EPO: EPO orders stay of proceedings

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

EPO: EPO orders stay of proceedings

As we have previously reported, one of the EPO's chemical boards of appeal has referred the issue of entitlement to partial priority to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The case is pending before the Enlarged Board under reference G 1/15.

As part of the G 1/15 referral, the Enlarged Board will have to consider under which circumstances, if any, a generic OR-claim is entitled to priority from an earlier application for some – but not all – of the subject matter covered by the claim.

By a notice given on October 2 2015, the president of the EPO has now decided that, in view of the potential impact of the G 1/15 referral, all examination and opposition proceedings in which the decision depends entirely on the outcome of G 1/15 will be stayed ex officio until the Enlarged Board issues its decision.

Cases are affected in which:

  • an invention to which a claim is directed is not novel and/or inventive in the light of the prior art if the claim is not entitled to partial priority (in the case of divisional applications, the prior art may in this case for example include the application's own parent or divisional);

  • the claim in question encompasses, without spelling them out, alternative embodiments having all the features of the claim (known as a generic OR-claim);

  • the priority document discloses only one or more embodiments covered by the claim in question, that is the claim being a generalisation of the disclosure of the priority document, but wherein the priority document does not disclose the subject matter of the entire claim itself; and

  • the outcome of the proceedings depends entirely on how the Enlarged Board decides in case G 1/15.

The President's decision has immediate effect.

Jakob Pade Frederiksen


Inspicos A/S

Kogle Allé 2

DK-2970 Hoersholm

Copenhagen, Denmark

Tel: +45 7070 2422

Fax: +45 7070 2423

info@inspicos.com

www.inspicos.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article