All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

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

Sources say that the exam format should be revamped to test aptitude rather than rote learning and increase accessibility
The Italian firm that built the UPC case management system plans to launch a full training course in October
ITC counsel explain why companies will continue to bring trade secret complaints to the venue and talk about how to tackle challenges
Google and Sonos patent war continues; CNIPA finishes first administrative patent trials; Oppo halts German sales after Nokia wins; Chugai settles Fresenius suit; Taylor Swift claims she never heard Playas Gon’ Play; AI can’t be inventor, says Federal Circuit
Brands and retailers should educate their marketing departments and get help from their sales teams so private label products don’t become a major problem
The UK government wants to stop local tech going to China, but tech transfer offices often have few options
Hubertus Schacht of the Munich Regional Court shares his thoughts on German SEP trends and their influence on the UPC
Trademark counsel applaud the EUIPO’s new filing system but reveal it has come with teething issues
The executive vice president of partnerships and acquisitions at the NPE explains how his company’s deal with Intel came to be
South Korean lawyers welcome the trademark guidelines but say the appellate board, courts, and other IP offices may not necessarily agree with the KIPO
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree