EPO: Enlarged Board to consider entitlement to priority
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

EPO: Enlarged Board to consider entitlement to priority

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px.png
Patent, EPO

Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos P/S discusses a technical board of appeal referral that deals with the issue of entitlement to priority

In consolidated cases T 1513/17 and T 2719/19, a technical board of appeal has referred two questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) on the issue of entitlement to priority. 

More specifically, the EBA is to consider if the EPC confers jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title to a previously filed application, from which priority is claimed. Phrased differently, if party B claims priority from an application filed in the name of legal entity A, is the EPO competent to assess if party B has validly obtained the right to claim priority from party A?

The matter is pending before the EBA under as G1/22 and G2/22. If the EBA holds that the EPO indeed has the authority to determined whether the party claiming the priority is the successor in title to the previously filed application, the EBA is further asked if a party B can validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT application in the case where a PCT application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States and regions, including the EPO, and the PCT application claims priority from an earlier application filed in the name of party A.

Such issues relating to priority arise frequently, for example in respect of applications claiming US priorities, in respect of which the inventor is named as the applicant, whereas the subsequent application claiming the priority is filed in the name of a corporate entity. For PCT applications, oftentimes, the inventor is named as the applicant for the US only, and the corporate entity is named as applicant for all other jurisdictions.

One possible outcome of the new referral is that the EBA endorses the ‘joint applicants’ approach which suggests that the priority claim of a PCT application commonly filed by joint applicants is valid if any one of the applicants is properly entitled to the claim to priority. In any event, applicants and their representatives are well advised ensuring an unbroken chain of assignments between applicants in cases where the applicant named in the priority application is not identically named in the application claiming the priority. 

 

Jakob Pade Frederiksen

Partner, Inspicos P/S

E: jpf@inspicos.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

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
The group, which includes the Volkswagen, Seat and Audi brands, is now licensed to use SEPs owned by more than 60 patent owners
Gift this article