Pages 6-7

BOARDS OF APPEAL

Information from the Enlarged Board of Appeal

Referrals by the President of the European Patent Office

I. On 3 September 1992, in accordance with Article 112(1)(b) EPC, the President of the European Patent Office referred the following point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal in order to ensure uniform application of the law:

(Translation)

If one party chooses not to attend oral proceedings, can the decision handed down against that party be based on new facts, evidence and/or arguments put forward during those oral proceedings?

The case is pending under Ref. No. G 4/92.

II. On 28 October 1992, in accordance with Article 112(1)(b) EPC, the President of the European Patent Office referred the following point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal in order to ensure uniform application of the law:

(Translation)

Until when may an applicant file a divisional application on the pending earlier European patent application?

The case is pending under Ref. No. G 10/92.

Referrals by Boards of Appeal

I. In decision J 1/91 dated 31 March 1992, Legal Board of Appeal 3.1.1 referred the following point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 112(1)(a) EPC: (Official Text)

Where it has been adjudged by a final decision of a national court that a person other than the applicant is entitled to the grant of a European patent, and that person, in compliance with the specific requirements of Article 61(1) EPC, files a new European patent application in respect of the same invention under Article 61(1)(b) EPC, is it a pre-condition for the application to be accepted that the original usurping application still be pending before the EPO at the time the new applicationis filed?

The case is pending under Ref. No. G 3/92.

II. In appeals J 8/91, J 15/90, J 9/92 and J 20/92 dated 4 September 1992 Legal Board of Appeal 3.1.1 decided:

(Official Text)

1. In appeals J 15/90, J 8/91, J 9/92 and J 20/92 the same questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal with the same reasoning as in case J 16/90* (G 3/91**).

In the same cases Legal Board of Appeal 3.1.1 also referred the following point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

(Official Text)

2. If the answer to the questions of law 1b or 2b is negative, that is, re-establishment is precluded in the relevant PCT cases, is the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal then also immediately applicable to all pending cases?

These cases are pending under Ref. Nos. G 5/92, G 6/92, G 7/92and G 8/92.

III. In decisions T 60/91 and T 96/92 dated 5 October 1992, Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.1 referred the following point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 112(1)(a) EPC:

(Translation)

1. May the Board of Appeal amend the contested decision to the appellant's disadvantage?

2. If so, to what extent?

The case is pending under Ref. No. G 9/92.