OJ EPO 2009, 306 - Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal dated 25 November 2008 G 2/06

(Language of the proceedings)

COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD: Chairman: P. Messerli Members: S. Perryman, P. Alting Van Geusau, U. Kinkeldey, M. Scuffi, J.-P. Seitz, O. Spineanu-Metai

Appellant/Applicant: WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION Headword: Use of embryos/WARF Relevant legal provisions: Article: 23(3), 53(a), 164(2) EPC Rule: 26, 26(1), 28, 28(c), 29 EPC Relevant legal provisions (EPC 1973):

Article: 53(a), 112(1)(a) EPC Rule: 23b, 23b(1), 23d, 23d(c), 23e EPC

OJ EPO 2009, 396 - San Marino accedes to the European Patent Convention

1. Accession to the EPC On 21 April 2009, the government of the Republic of San Marino (SM) deposited its instrument of accession to the European Patent Convention (EPC).

The EPC will accordingly enter into force for San Marino on 1 July 2009.

The European Patent Organisation will thus comprise the following 36 member states from 1 July 2009:

OJ EPO 2009, 398 - Lithuania accedes to the London Agreement

On 22 January 2009, the Republic of Lithuania deposited its instrument of accession to the Agreement of 17 October 2000 on the application of Article 65 EPC ("London Agreement", see OJ EPO 2001, 549). Under Article 6(2), the Agreement thus entered into force for Lithuania as 15th contracting state on 1 May 2009.

However, the London Agreement will have no effect on the existing translation requirements in Lithuania because the relevant provisions have already been transposed into domestic law and form the basis for the national practice

OJ EPO 2009, 422 - Decision of Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.07 dated 3 July 2007 T 307/03 3.3.07

(Language of the proceedings)

COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD: Chairman: S. Perryman Members: F. Rousseau, G. Santavicca

Applicants: ARCO Chemical Technology, L.P. Headword: ARCO/Double patenting Relevant legal provisions: Article: 60 EPC UK Patents Act 1977: Section 18(5)

Relevant legal provisions (EPC 1973): Article: 54(3), 60, 125 EPC Keyword: "Principle of prohibition of double patenting applicable under EPC (yes)" "Later claim more broadly formulated double patenting prohibition applicable (yes)"

OJ EPO 2009, 434 - Notice from the European Patent Office dated 3 June 2009 concern- ing the communication of parties' observations to the other parties in opposition proceedings for information

The number of documents submitted in opposition proceedings has been increasing. Given both the need to simplify administrative procedures and the fact that files can be inspected online, certain changes have been introduced in connection with the transmission of these documents to the parties.

If a notice of opposition is filed within the prescribed time limit, the opposition division must communicate it to the proprietor of the patent (Rule 79(1) EPC). Similarly, if several notices of opposition are filed, or observations are

OJ EPO 2009, 454 - Communication from the Enlarged Board of Appeal concerning case G 1/09

In accordance with Article 112(1)(a) EPC, Legal Board of Appeal 3.1.01 referred the following point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal with interlocutory decision of 27 May 2009 in case J 2/08:

Is an application which has been refused by a decision of the Examining Division thereafter still pending within the mean- ing of Rule 25 EPC 1973 (Rule 36(1) EPC) until the expiry of the time limit for filing a notice of appeal, when no appeal has been filed?

OJ EPO 2009, 478 - Decision of the President of the European Patent Office dated 31 August 2009 concerning the entrustment to non-examining staff of certain duties normally the responsibility of the examining or opposition divisions

The President of the European Patent Office, having regard to Rule 11(3) EPC, has decided as follows:

Article 1

The following point 26 shall be added to Article 2 of the decision of the President of the European Patent Office dated 12 July 2007 concerning the entrustment to non-examining staff of certain duties normally the responsibility of the examin- ing or opposition divisions (see Special edition 3, OJ EPO 2007, F.2.):

26. Fixing of costs in accordance with Rule 88(2) EPC.

Article 2 Entry into force

OJ EPO 2009, 479 - Notice from the President of the European Patent Office dated 6 August 2009 concerning extension of time limits

In the period between Friday, 31 July 2009, 17:18:22 hrs until Sunday, 2 August 2009, 10:19:35 hrs, two EPO fax servers were out of order. Therefore it was not possible to file any patent applications or subsequent documents via fax. Under Rule 134(1), second sentence, EPC a time limit expiring on 31 July 2009 is thus extended until 3 August 2009 24 hrs.

It is recommended therefore to resend all faxes sent to the EPO in the period in which the fax server was out of order, unless the sender has already done so on account of the failure having been reported in the fax transmission report.

OJ EPO 2009, 481 - Notice from the European Patent Office dated 20 August 2009 concerning amended Rule 36(1) and (2) EPC (European divisional applications) and consequential amendments to Rules 57(a) and 135(2) EPC

By decision of 25 March 2009 1, the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation amended Rule 36(1) and (2) EPC as to the requirements for filing European divisional applications and the language in which they are to be filed. Consequential amendments were necessary, first to Rule 57(a) EPC, in order to add the filing of the translation of a divisional application to the list of formal requirements to be examined after the application has been accorded a date of filing; and second, to Rule 135(2) EPC, in

OJ EPO 2009, 486 - Notice from the European Patent Office dated 14 September 2009 concerning the filing of a certified copy of an earlier application to which reference is made

1. Since the revised European Patent Convention entered into force on 13 December 2007 it has been possible to file a patent application by reference to one filed previously (Rule 40(1)(c) EPC). This also applies to divisional applications (Rule 36 EPC) which refer to their parent application.

2. Applicants filing such (divisional) applications are released from their obligation to file a certified copy of the previous application within two months (Rule 40(3) EPC), provided the latter was a European application 1 or an