GL F VI 2.1 Examining the validity of a right to priority

As a general rule, the division does not make any investigation as to the validity of a right to priority. However, the priority right assumes importance if prior art has to be taken into account which has been made available to the public within the meaning of Art. 54(2) on or after the priority date claimed and before the date of filing (e.g. an intermediate document, see G‑IV, 3) or if the content of the European patent application is totally or partially identical with the content of another European application within the meaning of Art. 54(3), such other application claiming a priority date within that period. In such cases (i.e. cases where the art in question would be relevant if of earlier date), the division must investigate whether the priority date(s) claimed may be accorded to the appropriate parts of the application it is examining and informs the applicant of the outcome and whether, in consequence, the particular prior art under consideration, e.g. the intermediate document, or the other European application forms part of the state of the art within the meaning of Art. 54. Also, in the case of possible conflict with another European application under Art. 54(3), it may be necessary in addition to allocate effective dates to the appropriate parts of that other application and to communicate this to the applicant analogously (see also G‑IV, 3). When the division needs to consider the question of priority date, it has to bear in mind all the matters which are mentioned in F‑VI, 1.3 to 1.5 above.
If in the case of a Euro-PCT application, where the EPO is acting as a designated or elected Office, the priority document is not on file, substantive examination may nevertheless be started. In such a case, without the priority document being on file, the application may even, where appropriate, be refused because the claimed subject-matter lacks novelty or inventive step, provided that the relevant state of the art is neither an intermediate document nor an Art. 54(3) application. However, no European patent may be granted until such time as the priority document is on file. In such a case, the applicant is informed that the decision to grant will not be taken as long as the priority document is missing.
If intermediate documents or Art. 54(3) applications exist and the patentability of the subject-matter claimed depends on the validity of the priority right, substantive examination cannot be finalised as long as the priority document is missing. Where the applicants have complied with Rule 17.1(a), (b) or (b-bis) PCT, they may not be requested to file the priority document. The proceedings have to be stayed and the applicant is informed that, since the patentability of the subject-matter claimed depends on the validity of the priority right, substantive examination cannot be finalised as long as the priority document is not on file.

12 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

EPC Articles

EPO Guidelines - C Procedureal Aspects of Substantive Examination

EPO Guidelines - F The European Patent Application

EPO Guidelines - G Patentability

EPO Guide for Applicants, part II Int. - C The EPO as ISA and SISA

PCT Implementing Rules

Case Law Book: II Conditions to be met by an Application