Tag: priority

Posted on

Search report for patent application deemed to be withdrawn

In a recent decision 1 W(pat) 11/23, the German Federal Patent Court held that the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO) has to establish a search report for a patent application that is deemed to be withdrawn, provided that applicant sets forth a legitimate interest in obtaining the search results. The decision orders the GPTO to establish the search report prior to expiry of the priority term.

This decision both reflects the importance of the official search results for applicants and corroborates the importance of the official search results to be established in due time.

By way of background, a German national patent application is deemed withdrawn (as in the decided case) inter alia when it serves as basis for a priority claim of (a) a further national German patent application or (b) a PCT application filed via the GPTO as Receiving Office without exempting the designation of Germany. Still, applicant can (and often does) have a legitimate interest in a timely search report even in cases in which a convention application was already filed. For illustration, it may be prudent in many cases for applicant to modify the claims and/or the overall disclosure of a (still further) convention application, taking into account the search results.

Posted on

Enlarged Board of Appeal on transfer of priority right

The recent decisionby the Enlarged Board of Appeal G1/22 and G2/22 has made it easier to demonstrate a valid transfer of priority right. This is good news for patent applicants and patentees who may have struggled with the previous requirements for demonstrating a valid transfer. According to the EPO’s summary of the key considerations, “entitlement to priority is presumed to exist if the formal requirements for claiming priority are fulfilled. This presumption is justified because (i) all parties involved normally have an interest that an application may benefit from a priority right, (ii) there are no formal requirements for the transfer of priority rights, and (iii) the applicant of the priority application has to provide support to the applicant claiming priority (e.g. by providing unpublished documents).”

However, it is important to note that the time of transfer must still pre-date the subsequent filing. This means that while the process of demonstrating a valid transfer may be easier, the timing of the transfer is still crucial. More details can be found in the many comments that were already published on these decisions. See, e.g., the DeltaPatents Blog on decisions G1/22 and G2/22.

Posted on

EPO T 1946/21 – transfer of priority right

In the recent Board of Appeal decision T 1946/21, Board of Appeal 3.2.03 held that it is sufficient for a transfer of the priority right to be effected on the filing date of the subsequent application, provided that applicant/patentee can demonstrate that the transfer had been effected at the time at which the subsequent application was filed. The Board did not follow appellant’s argument that the transfer had to be effected at the latest on the day preceding the day on which the subsequent application was filed.

Beware that (i) the EPO Guidelines (section A.III.6 in GL version 2023) include language (“the transfer of the application including the priority right (or of the priority right as such) must have taken place before the filing date”) that suggests that stricter criteria may apply, and (ii) national case law of EPC member states (such as BPatG 11 W (pat) 14/09, point II.B.2 a cited in T 1946/21) may require the transfer to have taken place at the latest on the day preceding the filing date.

Thus, if time allows, it is prudent to mitigate potential issues relating to the validity of the priority claim in Europe by (a) effecting a transfer of the priority right to the applicant of the subsequent application at least on the day before the filing date, or (b) filing the subsequent application with the applicant of the priority application being named at least as a co-applicant in the subsequent application.

T 1946/21 also includes interesting passages relating to partial priority issues in light of G 1/15.