12 October 2023
Authored and Edited by James G. Bell; Maeve O'Flynn; Yelena Morozova
The recent decision in the consolidated cases G1/22 and G2/22 before the Enlarged Board of Appeals effectively redefines the way transfer of the priority right under Article 87 EPC is regarded at the European Patent Office (“EPO”), which affects both patent applicants for and patent opponents to European Patent applications. For the patent applicants, this decision eases the burden of demonstrating the right to claim priority, while for the patent opponents, this raises the bar for challenging that priority claim during opposition proceeding.
Particularly, the Enlarged Board held that:
Previous case law from the Boards of Appeal at the EPO required that a party or parties claiming priority to a previously filed application when filing a European Patent Application must prove that the right to claim such priority was explicitly obtained prior to the filing date of the European Patent Application or its equivalent PCT. See e.g., T577/11 and T1201/14. In other words, an express assignment of the priority right was generally required, that assignment having been executed prior to filing of the European Application or equivalent.
In the present decision, the Enlarged Boards of Appeal has dismissed the past requirement in favour of a rebuttable presumption of entitlement to priority for applicants even where the applicants are not identical to the applicant(s) of the claimed priority.
In coming to this conclusion, the Enlarged Board found that, “in the absence of substantial factual indications to the contrary, the joint filing of the subsequent PCT application sufficiently proves that the parties entered into an implied or informal agreement allowing [reliance] on the priority right.” G2/22 at 136. Although the Enlarged Board noted that “an agreement cannot be implied if not all of a plurality of priority applicants are applicants or co-applicants for the subsequent application…, the rebuttable presumption of priority entitlement can [still] be applied.” The Enlarged Board reasoned that in such circumstances, the missing priority applicant may be in a position to claim title of the subsequent application, or at a minimum, rebut the presumption of priority entitlement with sufficient evidence. G2/22 at 137.
This decision is welcome news for proprietors facing priority challenges whether from their opponents or the EPO, as it eases the burden of demonstrating the right to claim priority. The rebuttable presumption may be of particular help in cases originating in the United States or other jurisdictions where ownership may not initially vest in the Applicant absent an express assignment, such as in cases where the priority application was filed in the name of the inventors while the application claiming priority was filed in the name of their employer.
Look for a more detailed analysis of this case and practice tips coming soon.
Copyright © 2023 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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
May 9, 2024
Webinar
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
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.