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

Cookies Settings

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

The hire of Frederick Nicolle as a partner continues Pinsent Masons' expansion while reducing Simmons’ patent prosecution offering in London to zero
The expansion into Granada forms part of a national ‘decentralisation’ strategy focused on providing proximity to research and tech businesses away from traditional hubs
Three successive wins have got the firm eyeing additional opportunities as ITC work booms
While many firms remain focused on generative AI, recent hires and practice launches suggest the next battle may be for lawyers who understand how AI is moving into the physical world
The explosion of data centres has prompted patent pool operators to create new licensing opportunities
The court struck out copyright claims brought by Ladbrokes owner Entain, saying that ownership details should have been completed before litigation began
Düsseldorf has overtaken Munich as the UPC's busiest division, while firms including Winston Taylor, Clifford Chance, and Hoyng Rokh Monegier featured in disputes involving Abbott, Essity, Amazon and Hurom
The managing partner gave up an equity partnership track in New York to build a practice in India. More than a decade later, she discusses entrepreneurship, leadership, and why women should not wait before taking the next step
Vice presidents Shinya Jitsuhiro and Hirohisa Suzuki discuss litigation trends in Japan, recruitment challenges and clients’ international expansion
IP boutique Petillion represented IKEA in the dispute, which concerned the use of the multinational’s trademarks in an immigration-focused campaign. The firm tells Managing IP how it secured the outcome
Gift this article