Add application file

.gitattributes

@@ -33,3 +33,6 @@ saved_model/**/* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 *.zip filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 *.zst filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 *tfevents* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.sqlite3 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.png filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+chroma_langchain/** filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text

app.py

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# app.py — Hugging Face Space (Gradio) using a prebuilt Chroma index
+# Embeddings: nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5 (HF), trust_remote_code=True, normalize_embeddings=True
+
+import os
+import gradio as gr
+
+# Silence Chroma telemetry noise
+os.environ["CHROMA_TELEMETRY_DISABLED"] = "1"
+
+from chromadb.config import Settings
+from langchain_chroma import Chroma
+from langchain_community.embeddings import HuggingFaceEmbeddings
+
+# -------- Config (can be overridden via Space "Variables") --------
+PERSIST_DIR = os.getenv("PERSIST_DIR", "./chroma_langchain")     # path to your committed Chroma index
+EMB_MODEL   = os.getenv("EMB_MODEL", "nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5")
+TOPK_DEF    = int(os.getenv("TOPK", "5"))
+
+# Embedding function for query text — must match the model used to build the index
+EMBEDDINGS = HuggingFaceEmbeddings(
+    model_name=EMB_MODEL,
+    model_kwargs={"trust_remote_code": True},
+    encode_kwargs={"normalize_embeddings": True},
+)
+
+def load_vector_store():
+    """
+    Load the persisted Chroma collection with the embedding function for query-time encoding.
+    Returns (vs, error_message_or_None)
+    """
+    try:
+        vs = Chroma(
+            persist_directory=PERSIST_DIR,
+            embedding_function=EMBEDDINGS,
+            client_settings=Settings(anonymized_telemetry=False),
+        )
+        # sanity check (forces collection open)
+        _ = vs._collection.count()
+        return vs, None
+    except Exception as e:
+        # Helpful diagnostics: list available collections
+        try:
+            import chromadb
+            client = chromadb.PersistentClient(
+                path=PERSIST_DIR, settings=Settings(anonymized_telemetry=False)
+            )
+            existing = [c.name for c in client.list_collections()]
+        except Exception:
+            existing = []
+        msg = (
+            f"Failed to load Chroma store at '{PERSIST_DIR}'. "
+            f"Existing collections: {existing or '—'}. "
+            "Check that the index folder is present in the Space and the collection name matches."
+        )
+        return None, f"{msg}\n\nDetails: {e}"
+
+VS, LOAD_ERR = load_vector_store()
+
+def search(query: str, k: int = TOPK_DEF):
+    if LOAD_ERR:
+        return f"⚠️ {LOAD_ERR}"
+    q = (query or "").strip()
+    if not q:
+        return "Please enter a query."
+    try:
+        results = VS.similarity_search_with_score(q, k=int(k))
+    except Exception as e:
+        return f"Search failed: {e}"
+    if not results:
+        return "No results."
+
+    lines = [f"### Top {len(results)} results"]
+    for i, (doc, score) in enumerate(results, 1):
+        meta = doc.metadata or {}
+        src = meta.get("source") or meta.get("file_path") or "(no source)"
+        snippet = (doc.page_content[:800] + "…") if len(doc.page_content) > 800 else doc.page_content
+        lines.append(f"**[{i}] {src}**  \nSimilarity: `{score:.4f}`\n\n> {snippet}")
+    lines.append("\n> **Disclaimer:** Models can produce incorrect or misleading statements. Verify with sources.")
+    return "\n\n".join(lines)
+
+with gr.Blocks(title="Decision Finder — Local Semantic Search") as demo:
+    gr.Markdown(
+        f"## Decision Finder — headnotes & catchwords (EN)\n"
+        f"Using prebuilt Chroma index from `{PERSIST_DIR}`.\n"
+        "Runs on Spaces CPU; only query embeddings are computed at runtime."
+    )
+    with gr.Row():
+        q = gr.Textbox(label="Query", placeholder="Which G decision addresses double patenting?")
+        k = gr.Slider(1, 20, value=TOPK_DEF, step=1, label="Top-K")
+    out = gr.Markdown()
+    gr.Button("Search").click(fn=search, inputs=[q, k], outputs=[out])
+
+demo.launch()

chroma_langchain/3b53a002-b593-4425-bb2e-5d0fc26809f6/data_level0.bin

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:23add52afbe7588391f32d3deffb581b2663d2e2ad8851aba7de25e6b3f66761
+size 32120000

chroma_langchain/3b53a002-b593-4425-bb2e-5d0fc26809f6/header.bin

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:f8c7f00b4415698ee6cb94332eff91aedc06ba8e066b1f200e78ca5df51abb57
+size 100

chroma_langchain/3b53a002-b593-4425-bb2e-5d0fc26809f6/length.bin

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:166c674294f2c0f735b95dbb4dba3d0d8574345d39e08d9e4e706359c20204a6
+size 40000

chroma_langchain/chroma.sqlite3

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:b7c986bc7fb5fd47d9812b99bac28f6d63b2a3464687798ca9b2e49376cce387
+size 1490944

chunks.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+G 1/02 (G020001EP1) [EN] Points 4 and 6 of the Notice from the Vice-President Directorate-General 2 dated 28 April 1999 (OJ EPO 1999, 506) do not conflict with provisions of a higher level.
+G 2/02 (G020002EP1) [EN] The TRIPS Agreement does not entitle the applicant for a European patent application to claim priority from a first filing in a state which was not at the relevant dates a member of the Paris Convention but was a member of the WTO/TRIPS Agreement.
+G 2/02 (G020002EX1) [EN] The TRIPs Agreement does not entitle the applicant for a European patent application to claim priority from a first filing in a State which was not at the relevant dates a member of the Paris Convention but was a member of the WTO/TRIPs Agreement.
+G 1/03 (G030001EP1) [EN] I. An amendment to a claim by the introduction of a disclaimer may not be refused under Article 123(2) EPC for the sole reason that neither the disclaimer nor the subject-matter excluded by it from the scope of the claim have a basis in the application as filed. II. The following criteria are to be applied for assessing the allowability of a disclaimer which is not disclosed in the application as filed: II.1 A disclaimer may be allowable in order to: - restore novelty by delimiting a claim against state of the art under Article 54(3) and (4) EPC; - restore novelty by delimiting a claim against an accidental anticipation under Article 54(2) EPC; an anticipation is accidental if it is so unrelated to and remote from the claimed invention that the person skilled in the art would never have taken it into consideration when making the invention; and - disclaim subject-matter which, under Articles 52 to 57 EPC, is excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons. II.2 A disclaimer should not remove more than is necessary either to restore novelty or to disclaim subject-matter excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons. II.3 A disclaimer which is or becomes relevant for the assessment of inventive step or sufficiency of disclosure adds subject-matter contrary to Article 123(2) EPC. II.4 A claim containing a disclaimer must meet the requirements of clarity and conciseness of Article 84 EPC.
+G 1/03 (G030001EX1) [EN] 1. An amendment to a claim by the introduction of a disclaimer may not be refused under Article 123(2) EPC for the sole reason that neither the disclaimer nor the subject-matter excluded by it from the scope of the claim have a basis in the application as filed. 2. The following criteria are to be applied for assessing the allowability of a disclaimer which is not disclosed in the application as filed: 2.1 A disclaimer may be allowable in order to: - restore novelty by delimiting a claim against state of the art under Article 54(3) and (4) EPC; - restore novelty by delimiting a claim against an accidental anticipation under Article 54(2) EPC; an anticipation is accidental if it is so unrelated to and remote from the claimed invention that the person skilled in the art would never have taken it into consideration when making the invention; and - disclaim subject-matter which, under Articles 52 to 57 EPC, is excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons. 2.2 A disclaimer should not remove more than is necessary either to restore novelty or to disclaim subject-matter excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons. 2.3 A disclaimer which is or becomes relevant for the assessment of inventive step or sufficiency of disclosure adds subject-matter contrary to Article 123(2) EPC. 2.4 A claim containing a disclaimer must meet the requirements of clarity and conciseness of Article 84 EPC.
+G 3/03 (G030003EP1) [EN] I. In the event of interlocutory revision under Article 109(1) EPC, the department of the first instance whose decision has been appealed is not competent to refuse a request of the appellant for reimbursement of the appeal fee. II The board of appeal which would have been competent under Article 21 EPC to deal with the substantive issues of the appeal if no interlocutory revision had been granted is competent to decide on the request.
+G 3/03 (G030003EX1) [EN] 1.In the event of interlocutory revision under Article 109(1) EPC, the department of the first instance whose decision has been appealed is not competent to refuse a request of the appellant for reimbursement of the appeal fee. 2.The board of appeal which would have been competent under Article 21 EPC to deal with the substantive issues of the appeal if no interlocutory revision had been granted is competent to decide on the request.
+G 1/04 (G040001EP1) [EN] I. In order that the subject-matter of a claim relating to a diagnostic method practised on the human or animal body falls under the prohibition of Article 52(4) EPC, the claim is to include the features relating to: (i) the diagnosis for curative purposes stricto sensu representing the deductive medical or veterinary decision phase as a purely intellectual exercise, (ii) the preceding steps which are constitutive for making that diagnosis, and (iii) the specific interactions with the human or animal body which occur when carrying those out among these preceding steps which are of a technical nature. II. Whether or not a method is a diagnostic method within the meaning of Article 52(4) EPC may neither depend on the participation of a medical or veterinary practitioner, by being present or by bearing the responsibility, nor on the fact that all method steps can also, or only, be practised by medical or technical support staff, the patient himself or herself or an automated system. Moreover, no distinction is to be made in this context between essential method steps having diagnostic character and non-essential method steps lacking it. III. In a diagnostic method under Article 52(4) EPC, the method steps of a technical nature belonging to the preceding steps which are constitutive for making the diagnosis for curative purposes stricto sensu must satisfy the criterion "practised on the human or animal body". IV. Article 52(4) EPC does not require a specific type and intensity of interaction with the human or animal body; a preceding step of a technical nature thus satisfies the criterion "practised on the human or animal body" if its performance implies any interaction with the human or animal body, necessitating the presence of the latter.
+G 1/04 (G040001EX1) [EN] 1. In order that the subject-matter of a claim relating to a diagnostic method practised on the human or animal body falls under the prohibition of Article 52(4) EPC, the claim is to include the features relating to: (i) the diagnosis for curative purposes stricto sensu representing the deductive medical or veterinary decision phase as a purely intellectual exercise, (ii) the preceding steps which are constitutive for making that diagnosis, and (iii) the specific interactions with the human or animal body which occur when carrying those out among these preceding steps which are of a technical nature. 2. Whether or not a method is a diagnostic method within the meaning of Article 52(4) EPC may neither depend on the participation of a medical or veterinary practitioner, by being present or by bearing the responsibility, nor on the fact that all method steps can also, or only, be practised by medical or technical support staff, the patient himself or herself or an automated system. Moreover, no distinction is to be made in this context between essential method steps having diagnostic character and non-essential method steps lacking it. 3. In a diagnostic method under Article 52(4) EPC, the method steps of a technical nature belonging to the preceding steps which are constitutive for making the diagnosis for curative purposes stricto sensu must satisfy the criterion "practised on the human or animal body". 4. Article 52(4) EPC does not require a specific type and intensity of interaction with the human or animal body; a preceding step of a technical nature thus satisfies the criterion "practised on the human or animal body" if its performance implies any interaction with the human or animal body, necessitating the presence of the latter.
+G 2/04 (G040002EP1) [EN] I. (a) The status as an opponent cannot be freely transferred. (b) A legal person who was a subsidiary of the opponent when the opposition was filed and who carries on the business to which the opposed patent relates cannot acquire the status as opponent if all its shares are assigned to another company. II. If, when filing an appeal, there is a justifiable legal uncertainty as to how the law is to be interpreted in respect of the question of who the correct party to the proceedings is, it is legitimate that the appeal is filed in the name of the person whom the person acting considers, according to his interpretation, to be the correct party, and at the same time, as an auxiliary request, in the name of a different person who might, according to another possible interpretation, also be considered the correct party to the proceedings.
+G 2/04 (G040002EX1) [EN] (see Order)
+G 3/04 (G040003EP1) [EN] After withdrawal of the sole appeal, the proceedings may not be continued with a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings.
+G 1/05 (G050001EP1) [EN] I. If a member of a Board of Appeal in a notice of withdrawal gives a ground which may by its nature constitute a possible ground for an objection of partiality that ground should normally be respected by the decision on replacement of the Board member concerned (Reasons, point 7). II. As regards proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal and unless there are specific circumstances throwing doubt on the Board member's ability to approach the parties' submissions with an open mind on a later occasion there cannot be any objectively justified, i.e. reasonable suspicion of partiality against a member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal within the meaning of Article 24(3), first sentence, EPC for the reason that a position on the matter was adopted in a prior decision of a Board of Appeal in which the Board member concerned had participated (Reasons, point 27).
+G 1/05 (G050001EP2) [EN] So far as Article 76(1) EPC is concerned, a divisional application which at its actual date of filing contains subject-matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application as filed can be amended later in order that its subject-matter no longer so extends, even at a time when the earlier application is no longer pending. Furthermore, the same limitations apply to these amendments as to amendments to any other (non-divisional) applications.
+G 1/05 (G050001EX2) [EN] So far as Article 76(1) EPC is concerned, a divisional application which at its actual date of filing contains subject- matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application as filed can be amended later in order that its subject-matter no longer so extends, even at a time when the earlier application is no longer pending. Furthermore, the same limitations apply to these amendments as to amendments to any other (non-divisional) applications.
+G 1/06 (G060001EP1) [EN] In the case of a sequence of applications consisting of a root (originating) application followed by divisional applications, each divided from its predecessor, it is a necessary and sufficient condition for a divisional application of that sequence to comply with Article 76(1), second sentence, EPC that anything disclosed in that divisional application be directly and unambiguously derivable from what is disclosed in each of the preceding applications as filed. The Summary of facts and submissions and Reasons for the decision are identical in their wording to the corresponding section of decision G 1/05, OJ EPO 2008, 271 (in this issue). The proceedings were consolidated. Therefore this is an abridged version of the decision. A copy of the full text in the language of proceedings may be obtained from the EPO Information Desk in Munich on payment of a photocopying fee of EUR 0.70 per page.
+G 1/06 (G060001EX1) [EN] In the case of a sequence of applications consisting of a root (originating) application followed by divisional applications, each divided from its predecessor, it is a necessary and sufficient condition for a divisional application of that sequence to comply with Article 76(1), second sentence, EPC that anything disclosed in that divisional application be directly and unambiguously derivable from what is disclosed in each of the preceding applications as filed.
+G 2/06 (G060002EP1) [EN] 1. The request for a preliminary ruling by the European Court of Justice on the questions suggested is rejected as inadmissible. 2. The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows: Question 1: Rule 28(c) EPC (formerly Rule 23d(c) EPC) applies to all pending applications, including those filed before the entry into force of the rule. Question 2: Rule 28(c) EPC (formerly Rule 23d(c) EPC) forbids the patenting of claims directed to products which - as described in the application - at the filing date could be prepared exclusively by a method which necessarily involved the destruction of the human embryos from which the said products are derived, even if the said method is not part of the claims. Question 3: No answer is required since Questions 1 and 2 have been answered with yes. Question 4: In the context of the answer to question 2 it is not of relevance that after the filing date the same products could be obtained without having to recur to a method necessarily involving the destruction of human embryos.
+G 2/06 (G060002EX1) [EN] 1. The request for a preliminary ruling by the European Court of Justice on the questions suggested is rejected as inadmissible. 2. The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows: Question 1: Rule 28(c) EPC (formerly Rule 23d(c) EPC) applies to all pending applications, including those filed before the entry into force of the rule. Question 2: Rule 28(c) EPC (formerly Rule 23d(c) EPC) forbids the patenting of claims directed to products which - as described in the application — at the filing date could be prepared exclusively by a method which necessarily involved the destruction of the human embryos from which the said products are derived, even if the said method is not part of the claims. Question 3: No answer is required since Questions 1 and 2 have been answered with yes. Question 4: In the context of the answer to question 2 it is not of relevance that after the filing date the same products could be obtained without having to recur to a method necessarily involving the destruction of human embryos.
+G 1/07 (G070001EP1) [EN] The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows: 1. A claimed imaging method, in which, when carried out, maintaining the life and health of the subject is important and which comprises or encompasses an invasive step representing a substantial physical intervention on the body which requires professional medical expertise to be carried out and which entails a substantial health risk even when carried out with the required professional care and expertise, is excluded from patentability as a method for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery pursuant to Article 53(c) EPC. 2a. A claim which comprises a step encompassing an embodiment which is a "method for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery" within the meaning of Article 53(c) EPC cannot be left to encompass that embodiment. 2b. The exclusion from patentability under Article 53(c) EPC can be avoided by disclaiming the embodiment, it being understood that in order to be patentable the claim including the disclaimer must fulfil all the requirements of the EPC and, where applicable, the requirements for a disclaimer to be allowable as defined in decisions G 1/03 and G 2/03 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. 2c. Whether or not the wording of the claim can be amended so as to omit the surgical step without offending against the EPC must be assessed on the basis of the overall circumstances of the individual case under consideration. 3. A claimed imaging method is not to be considered as being a "treatment of the human or animal body by surgery" within the meaning of Article 53(c) EPC merely because during a surgical intervention the data obtained by the use of the method immediately allow a surgeon to decide on the course of action to be taken during a surgical intervention.
