Breaking EPO News - Decision G 2/19 - oral hearings of the Boards of Appeal can take place in Haar, and third parties cannot appeal clarity of claims during examination procedure.

Breaking EPO News - Decision G 2/19 - oral hearings of the Boards of Appeal can take place in Haar, and third parties cannot appeal clarity of claims during examination procedure.

Breaking EPO News - Decision G 2/19 - oral hearings of the Boards of Appeal can take place in Haar, and third parties cannot appeal clarity of claims during examination procedure.

In one of the fastest ever decisions on a referral, the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal yesterday (18 July 2019) found in case G 2/19 that (EPO brief communication; Google translation):

"A third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC, who has appealed against the decision to grant a European patent, has no right to be heard by a Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office orally over its request to remove allegedly indistinct claims (Article 84 EPC) of the European patent to re-enter the examination procedure. Such a complaint does not have suspensive effect.

Oral hearings of the Boards of Appeal at their location in Haar do not infringe Articles 113 (1) and 116 (1) EPC."

So what does this really mean?

1. Clarity of the claims (Art. 84 EPC) of a European patent application is an issue that can only be decided by the examining division. Third parties cannot intervene to get a decision on clarity from a Board of Appeal.

Clarity is not a formal ground of opposition (Art. 100 EPC)  (although it can be raised during opposition if the patentee seeks to amend the granted claims - the Opposition Division will then determine whether the newly amended claims comply with the requirements of the EPC), and so perceived ambiguity in the scope of protection offered by claims can cause issues for third parties. This decision confirms that:

(a) a third party cannot appeal the decision of an examining division to grant a patent on the basis of clarity, and

(b) such an appeal cannot suspend the grant procedure at the EPO.

2. The decision of the former EPO President to move the Boards of Appeal from their location in Munich to Haar is valid.

The full grounds of the decision have not issued yet, and should be very interesting reading when they do issue.

Jim Robertson, Partner and Patent Attorney 

Related News

news

Coronavirus - UK IPO, EPO and EU IPO extensions and support

A simple overview of the current status from IPOs. Last updated 31st March 2020. 

UPDATE - UK IPO support for those affected by Coronavirus
news

UPDATE - UK IPO support for those affected by Coronavirus

The UKIPO has now certified that a ‘period of interruption’ began on Tuesday 24 March 2020.

BREAKING NEWS - German Federal Constitutional Court decides on UPC complaint
news

BREAKING NEWS - German Federal Constitutional Court decides on UPC complaint

The German Federal Constitutional Court has now issued its long-awaited decision (source) in case  2 BvR 739/17 which was a complaint against the German Ratification Law under which Germany was to ratify the UPC.

EPO announces extensions to deadlines due to COVID-19
news

EPO announces extensions to deadlines due to COVID-19

On Sunday 15 March 2020 the EPO published a notice advising it is invoking the provisions of Rule 134(2) EPC, and has extended all periods expiring on or after publication of the notice to 17 April 2020. This may be extended by the EPO upon publication of a further notice.

EUIPO extends all deadlines for Community Design and European Union Trade Marks
news

EUIPO extends all deadlines for Community Design and European Union Trade Marks

The Executive Director of the EUIPO has today (16 March 2020) issued a decision regarding extensions for all time limits on trade mark and design matters at the EUIPO. In accordance with the decision, all time limits expiring between 9 March 2020 and 30 April 2020 inclusive are extended until 1 May 2020.

news

UK IPO announces support for those affected by coronavirus

In brief, the UK IPO has indicated that it will use its discretionary powers (on a case-by-case basis) to extend time limits where possible under national and international law.

*Update* “EPO Board of Appeal finds Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent to lack valid priority claim and upholds revocation of patent (T 0844/18)”
news

*Update* “EPO Board of Appeal finds Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent to lack valid priority claim and upholds revocation of patent (T 0844/18)”

Earlier this year, we reported on the EPO Board of Appeal’s decision to uphold the revocation of the Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent (here). Now it appears that the Broad Institute is gearing up to put forward a petition for review by the Enlarged Board of Appeal as a last resort to save their patent.

news

The UPC is dead, long live the UPC!

European patent attorneys have been getting excited about the Unitary Patent (UP) and Unified Patent Court (UPC) for years, writing articles, and giving talks and presentations about the ins-and-outs and twists-and-turns of the whole thing. So what is the current situation? What has happened now?

aipex logo aipex logo aipex logo