6

And in addition to the above answer, you can check if a divisional has been filed but is not yet published at the "Event History" tab of the page Maca provided already. It displays a message reading "Change - divisional application(s)" and on the far right the date on which the filing of the divisional will be announced at the EP Bulletin. This is ...


5

On the EP register, there is a specific field called "Divisional application(s)". This is only shown where there is actually a divisional application. An example of this can be seen on EP 11749534. This shows EP 16178435 is a divisional. If you want to find more divisionals generally, one approach is to search for an application having an application date ...


4

There are three scenarios. These differ based on the time difference between the first patent application (EP1) being filed and the second patent application (EP2) being filed. EP2 is filed 18 months (or more) after EP1 In this case, EP1 will be published. There is no difference between your own publication and one by another party. If, in view of EP1, ...


4

This kind of thing was previously considered patent eligible (and some examples were found to be novel and non-obvious and granted patents) but they aren't considered patent eligible any longer. A somewhat well known patent 6,128,415 of Polaroid's - "Device profiles for use in a digital image processing system", that covers a data structure for a profile ...


4

'non entry' means the applicant did not file with EPO for national phase stage after wipo (PCT) stage. This has no implication on patent application with USPTO. Patent prosecution in USPTO sometimes take much more than your expected four years. After approval i.e. notice of allowance and fees due, if the applicant does not pay fees due in time allowed than ...


4

We are confused where to register the patent? US or Europe? Patents are territorial. If you want to prevent competitors from using your invention in the US, then you'll need a US patent. If you want to prevent competitors from using your invention in Europe, then you'll need a European patent. Similarly for any other country you're interested in. The ...


4

First of all, your understanding of 54(3) EPC seems to be right. More information can be found in the guidelines for examination where one can also read that the EP application has to be valid (e.g. not withdrawn) at the date of publication to qualify as prior art for 54(3). Could the EP application be allowed to grant if the PCT application has not yet ...


3

Yes. You already cited the correct source, a further one would be art. 54 (2), (3) EPC: (2) The state of the art shall be held to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application. (3) Additionally, the content of ...


3

From the above I come to the conclusion that the unity objection is raised because claim 1 was found non-inventive (non compliance with Art. 56) and therefore the single general inventive concept exists no more for the depended claims 2-11 (I assume they were dependent to 1). Same goes for (independent?) claim 12, which is considered to lack inventive step, ...


3

Although I'm not a lawyer, I have tried to research this in relation to the UK. Other European countries may be different. I'd be interested if anyone knows if any of the following is incorrect. If a default judgement is issued by a US court it is not directly enforceable in the UK. The judgement may be a monetary award and/or an injunction preventing ...


3

While there are international treaties regarding patent systems, the laws and procedures of the USPTO and the EPO are not the same. However, many EPO filings from US applicants are just a reformating of their U.S. applications. In general, the EPO is more strict, particularly on claiming combinations and permutations of feature and the charge for excess ...


3

Since we all understand chairs, that example can be misleading. Yes, having more or fewer of some feature can make for a patentable claim. It can be tricky to write a claim for the fewer case. "A chair comprising three legs" also describes a chair with four legs. "A chair having exactly three legs" could be designed-around by having a ...


3

It is a single document, and it is the prior art that is deemed to be the closest to the claimed invention. Should the closest prior art change during prosecution, you have to amend the preamble accordingly. You are also supposed to explicitly indicate in the background section of your patent application which among all cited documents is the closest prior ...


2

Under the EPC, computer programs are excluded from patentability (Art. 52(2)), but only as such (Art. 52(3)). Consequently, workarounds for claim wording have been developed (see this EPO powerpoint presentation): "computer program product", "storage medium comprising instructions...", "data processing apparatus comprising means for carrying out steps..." ...


2

The legal basis for claiming priority in the EP is Article 87. Paragraph 1 reads "Any person who has duly filed, in or for (a) any State party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or (b) any Member of the World Trade Organization, an application for a patent, a utility model or a utility certificate, or his successor in ...


