If there is something you want to say concerning this blog that is not related to a particular post, please feel free to do so here.
T637/09 : moyen tardif
21 minutes ago
Chez Laurent
A Kurious Kitten
A Grumpy Fellow
Top Comments
Download the Case Law Bible
Online stuff
Visitors
Subscribers
Subscribe via email
FeedBurner FeedCount
Keywords
- A 123(2) (46)
- A 123(3) (11)
- Abuse (15)
- Acceleration of proceedings (2)
- Admissibility of appeals (53)
- Admissibility of documents (16)
- Admissibility of evidence (7)
- Admissibility of grounds for opposition (1)
- Admissibility of grounds of appeal (2)
- Admissibility of interventions (4)
- Admissibility of objections (1)
- Admissibility of observations (2)
- Admissibility of oppositions (8)
- Admissibility of petitions (2)
- Admissibility of referrals (1)
- Admissibility of requests (70)
- Amendments (15)
- Appeals : miscellaneous (12)
- Apportionment of costs (13)
- Authorisations (3)
- Auxiliary requests (19)
- Availability to the public (24)
- Basis of decisions (3)
- Binding effect (4)
- Biological matter (1)
- Burden of proof (21)
- Claim drafting (32)
- Claim features (4)
- Claim interpretation (85)
- Claims: miscellaneous (2)
- Clarity (64)
- Colours (1)
- Common general knowledge (12)
- Comparative trials (12)
- Competence (5)
- Composition of instances (12)
- Conduct (3)
- Conversion (2)
- Correction of errors (31)
- Decisions (16)
- Description (7)
- Designation (4)
- Disciplinary matters (1)
- Disclaimer (29)
- Disclosure (6)
- Divisional application (22)
- Double patenting (4)
- Drawings (15)
- EPC Revision (2)
- EQE (1)
- Errors in documents (1)
- Essential features (2)
- Euro-PCT (12)
- Evidence (18)
- Examination proceedings (24)
- Examples (9)
- Excluded: abstract and computer (14)
- Excluded: biology (4)
- Excluded: ordre public (2)
- Excluded: surgery and therapy (24)
- Exclusion and objection (6)
- Extension countries (2)
- Extent of opposition (1)
- Extent of protection (4)
- Fees (20)
- File inspection (6)
- Filing (7)
- Formalities (6)
- Framework of appeal (29)
- Framework of examination (1)
- Framework of opposition (11)
- General principles (3)
- Good faith (16)
- Grounds for opposition (13)
- Hilarious stuff (8)
- Inadmissible extension (84)
- Incorporation by reference (2)
- Industrial applicability (2)
- Interlocutory revision (10)
- Interpretative matters (4)
- Invention (6)
- Inventive step (110)
- Inventor (1)
- IPC (2)
- Language related questions (14)
- Lapse (2)
- Late filing (39)
- Missing parts (2)
- Notice of appeal (4)
- Notifications (3)
- Novelty (91)
- Numerical ranges (11)
- Numerology (2)
- Oldies but goldies (5)
- Opponent status (14)
- Opposition: miscellaneous (5)
- Oral proceedings (61)
- Partiality (3)
- Party Status (2)
- Patent infringement (2)
- Patent Register (4)
- Patent transfer (2)
- Pending application (4)
- Personal musings (5)
- Petition for review (52)
- Powers (3)
- Prior art (12)
- Prior public use (4)
- Prior use (12)
- Priorities (1)
- Priority (28)
- Problem-solution-approach (53)
- Re-establishment (44)
- Reasons (15)
- Referral to the EBA (29)
- Reformatio in peius (15)
- Refusal (1)
- Reimbursement (33)
- Remittal to the first instance (30)
- Representation (15)
- Res judicata (12)
- Right to be heard (65)
- Search related problems (11)
- Sequences (3)
- Skilled person (19)
- Spotlight (24)
- Standard of proof (9)
- Statement of grounds of appeal (6)
- Statistics (18)
- Stay of proceedings (1)
- Substantial procedural violation (92)
- Sufficiency of disclosure (79)
- Support (1)
- Technical or not (26)
- Third Party Intervention (7)
- Third Party Observations (4)
- Time limits (5)
- Title (1)
- TRIPS (2)
- Unity of invention (12)
- Withdrawal (13)
- Z 3.1.01 (49)
- Z 3.1.02 (1)
- Z 3.2.01 (31)
- Z 3.2.02 (34)
- Z 3.2.03 (25)
- Z 3.2.04 (64)
- Z 3.2.05 (20)
- Z 3.2.06 (23)
- Z 3.2.07 (66)
- Z 3.2.08 (29)
- Z 3.3.01 (70)
- Z 3.3.02 (66)
- Z 3.3.03 (41)
- Z 3.3.04 (74)
- Z 3.3.05 (52)
- Z 3.3.06 (59)
- Z 3.3.07 (28)
- Z 3.3.08 (46)
- Z 3.3.09 (58)
- Z 3.3.10 (49)
- Z 3.4.01 (45)
- Z 3.4.02 (32)
- Z 3.4.03 (22)
- Z 3.5.01 (37)
- Z 3.5.02 (21)
- Z 3.5.03 (28)
- Z 3.5.04 (37)
- Z 3.5.05 (25)
- Z 3.5.06 (23)
3 comments:
For some reason, the EPO does not appear to wish to publicize decision T 1760/11 online since March but in view of the five (yes five!) requests for review, you may wish to look at it together with the two decisions re prejudice of the chairman.
Hi Anonymous
I am not sure how you want the EPO to publicize on this decision. The decision has been published (I have published a post on the parallel case T 1677/11), there are ongoing review proceedings, what can the EPO say right now? Sure, five petitions are a great number, but there were 14 opponents, and the stakes appear to be considerable. I shall be happy to report on the outcome if the decision is interesting, but for the time being we have to let the EBA do its work.
It seems that your call for publicity has been heard on Le blog du droit européen des brevets (here).
Post a Comment