22 February 2019
Authored and Edited by Victoria Randall, Ph.D.; Clare A. Cornell
“Double-patenting” arises at the European Patent Office (EPO) when one applicant files two European patent applications with closely related or identical claims, and the same effective filing date. The issue often arises when the claims of a divisional application overlap with the claims of its parent application. There is no explicit legal basis in the European Patent Convention (EPC) for the prohibition against double-patenting. However, the Guidelines for Examination at the EPO state: it is an accepted principle in most patent systems that two patents cannot be granted to the same applicant for one invention (G, IV, 5.4).
In G 1/05 and G 1/06 the Enlarged Board of Appeal decided that double patenting should be prohibited because the applicant "had no legitimate interest in proceedings that gave rise to the grant of a second patent in respect of the same subject-matter for which he already held a patent" (G 1/05, r. 13.4)”.
In the case from which the referral arises, T0318/14-3.3.01 (minutes here), the main claim request is identical to the granted claims of the European application from which priority is claimed. Thus, the applicant has a legitimate interest because the second patent claiming priority will have a later expiry than the first priority patent.
The Board of Appeal has referred the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
1. Can a European patent application be refused under Article 97(2) EPC if it claims the same subject-matter as a European patent granted to the same applicant which does not form part of the state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) and (3) EPC?
2.1. If the answer to the first question is yes, what are the conditions for such a refusal and are different conditions to be applied where the European patent application under examination was filed
2.2. In particular, in the latter case, does an applicant have a legitimate interest in the grant of the (subsequent) European patent application in view of the fact that the filing date and not the priority date is the relevant date for calculating the term of the European patent under Article 63(1) EPC.
A previous decision, T 1423/07, relating to similar issues was considered by the Examining Division to not apply because the parties were not identical, whereas, in this case, the applicants are identical. In T 1423/07 The Board of Appeal found that legal basis for preventing double patenting cannot be found in Article 125 EPC or Article 60 EPC, and that an applicant may have a legitimate interest in the pursuing the second application in cases of internal priority. In contrast, in T307/03, The Board of Appeal found that Article 60 EPC prevents double patenting even in cases of internal priority. Internal priority is where an EP application claims priority to a previous national application filed in a designated EPC contracting state or to a previous European application.
Depending on the decision from the Enlarged Board of Appeal, it might be possible to extend patent term with a filing strategy that makes use of internal priority in this context.
For further information on the EPO opposition and appeal procedures and associated strategies, including coordinating with corresponding US proceedings, please go to our webinar here on the strategic use of post grant challenges.
Obviousness-type Double Patenting (OTDP), European Patent Office (EPO), referral to enlarged board of appeal, 2019 Top Insights
Copyright © 2019 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Webinar
June 13, 2024
Webinar
Conference
4th Spring Pharmaceutical Synchrotron X-Ray Powder Diffraction Workshop
June 10-11, 2024
Basel
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
Obviousness of Biologics Inventions: Strategies for Biologics Claims in the U.S., Europe, and China
May 28,2024
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.