in opposition appeal11:
T 2734/16 - Using patentee's documents for new attack10:
T 2227/15 - Not admitting the attack09:
T 1621/16 - Combination of preferred amounts06:
T 1232/16 - No reasoned decision05:
T 1966/16 - Remittal under RPBA 202004:
T 0899/14 - Plausibility03:
T 2473/17 - A long sentence02:
T 2574/16 - It is normal for claimsFebruary 2020
29:
New Rfees7 and the ADA28:
T 1265/15 - Remitting the case (examination appeal)27:
T 1311/17 - A bona fide attempt to defend the patent26:
T 2948/18 - No search declaration25:
T 2069/15 - Admissibility appeal and appeal parts24:
T 0128/18 - Notification and representative21:
T 1487/16 - Inherent features and disclosure20:
T 0228/16 - Remittal after withdrawal opposition19:
T 0054/16 - Repairing argumentation gaps in appeal18:
T 2138/14 - Not attending oral proceedings examining division17:
T 0816/19 - Obiter and right to be heard14:
J 0008/19 - Debit order can be corrected (II)13:
T 1687/17 - Abridged decision12:
D 0001/18 - Disciplinary case11:
Transitional practice under the EPC 200011:
T 0032/16 - Art.13(1) RPBA 2020 also for older filings10:
T 1442/16 - Embodiments (II)07:
T 0524/17 - Embodiments06:
T 0634/16 - New Art.13(1) RPBA 2020 retroactively05:
T 0184/17 - Let's admit new grounds in appeal (exceptionally)04:
T 1624/16 - No last chance doctrine04:
T 0434/15 - Stem cell harvesting from blood03:
T 1943/15 - Drawings as prior art; open-ended rangesJanuary 2020
31:
T 1362/15 - US style claims and basis30:
T 0815/18 - Claim amendments changing CPA inadmissible29:
T 2893/18 - File inspection exclusion appeal28:
T 1364/12 - The positive side of Rule 79(1) 27:
T 0603/14 - Novelty attack to inventive step attack24:
T 1906/17 - Rule 79(1)23:
T 0043/16 - OD should have admitted requests22:
T 0834/14 - Requests not admitted by OD21:
T 1871/14 - Rule 137(5) and single general inventive concept20:
T 0430/17 - Remittal and withdrawal opposition17:
R 0007/17 - Petition for review16:
T 1695/14 - Withdrawing and reintroducing requests15:
Filed in 1999/2019, granted in 201915:
T 0570/14 - Opposing only some claims 14:
T 0385/14 - Activated oocytes13:
T 0273/16 - OD should have heard witness10:
T 0819/15 - Identity appellant09:
T 2239/15 - MPEG standards public08:
T 0131/15 - Scope of protection07:
T 0317/19 - Debit order can be corrected06:
Highlights EPO Case Law 201903:
T 1299/15 - Plausibility in mechanical field02:
T 0405/14 - The notion of closest prior artDecember 2019
31:
T 0688/16 - Rule 116 in opposition30:
T 0087/15 - Attack not preserved for appeal27:
T 2037/18 - Burden of allegation24:
T 1147/16 - Bonus effect23:
T 0315/15 - Clarity attack admissible20:
G 4/19 - Referral - Double patenting - T 0318/1420:
T 3023/18 - Wrong appeal fee paid19:
Visser's AEPC 201919:
T 1927/16 - Dialysis method18:
T 1462/14 - The skilled person vs a lawyer17:
T 1189/16 - Not the essentiality test16:
T 1222/19 - Wrong appeal fee paid13:
T 2051/16 - Late filed late-filed-objections12:
T 2492/18 - Continuation of opposition11:
T 2732/16 - Unusual parameter and novelty10:
T 1684/18 - New secondary references in appeal09:
J 0001/19 - Fee for restoration of priority06:
J 0015/18 - Adding priority claim under Rule 13905:
T 0124/16 - Not admitting attack04:
T 0235/15 - Tube feeding is medical method03:
T 0427/15 - The CEO wishes to speak02:
T 1360/13 - Substitute drawings give inescapable trapNovember 2019
29:
T 1553/16 - Proprietary parameter28:
T 0767/18 - Appeal fee only27:
T 0170/14 - Novelty as a new ground26:
T 0011/15 - Admissibility CGK docs before OD25:
T 1003/19 - Appeal against grant22:
J 0016/96 - Competence to interpret21:
T 0868/18 - Form refusal, appeal inadmissible20:
T 2307/15 - Incomplete faxed Statement of grounds19:
T 0694/16 - Insufficient disclosure of patient group18:
T 0657/17 - Interlocutory revision going wrong15:
T 2322/15 - Not credible from the data14:
T 0899/17 - Skipping AR's13:
IP Memes - actually funny13:
T 2086/16 - Disregarding applicant's arguments12:
T 0939/14 - Proof of secrecy agreement11:
T 2824/18 - Rule 137(5) and unity08:
T 0377/17 - Everybody has a secret recipe07:
T 2300/16 - Rule 137(5) case06:
T 1662/14 - Article 54(3) doc claims priority from CIP05:
T 1248/12 - Data privacy is not a technical problem04:
T 1082/13 - Tax calculation via a network01:
T 2049/12 - Functional data is not always technicalOctober 2019
31:
T 0697/17 - Technical features, contributions, considerations and decisions30:
T 2575/19 - Debit order in annotations field was valid!30:
T 2360/13 - Coriolis flow meter software29:
T 1046/14 - Dragging icons on touch screen28:
T 0064/16 - Considerations that are typical for a graphical designer25:
T 1924/17 - When are mathematical features technical?24:
T 0817/16 - Knowledge only a technical person could possess23:
T 2132/14 - Not addressing all grounds22:
T 2343/13 - Review of R137(3) decision21:
T 1159/13 - Appeal against R137(3) decision 18:
J 0003/18 - Resumption after stay17:
T 2313/15 - Only arguments before OD16:
T 1830/14 - From method claim to device claim15:
T 1532/16 - Undislosed disclaimer and 'restore novelty'14:
T 1665/16 - Documents withdrawn intervention11:
T 1381/15 - Fact vs. argument10:
T 0337/17 - Not considering opponent's arguments09:
T 0448/16 - Board must remain neutral08:
T 2370/16 - Parties can't be permitted to influence the minutes07:
T 2677/16 - Identifying a drug discovery target is not technical04:
G 0002/19 - Exceptions to the right to oral proceedings03:
T 0858/18 - Fax pages after midnight02:
T 2609/18 - No RE for Notice appeal, refund fee01:
T 0382/16 - Last page missingSeptember 2019
30:
T 0787/14 - Plausibility and patient subgroup27:
T 2491/12 - A business-related administrative concept 26:
T 2180/16 - A disadvantage of 16 years opposition proceedings25:
T 1230/15 - The very nature of the PSA24:
T 1896/18 - Making the appeal inadmissible23:
T 0439/17 - Intervention and two national procedures20:
T 2972/18 - Notice of appeal late19:
T 2186/14 - On the ashtray example18:
T 0054/17 - (2) Vague terms and software17:
T 0054/17 - (1) Interruption of proceedings16:
T 2378/13 - Not using the PSA, so disregarded?13:
T 0703/19 - XML debit orders and good faith12:
T 1304/18 - Not addressing the clarity objection11:
T 1895/13 - Rule 63 and no refund search feeSeptember 2019
10:
T 1731/12 - Product resulting from medical or surgical method09:
T 0052/15 - Filing new main requests before the OD06:
T 2073/15 - Not unsearched05:
T 0737/14 - Analyzing the business method04:
T 0749/15 - Revoking without oral proceedings03:
T 0913/15 - Killed by a comma02:
