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

Examiner statistics could help patent prosecution practitioners tailor strategies, turning an area of high variability into a potential competitive advantage
The England and Wales High Court’s ruling in Accord v Novartis may not rewrite the law on plausibility, but it does signal a pragmatic approach that could provide greater certainty for life sciences innovators
Firms with established sports relationships and specialised expertise are well positioned to capture the market’s expanded pool of IP work
Gunjan Paharia discusses developing RIA, an AI platform built to draw on decades of institutional knowledge, support junior lawyers, and reshape how legal teams work
A strong Canadian business helped lift profits, but the IP service group's latest results underline the pressure facing its operations in Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia
Wins in court have been key to the six-year-old firm’s growth, as one of its founders explains
The firm’s co-CEO discusses patent litigation, collaboration with overseas colleagues and the next generation of leaders
Two recent decisions demonstrate the courts’ creativity in cutting-edge IP disputes that tested their jurisdictional powers
Aditi Verma Thakur, managing partner at Aishani Partners, discusses 5 am wake-ups, working with high-performing professionals and staying calm under pressure
After more than three decades at Wilson Sonsini, Ian Edvalson explains why he moved to expand his life sciences transactional practice
Gift this article