Key points
- The present case is a rare example of an inadmissible opposition (and an appeal confirming the rejection of the opposition as inadmissible).
- The novelty attacks are based on an earlier-filed but later published German patent application; the inventive step attack refers to the documents cited in the grant proceedings in general, and the attack of insufficiency of disclosure in the check box in the opposition form, is only substantiated as lack of clarity in the reasoned statement of opposition.
- The PCT application claiming the priority of the German patent application entered the European phase, but that PCT application was not cited in the Notice of opposition.
- Citing a national prior right is of course a classic one since T 550/88.
- Because the opposition is to be rejected as inadmissible, the merits of the attack based on the Euro-PCT application as prior right are not to be considered, because that attack was not in the file before expiry of the nine-month opposition period. The Board in translation: " The question whether the content of WO 2015/150227 A1 (and another document WO 2007/022923 A2) submitted on March 6, 2018 after the opposition period is prima facie relevant or not, can only arise if an opposition is admissible, and therefore an opposition procedure is validly initiated."
- The notice of opposition was signed by a (EQE-passed) professional representative, incidentally.
- Oral proceedings before the Board were summoned to be held on 1 July and cancelled on 20 April 2022 but the decision is dated 12 April 2022?
EPO T 0127/20
The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2022/06/t-012720-opposition-inadmissible.html
