G 1/09 Explained

Above:G 1/09
Label1:Issued
Data1:27 September 2010
Headerstyle:background:#6699FF
Header2:Board composition
Header4:Headword
Data5:Pending application/SONY

G 1/09 is a decision issued on 27 September 2010 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that, following refusal of a European patent application, the application remains pending until the expiry of the time limit for filing a notice of appeal, so that a divisional application under may be filed even after the refusal of an application.[1] [2] [3] More specifically, the divisional application may be filed until expiry of the time limit of two months for filing a notice of appeal under .[3]

Background

In the European Patent Convention (EPC), provides for the possibility for applicants to file a divisional application based on a European patent application. The European patent application based on which the divisional is filed is then called the "parent application". In accordance with, a divisional application can only be filed when the parent application is still pending.[4] [5] However, the EPC does not define the concept of "pendency" of a European patent application.[6] The question therefore arose as to whether a European patent application is still pending after the application has been refused. According to the EPO practice before G 1/09, a divisional application could no longer be filed after the application had been refused,[1] i.e. after the date of notification of the decision of refusal in written or oral proceedings.[3]

Referral

The referral lies from interlocutory decision J 2/08[7] by the Legal Board of Appeal (i.e. Board 3.1.01). In the case underlying J 2/08, the applicant had filed a divisional application between the announcement of the decision on refusal at the oral proceedings and the notification of the written decision, without filing an appeal against the refusal. The EPO's Receiving Section refused to allocate the filing date of the parent application to the divisional, and, in appeal, the Legal Board of Appeal, confronted with that situation, decided to refer the matter to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.[1]

The referred question was:[8]

Answer to the referred question

In its answer to the referred question, the Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled that "[i]n the case where no appeal is filed, a European patent application which has been refused by a decision of the Examining Division is thereafter pending within the meaning of Rule 25 EPC 1973 (Rule 36(1) EPC) until the expiry of the time limit for filing a notice of appeal."[8] Although the operative part of the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision is limited to a refusal by the Examining Division, nothing else can apply in the case of a refusal by the Receiving Section.[9]

The Enlarged Board of Appeal based its decision, inter alia, on its finding that a "pending" European patent application within the meaning of refers to a patent application "in a status in which substantive rights deriving therefrom under the EPC are (still) in existence".[10] [8] [3] [11] According to, substantive rights continue to exist until the European patent application was "finally refused", and, according to generally recognised principles of procedural law, a decision only becomes final, i.e. it only becomes res judicata, when the time limit for appeal has expired.[8] [3] [12]

Obiter dictum

The Enlarged Board also confirmed, in an obiter dictum, the established practice of the EPO that a divisional application under Article 76 EPC may be filed until the day preceding the date of publication of the mention of grant of a patent in the European Patent Bulletin, but "normally"[13] no longer on the date of publication of the mention of grant.[1] [14] [15]

Analysis

The decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal simplifies the applicant's life in case of a refusal of a European patent application. Indeed, if the applicant does not wish to challenge the decision of refusal of the parent application, but wants to pursue another subject matter through a divisional application, the applicant no longer needs to lodge and substantiate an appeal for purely formal reasons, only to keep a time window open for filing a divisional application.[16] [3]

Further reading

External links

Notes and References

  1. Teschemacher . Rudolf . Aktuelle Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern des EPA – Notizen für die Praxis . Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte . 2011 . 7-8 . 325 . Current case law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO - Notes for practitioners . German. See section 1.3.
  2. Naumann . Kurt . Wichmann . Hendrik . Die Einreichung einer Teilanmeldung und deren Fristberechnung in der Praxis . Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte . 2012 . 4 . 168 . The filing of a divisional application and its time limit calculation in practice . In der Entscheidung G 1/09 wird die Anhängigkeit einer Anmeldung bezüglich der Einreichung einer Teilung im Falle der Zurückweisung neu definiert. Es gilt nicht mehr, wie bisher, der Tag der Rechtskraft der Entscheidung, sondern der Ablauf der Frist zur Einreichung einer Beschwerde (2 Monate). . Decision G 1/09 redefines the pendency of an application regarding the filing of a divisional in case of refusal. The day on which the decision becomes final is no longer applicable, as was previously the case, but the expiry of the time limit for filing an appeal (2 months). . German.
  3. Schauwecker . Marko . Die Anhängigkeit der Stammanmeldung als Bedingung für die Teilung europäischer Patentanmeldungen – noch immer viele Fragen . GRUR Int. . 2012 . 410 . The pendency of the parent application as a condition for the division of European patent applications - still many questions . German. See section II.1.
  4. Schauwecker . Marko . Die Anhängigkeit der Stammanmeldung als Bedingung für die Teilung europäischer Patentanmeldungen – noch immer viele Fragen . GRUR Int. . 2012 . 410 . The pendency of the parent application as a condition for the division of European patent applications - still many questions . German.

