OJ EPO 2011, 10 - Opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal dated 12 May 2010 G 3/08

(Language of the proceedings)

Composition of the board:

Chairman: P. Messerli Members: M. J. Vogel, D. Rees, M. Dorn, A. Klein, U. Scharen, J.-P. Seitz

Headword: Programs for computers Relevant legal provisions: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Art. 31 EPC (1973) Art. 52(1) EPC (2000) Art. 4(2),(3), 10 ff., 15, 21-23, 24(4), 31, 52, 56, 112(1), 112a, 123(3), 177(1) RPEBA Art. 4(1), 10 RPBA Art. 20(1)

Headnote:

OJ EPO 2011, 62 - Decision of the President of the European Patent Office dated 9 December 2010 exempting applicants claiming the priority of a first filing made in Japan, the United Kingdom or the United States of America from filing a copy of [..]

Full title: OJ EPO 2011, 62 - Decision of the President of the European Patent Office dated 9 December 2010 exempting applicants claiming the priority of a first filing made in Japan, the United Kingdom or the United States of America from filing a copy of the search results under Rule 141(1) EPC utilisation scheme 1 2 3

The President of the European Patent Office, having regard to Rules 141(1) and (2) and 70b(1) and (2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), has decided as follows:

OJ EPO 2011, 64 - Notice from the European Patent Office dated 9 December 2010 concerning exemption under Rule 141(2) EPC from filing a copy of the search results utilisation scheme

1. Amended Rule 141(2) EPC provides that a copy of the search results under Rule 141(1) EPC is deemed to be duly filed if it is available to the European Patent Office (EPO) and to be included in the file of the European patent appli- cation under the conditions determined by the President of the EPO 1.

2. In October 2010, the President of the EPO decided that the EPO would include the above-mentioned copy in the file of a European patent application where it had drawn up certain types of search report on an application whose priority was

OJ EPO 2011, 94 - Interlocutory decision of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03 dated 17 June 2010

T 1145/09

(Language of the proceedings)

Composition of the board: Chairman: A. S. Clelland Members: R. Moufang, F. van der Voort

Opponent/Appellant: Endress+Hauser (Deutschland) AG+Co. KG Patent proprietor/Respondent: Fischer-Rosemount Systems, Inc. Headword: Stay of proceedings/ FISHER-ROSEMOUNT Relevant legal provisions: Article: 100(c), 106(2), 112(1)(a), 123(2) and (3) EPC Rule: 140 EPC Relevant legal provisions (EPC 1973):

OJ EPO 2011, 110 - Decision of the President of the European Patent Office dated 9 December 2010 concerning the information given in the European Patent Register

Further to the decision dated 14 October 2009 concerning the information given in the European Patent Register 1, and having regard to Rule 143(2) EPC, the President of the European Patent Office has decided as follows:

Article 1

The following further entry will be made in the European Patent Register:

17. Date of despatch of the examining division's first communication within the meaning of Rule 36(1)(a) EPC.

Article 2

OJ EPO 2011, 134 - Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal dated 15 February 2010 G 1/07

(Language of the proceedings)

Composition of the board:

Chairman: P. Messerli Members: B. Gnzel, P. Alting Van Geusau. U. Kinkeldey, S. Perryman, A. Pzard, J.-P. Seitz

Appellant/Applicant: Medi-Physics, Inc. Headword: Treatment by surgery/ MEDI-PHYSICS Relevant legal provisions: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article: 31, 32 TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Article 27.3(a)

OJ EPO 2011, 256 - Interlocutory decision of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.08 dated 25 June 2010 T 1068/07

(Language of the proceedings)

Composition of the board: Chairman: L. Galligani Members: P. Juli, D. S. Rogers

Applicant/Appellant: THE SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE Headword: Enzymatic DNA/SCRIPPS Relevant legal provisions: Article: 123(2) EPC Keyword: "Main request and auxiliary request I added subject-matter (yes)" "Auxiliary requests II and III disclaimer" "Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal yes"

OJ EPO 2011, 272 - Notice from the European Patent Office dated 15 March 2011 concerning the situation in Japan after the earthquake on 11 March 2011

1. In view of the current tragic events in Japan, attention is drawn to the general legal remedies provided under the European Patent Convention in case of non-observance of time limits and, more specifically, to Rule 134(5) EPC.

2. Rule 134(5) EPC offers a safeguard in case of non-observance of a time limit due to an exceptional occurrence such as a natural disaster or other like reasons affecting the locality where the party or his representative resides or has his place of business. This provision may therefore be invoked by any appli-

OJ EPO 2011, 273 - Notice from the European Patent Office dated 11 March 2011 concerning identification of the examining division's first communication in respect of the earliest application for which a communication has been issued (Rule [..]

Full title: OJ EPO 2011, 273 - Notice from the European Patent Office dated 11 March 2011 concerning identification of the examining division's first communication in respect of the earliest application for which a communication has been issued (Rule 36(1)(a) EPC) and the entry of this communication's date of despatch in the European Patent Register

1. Under Rule 36(1)(a) EPC in the version in force since 1 April 2010, a divisional application (voluntary division) may be filed only before the expiry of a time limit of twenty-four months from the

OJ EPO 2011, 327 - PCT Notice from the European Patent Office dated 1 March 2011 concerning informal clarification by the European Patent Office acting as International Searching Authority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)

1. Introduction In an effort to further enhance the quality of the international search, the EPO acting as International Searching Authority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) may seek informal clarifica- tion from the applicant where the description, the claims or the drawings fail to comply with the prescribed require- ments, such as clarity or support of the claims by the description, to such an extent that no meaningful search for all or part of the claims can be carried out. This practice, which is based on para- graphs 9.34 and 9.35 of the PCT Inter-

Pages

Subscribe to XEPC: EPC and PCT resource RSS