Enlarged Board of Appeal rules on double patenting
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Enlarged Board of Appeal rules on double patenting

Sponsored by

maiwald-logo-cropped.PNG
butterflies-1127666-1280-1.jpg

Annelie Wünsche and Stefanie Parchmann of Maiwald discuss double patenting before the EPO

On June 22 2021, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office issued decision G 4/19 (Double patenting), in which it held that a European patent (EP) application can be refused if it claims the same subject matter as a granted European patent (i.e. not just a co-pending EP application) which has been granted to the same applicant and has the same effective date. 

The application can be refused irrespective of whether it (a) was filed on the same date as, or (b) is a parent application or a divisional application of, or (c) claims the same priority as the European patent already granted.

In other words: if an applicant already achieved grant of an EP patent on a certain subject matter, the Examining Division will deny grant to claims on the ‘same’ subject matter in later examination proceedings pertaining to an application having the same ‘effective date’ as the granted patent.

This even applies if the EP patent that was granted earlier is the priority application of the later-examined application. The advantage of a longer term of protection (due to the later filing date) that is thus lost for the applicant is no justification for allowing double patenting.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal relied on Article 125 EPC, which stipulates that “in the absence of procedural provisions in this Convention, the European Patent Office shall take into account the principles of procedural law generally recognised in the Contracting States”.

Two pieces of the puzzle, however, were deliberately not examined by the Enlarged Board of Appeal. First, even though the referring Board asked for clarification, the concept of ‘same subject matter’ was not addressed (does overlap also count?). Second, the question whether the rules on double patenting will also have to be applied in opposition proceedings remained unanswered.

But we notice that a distinction between ‘double protection’ (claims with overlapping scope) and ‘double patenting’ was made in the Reasons, and we are therefore quite confident that the prohibition of double patenting will remain a prohibition of double patenting in a narrow sense, limited to claims on exactly the ‘same’ invention. Overlapping claims should, therefore, remain admissible.

Thus, tailoring the claims of the later application to a merely overlapping claim scope might still provide the possibility to get the later application granted. It remains to be seen whether filing a request for revocation of the earlier patent will be allowed as a means to address a double patenting situation. 

We are also curious to see whether double patenting rules will now be applied more often in opposition proceedings; at present, applying them is within the discretion of an opposition division. 

 

Annelie Wünsche

Partner, Maiwald 

E: wuensche@maiwald.eu

 

Stefanie Parchmann

Partner, Maiwald 

E: parchmann@maiwald.eu

 

 

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lippes Mathias has hired three partners and a counsel from Offit Kurman
External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
The UPC judges are wrong – restricting access to court documents, and making parties appoint a lawyer only to have a chance of seeing them, is madness
Gift this article