NL - Further comments transfer of priorityAugust 2019
30:
T 1904/14 - Not addressing all grounds for refusal29:
T 2216/12 - Six year delay28:
T 0105/14 - The Netherlands as opponent27:
T 1844/15 - Claim interpretation with Google26:
T 0341/16 - Minor amendment, significant change23:
T 2704/16 - Refund appeal fee only22:
J 0008/18 - SME appeal fee and restoration priority21:
T 0435/17 - Intervention by (not?) a third party20:
T 0085/16 - No three-point-test for omitted features19:
R 0007/18 - Cancelled flights and the Enlarged Board16:
T 0473/15 - CPA from different field15:
T 2278/14 - Extent of opposition14:
T 1525/17 - Inadmissible vs. not taking into account13:
T 2377/16 - Basis for consisting12:
T 1558/18 - More than you want in opposition09:
T 1514/14 - Claim interpretation08:
T 0021/15 - New? ground of opposition07:
T 0460/16 - Admissibility opposition and oral proceedings06:
T 0581/14 - Transfer of application 05:
NL - Biogen vs. Celltrion: Transfer of priority02:
G 0001/18 - Late appeal fee01:
T 0416/14 - No working embodimentJuly 2019
31:
T 0602/18 - Res judicata30:
T 0237/15 - Optimum dosage regimen is routine29:
T 1024/15 - Novelty only26:
T 1582/17 - The vagueness has to be lived with25:
G 2/19 - Decision - Haar for oral proceedings23:
Summertime reading: On the Sociology of Patenting 19:
T 0285/14 - Patenting a drug interaction warning16:
Summertime Reading : Andean Court12:
T 0851/18 - Paper debit orders09:
J 0005/18 - Re-establishment08:
T 1979/13 - Not addressing all grounds in appeal05:
T 0231/14 - Form refusal, appeal inadmissible02:
T 0437/14 - After G1/16June 2019
28:
T 1218/14 - No accidental anticipation25:
T 0076/17 - Answering G1/18 (again)21:
T 2071/15 - Restoring pH is medical20:
T 0551/15 - Answering G1/18 (differently)18:
T 2321/13 - Pathway associated disease unclear17:
T 2972/18 - Answering G1/18 already14:
J 0004/18 - Rule 611:
T 0613/14 - Reimbursement of appeal fee beyond R.10307:
T 1038/14 - Not deciding on attack04:
EPO T 1473/13 (II) - German constitutional proceedings03:
Summer ScheduleMay 2019
31:
T 1473/13 (I) - Unsearched claims30:
T1845/14 - Parameter and invention29:
T 0047/18 - The Board is too fast28:
T 0725/14 - Transfer of priority27:
T 2249/16 - Broad but enabled24:
T 0016/14 - Atttack not admissible23:
T 0116/14 - Purpose feature of device claim22:
T 1668/15 - Patenting software21:
T 1437/15 - Admissibility attack20:
T 1551/14 - Witness Declaration admissible17:
T 2291/15 - Essential features16:
T 2029/13 - Unity of invention and old Rule 16415:
T 0352/16 - Filing request one month before14:
T 2556/16 - Inadmissible appeal13:
T 1727/14 - Industry journal and CGK10:
T 0626/15 - Withdrawal appeal and cost apportionment09:
T 2333/15 - Common designated states08:
T 2136/15 - Alginate not active ingredient07:
T 1849/12 - Appeal without appealable decision06:
T 0100/15 - Sufficiency of disclosure03:
T 1789/14 - Rule 112(2) in appeal02:
T 0250/15 - Parameter feature01:
T 2053/13 - Fact or argumentApril 2019
30:
T 1372/18 - Notification by letter29:
T 0452/16 - Form refusal, procedural violation26:
T 2081/16 - Appeal against grant25:
T 1592/13 - Not discussing a feature 24:
T 0501/15 - Addressing all grounds23:
T 2658/16 - Conjugate unclear22:
T 0055/18 - Insuffiency; burden of proof19:
T 1889/15 - Suffiency of disclosure; burden of proof18:
T 2119/14 - Unusual parameter; burden of proof17:
T 1596/14 - Different notification dates16:
T 1402/14 - A source of protein15:
T 0516/14 - No interruption for opponent12:
T 0099/14 - Pharmaceutical combination therapy11:
T 1691/13 - Disapproving text and minutes10:
T 0987/16 - Remittal; 49 requests09:
G 3/19 - Referral - Pepper09:
T 0333/18 - Admissibility requests08:
T 0767/12 - Non-therapeutic use05:
T 2435/13 - Crossing of plants04:
T 2699/17 - No surgical method03:
T 0280/15 - Cost apportionment02:
T 0171/15 - Form refusal01:
Fun with the filing feeMarch 2019
29:
T 1750/16 - Admissibility appeal28:
T 1680/17 - Fulvestrant formulation27:
T 1338/12 - Deposit of micro organisms (and transfer priority)26:
T 1317/13 - Examples already published / bonus effect25:
T 1389/13 - Admissibility appeal; wrong name22:
T 0872/13 - Strawman opponent and acceleration appeal21:
T 1455/14 - Correcting an error: threefold procedural violation20:
T 1000/14 - Remittal in examination appeal?19:
T 0174/16 - Airline strike and oral proceedings18:
T 0683/14 - Appeal decision without appeal15:
T 0324/14 - Request for remittal14:
T 0691/18 - Interlocutory revision13:
T 0413/16 - Procedural violation - new document in decision12:
T 0592/15 - Filing divisional in appeal11:
ADA 2019 - Consolidated text 08:
T 0888/17 - Second appeal, two oral proceedings07:
T 0104/15 - The Board can properly judge technical content06:
T 0839/14 - Remittal in 10th year opposition procedure05:
T 1167/13 - Fact or argument04:
T 1261/13 - Rule 116 and opposition01:
G 2/19 - Referral T 0831/17 - Haar and the EPC01:
T 2383/15 - Correct minor issues before ODJanuary 2019
23:
T 2707/16 - Slow examination is substantial procedural violation22:
T 1058/15 - Not admitted irrespective of relevance21:
T 0500/15 - Admissibility late filed request18:
T 1389/18 - Interruption of proceedings17:
T 0591/15 - Exceptionally admitting and remitting16:
T 0820/15 - Rule 137(5) and dependent claims15:
T 1593/15 - CPA and effective and efficient conduct of oral proceedings14:
T 0189/14 - Got Main Request, appeal inadmissible11:
T 0964/17 - No remittal for features from dependent claims10:
T 2270/18 - Fast decision09:
T 2076/15 - Request refund search fee in appeal08:
T 1608/14 - All inventive step attacks07:
T 1954/13 - No re-establishment Notice of appeal04:
T 1226/13 - Correction identity opponent04:
T 1755/14 - Non-existent opponent and correction identity03:
Grants 2018 for applications filed in 199802:
T 1981/15 - Rule 49(10) EPC and clarityDecember 2018
31:
T 2282/17 - Form refusal, 10 procedural violations28:
Visser's Annotated EPC 2018 edition28:
T 0658/12 - Diverging requests before the Examining Division27:
T 0674/17 - Switching of invention24:
T 1119/17 - Search after appeal21:
T 2004/14 - Absorbent article with parameter20:
T 0733/14 - Cancelling claims, remittal19:
T 0068/16 - Assumed technical effect18:
T 1242/14 - Discussing vs relying on document17:
T 0756/14 - Leave to appeal14:
T 1163/13 - Withdrawing appeal and requests13:
T 0867/13 - Plausibility, or derived from the patent12:
T 0221/13 - New attack is new evidence11:
T 1946/17 - Decision state of the file unreasoned10:
T 1840/15 - Ping pong between Board and ED07:
T 0144/11 - Technical but still in the business specification06:
T 0754/16 - Article 114(2) not for amended claims05:
T 0392/16 - Attacks: facts or arguments04:
T 1957/14 - QTL's unclear03:
R 0004/18 - Withdrawing appeal and petition for reviewNovember 2018
30:
T 1045/12 - Equally likely options29:
T 1280/14 - Irreversibly divergent auxiliary requests28:
T 0802/17 - Only one chance to file amended claims?27:
T 1688/12 - Broadening effect of dependent claims26:
T 1868/16 - Plausibility strikes again (Everolimus)23:
T 2506/13 - Decision state of the file, procedural violation22:
T 0758/13 - Must restrict to illustrated embodiment21:
T 0588/15 - The gender of the skilled person20:
T 0287/16 - Contradictory passages in affidavit19:
T 1985/16 - Number of inventive step attacks16:
T 0861/16 - No silent approval of text during OP15:
Publication codes14:
T 2307/13 - Result to be achieved13:
T 1861/11 - Consolidated proceedings12:
T 1653/12 - Impossible search09:
T 0969/14 - Partial transfer of priority?08:
T 2057/12 - Closest prior art and technical field07:
T 2232/14 - Product-by-process feature in method06:
T 1934b/14 - Ancillary Decision about minutes05:
T 1731/13 - Need for remittal is reason not to admit02:
New RPBA - Draft October 201801:
T 2361/15 - Admissible appeal based on non-admissible attackOctober 2018
31:
T 2342/14 - Remittal and preliminary opinion30:
T 2090/14 - The structure of Art.11129:
T 0115/13 - Review of first instance26:
T 2145/11 - No res iudicata parent25:
T 1914/12 - Late arguments to be admitted24:
T 1627b/09 - After successful petition23:
T 1399/13 - Disclaimer that is broader but clear22:
T 0182/14 - Postponement oral proceedings19:
T 2321/15 - Problem invention accepted18:
T 1823/16 - (II) Cross check when docketing, and RE17:
T 1823/16 - (I) How many RE fees?16:
T 0598/98 - Opposition and lapse15:
T 1403/16 - Termination of opposition12:
J 0001/18 - Remedying deficiency in appeal11:
T 2248/16 - Correction B1 publication10:
EPO Guidelines 2018 Changes09:
T 2187/14 - Barely understandable machine translations08:
T 0025/15 - Admissible appeal even if earlier no objections05:
T 1401/16 - Wikipedia and right to be heard04:
T 0383/14 - Claims interpretation and practice03:
T 0320/15 - Closest prior art and GL201802:
T 0536/13 - Decision state of the file01:
T 2351/16 - Refusal after single CommunicationSeptember 2018
28:
T 1444/15 - Re-establishment renewal fee27:
T 1207/15 - The phrase "maintaining patent unamended" 26:
T 0181/17 - Inventive step attack after novelty attack25:
T 1571/15 - Seriously contemplating in ranges24:
T 0923/13 - Error in claim, and basis21:
T 1351/12 - Lack of reasoning20:
J 0016/17 - Anonymous decision and the rule of law19:
T 0265/14 - Withdrawing appeal after second Communication18:
T 2398/12 - Prototype lost with EPO17:
T 1481/14 - No cut-off effect of grant14:
T 1029/14 - What is a new ground?13:
T 0590/18 - Paper debit orders 12:
T 1093/17 - Appeal against adapted description11:
T 1065/16 - Admissibility and allowability of ground at once10:
T 0848/13 - No transfer of opposition07:
T 2466/13 - Transfer of priority and partial priority06:
T 0558/14 - Rule 137(5) misapplied?05:
T 0506/16 - No correction of patent04:
T 1467/13 - Deleting features in appeal03:
J 0010/17 - No request for restoration of priorityAugust 2018
31:
J 0004/17 - Resumption of proceedings30:
Recommended: 100mostcited Blog30:
T 0149/15 - Parameter and device manual29:
T 0765/12 - Two strontiums salts28:
T 1948/14 - ED refuses further amendments27:
T 2335/12 - Limited lab resources in house24:
T 2563/11 - Double patenting23:
T 2148/14 - AR for claim not attacked in appeal22:
T 1805/14 - Remittal after procedural violation21:
T 2570/11 - Prior art establishing as potential drug target20:
T 0428/15 - Novelty attack based on machine translation17:
T 2274/14 - No examples16:
T 1972/14 - Novelty of second medical use and doubts15:
R 0008/17 - No need to deal with written argument14:
T 0548/13 - Esthetically pleasing but not technical13:
T 1481/14 - Principle of free evidence10:
G 2301/15 - G 2302/15 - G 2301/16 - No removal Board Member09:
T 0378/15 - Wikipedia not admissible08:
T 1456/14 - Examining what is disclosed07:
T 0224/18 - Disregarding the examples06:
T 0073/15 - New novelty attacks in appeal03:
Summertime reading - Fundamental historical decision transfer priority02:
T 1201/10 - Re-establishment in appeal01:
T 0119/15 - Combining preferred featuresJuly 2018
31:
T 0266/14 - Lacking signature legal member30:
T 0687/14 - Novelty, genus and species mistake?27:
Summertime reading - Charles Dickens on patents26:
T 0049/13 - Additional decision without discussion25:
T 0661/14 - Former Examiner speaks24:
T 0884/14 - Public prior use not admitted23:
T 0261/15 - Novelty of steel alloys20:
Summertime reading - Rule 137(5) EPC - Article in epi Information19:
T 1516/14 - Superfluous feature18:
T 0486/14 - Trademark metal alloy in claim17:
T 2079/10 - Physical parameters are technical (for AI?)16:
T 2058/12 - Appeal refusal without warning13:
Summer Schedule12:
T 1608/13 - Clarity vs. Insufficiency 11:
T 2238/15 - Refusing witness10:
T 1180/14 - Essential features09:
T 2131/12 - Essential features according to description06:
T 1271/13 - Consisting essentially of, and basis05:
T 0156/15 - No need for former Board members05:
T 0030/16 - Contribution to the art04:
T 2132/16 - No need for UK experts03:
T 0655/13 - Refusal based on Japanese documentJune 2018
29:
Old grants in 201728:
T 0040/15 - Appeal after lapse27:
T 2313/12 - No video conference at the Board26:
T 2306/13 - Cancelling dependent claims25:
T 2028/11 - Missing evidence22:
T 0626/14 - Thickness feature insufficient disclosed21:
T 0384/15 - Intervention and straw man opponent20:
T 1064/15 - Diameter feature and A8319:
T 0888/14 - Combining dependent claims18:
T 0172/15 - Dulce de leche15:
T 1722/12 - Placing ads14:
T 2340/13 - Not deciding on a ground13:
T 1415/16 - Takeover of opponents12:
T 0198/15 - Opponent's appeal inadmissible11:
T 2187/17 - Decision state of the file unreasoned08:
T 1534/16 - Prior use and withdrawn opposition07:
T 0816/15 - Search and inventive step06:
T 0621/14 - Prior use and witness hearing05:
T 1739/13 - Admissibility objection of own motion04:
T 2012/13 - Winner pays01:
T 2106/14 - Re-establishment May 2018
31:
T 0355/15 - Implicit Main Request30:
T 1819/13 - Claim for injecting antibiotic29:
T 1409/16 - Novelty and extrinsic characteristics28:
T 1668/14 - Amended claims in appeal25:
T 2330/13 - Parallel processing is technical24:
T 0278/14 - Comprising kills technical effect23:
T 2070/13 - Comprising kills patent22:
T 1746/15 - Intervention not admitted21:
T 2571/12 - Plausibility strikes again (depression treatment)18:
T 1003/15 - Re-examination or review?17:
T 1266/16 - Declaration inventors not credible16:
T 2135/15 - Board spells out what the ED should do15:
T 2154/13 - Not attending OP before OD14:
T 2026/15 - Not admitting or refusing a request?11:
T 0417/13 - Particle size difficulties10:
T 1050/12 - Abstract and library09:
T 1931/14 - Preamble of method claim08:
T 1539/14 - Citrate cleaning benefit07:
T 0360/13 - German law from 192504:
T 0976/11 - Surprise in OP before ED03:
J 0013/16 - Restoration of priority by dO02:
T 2101/12 - Non-technical features01:
T 2020/13 - Don't ignore the opponent in appealApril 2018
30:
T 2189/14 - Something you can do late27:
T 2245/12 - Why consult D2?26:
T 0591/17 - Decision state of the file25:
T 1307/15 - What lacks inventive step?24:
T 2340/12 - Experimental results and "space energy"23:
J 0017/16 - Request under Rule 49.2.a PCT20:
T 0660/14 - Undisclosed disclaimer and technical contribution19:
T 2046/14 - No surprising development18:
T 1423/13 - Legitimate expectations protected17:
T 1833/14 - Commercially available but not anticipated16:
T 1471/14 - From product claim to use claim: extension13:
T 0239/16 - Clinical trial document kills patent12:
T 1719/13 - Adding dependent claim in appeal11:
T 1452/16 - Novel parameter and old products10:
Opposition Division in T 0844/18 - Crispr patent (priority)10:
T 1897/17 - Appeal deemed not filed, or inadmissible09:
T 0198/16 - Debit order and RE06:
T 1213/13 - Death of opponent05:
T 0843/15 - Presented PowerPoint not prior art04:
T 0903/16 - Known embodiments are disclosed03:
T 2536/17 - Commenting on admissibilityMarch 2018
30:
T 2056/13 - Copyright or secrecy29:
T 0510/13 - Late found document and search strategy28:
T 2170/13 - Preamble of method claim27:
T 1922/17 - Decision according to the state of the file26:
T 1103/15 - Transfer of priority and US state law23:
T 1255/11 - Claim for Alzheimer treatment plausible22:
T 2500/12 - Plausibility strikes again (Alzheimer)21:
T 2275/15 - Unsubstantiated refusal20:
T 1567/17 - Immediate refusal19:
T 1208/12 - Excluded plant variety16:
T 0578/13 - Not admitting documents by OD15:
T 1814/12 - Decision according to the state of the file14:
T 0611/15 - Withdrawing other requests before OD13:
T 0274/16 - Consisting essentially of12:
T 1761/12 - Interrelated features in the CPA09:
T 0916/15 - A123(2): No mind willing to understand08:
T 1666/14 - Binding effect of parent appeal07:
T 2052/12 - Smart card repayment limit inventive06:
T 0447/13 - Illness and oral proceedings05:
T 2501/11 - Beibringungsgrundsatz02:
R 0004/17 - Successful petition for review01:
J 0010/15 - No appeal against EPO as rOFebruary 2018
28:
T 0846/16 - Admissibility arguments before appeal27:
T 0646/13 - Clarity or insufficiency26:
T 0029/16 - Appeal about adapting the description23:
T 0183/17 - Rule 116(2) EPC and absence at oral proceedings22:
T 0119/11 - 16 Years to refuse a business method21:
T 2100/14 - The essentiality test still alive20:
T 0763/15 - Not admitting AR without debate19:
T 2450/16 - No re-establishment16:
J 0011/17 - PCT entry with RE but not FP15:
T 0855/15 - The closest prior art14:
T 2101/14 - Unsubstantiated request not admitted13:
T 1578/13 - Not back to granted claims in appeal12:
T 2536/16 - Wrong composition OD09:
T 0676/14 - Requesting decision state of the file08:
T 1045/13 - Single patient studies not sufficient07:
T 0578/14 - Communicating with party outside EPC06:
T 0551/11 - Abstract idea at the EPO05:
T 2501/11 - Proving publication date02:
T 2301/12 - Post 2 - A83 or A84; and late translation of prio doc01:
T 2301/12 - Post 1 - Inadmissible or not allowableJanuary 2018
31:
T 0106/13 - Not submitting the article30:
T 0330/14 - A kind of inescapable priority trap29:
T 1476/14 - Challenging witnesses26:
J 0007/81 - (Classic) Payment to bank account held by EPO25:
T 0282/12 - Reverse application of partial priority24:
T 2016/12 - Opponent status lost in merger23:
T 0796/12 - Dissolved opponent22:
T 0643/15 - Brief and concise19:
T 1176/13 - Need to refute inadmissibility18:
T 1227/14 - Revised description prepared by OD17:
T 0046/15 - Indeed no more the essentiality test16:
T 0699/12 - No medical method15:
T 1906/13 - Dependent claim in examination12:
T 1682/15 - No abusive disclosure11:
T 0327/17 - Letter not received by EPO10:
T 0389/13 - An unwarranted advantage 09:
T 2247/12 - Explanatory Notes to the RPBA08:
T 1252/13 - Not a disclaimer but still violating Art 123(2)05:
T 1287/14 - CPA is an embodiment, not entire document04:
T 0790/11 - Preliminary results clinical trial not prejudicial03:
T 1589/13 - Rules of evidence and burden of proof02:
EPO case law 2017 highlights December 2017
22:
Happy holidays22:
T 2136/16 - No adjournment of oral proceedings21:
T 0428/13 - Oral disclosure not proven19:
EPO G 1/16 - Undisclosed disclaimers (Disclaimer III)19:
T 1120/12 - In time but not enough explanations18:
T 2406/16 - Re-establishment of rights and debit order15:
T 1332/12 - Filing better machine translation14:
T 2184/13 - Parameter and future technologies13:
T 1693/12 - More pertinent prior art from the Board12:
T 2135/14 - Remittal in examination11:
J 0003/17 - No restoration of priority08:
T 0782/16 - Intellectual processing of the subject-matterNovember 2017
24:
T 0268/13 - Preamble limiting for production method23:
T 0219/15 - Transfer opposition refused22:
T 2416/12 - 17 years pending, remittal21:
T 0243/14 - Multiple independent claims in opposition20:
T 0395/16 - Appeal and deemed withdrawn application17:
T 2324/14 - The meaning of "not admitting"16:
T 0630/11 - The notional business person15:
T 1432/12 - Interlocutory revision14:
T 1775/14 - No consideration for US style drafting13:
T 0181/14 - No re-establishment opponent10:
T 2371/13 - Plausibility and the PSA09:
T 1758/15 - Not a second medical use08:
T 0128/14 - Respondent needs to respond07:
T 1889/13 - Same Board members as before06:
T 0797/14 - Commercially available but insufficiently disclosed03:
T 0169/14 - Apportionment of costs and OP02:
T 1995/15 - Unusual parameter01:
T 2331/14 - No re-establishment for intentional actionOctober 2017
31:
T 1623/14 - Not deciding on inventive step attack30:
T 1972/13 - Null and void decision and A11627:
T 0420/14 - As brief and concentrated as possible26:
T 1293/13 - Trapped by parameter25:
T 1520/12 - Closest prior art and purpose24:
T 2016/16 - Re-establishment23:
EPO Debit orders - New ADA OJ 2017 Suppl. 520:
T 0433/12 - Crossing the box is not sufficient19:
T 0633/14 - Dictionary definition and right to be heard18:
T 0359/12 - Need to react to Examiner17:
T 2410/11 - Translation error16:
T 2150/15 - Minutes OP ExDiv13:
T 2227/12 - Prima facie allowability restricted12:
T 1546/16 - Right to be heard in examination11:
T 1107/12 - Standard of review and evidence10:
T 1320/13 - Values do not disclose range09:
T 1756/14 - Automating a method06:
T 0297/13 - Costs order for having document admitted05:
T 0609/12 - More relevant is not relevant04:
T 1440/12 - Filed but not pending requests02:
EPO Guidelines 2017 with track change02:
J 0019/16 - PCT dead after EP entrySeptember 2017
29:
T 1934/16 - EPO proofs delivery28:
T 0060/13 - Oral proceedings not requested27:
T 1139/13 - Animal diet as second medical use26:
T 1104/14 - Deciding on withdrawn requests25:
T 2036/12 - The CEO wishes to speak22:
T 2598/12 - Unsubstantiated request not admitted21:
J 0016/16 - Re-establishment twice20:
T 1401/14 - Comparative test results19:
T 0084/16 - Inadmissible appeal against patent specification18:
T 1201/14 - Proof of tacit transfer of priority15:
T 0793/13 - Broader dependent claims and scope14:
T 0557b/13 - After G 1/15 - Partial priority13:
T 0195/12 - New requests in appeal12:
T 0556/15 - The meaning of "grounds" for a decision11:
T 1674/16 - Taken by surprise by the ED08:
T 1538/12 - Boilerplate is no basis07:
T 1817/14 - The purpose of Article 8406:
T 1477/15 - Clear vs concise05:
T 1028/14 - Spam filter is technical04:
T 1162/12 - Abuse of procedure01:
Comments on Mr Shibata's article in EPI information 2/2017August 2017
30:
T 0393/15 - New objections in appeal28:
T 1138/12 - Independent claims as request25:
T 0488/16 - Plausibility at the EPO (Dasatinib I)23:
T 0758/12 - Genotype and business method21:
T 0875/14 - Attacking all claims18:
T 1592/12 - Plausibility and prophetic example16:
T 0299/12 - Consisting essentially of14:
J 0013/14 - Divisional in wrong language11:
T 1783/12 - Appeal inadmissible09:
T 1634/11 - Filing amended claims before OP07:
T 1503/13 - Deemed to have been searched and R 13704:
T 2092/13 - Deferring novelty and inventive step02:
T 1311/15 - Technical effect and sufficiencyJuly 2017
31:
T 0161/17 - Fixing costs and appeal28:
T 2599/12 - The Essentiality Test26:
T 2068/15 - Public prior use, secrecy24:
T 0064/13 - Public prior use and evidence21:
J 0011/16 - Retraction of withdrawal19:
T 0632/12 - Undisclosed disclaimer17:
J 0007/16 - Interruption and mental health14:
J 0009/16 - Re-establishment priority right12:
T 0945/12 - Claims are not facts under Article 114 10:
T 1589/12 - Avirulent isolate07:
T 2341/13 - No need to explain why05:
T 0075/14 - Disclaimer under G1/0303:
New rules for patents on plantsJune 2017
30:
T 0592/13 - Board introduces document29:
T 2144/14 - 13 years examination, only clarity28:
T 0725/11 - Industry journal article as CPA27:
T 1903/13 - Art 12(4) and not examined requests26:
T 1852/16 - No response appeal22:
T 0047/12 - Respondent's submissions21:
T 0727/10 - Withdrawal opposition20:
T 1777/12 - Suffiency for all the diseases19:
T 2175/16 - Wrong Examiner signing16:
T 0802/10 - Correction of errors in claims15:
T 0186/15 - Withdrawing request oral proceedings14:
T 1573/12 - Essential features13:
T 0719/09 - Hidden invitation from the Board12:
T 0519/12 - Technical standards and inventive step09:
T 1297/12 - Disclaimer and accidental anticipation09:
T 0835/14 - Inventive cooking device08:
T 0260/14 - Partial priority also for narrowed claims07:
T 0015/15 - Skilled person and new technology05:
T 2290/12 - Multiple independent claims in opposition02:
T 2580/16 - Appeal too late01:
T 0540/13 - Lost in the EPO Post RoomMay 2017
31:
T 0523/14 - Newsletter was public30:
T 0810/12 - Inventive step and novelty attack29:
T 0707/12 - Underpayment appeal fee26:
T 1811/13 - Sufficiency of disclosure and clarity25:
T 2445/11 - Interlocutory revision24:
T 1817/15 - New evidence on appeal23:
T 2193/14 - Not attacking granted dependent claims22:
T 0648/12 - Personal experience of the Board19:
T 2094/12 - Not opposed claims and G 9/9118:
T 1658/12 - Novelty based on omitting a step17:
J 0012/16 - Pending registration of transfer and grant16:
T 2123/14 - Closest prior art and problems15:
T 0001/12 - Evidence of filing papers12:
T 1463/11 - Business person for Comvik11:
T 1699/15 - No apportionment of costs10:
T 0625/11 - Modelling a reactor is technical09:
T 1588/15 - Late re-establishment request08:
T 1090/15 - Not adapting the description05:
T 0988/14 - Not waiting for the Board04:
T 1018/12 - Added matter and inventive step03:
T 0567/14 - Obvious over priority document02:
T 0579/16 - Request correction and undue delay01:
T 1693/13 - UPS Tracking information againApril 2017
28:
J 0010/16 - Divisional and deemed withdrawn parentApril 2017
04:
T 0227/12 - Not attacking all claims in appeal03:
T 2323/11 - Essentially biological processMarch 2017
30:
T 1434/13 - Priority and same invention29:
T 0201/13 - Tacit secrecy agreement28:
T 2096/12 - Parameter "less than 3 mm"27:
T 0013/15 - Admitting new line of argument24:
T 0093/12 - Country specific cooking program23:
T 2054/15 - Receipt of decision22:
T 1946/15 - Late appeal of opponent21:
T 2564/12 - Assumed integrity of the representative20:
T 2073/11 - Package delivery at storage site17:
T 0928/12 - Objection Rule 10616:
J 0018/16 - Refusal formal defects drawings15:
T 1457/13 - Proof technical effect in opposition14:
T 1768/11 - Decision state of file13:
T 2377/13 - Appeal inadmissible10:
T 2117/11 - Devolutive effect09:
T 1349/13 - Preparing for not yet admitted documents08:
T 2602/12 - Full case should be in notice of opposition07:
T 0145/13 - Rule 137(5) is not for non-searched claims06:
T 0556/13 - Still admitting request in appeal03:
T 1710/11 - Not the required constructive approach02:
T 1872/11 - Proprietor is also opponent01:
T 1698/15 - Ill representative and remittalFebruary 2017
28:
T 0461/12 - Opponent not given time for search27:
T 1988/12 - Plant product-by-process claim24:
T 1939/13 - Deciding on the wrong request23:
T 0223/14 - Not filing the requests before OD22:
T 1986/14 - Article 123(2) and digits21:
T 1152/14 - No OP before OD, reaction time20:
T 1848/12 - Should have presented earlier17:
T 1523/11 - Skilled person and inventive step16:
T 2508/13 - Reintroducing requests15:
T 0158/13 - Unallowable therapeutic use claim14:
T 0327/15 - Procedural violation13:
T 0057/12 - Reformatio in peius and scope12:
T 1637/13 - Need to ask for more time10:
T 0648/15 - Reformatio in peius and clarity09:
T 2199/11 - Patent acquired by opponent08:
T 0711/13 - Not rebutting in opposition07:
T 2478/12 - Apple overscroll patent06:
T 1226/12 - No oral proceedings before OD03:
T 1286/14 - Review not admitted grounds02:
G 0001/15 - Partial priority (full decision)02:
T 1188/15 - Article 69 and sufficiency01:
T 0258/13 - Apportionment of costsJanuary 2017
31:
T 0350/13 - Implicit consent fresh ground30:
T 2154/11 - Breadth does not diminish clarity27:
T 1630/11 - Modelling system not inventive26:
T 0377/14 - No bonus effect25:
T 1296/13 - Non-working embodiments24:
T 0820/14 - Reviewing Rule 137(3) discretion 23:
T 0313/13 - Functional feature thus clear20:
T 0123/15 - Repeating opposition, inadmissible19:
T 1992/10 - Technical contribution for inventive step18:
T 2284/13 - Wayback machine as prior art17:
J 0005/16 - Appeal decision on stay16:
T 2561/11 - Request in appeal13:
T 0773/12 - Product and inventive step12:
T 1921/12 - Correction of errors11:
T 2355/14 - Requests without substantiation10:
T 2338/13 - Proof of presentation09:
T 1291/13 - Merely an assertion06:
T 1585/12 - A123(2) and the description05:
T 1393/11 - Technical character04:
T 0378/12 - Purposive selection03:
T 1789/11 - Replenishing deposit account02:
J 0009/14 - Correction of withdrawal designationDecember 2016
30:
T 0547/10 - No plant variety29:
T 1825/14 - Cannot go back28:
T 0066/12 - Discretion for late filed requests27:
T 0222/11 - Res iudicata23:
T 0066/14 - New argument, not new ground22:
T 2420/13 - Use of glasses not excluded21:
T 2167/13 - Novelty and multiple selections20:
T 2506/12 - Described but novel medical use19:
T 1581/12 - Described but novel16:
T 1994/12 - Sufficiency of the claims15:
T 1824/15 - Excessive length of procedure14:
T 1107/15 - Clear parameter feature13:
T 1444/13 - Remittal after second appeal12:
T 0750/11 - Rule 80 and restriction09:
T 0628/14 - Rule 116 is no invitation08:
T 1060/11 - No lower limit, not inventive07:
T 1496/13 - Late response06:
T 1954/12 - Scope extension and process claim05:
R 0004/15 - Late paid fee is refunded02:
T 1581/12 - Only limits, thus disclosedNovember 2016
30:
T 1265/13 - Omitting feature, not searched29:
T 1741/12 - Unsearched feature added28:
T 1285/13 - Article 5725:
T 1118/12 - Patient group and inherent disclosure24:
T 0792/12 - Interruption by the Board23:
T 1802/13 - Mixed invention22:
J 0013/13 - Rule 36 (old) time limit21:
T 1689/12 - Reformatio in peius of claims18:
T 0745/11 - Broad but clear17:
T 0998/12 - Withdrawing requests is binding16:
T 0710/15 - Late arguments, documents, and attacks15:
T 1110/11 - Background as closest prior art14:
T 0918/14 - Should have been searched11:
T 0488/13 - Printing error corrected in opposition10:
T 1653/16 - Refused text not on file09:
T 1040/13 - Support08:
T 0196/13 - Late filed response07:
T 1296/14 - Correcting priority in opposition04:
T 2343/14 - Adapting the description03:
T 0587/12 - Scope of appeal02:
T 1852/11 - No review of decision to admit document01:
T 0715/11 - Support by exampleOctober 2016
31:
T 0485/11 - Identification code: technical28:
T 0899/11 - Background section as CPA27:
T 2172/13 - Displaying suggestions inventive26:
T 0497/11 - Inventive step and Art. 69 EPC25:
T 0437/14 - Referral G 1/16 - Undisclosed disclaimers25:
J 0014/16 - Re-establishment24:
T 2517/11 - Implicit feature and inventive step21:
T 0194/15 - Transfer of opposition20:
T 0610/11 - Retraction of withdrawal appeal 19:
T 1377/15 - No appeal against Rule 71(3)18:
T 2129/14 - Exception to reformatio in peius17:
T 1647/15 - Evidence inspection; partiality14:
T 2253/12 - Sufficiency and CGK13:
EPO Guidelines 2016 with track change13:
T 1414/12 - Omitting reference to process12:
T 0971/11 - Review of discretion or newly submitted11:
T 0921/11 - Incomprehensible claims10:
T 1311/11 - A12(4) RPBA in examination08:
EPO Guidelines 2016: Parts G and H08:
EPO Guidelines 2016: Parts E and F08:
EPO Guidelines 2016: Parts C and D08:
EPO Guidelines 2016: Parts A and B07:
T 2091/12 - Fresh grounds: novelty06:
T 0565/13 - Fresh ground: deficiency in granted claims05:
T 1005/14 - Fresh ground: amended claims04:
T 0603/15 - Correction of opponent's name03:
T 1033/16 - Not signed by examinerSeptember 2016
30:
T 1242/06 - Tomatoes III (After G2/12)September 2016
13:
T 2255/12 - Overly formalistic12:
T 1179/11 - Lacking an essential feature09:
T 1884/13 - Game rules08:
T 0022/12 - Complexity of algorithm07:
T 0416/12 - Don't wait for the Board06:
T 0688/10 - New argument in appeal05:
T 1691/15 - [A] - Complaints during opposition02:
T 0917/13 - Non-obvious alternative01:
T 1150/11 - Reverting to granted claimsAugust 2016
31:
T 1872/14 - Allowable disclaimer for A54(2)30:
T1663/13 - Costs awarded and fixed29:
T 2067/12 - Result to be achieved26:
T 0779/11 - Refusal without search25:
T 1832/14 - Documents filed with appeal24:
T 1773/10 - Amendments in grounds23:
T 0854/12 - Non-existing and insolvent patentee22:
J 0011/15 - Refusal by Receiving Section19:
T 2027/13 - "Consisting essentially of" unclear18:
T 0735/12 - No Rule 137(5) in opposition17:
T 0799/12 - Clarity in oppostion-appeal16:
T 0738/13 - Review of refusal to enlarge ED15:
T 1717/13 - Not admitting further requests12:
T 1888/15 - Examination appeal in 1 year11:
T 1742/12 - What is the closest prior art10:
T 1670/07 - Comvik fallacies09:
T 1755/10 - Software implementation fallacy08:
T 0483/11 - Technical inheritance fallacy05:
T 0404/12 - Novelty of use04:
R 0002/14 - Reasoned decision and right to be heard03:
T 2355/11 - Multiple independent claims allowed02:
T 2052/14 - Schematic drawings01:
T 1954/14 - Appeal against summonsJuly 2016
29:
T 0764/14 - Sufficiency of parameter28:
T 2171/14 - Added subject matter is substantive27:
J 0011/12 - Claims fees upon entry26:
T 2248/12 - Unity25:
T 0454/13 - Remote field22:
T 0266/15 - Clarity in opposition21:
T 0089/13 - Sufficiency of parameter20:
T 2316/12 - Grammatically problematic English19:
T 0369/12 - Closest prior art18:
T 0108/14 - Basis for "consisting essentially of" 15:
T 0568/11 - Comparative examples14:
T 2154/12 - Party disposition13:
T 2044/11 - Industrially applicable12:
T 2593/11 - Stent with clamp11:
T 1941/11 - A central difficulty with the application08:
T 0803/12 - Rule 106 only in appeal07:
OJ 2016, A48 - Examination division proper06:
T 1020/11 - By the same token Art 8405:
T 0473/13 - Up to the hilt04:
T 0435/11 - A difficult position01:
T 0864/12 - Res judicataJune 2016
30:
T 1088/11 - Reducing enlarged division29:
