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 2025

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

Tim Gilman, who joined Kasowitz alongside three other partners, says he is excited to be part of the firm’s ‘elite’ litigation team
A backlash against a White House video promoting deportation and Casalonga opening a new office in Düsseldorf were also among the top talking points
The firm has brought on board two counsel and an associate to complement two previously revealed partner hires
Bradford Newman, who has joined the firm’s new Silicon Valley office as head of complex technology disputes, discusses plans to build the practice group and attract local talent
Managing IP summarises the highlights from the IP STARS rankings for copyright and IP transactions work, the final firm rankings release of the year
Developments included the first judgment from the Nordic Baltic division, an injunction covering the UK, and a new code of conduct
Alston & Bird acted for InterDigital, while Samsung was represented by Fish & Richardson, during the arbitration process
Powell Gilbert lawyers reveal how they navigated parallel EPO proceedings and collaborated with European peers to come out on top in the Nordic-Baltic Division’s first judgment
The firms posted increases in revenue and profit per equity partner, with both giving a nod to their IP expertise
EasyGroup, the owner of the easyJet airline, said in a press release that UK-based first-instance judges are “less experienced”, bringing a long-running debate back to the fore
Gift this article