• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

3. February 2022

In general, the principle “joint applicants approach” to European patent applications. But does this also apply to an international PCT application? The EPO has recently decided to refer this question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

Validity of the priority claim contested

PCT-Anmeldung - Anmeldergemeinschaft

The EPO’s current decision (dated 28 January 2022, EPO decision T 2719/19 (Prolongation of survival of an allograft/ALEXION)) came about in invalidity proceedings against European Patent No. 1 755 674, which was revoked by the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division: The validity of the priority claim was successfully challenged and, as a result, the novelty of the patent was denied.

The facts of this case are quickly recounted and occur more frequently in a similar form; there have been disputes over correct applicant designation before (the CRISPR decision of 2018 is particularly notable in this context, we reported), and there are also other such disputes pending before the EPO. There have been discrepancies in terms of applicants between the claimed priority application and the PCT application, in which Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the University of Western Ontario are the patent applicants alongside

Applicants of the priority and PCT application: Discrepancies

The priority application was filed in the names of the inventors R.P. Rother, H. Wang and Z. Zhong; however, the PCT application names these three as inventors and as applicants by designation only for the United States of America (US). In addition, the PCT application names Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the University of Western Ontario as applicants for all designated states except the US. The patent in suit names Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as patentee and R.P. Rother, H. Wang and Z. Zhong as inventors.

The priority claim was invalid, the applicant had successfully argued in the invalidity proceedings against the EP patent, because only the priority right of the inventor Rother had been assigned to the appellant before the filing of the PCT application. There had been no assignment of the priority rights of inventors Wang and Zhong to the appellant or the University of Western Ontario before the PCT application was filed.

Alexion had filed an appeal against this decision of the Opposition Division, on which the EPO has now ruled – but with open questions of law relating to PCT applicants, which will now be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

Priority – same rules for EP and PCT applicants?

In General, applicants of a European patent application or the proprietors of a European patent who are not identically designated as applicants for all designated contracting states have been considered as joint applicants for the purposes of the procedure before the European Patent Office (EPO) under Article 118 EPC. According to the case law of the Boards of Appeal, decision T 1933/12 (T 1933/12, reasons 2.4.) the “joint applicants approach” was developed. Anyway, as the EPO said, it concerns, in the most simple case, the situation where a party A is applicant for the priority application and parties A and B are applicants for the subsequent application in which the priority right is invoked.

But does this rule for applicants also apply to an international (PCT) application for the European (EP) territory? After all, the international application has the effect of a regular national application on the filing date (Article 11(3) PCT and Article 153(2) EPC).

Alexion argued that it is sufficient that all inventors named as applicants of the priority application are also among the applicants of the later PCT application, even if only for the US designation. And the appellant essentially argues that the “joint applicants approach”, which is applicable to European patent applications, should also apply to PCT patent applications.

Questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

This case involves a legal question of fundamental importance, the EPO now ruled on 28 January 2022. This legal question on the applicant concept for PCT applications is relevant to a number of cases currently pending before opposition divisions and boards of appeal, the EPO added, citing cases T 2749/18, T 2842/18, T 1837/19 and T 845/19 as examples.

And,

For this reason, the EPO will refer the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

  1. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC?If the answer to question 1 will be affirmed
  2. Can a party B validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT-application for the purpose of claiming priority rights under Article 87(1) EPCin the case where
  1. a PCT-application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States, including regional European patent protection and
  2. the PCT-application claims priority from an earlier patent application that designates party A as the applicant and
  3. the priority claimed in the PCT-application is in compliance with Article 4 of the Paris Convention?

It now remains to be seen with interest what position the Enlarged Board of Appeal will take on these questions. The EPO itself considers it likely that question 1 will be answered in the affirmative, as it is a substantive requirement in Art.87(1) EPC.

In any case, the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s reply will close a legal loophole that has not yet been clarified – and this at a time when patent applications are constantly increasing globally, including PCT applications.

Do you need support to protect your patent rights?

Our patent attorneys and attorneys-at-law have expertise in all fields of intellectual property law, both nationally and internationally.
We look forward to getting in touch with you!

Sources: 

EPO decision T 2719/19 (Prolongation of survival of an allograft/ALEXION) of 28.1.2022

Image:

our own Design, based on dapple-designers | pixabay | CCO License and Broesis | pixabay | CCO License

  • share  15 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconapplicant community,  EPO,  patent applicant,  international patent,  patent application involved,  PCT Applications,  global patent application,  Crispr,  PCT application,  Enlarged Board of Appeal,  Applicant,  assignee,  claiming priority,  US priority,  EPC

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Patent Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

19. January 2022
Computer Data identification declared invalid

Computer Data identification declared invalid

18. January 2022
Bundling of NRW court jurisdiction for IT and renewables

Bundling of NRW court jurisdiction for IT and renewables

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]