Door opened to filing EPO divisional applications after grant of parent patent

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

Door opened to filing EPO divisional applications after grant of parent patent

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
EPO

Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos reviews a recent decision of the EPO Legal Board of Appeal relating to the impact of an applicant’s appeal against a decision to grant a patent

On April 16 2024, the Legal Board of Appeal of the EPO rendered a decision, J 1/24, that means a divisional application may be validly filed after grant of the parent patent, if an appeal against the decision to grant the parent patent is in existence on the date of filing the divisional application.

Pursuant to Rule 36(1) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), an applicant may file a divisional application relating to any pending earlier European patent application. Following EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 1/09, the pending status of a European patent application ceases on the day before the mention of grant is published.

The date of mention of grant of a European patent normally lies approximately one month after the date of the decision to grant, whereas, pursuant to Article 108 of the EPC, the time limit for filing a notice of appeal against a decision expires two months from the date of the decision. As such, the time limit for lodging an appeal normally expires after the date of grant.

Article 106(1) of the EPC provides that an appeal has suspensive effect. Consistently, it is well established practice of the EPO to treat appeals against the grant of a patent as validly filed and to delete the date of grant. Following termination of the appeal proceedings, a new date of grant is allotted, if the conditions for grant are fulfilled at that time.

Following the reasons underlying decision J 1/24, by virtue of the suspensive effect of an appeal against the decision to grant, the application remains pending while appeal proceedings against the decision to grant that application are in existence. Consequently, a divisional application may still be validly filed, even after the parent patent has initially been granted, and even if the appeal is eventually held inadmissible.

The decision opens a door for applicants who wish to extend the period for filing a divisional application beyond the date of grant, or who may want to extend the period for requesting unitary effect and/or the time limit for national validation, to achieve this by lodging an appeal against the decision to grant.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

VO, which has offices in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, is the second European IP firm to secure external backing this week
The Bardehle Pagenberg attorneys-at-law discuss the firm’s Managing IP EMEA Awards 2026 success, Unified Patent Court litigation strategy, and evolving European patent trends
A patent battle between two legal tech companies and a loss for Elon Musk’s xAI against OpenAI were also among the top talking points
With drug prices a hot topic in the US, courts are seemingly more reluctant to prevent the entry of generics to the market
Academic Eden Sarid joins us during Pride Month to discuss queer expression and IP law, Patagonia v Pattie Gonia, and how queer and AI-generated creations both pose novelty concerns
Patent attorney Michael Henson joins the firm to lead its freshly launched blockchain and digital assets practice
A dispute over mammogram technology, and a development in the case between GSK and Moderna were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
With rankings for Western Europe set to be published on June 25, we sat down with our research lead to find out what practitioners and law firms can expect
Peter O’Sullivan, a professional services executive, says he is looking forward to helping Pearce IP become the leading life sciences firm in Australia and New Zealand
Matteo Di Lernia, advocate at LCA Studio Legale, unpicks the CJEU’s ruling in M.M. Ristorazione v Villa Ramazzini, including its impact on litigation strategies
Gift this article