tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post8162927052590992661..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 557/13 - Poisonous or nothing wrong?DeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-57214992064661882272016-06-09T09:20:42.526+02:002016-06-09T09:20:42.526+02:00The number of the referral is G 1/15.
Oral procee...The number of the referral is G 1/15.<br /><br />Oral proceedings were held on 7 and 8 June 2016. Tufty the Cat gave a summary of the (first day of the) oral proceedings:<br />http://tuftythecat.blogspot.nl/2016/06/g-115-wait-is-nearly-over.html<br /><br />According to his blog, "At the end, the Chairman announced that a decision would be made "as soon as possible", but that this would be by November this year."<br />Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-63139425418915477012015-05-28T01:40:17.548+02:002015-05-28T01:40:17.548+02:00I think that by "very strict" Roel means...I think that by "very strict" Roel means that an application could destroy its own novelty under Art. 54(3).<br /><br />For example:<br />US priority discloses (only) a species. Obviously this document will never be 54(3)-prior art itself.<br />EP claims priority from US, discloses species and genus and claims genus.<br /><br />Now the species subject-matter in EP "enjoys" priority from US, but the claimed genus does not. Upon publication of EP, the species subject-matter in EP becomes 54(3)-prior art for the claimed genus and anticipates it. Ouch.<br /><br />This is probably a very common situation if you really start looking for it. The priority document might be some US provisional application that discloses some embodiments but lacks a good basis for a more generic claim (probably no big deal under US patent law, but I don't really know). There might even be a (later) US priority document that is identical to the EP application, but that won't help. Dropping the "poisonous" priority claim probably helps, but it would have to be done before the EP is published.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-59731916442933722812015-05-27T22:55:59.608+02:002015-05-27T22:55:59.608+02:00"A very strict interpretation of Art.54(3) EP..."A very strict interpretation of Art.54(3) EPC will lead to every later application to a genus claiming priority from an earlier application describing only a species to be Art.54(3) against not only its divisional or its parent, but also against itself"<br />I do not think there is an issue, if you generalise a claim, you have to avoid publication of the priority EP patent file that contains the species claim, if you want to avoid A 54-3. But maybe the ELBA will tell I am wrong....Resp PInoreply@blogger.com