  5. "Pendency of the earlier application"

  6. Schauwecker . Marko . Die Anhängigkeit der Stammanmeldung als Bedingung für die Teilung europäischer Patentanmeldungen – noch immer viele Fragen . GRUR Int. . 2012 . 410 . The pendency of the parent application as a condition for the division of European patent applications - still many questions . German.
  7. https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/j080002ex1.html Decision J 2/08 (Pending application/SONY) of 27 May 2009
  8. Europäisches Patentübereinkommen – Große Beschwerdekammer entscheidet in der Rs. G 1/09 zum Begriff der „Anhängigkeit” gem. Regel 25 EPÜ 1973 (Regel 36 Abs. 1 EPÜ 2000) . GRUR Int. . 2010 . 1012 . European Patent Convention - Enlarged Board of Appeal decides in Case G 1/09 on the concept of "pendency" under Rule 25 EPC 1973 (Rule 36(1) EPC 2000) . German.
  9. Schauwecker . Marko . Die Anhängigkeit der Stammanmeldung als Bedingung für die Teilung europäischer Patentanmeldungen – noch immer viele Fragen . GRUR Int. . 2012 . 410 . The pendency of the parent application as a condition for the division of European patent applications - still many questions . Obwohl der Tenor der Entscheidung angesichts des zugrunde liegenden Falles ausdrücklich auf eine Zurückweisung durch die Prüfungsabteilung (Art. 97 (2) EPÜ) beschränkt ist, kann im Falle der Zurückweisung durch die Eingangsstelle (Art. 90 (5) EPÜ) nichts anderes gelten, d.h. auch hier muss die Anmeldung, ohne dass Beschwerde eingelegt wird, als bis zum Ablauf der Beschwerdefrist anhängig angesehen werden. . Although the operative part of the decision is expressly limited to a refusal by the Examining Division (Art. 97(2) EPC) in view of the underlying case, nothing else can apply in the case of a refusal by the Receiving Section (Art. 90(5) EPC), i.e. here too the application must be considered pending until the expiry of the appeal period without an appeal being filed. . German. See section II.1.
  10. G 1/09, point 3.2.4, emphasis by the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

  11. "Requirement of pending earlier application"

  12. G 1/09, point 4.2.2.
  13. G 1/09, point 4.3.2.
  14. Schauwecker . Marko . Die Anhängigkeit der Stammanmeldung als Bedingung für die Teilung europäischer Patentanmeldungen – noch immer viele Fragen . GRUR Int. . 2012 . 410 . The pendency of the parent application as a condition for the division of European patent applications - still many questions . German. See section II.2.

  15. "Pendency in case of refusal of earlier application against which no appeal was filed"

  16. Teschemacher . Rudolf . Aktuelle Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern des EPA – Notizen für die Praxis . Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte . 2011 . 7-8 . 325 . Current case law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO - Notes for practitioners . Die Entscheidung vereinfacht die Situation des Anmelders im Fall der Zurückweisung. Will er die Entscheidung nicht anfechten, sondern einen anderen Gegenstand im Rahmen einer Teilanmeldung weiter verfolgen, braucht er nicht länger aus rein formalen Gründen eine Beschwerde einreichen und begründen, nur um sich ein Zeitfenster für die Einreichung einer Teilanmeldung offen zu halten. . The decision simplifies the applicant's situation in case of refusal. If he does not want to challenge the decision, but wants to pursue another subject matter within the scope of a divisional application, he no longer needs to file and substantiate an appeal for purely formal reasons, only to keep a time window open for filing a divisional application. . German.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "G 1/09".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.