European Patent Office: End of self-collision

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

European Patent Office: End of self-collision

Towards the end of November 2016, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office rendered its order in decision G 1/15, which brings an end to the phenomenon of so-called self-collision, also nicknamed toxic divisionals and poisonous priorities. On the date of completion of this article, the reasons for the decision have not been made available. The Enlarged Board's order is, however, clear in the sense that applicants no longer have to worry about self-collision.

The question addressed by the Enlarged Board relates to the citability under Article 54(3) EPC of a parent application against its own divisional or vice versa. Such citability is in principle possible if one of the parent or divisional applications includes specific disclosure, which is also disclosed in the priority document, and which is embraced by a generic claim in the other one of the parent and divisional. If such a generic claim is not entitled to priority in its entire scope, the generic claim would lose its entitlement to priority, in which case the specific disclosure in the parallel application would take away the novelty of the generic claim.

According to the Enlarged Board's order of November 29 2016: "Entitlement to partial priority may not be refused for a claim encompassing alternative subject-matter by virtue of one or more generic expressions or otherwise (generic 'OR'-claim) provided that said alternative subject-matter has been disclosed for the first time, directly, or at least implicitly, unambiguously and in an enabling manner in the priority document. No other substantive conditions or limitations apply in this respect." In other words, a generic claim may enjoy partial priority for alternatives specifically disclosed in the priority document. As a result, there is no need any more for applicants to consider self-collision as a potential risk in relation to divisional applications, or in other instances of parallel applications sharing a common priority.

frederiksen.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen

Inspicos P/S

Kogle Allé 2

DK-2970 Hoersholm

Copenhagen, Denmark

Tel: +45 7070 2422

Fax: +45 7070 2423

info@inspicos.com

www.inspicos.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Latham & Watkins bolstered its IP litigation bench in California with the addition of Kieran Kieckhefer, as partner demand for trial-ready expertise shows no sign of slowing
With the launch of a new patent eligibility AI tool, Sterne Kessler is leading a growing movement of law firms taking AI development into their own hands
UPC cases are (very) gradually becoming more distributed across other local divisions outside Germany, which can only be good news for the pan-European forum
Clarification concerning jurisdictional reach and latest stats released by the court were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
Although unanimous decision by the top court clarifies several aspects of the honest concurrent use defence, practitioners say ambiguities remain
Tristan Sherliker says he hopes to solve an access to justice issue by making the automated court bundle tool free to use
The team, comprising two partners and one senior consultant, plans to offer “highly differentiated” services to clients
HGF’s new ownership model frees it from the hiring constraints of traditional partnerships, its CEO told Managing IP
New timeline for 2026 aims to provide clearer guidance to firms and practitioners on the full jurisdictional market view
Attorneys contemplate whether clients using AI for legal guidance is beneficial to attorney-client relationships or more of a nuisance
Gift this article