European Patent Office: End of self-collision
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Sources at five firms provide updates on how they're approaching remote working and what their policies have meant for recruitment
Three lawyers who joined Boies Schiller Flexner in May say they've enjoyed working on litigation that includes non-IP aspects
McKool Smith principal Steve Pollinger explains how a simple internet search by a prospective client led to a $192 million patent win against Samsung
CJEU Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou has proposed a compromise in his second opinion in the BSH v Electrolux case
Benjamin Sodey, a former in-house lawyer at life sciences business MilliporeSigma, says he's looking forward to expanding his practice at Polsinelli
Loeb & Loeb has taken on the IP, corporate and compliance teams from Perkins Coie’s soon-to-be closed Beijing office
In the latest episode, we discuss our latest list of in-house rising stars and analyse developments from AI work for law firms to legal market news in Canada
More than half of the peer-nominated stars listed in this year’s ‘Ones to Watch’ list are women – let’s hope that recognition continues
Tamir Packin, partner at Desmarais, explains how the team navigated complex discovery issues to secure a patent win for IBM
Geoff Steward, former head of IP at Stobbs, will join Addleshaw Goddard and seek to take the firm to the next level
Gift this article