2

In the UK, this wording derives the Patents Act 1977 s 1(2), which provides (emphasis added): It is hereby declared that the following (among other things) are not inventions for the purposes of this Act, that is to say, anything which consists of - (a) a discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method; (b) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work ...


2

It means exactly what you think. The website is merely saying that there always is a way to make software be not software - claiming it as the physical interaction and not as software. Which is why saying software as such (meaning software as software) is not patentable can be interpreted as software is patentable as long as it is not claimed as software ...


2

I was able to find what I was looking for at the European Patent Register. I found a patent application that looked promising and then clicked on "All documents" on a menu on the side. That gave me a list of all correspondence between the European Patent Office and the applicant. Some of those were exactly the examples I was looking for.


2

"Business Ideas" cannot be patented, only novel processes that are not deemed wholly abstract. Thus, if you had a design for a new type of engine, you could seek a patent. But if you had an idea for a new type of business, such as an app that utilizes the Uber model to utilize ride sharing for delivery services, it would not be patent eligible.


2

One option is to file provisional in the US the same day as the nonprovisional with the claims exactly as you plan to have them in rest of the world and use it for priority. Since it is not examined, there are no claims-specific fees. Another approach is to add pseudo claims in the description. I have seen lists of "Aspects of the Invention" written like ...


2

So is this the extent of options for patent challenges at the EPO -- i.e. no options after 9 months? Correct. Once the 9 month opposition period finishes, the only way to revoke another person's patent is to commence a revocation action in each country. For example, if a European patent was validated in the UK, France, and Germany, this would require three ...


2

I'll take a stab at answering this despite the vague language in your question, and the laws coming from an anonymous EU jurisdiction. The EU under the patent articles does in fact forbid software programs, "The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions ... [including] ... programs for computers." Art. 52(2) EPC. You don't indicate how ...


2

Absolutely, patent prosecution is a process. One may amend claim wording to narrow and avoid cited prior art, cancel some claims, or cancel all claims are submit a new set of claims. One may also argue that the cited reference is not valid prior art based on its date or not being in an analogous art, or not teaching all elements of the claim in question.


2

Patents are territorial. A U.S. patent only gives its owner rights to try to exclude others from making, selling, offering for sale, importing and using the invention in the U.S. If there is no patent in some other jurisdiction then anyone else might be able to make. sell, etc. in that location. I say might becasue there may be some other reason that the ...


2

Found it in the database of the Spanish PTO: PDF of the document you are looking for


2

The actual question 'Would this discovery still be covered by the claim/patent before or would it be new?' has two questions as pointed out by Eric S and George White: Is the development covered by the claim? As stated by Eric S, yes, it is covered because the development is within the claimed scope. Is the development new with respect to the claim? It ...


2

The legal provision is Rule 51.1 EPC: "[...] A renewal fee for the European patent application in respect of the coming year shall be due on the last day of the month containing the anniversary of the date of filing of the European patent application. The renewal fee in respect of the third year may not be validly paid more than six months before it ...


2

Looks like you got confused because you read the word 'clear' in Art. 100(b) EPC. The Article refers to the claims being enabled, the description must be an enabling disclosure. The ground of Art. 100(b) EPC relates to the patentability requirement of Art. 83 EPC: 'The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear ...


2

It depends on what kind of operational workflow you want to be patented. In short, a workflow/process/method is patentable, if it has a tangible / measurable result, like a pizza recipe (take a dough, make it flat, put specific ingredient on it, heat it up to 180°C for 20-40 minutes). In general, European patents shall be granted for an invention, in all ...


1

I am not a lawyer, but my opinion is that the data structure, as you describe it, would not be patentable. One requirement of a patent is inventiveness. I can see nothing inventive about storing data in a common data storage format. I suppose if you use the data or storage format in some unexpected way and gain an unexpected advantage, there might be a ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible