281:
application contain a plurality of independent claims in the same claim category and if the EPO considers in that case that the claims therefore do not comply with Rule 43(2) EPC, the EPO may "invite the applicant to indicate, within a period of two months, the claims complying with Rule 43, paragraph 2, on the basis of which the search is to be carried out." "If the applicant fails to provide such an indication in due time, the search shall be carried out on the basis of the first claim in each category". A Rule 62a EPC objection may however be contested by the applicant in its reply to the search division or, later, before the examining division. If the search division finds that its initial objection was not justified in view of the applicant's arguments, the search will then be carried out on an unlimited basis. The examining division may also override the assessment of the search division. Otherwise, the claims will have to be restricted, during examination, to the subject-matter searched.
832:, Reasons for the Decision 33 (Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office 4 February 2014) ("According to established case law of the Boards of Appeal the description can be used as the patent's "dictionary" to assess the correct meaning of ambiguous terms used in claims. However, if a term used in a claim has a clear technical meaning, the description cannot be used to interpret such a term in a different way. In case of a discrepancy between the claims and the description, the unambiguous claim wording must be interpreted as it would be understood by the person skilled in the art without the help of the description (e.g. decision T 197/10 of 28 October 2011, and the Case law of the Boards of Appeal, 7th Edition 2013, II.A.6.3.1, page 268).").
518:"In decision T 454/89 the board shared this view and explained that Art. 84 EPC 1973 requires that claims must be clear in themselves when read using normal skills, including knowledge of the prior art but not any knowledge derived from the description contained in the patent application or the amended patent." and "The clarity stipulation under Art. 84 EPC 1973 concerned only the claims, and therefore – according to the established case law of the EPO boards of appeal – required that they be clear in themselves, without there being any need for the skilled person to refer to the description." in Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office,
446:"In order to ensure that the public is not left in any doubt as to which subject-matter is covered by a particular patent and which is not, Article 84 EPC in combination with Rule 43(1) EPC requires that the claims shall be clear and define the matter for which protection is sought in terms of the technical features of the invention. A claim does not, therefore, fulfil the requirement of clarity if there is doubt as to the subject-matter it may cover (see case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 5th edition 2006, II.B.)" in
491:"On the one hand, Article 84 requires that the claims shall be clear. "This implies that the claims must be clear in themselves when being read with the normal skills, but not including any knowledge derived from the description of the patent application ..." (T 0908/04 of 15 February 2006, point 3.5 of the reasons). Therefore, a reference in the description can generally not render an otherwise unclear claim clear." in
808:"Sind die Patentansprüche so deutlich und eindeutig abgefasst, dass der Fachmann sie problemlos verstehen kann, so besteht keine Veranlassung die Beschreibung zur Interpretation der Patentansprüche heranzuziehen. Bei einer Diskrepanz zwischen den Patentansprüchen und der Beschreibung ist der eindeutige Anspruchswortlaut so auszulegen, wie ihn der Fachmann ohne Zuhilfenahme der Beschreibung verstehen würde.
339:
technical meaning, the description cannot be used to interpret such a term in a different way." Furthermore, when the claims are interpreted, they "must be interpreted through the eyes of the person skilled in the art, who should try - with synthetical propensity - to arrive at an interpretation of the claim which is technically meaningful and takes into account the whole disclosure of the patent".
479:, reasons 3.3.2, last paragraph, last sentence: "Since the person skilled in the art cannot conclude in an objective way whether a particular "actual" detection zone boundary qualifies as being "trapezoidal or substantially rectangular", the scope of protection is not well-defined contrary to the requirements of Art. 84 EPC 1973."
171:
The EPC requires that the claims be clear (for example the claim wording cannot be obscure) and define the matter for which protection is sought in terms of the technical features of the invention. The rationale behind this requirement is to ensure that the public is not left in any doubt as to which
735:
Reference can be made in this respect to established jurisdiction, namely to the
Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal G 9/91, (OJ EPO 1993, 408, No. 19 of the reasons) and e.g. Decisions T 301/87 (OJ EPO 1990, 335, No. 3.8 of the reasons) and T 690/00 of 20 February 2002 (No. 4.1 of the reasons;
248:
document, namely the closest prior art. The characterizing part includes the other features, i.e., those not known in the prior art document used to draft the claim in a two-part form. The two-part form required by Rule 43(1) should be complied with "wherever appropriate". This manner of claiming an
851:
According to the established case law, patent claims must be interpreted through the eyes of the person skilled in the art, who should try - with synthetical propensity - to arrive at an interpretation of the claim which is technically meaningful and takes into account the whole disclosure of the
338:
to understand them without difficulty, then there is no reason to consult the description to interpret the claims. In other words, "the description can be used as the patent's "dictionary" to assess the correct meaning of ambiguous terms used in claims" but "if a term used in a claim has a clear
280:
Rule 62a EPC, which entered into force on April 1, 2010, provides the opportunity for the EPO to invite the applicant to comply with Rule 43(2) before the search is carried out. This was not foreseen under the former regulations. Under the new rules, if the claims as filed in a
European patent
223:
The scope of the claims must also not be "broader than is justified by the extent of the description and also the contribution to the art". "his requirement reflects the general legal principle that the extent of the patent monopoly, as defined by the claims, should correspond to the technical
813:
Somit sind bei einer
Diskrepanz zwischen deutlich definierten Patentansprüchen und der Beschreibung solche Teile der Beschreibung, die in den Patentansprüchen keinen Niederschlag haben, grundsätzlich in der Beurteilung der Neuheit und der erfinderischen Tätigkeit nicht zu berücksichtigen." in
203:
As mentioned above, a claim must define the matter for which the protection is sought in terms of the technical features of the invention. These technical features need not necessarily be structural however; they may also be functional. Structural features may for example consist in a
732:"... a deficiency concerning the requirements of Article 84 EPC is neither a ground for opposition before the EPO under Article 100 EPC nor a ground for revocation under Article 138(1) EPC. Consequently, such a deficiency cannot be dealt with, let alone remedied in either proceedings.
268:
A plurality of independent claims in the same claim category are only allowable in the exceptional circumstances listed in Rule 43(2)(a), (b) and (c). The applicant has the burden of showing "that one of the exceptions under Rule 43(2) EPC apply". Rule 43(2) is only applicable during
460:"Article 84 EPC stipulates that the claims shall be clear and define the matter for which protection is sought. Those requirements serve the purpose of ensuring that it is possible to assess whether or not a given subject-matter falls within the ambit of a particular claim." in
243:
notably imposes that an independent claim should be drafted in a two-part form, including a preamble and a characterizing part. The preamble, which is sometimes also called "pre-characterizing portion", includes all the features of the claim that in combination are known in a
1081:
1071:
791:"Although a claim must not be interpreted in a way which is illogical or does not make any sense, the description cannot be used to give a different meaning to a claim feature which in itself imparts a clear credible technical teaching to the skilled reader..." in
1076:
200:, the claims must be clear "in themselves when being read with the normal skills, but not including any knowledge derived from the description of the patent application ...". In other words, the wording of a claim must be clear in itself.
453:"The purpose of claims under the EPC is to enable the protection conferred by the patent (or patent application) to be determined (...), and thus the rights of the patent owner within the designated Contracting States (...)." in
621:, at 2.2.3: "In the case of more than one independent claim per category, the applicant bears the burden to show that one of the exceptions under Rule 43(2) EPC apply (T 1388/10, Reasons 7.2 and 7.3 citing T 56/01, Reasons 5)."
1035:
1152:
284:
This amendment to the
Implementing Regulations of the EPC is part of the so-called "raising the bar" initiative, with the claimed aim "to improve the quality of incoming patent applications and streamline the
69:
148:. This legal provision also requires that the claims must be clear and concise, and supported by the description. The function, form and content of the claims are defined by Article 84 supplemented by
326:
that "the clarity of the amended claims of a patent may be examined in opposition proceedings only when, and then only to the extent that the amendment introduces non-compliance with
Article 84 EPC."
1066:
921:
520:
500:
1184:
1097:
172:
subject-matter is covered by a particular patent and which is not. That is, the scope of protection must be well-defined. The clarity requirement therefore plays an important role in providing
1178:
1009:
1137:
1045:
903:
546:
61:
1030:
960:
274:
1189:
1132:
45:
1040:
754:
1025:
286:
270:
1172:
660:
85:
1204:
1157:
37:
498:"(...) the claims must be clear in themselves when read by the skilled person" in Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office,
657:
Notice from the
European Patent Office dated 15 October 2009 concerning amendments to the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention (EPC)
953:
119:
29:
53:
1127:
399:
1502:
946:
643:
Decision of the
Administrative Council of 25 March 2009 amending the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention (CA/D 3/09)
1142:
162:
The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description.
748:
407:
180:
or could infringe a patent, so as in turn to be able to make the most informed economic decisions as possible (such as taking a
1050:
584:, Reasons 1.4, referring to T 0409/91, OJ EPO 9/1994, 653, Reasons 3.2, penultimate sentence and Reasons 3.3, second sentence.
112:
736:
not published in OJ EPO, cf. also
Chapter VII.D.4.2 in the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 6th edition, 2010)."
655:
969:
525:
505:
983:
897:
890:
881:
869:
432:
425:
387:
358:
315:
308:
301:
240:
152:
133:
20:
1117:
257:
250:
105:
926:
1122:
1112:
319:
550:
1147:
767:
630:
618:
447:
216:, whereas functional features define the suitability for performing certain functions, such as for example
1438:
1004:
907:
815:
799:
792:
714:
Notice from the EPO dated 15 October 2009 concerning amendments to the
Implementing Regulations to the EPC
692:
Notice from the EPO dated 15 October 2009 concerning amendments to the
Implementing Regulations to the EPC
593:
461:
454:
873:
829:
726:
606:
581:
569:
492:
476:
1194:
197:
842:
1297:
1164:
177:
205:
141:
1454:
403:
852:
patent (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th edition 2022, II.A.6.1, first paragraph).
334:
In opposition proceedings, if the claims of the opposed patent are sufficiently clear for a
323:
185:
1347:
664:
642:
173:
1412:
1252:
1199:
535:"Use in the examination relating to the clarity requirement pursuant to Article 84 EPC"
335:
145:
894:
355:
1496:
1312:
312:
305:
298:
254:
887:
878:
866:
619:
Decision T 0592/15 (Polymeric core-shell nanoparticles/BRIDGESTONE) of 26.11.2018
605:
See for instance "The pre-characterising portion of the claim is based on..." in
429:
422:
384:
237:
149:
1402:
1342:
900:) expressing the legal requirements regarding the form and content of the claims
703:
New rule 62a(2) EPC. See Decision of the Admin. Council, CA/D 3/09, Article 1.1.
938:
1372:
1337:
1322:
311:. Article 84 may however play a role in opposition proceedings, by virtue of
1317:
1107:
245:
1446:
1387:
1382:
1362:
1237:
988:
919:
Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office,
217:
293:
Applicability of Article 84 EPC in opposition and revocation proceedings
224:
contribution to the art in order for it to be supported, or justified."
1478:
1470:
1462:
1367:
1292:
1287:
1277:
1267:
1262:
1257:
1242:
1232:
1227:
1222:
1102:
1077:
Decisions of the Boards of Appeal relating to Article 52(2) and (3) EPC
181:
1407:
1397:
1377:
1357:
1352:
1332:
1307:
1282:
1272:
1247:
137:
1392:
1327:
1302:
213:
209:
942:
144:- the purported invention - shall be stated ("defined") in the
97:
Note: The above list of legal requirements is not exhaustive.
318:, if the patent proprietor amends the claims. In 2015, the
249:
invention is also prescribed, in a similar manner, in the
729:, Reasons for the Decision 2.8, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs:
676:
Decision of the Admin. Council, CA/D 3/09, Article 1.1.
455:
G 2/88 (Friction reducing additive) of 11 December 1989
297:
Article 84 EPC is neither a ground of opposition under
1082:
Successful petitions for review under Article 112a EPC
1072:
Decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
330:
Interpretation of the claims in opposition proceedings
750:
Lack of clarity as a ground in opposition proceedings
1421:
1213:
1090:
1059:
1018:
997:
976:
795:, Catchwords. (T 1018/02 is cited with approval in
755:
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
596:(OJ EPO 9/1994, 653), Reasons 3.3, second sentence.
916: : "Claims (Art. 84 and formal requirements)"
515:"Characterisation of an invention by a parameter";
1128:European Round Table on Patent Practice (EUROTAB)
768:"Decision G 3/14 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal"
874:Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC
176:for third parties to determine whether they are
686:
684:
682:
1205:Unitary patent (Switzerland and Liechtenstein)
954:
196:According to the established case law of the
113:
8:
188:, refraining from entering a market, etc.).
136:(EPC) specifies that the "matter" for which
922:Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO
521:Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO
501:Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO
418:
416:
961:
947:
939:
872:defining the extent of protection and the
158:The wording of Article 84 is as follows:
120:
106:
15:
770:. European Patent Office. March 26, 2015
21:European patent applications and patents
727:Decision T 0075/09 of 13 September 2011
398:Nicholas Fox, A Guide to the EPC 2000,
380:
378:
376:
372:
347:
18:
582:Decision T 1486/08 of 23 February 2012
904:Guidelines for Examination in the EPO
816:Decision T 0197/10 of 28 October 2011
793:Decision T 1018/02 of 9 December 2003
607:Decision T 0443/11 of 30 January 2012
594:Decision T 409/91 dated 18 March 1993
547:Guidelines for Examination in the EPO
7:
1185:Standing Advisory Committee (SACEPO)
800:decision T 0369/10 of 1 October 2012
448:Decision T 528/06 of 3 December 2008
802:, reasons 2.1.2, second paragraph.)
716:, 15 October 2009, 1. Introduction.
493:Decision T 1819/07 of 15 March 2011
633:dated June 28, 2007, Headnote II.1
304:nor a ground for revocation under
14:
19:Legal requirements applicable to
984:European Patent Convention (EPC)
843:"T 0450/20 09-03-2023 | Epo.org"
1118:European Patent Institute (epi)
757:, 2007, Vol. 2, No. 8, p. 502.
1:
1153:Observations by third parties
694:, 15 October 2009, point 2.2.
667:, 15 October 2009, point 2.1.
464:, reasons 2, first paragraph.
1503:European Patent Organisation
1005:European Patent Office (EPO)
970:European Patent Organisation
560: : "Technical features"
70:Disclosure of the invention
884:defining the role of claims
140:protection is sought in an
1519:
1195:Unified Patent Court (UPC)
989:Revised version (EPC 2000)
925:(9th edition, July 2019),
524:(9th edition, July 2019),
504:(9th edition, July 2019),
134:European Patent Convention
30:Patentable subject-matter
1036:Limitation and revocation
251:Patent Cooperation Treaty
54:Industrial applicability
1123:European Patent Register
1113:European Patent Bulletin
462:T 514/14 of 21 July 2017
320:Enlarged Board of Appeal
228:Implementing regulations
1098:Divisional applications
663:19 October 2009 at the
271:examination proceedings
1439:Bosnia and Herzegovina
1179:Restitutio in integrum
1010:Administrative Council
275:opposition proceedings
164:
160:
198:EPO boards of appeal
1200:Unitary patent (EU)
1167:reformatio in peius
1046:Petition for review
62:Unity of invention
788:See for instance:
725:See for instance:
488:See for instance:
443:See for instance:
132:Article 84 of the
1490:
1489:
1483:
1475:
1467:
1459:
1451:
1443:
1431:
1425:
1143:Judges' Symposium
631:Decision T 263/05
477:Decision T 359/12
130:
129:
1510:
1481:
1473:
1465:
1457:
1449:
1441:
1429:
1423:
1190:Software patents
1159:Official Journal
1148:London Agreement
963:
956:
949:
940:
935: : "Claims"
933:
929:
914:
910:
855:
854:
839:
833:
827:
821:
807:
798:
786:
780:
779:
777:
775:
764:
758:
745:
739:
723:
717:
710:
704:
701:
695:
688:
677:
674:
668:
652:
646:
640:
634:
628:
622:
616:
610:
603:
597:
591:
585:
579:
573:
567:
561:
557:
553:
544:
538:
532:
528:
512:
508:
495:, Reasons 3.4.1;
486:
480:
475:See for example
473:
467:
441:
435:
420:
411:
396:
390:
382:
362:
352:
186:designing around
122:
115:
108:
89:
81:
73:
65:
57:
49:
41:
33:
16:
1518:
1517:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1486:
1427:
1417:
1348:North Macedonia
1215:
1214:EPC contracting
1209:
1165:Prohibition of
1086:
1055:
1026:Grant procedure
1014:
993:
972:
967:
931:
927:
912:
908:
863:
858:
849:. Reasons 2.3.
841:
840:
836:
828:
824:
805:
796:
787:
783:
773:
771:
766:
765:
761:
746:
742:
724:
720:
711:
707:
702:
698:
689:
680:
675:
671:
665:Wayback Machine
653:
649:
645:, Article 2(1).
641:
637:
629:
625:
617:
613:
604:
600:
592:
588:
580:
576:
568:
564:
555:
551:
545:
541:
530:
526:
510:
506:
487:
483:
474:
470:
442:
438:
421:
414:
397:
393:
383:
374:
370:
365:
353:
349:
345:
332:
295:
287:grant procedure
266:
235:
230:
194:
174:legal certainty
169:
126:
87:
79:
71:
63:
55:
47:
46:Inventive step
39:
31:
12:
11:
5:
1516:
1514:
1506:
1505:
1495:
1494:
1488:
1487:
1485:
1484:
1476:
1468:
1460:
1452:
1444:
1435:
1433:
1419:
1418:
1416:
1415:
1413:United Kingdom
1410:
1405:
1400:
1395:
1390:
1385:
1380:
1375:
1370:
1365:
1360:
1355:
1350:
1345:
1340:
1335:
1330:
1325:
1320:
1315:
1310:
1305:
1300:
1295:
1290:
1285:
1280:
1275:
1270:
1265:
1260:
1255:
1253:Czech Republic
1250:
1245:
1240:
1235:
1230:
1225:
1219:
1217:
1211:
1210:
1208:
1207:
1202:
1197:
1192:
1187:
1182:
1175:
1173:Representation
1170:
1162:
1155:
1150:
1145:
1140:
1135:
1130:
1125:
1120:
1115:
1110:
1105:
1100:
1094:
1092:
1091:Related topics
1088:
1087:
1085:
1084:
1079:
1074:
1069:
1063:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1054:
1053:
1048:
1043:
1038:
1033:
1028:
1022:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1013:
1012:
1007:
1001:
999:
995:
994:
992:
991:
986:
980:
978:
977:Founding texts
974:
973:
968:
966:
965:
958:
951:
943:
937:
936:
917:
901:
885:
876:
862:
861:External links
859:
857:
856:
834:
830: T 2221/10
822:
820:
819:
810:
809:
803:
781:
759:
747:David Rogers,
740:
738:
737:
733:
718:
712:EPO web site,
705:
696:
690:EPO web site,
678:
669:
654:EPO web site,
647:
635:
623:
611:
598:
586:
574:
562:
539:
537:
536:
516:
496:
481:
468:
466:
465:
458:
451:
436:
412:
391:
371:
369:
366:
364:
363:
346:
344:
341:
336:skilled person
331:
328:
313:Article 101(3)
306:Article 138(1)
294:
291:
265:
264:Rule 43(2) EPC
262:
234:
233:Rule 43(1) EPC
231:
229:
226:
193:
190:
168:
165:
128:
127:
125:
124:
117:
110:
102:
99:
98:
94:
93:
92:
91:
83:
75:
67:
59:
51:
43:
35:
24:
23:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1515:
1504:
1501:
1500:
1498:
1480:
1477:
1472:
1469:
1464:
1461:
1456:
1453:
1448:
1445:
1440:
1437:
1436:
1434:
1420:
1414:
1411:
1409:
1406:
1404:
1401:
1399:
1396:
1394:
1391:
1389:
1386:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1376:
1374:
1371:
1369:
1366:
1364:
1361:
1359:
1356:
1354:
1351:
1349:
1346:
1344:
1341:
1339:
1336:
1334:
1331:
1329:
1326:
1324:
1321:
1319:
1316:
1314:
1313:Liechtenstein
1311:
1309:
1306:
1304:
1301:
1299:
1296:
1294:
1291:
1289:
1286:
1284:
1281:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1271:
1269:
1266:
1264:
1261:
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1241:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1231:
1229:
1226:
1224:
1221:
1220:
1218:
1212:
1206:
1203:
1201:
1198:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1183:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1174:
1171:
1169:
1168:
1163:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1154:
1151:
1149:
1146:
1144:
1141:
1139:
1136:
1134:
1131:
1129:
1126:
1124:
1121:
1119:
1116:
1114:
1111:
1109:
1106:
1104:
1101:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1093:
1089:
1083:
1080:
1078:
1075:
1073:
1070:
1068:
1067:Case Law book
1065:
1064:
1062:
1058:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1044:
1042:
1039:
1037:
1034:
1032:
1029:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1021:
1017:
1011:
1008:
1006:
1003:
1002:
1000:
996:
990:
987:
985:
982:
981:
979:
975:
971:
964:
959:
957:
952:
950:
945:
944:
941:
934:
924:
923:
918:
915:
905:
902:
899:
896:
892:
889:
886:
883:
880:
877:
875:
871:
868:
865:
864:
860:
853:
848:
844:
838:
835:
831:
826:
823:
817:
812:
811:
804:
801:
794:
790:
789:
785:
782:
769:
763:
760:
756:
752:
751:
744:
741:
734:
731:
730:
728:
722:
719:
715:
709:
706:
700:
697:
693:
687:
685:
683:
679:
673:
670:
666:
662:
659:
658:
651:
648:
644:
639:
636:
632:
627:
624:
620:
615:
612:
608:
602:
599:
595:
590:
587:
583:
578:
575:
571:
566:
563:
559:
548:
543:
540:
534:
523:
522:
517:
514:
503:
502:
497:
494:
490:
489:
485:
482:
478:
472:
469:
463:
459:
456:
452:
449:
445:
444:
440:
437:
434:
431:
427:
424:
419:
417:
413:
409:
408:0-903932-26-1
405:
401:
395:
392:
389:
386:
381:
379:
377:
373:
367:
360:
357:
351:
348:
342:
340:
337:
329:
327:
325:
321:
317:
314:
310:
307:
303:
300:
292:
290:
288:
282:
278:
276:
272:
263:
261:
259:
256:
252:
247:
242:
239:
232:
227:
225:
221:
219:
215:
211:
207:
201:
199:
191:
189:
187:
183:
179:
175:
166:
163:
159:
156:
154:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
123:
118:
116:
111:
109:
104:
103:
101:
100:
96:
95:
90:
88:(Article 123)
84:
82:
76:
74:
68:
66:
60:
58:
52:
50:
44:
42:
36:
34:
28:
27:
26:
25:
22:
17:
1177:
1166:
1158:
920:
850:
846:
837:
825:
784:
772:. Retrieved
762:
749:
743:
721:
713:
708:
699:
691:
672:
656:
650:
638:
626:
614:
601:
589:
577:
572:, Reasons 5.
565:
542:
519:
499:
484:
471:
457:, point 2.5.
450:, Reasons 1.
439:
394:
350:
333:
296:
283:
279:
267:
253:, namely in
236:
222:
202:
195:
170:
161:
157:
131:
80:(Article 84)
77:
72:(Article 83)
64:(Article 82)
56:(Article 57)
48:(Article 56)
40:(Article 54)
32:(Article 52)
1428:validation
1403:Switzerland
1343:Netherlands
1051:Enforcement
847:new.epo.org
818:, Leitsatz.
806:(in German)
797:(in French)
774:10 November
609:, item 2.1.
402:, page 74,
354:Previously
299:Article 100
255:Rule 6.3(b)
142:application
86:Amendments
1422:Extension
1373:San Marino
1338:Montenegro
1323:Luxembourg
1138:Guidelines
1031:Opposition
906:, section
893:(formerly
879:Article 84
867:Article 69
549:, section
430:Rule 43(1)
423:Article 84
385:Article 84
368:References
238:Rule 43(1)
178:infringing
1318:Lithuania
1108:Espacenet
1019:Procedure
570:T 1098/14
273:, not in
246:prior art
218:fastening
167:Rationale
1497:Category
1447:Cambodia
1388:Slovenia
1383:Slovakia
1363:Portugal
1238:Bulgaria
1060:Case law
898:EPC 1973
661:Archived
359:EPC 1973
322:held in
38:Novelty
1479:Tunisia
1471:Morocco
1463:Moldova
1455:Georgia
1368:Romania
1298:Ireland
1293:Iceland
1288:Hungary
1278:Germany
1268:Finland
1263:Estonia
1258:Denmark
1243:Croatia
1233:Belgium
1228:Austria
1223:Albania
1103:epoline
895:Rule 29
888:Rule 43
356:Rule 29
220:means.
192:Clarity
182:license
150:Rule 43
78:Claims
1432:states
1408:Turkey
1398:Sweden
1378:Serbia
1358:Poland
1353:Norway
1333:Monaco
1308:Latvia
1283:Greece
1273:France
1248:Cyprus
1216:states
1041:Appeal
998:Organs
533:.6.3.5
406:
324:G 3/14
146:claims
138:patent
1393:Spain
1328:Malta
1303:Italy
558:, 2.1
343:Notes
214:rivet
212:or a
210:screw
1133:Fees
776:2019
513:.3.5
404:ISBN
400:CIPA
208:, a
206:nail
1482:(V)
1474:(V)
1466:(V)
1458:(V)
1450:(V)
1442:(E)
1430:(V)
1426:and
1424:(E)
891:EPC
882:EPC
870:EPC
433:EPC
426:EPC
388:EPC
316:EPC
309:EPC
302:EPC
289:".
258:PCT
241:EPC
153:EPC
1499::
928:ii
913:iv
845:.
753:,
681:^
556:iv
527:ii
507:ii
428:,
415:^
375:^
277:.
260:.
184:,
155:.
962:e
955:t
948:v
932:a
930:.
911:-
909:f
778:.
554:-
552:f
531:a
529:.
511:a
509:.
410:.
361:.
121:e
114:t
107:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.