T 0224/12 - Adversely affected28:
T 2453/12 - Two opponents27:
T 0996/13 - Reverting in appeal24:
T 1325/15 - Invoking an omission23:
T 0151/13 - Mere explanation22:
T 1130/11 - "Interner bericht" is public21:
T 1402/13 - Pending and renewal fee21:
T 0022/09 - After G 1/13 - Fairly based20:
T 2273/11 - Tacit secrecy agreement17:
T 2365/13 - Stem cells16:
T 2365/11 - Change OD day before15:
T 1613/13 - Reintroducing requests14:
T 0308/14 - Binding effect covers finding of fact13:
T 1363/14 - Admissibility of witnesses10:
T 1036/11 - Opposition continued of own motion09:
T 2462/10 - Priority and the BVI08:
T 1782/11 - Reformatio in peius07:
T 0830/11 - No Rule 43(2) in opposition06:
J 0019/13 - Signing the request for grant03:
T 1791/11 - Mutations and plausible effect02:
T 0732/11 - Tactical considerations01:
T 1563/13 - Transfer of oppositionMay 2016
31:
T 0493/12 - Acceleration after remittal30:
T 2278/12 - Inventive user interface27:
T 1785/15 - Appeal against grant26:
T 2184/12 - Gaming system25:
T 2544/11 - Deleting feature is not broadening24:
T 0412/12 - Inserting an auxiliary request23:
T 0061/14 - Parameter and at least one way20:
T 0861/12 - Paying fee is no Notice of appeal19:
T 0819/14 - Inventive alternative18:
T 0055/11 - New arguments at OP17:
T 1873/11 - The power to hold inadmissible16:
T 2086/13 - Setting aside and res judicata13:
T 1485/13 - Unsearched subject-matter12:
T 0985/11 - Adapting the description11:
T 1673/11 - Scope of second medical use10:
T 2523/11 - Not even the end point09:
T 2325/12 - Compatible not clear06:
T 0915/12 - Publication date05:
T 1815/15 - Re-establishment after opposition04:
T 0373/12 - After G 3/1403:
T 2623/11 - Selection inventions02:
T 0907/10 - Anticipation and experimental dataApril 2016
29:
T 0651/12 - Not merely abstract mathematical methods28:
T 1370/11 - Reducing computing time27:
T 0099/13 - Parameter and basis26:
T 0034/14 - Apportionment of costs25:
J 0012/15 - Oral proceedings and further processing22:
T 0404/13 - First filing and transfer21:
T 1738/12 - Not admitting is procedural violation20:
T 0251/15 - No re-establishment19:
T 1073/13 - Cognitive content18:
T 2227/11 - Internet citation15:
T 2237/14 - Public prior use by inventor14:
T 1983/14 - Inescapable priority trap13:
T 0565/11 - Not saved by the drawings12:
T 0057/14 - Ten year old sample product11:
T 0050/13 - Undefined Main Request08:
T 2467/09 - No search07:
T 0107/14 - Comprising or consisting - Metal alloys06:
T 1886/10 - Clarity and Art 123(2)05:
T 0249/12 - Combining ranges04:
T 0915/10 - Soybean01:
T 0795/12 - Closest prior art because not inventiveMarch 2016
31:
T 1162/11 - Should or could have been filed earlier30:
T 1997/11 - Common general knowledge29:
T 1712/10 - Third appeal25:
T 1385/12 - Scheme for playing games24:
T 0105/11 - Corrected decision and appeal23:
T 1845/11 - Asian race unclear22:
T 0243/13 - Conditional ground of opposition21:
T 2054/11 - Offering a witness18:
T 0100/13 - Late requests and substantiation17:
T 2220/14 - Sufficiency and inventorsFebruary 2016
15:
T 0050/10 - Priority and sequences12:
T 0694/10 - Anonymous TPO in appeal11:
T 2001/14 - Buying time after Rule 71(3)10:
T 0528/11 - Scope of appeal09:
T 2128/13 - Result to be achieved and clarity08:
T 0339/13 - Inventive step for virtual pet04:
T 0219/12 - Novelty as new ground03:
T 0719/12 - Compound mentioned but not disclosed02:
T 1506/11 - Inadmissible poisonous priority attack01:
T 1458/12 - Correction of address appellantJanuary 2016
28:
T 2125/11 - Postponement oral proceedings27:
T 0112/13 - New arguments26:
T 1693/10 - Switching sides25:
T 1254/11 - Reducing enlarged OD22:
T 0355/13 - Partiality objection21:
T 0823/11 - Excessive length20:
T 1649/10 - Closest prior art and Rule 99(2) EPC19:
T 0389/12 - Remittal of opposition in 19th year18:
T 0615/14 - Correction opponent15:
T 1886/12 - Broad does not equate insufficient disclosure14:
T 1964/12 - Broader in appeal13:
T 1835/11 - Appeal with no name12:
T 2191/13 - Cognitive feature does not distinguish11:
T 0205/14 - Assignment priority right08:
T 0306/13 - Japanese parameter07:
EPO Case Law 2015 (Part II - Legal Board)06:
J 0007/13 - Search fee05:
T 2217/11 - No business method04:
EPO Case Law 2015 (Part I)04:
New year, new blog nameDecember 2015
31:
T 1384/12 - Notice of appeal with no name30:
T 2411/13 - Last response not considered29:
T 1554/11 - Second medical use of antibiotics28:
T 1457/09 - Speculative prior art medical use24:
T 0265/11 - Basis in the application and translation23:
T 1738/11 - New arguments in appeal22:
T 0399/13 - Inadmissible appeal21:
T 1410/14 - Prior use visible for a second21:
T 1184/12 - Accelerated appeal18:
T 1952/10 - Non-searched feature in aux. req.18:
T 1459/11 - Written submissions17:
T 0526/12 - Prior art and proof16:
T 1022/14 - Re-establishment refused14:
T 0740/15 - Termination opposition proceedings11:
T 2415/13 - Late requests before OD11:
G 2301/15 - Removal from office10:
T 0336/14 - Inventive GUI09:
T 1702/12 - Broader dependent claim08:
T 2068/14 - Video conference oral proceedings07:
T 0085/14 - Witness in appeal04:
T 0451/11 - Binding starting point03:
T 1507/10 - Parameters in examination02:
T 0893/13 - Interlocutory revision and fee01:
T 0379/10 - After petition for review01:
G 0001/14 - Refund appeal fee (inadmissible)November 2015
30:
Unwired v Huawei - Priority date and time zone30:
T 1626/11 - Reformatio in peius27:
T 1125/13 - Unordered requests26:
T 0942/12 - Re-establishment granted25:
T 2369/10 - No second medical use of device24:
T 2340/10 - Withdrawal during OP23:
J 0016/14 - Undoing transfer patentOctober 2015
25:
Interruption of blogging23:
T 2644/11 - Novelty and reference22:
T 2420/10 - Problem in the claim21:
T 0236/11 - Document yet admitted20:
T 0724/10 - Wrong request19:
T 0653/15 - Payment is not appeal19:
J 0024/13 - Stay of proceedings15:
T 1900/10 - More time required15:
T 1461/12 - Challenging COMVIK14:
T 1952/12 - Enterprise software13:
T 1021/11 - Double second medical use claim12:
T 0350/12 - Computer translation09:
T 0184/13 - Reintroduced request not admitted08:
T 1995/12 - Unity of invention07:
T 0595/11 - Underpayment and good faith06:
T 0206/13 - Sufficiency and preferred features06:
T 2430/11 - Deleting alternatives05:
T 2201/10 - Bypassing the PSA02:
T 2048/10 - Available but not disclosed01:
T 0285/11 - Service Regulations EPOSeptember 2015
30:
T 2174/12 - Not: is it essential29:
T 1977/10 - Perpetuum mobile29:
T 0910/12 - Public prior use28:
J 0018/14 - Undoing of transfer28:
T 0720/12 - Repeating arguments in appeal25:
T 0098/13 - Inescapable trap by disclaimer24:
J 0002/15 - Retraction of withdrawal23:
T 0083/05 - Broccoli III23:
T 1155/11 - Shared priority22:
T 0327/13 - Appeal with broader claims inadmissible22:
T 1354/11 - Announcing requests is not filing21:
T 2078/13 - Disclosure in drawings21:
T 0169/12 - New attacks in appeal18:
T 0274/12 - Tacit secrecy agreement18:
T 0254/10 - About is vague18:
T 0454/12 - Unclear feature and novelty17:
T 0805/13 - Unclear reference16:
T 1830/11 - Attacking new claims in appeal15:
T 0467/13 - Broader claims in appeal II14:
T 0538/09 - The Examiner's own thesis11:
T 2618/11 - Disclosed or undisclosed disclaimer10:
T 1592/11 - Medical method09:
T 1880/10 - Inventive advertisement delivery08:
T 0468/13 - Appeal against grant07:
T 1436/12 - Incorporation by reference04:
T 0601/09 - Skilled person and inventor03:
T 0025/13 - Closest prior art02:
T 0943/13 - Second medical use and A5601:
T 1273/11 - ReimbursementAugust 2015
31:
T 0621/11 - A or the, an inescapable trap28:
National decision - Partial priority27:
T 1890/09 - Poisonous priority strikes again26:
T 1882/12 - Optional claim features25:
T 2552/11 - Accompanying person24:
T 2403/11 - Contradicting yourself21:
T 1930/12 - No video conference BoA20:
T 2247/11 - Selection from two lists19:
T 0343/12 - Not the library18:
T 0516/08 - Old secondary document18:
T 1426/13 - Opposition and straw man17:
T 1958/13 - Technical effect of user interface14:
T 1502/11 - Self-contradicting but enabled13:
T 1646/12 - No Art 69 for patentability12:
T 557/13 - G1/15 - Partial priority and poisonous divisional12:
R 0009/14 - Summary of problem-solution approach11:
T 0038/11 - Postponement not requested10:
T 0714/13 - Second use not medical07:
T 0375/13 - "Stable" as parameter07:
T 1775/11 - Parameters and testing methods06:
T 1339/13 - Clarity and description05:
T 1825/11 - Continuation opposition after lapse05:
T 2196/11 - Continuation of opposition after lapse04:
T 0837/13 - Admissibility appeal and translated appellant name03:
T 0034/12 - Rule 164 and amendments of the claimsJuly 2015
31:
T 0102/12 - Request regarding description30:
T 1910/14 - Broad feature not necessarily unclear29:
T 1569/11 - No appeal against reasons only29:
T 0217/10 - Auxiliary requests in appeal need arguments28:
T 0614/13 - Admissibility of intervention27:
T 1682/13 - Broader claims in appeal24:
T 2168/11 - Reintroducing requests23:
T 0450/13 - Public prior use in appeal23:
T 0460/13 - Evidence of public prior use in appeal is too lateJuly 2015
15:
T 0698/10 - Closest prior art and hindsight14:
T 1516/11 - Withdrawal after decision14:
T 0305/12 - Method claim novel by purpose13:
T 1959/11 - Filing broader claims in appeal does not work10:
T 0998/14 - Unsearched subject-matter09:
T 1846/10 - Non-working examples and A8308:
T 1360/11 - Restricting components and extending scope07:
T 1278/12 - Second use not medical06:
Rule 134(5) by analogy for bank closure 03:
T 0979/12 - Appeal in name of only one of joint parties02:
T 0842/12 - Abandoning and reintroducing grounds for opposition01:
T 1918/10 - Non-authorized representativeJune 2015
30:
T 0755/14 - Unity of invention a posteriori: requires inventions30:
T 0386/12 - Unity and unsearched features29:
T 2068/11 - Deposit of microorganism26:
T 2536/12 - Not addressing the bearing reasons25:
J 0001/15 - Renewal fee and very late notice loss of rights24:
T 1104/11 - Late filed request and role of the Board23:
T 1267/10 - Analogous application reformatio in peius23:
J 0012/14 - Missing drawings22:
T 1808/13 - Brustle - stem cells and disclaimers22:
T 2255/10 - Closest prior art22:
T 1775/12 - Oral proceedings after R71(3)19:
T 2001/12 - Essential features: Art. 83 or 84 or 56?18:
T 2579/11 - Priority document as CPA17:
National decision - Can anyone start revocation action?16:
Article 65 UPCA - Who can start revocation action?15:
EPO Case Law week 2412:
T 2541/11 - Documents filed with appeal are at discretion of the board11:
T 1981/11 - Feature description covered by search?10:
T 0167/11 - Documents filed with Notice of Opposition but not relied on09:
Article 68 UPCA: Recovery of profits08:
EPO case law week 2305:
T 1823/11 - Sufficiency of disclosure - how to do it right.04:
National decisions - Inherent features and implicit disclosure03:
EPO OJ 5/201502:
Article 68 UPCA: damages and willfulness 01:
EPO Case Law week 22May 2015
29:
R 0016/13 - Successful petition for review28:
T 0359/11 - Abuse of R 137(3)27:
T 0037/12 - Handwritten amendments in appeal26:
Art 53(1)(d) UPCA: Hearing witnesses25:
EPO Case Law Week 2122:
T 1480/12 - Combining claims, still need to file claims set21:
T 2130/11 - Unclear disclaimers and disclaiming more than necessary19:
Art 25 UPCA and devices made after publication but before grant18:
EPO Case Law week 2015:
T 0862/11 - Product-by-process: different for novelty and infringement ?14:
Art. 82 UPCA: Open questions13:
Postal service providers (OJ2015, A29)12:
OJ 2015/4: Notice about mailbox (OJ 2015, A36)11:
EPO Case Law week 1908:
T 0423/11 - Appeal without name appellant07:
T 0500/12 - Opposition appeal continued after lapse06:
T 0840/11 - Repairing in opposition appeal05:
T 1883/12 - Discretion of OD and review04:
EPO Case Law Week 1801:
T 1437/10 - Double patentingApril 2015
30:
T0862/11 - Assessing the effect under A83 and A5629:
ADA 2015 - changes for deposit accounts29:
J 0008/13 - Oral proceedings before Receiving Section28:
J 0023/13 - Pending application after refusal27:
T 1840/13 - Refusal not reasoned and containing non-heard arguments24:
G 2/12 and G 2/13 - Plant products - Broccolli and Tomato II23:
T 0177/15 - Incorrect decision according to state of the file22:
T 1734/11 - Presentation of information does not contribute to inventive step21:
T 0887/11 - Unclear feature and reformatio in peius20:
T 2406/10 - Poisonous priority and fatal family members17:
T 0932/09 - Filing further requests in opposition16:
OJ 2015/3: CMS filing now also for appeal documents (OJ 2015, A27)15:
T 0972/13 - Not attending can be costly14:
T 1363/12 - Amendments and the gold standard13:
G 3/14 - Examination of clarity in opposition10:
T 1283/11 - If you need more time, you've to ask for it09:
T 0014/11 - Falsified prior art?08:
T 1724/10 - Incorrect problem solution approach07:
T 1645/10 - Right to be heard even if no oral proceedings06:
T 0273/11 - Could or should have been presentedMarch 2015
19:
T 1041/12 - "Full container" is unclear (first blog post)01:
All categories
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.