+G 2/07 (G070002EP1) [EN] The questions of law referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows: 1. A non-microbiological process for the production of plants which contains or consists of the steps of sexually crossing the whole genomes of plants and of subsequently selecting plants is in principle excluded from patentability as being "essentially biological" within the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC. 2. Such a process does not escape the exclusion of Article 53(b) EPC merely because it contains, as a further step or as part of any of the steps of crossing and selection, a step of a technical nature which serves to enable or assist the performance of the steps of sexually crossing the whole genomes of plants or of subsequently selecting plants. 3. If, however, such a process contains within the steps of sexually crossing and selecting an additional step of a technical nature, which step by itself introduces a trait into the genome or modifies a trait in the genome of the plant produced, so that the introduction or modification of that trait is not the result of the mixing of the genes of the plants chosen for sexual crossing, then the process is not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC. 4. In the context of examining whether such a process is excluded from patentability as being "essentially biological" within the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC, it is not relevant whether a step of a technical nature is a new or known measure, whether it is trivial or a fundamental alteration of a known process, whether it does or could occur in nature or whether the essence of the invention lies in it.
+G 2/08 (G080002EP1) [EN] The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows: Question 1: Where it is already known to use a medicament to treat an illness, Article 54(5) EPC does not exclude that this medicament be patented for use in a different treatment by therapy of the same illness. Question 2: Such patenting is also not excluded where a dosage regime is the only feature claimed which is not comprised in the state of the art. Question 3: Where the subject matter of a claim is rendered novel only by a new therapeutic use of a medicament, such claim may no longer have the format of a so called Swiss-type claim as instituted by decision G 5/83. A time-limit of three months after publication of the present decision in the Official Journal of the European Patent Office is set in order that future applicants comply with this new situation.
+G 3/08 (G080003EX1) [EN] 1. In exercising his or her right of referral a President of the EPO is entitled to make full use of the discretion granted by Article 112 (1) (b) EPC, even if his or her appreciation of the need for a referral has changed after a relatively short time. 2. Different decisions by a single Technical Board of Appeal in differing compositions may be the basis of an admissible referral by the President of the EPO of a point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal pursuant to Article 112 (1) (b) EPC. 3. As the wording of Article 112 (1) (b) EPC is not clear with respect to the meaning of “different/abweichende/ divergent” decisions the provision has to be interpreted in the light of its object and purpose according to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The purpose of the referral right under 112 (1) (b) EPC is to establish uniformity of law within the European patent system. Having regard to this purpose of the presidential right to refer legal questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal the notion “different decisions” has to be understood restrictively in the sense of “conflicting decisions”. 4. The notion of legal development is an additional factor which must be carefully considered when interpreting the notion of “different decision” in Article 112 (1) (b) EPC. Development of the law is an essential aspect of its application, whatever method of interpretation is applied, and is therefore inherent in all judicial activity. Consequently, legal development as such cannot on its own form the basis for a referral, only because case law in new legal and/or technical fields does not always develop in linear fashion, and earlier approaches may be abandoned or modified. 5. Legal rulings are characterised not by their verdicts, but by their grounds. The Enlarged Board of Appeal may thus take obiter dicta into account in examining whether two decisions satisfy the requirements of Article 112 (1) (b) EPC. 6. T 424/03, Microsoft does deviate from a view expressed in T 1173/97, IBM, concerning whether a claim to a program on a computer-readable medium necessarily avoids exclusion from patentability under Article 52(2) EPC. However this is a legitimate development of the case law and there is no divergence which would make the referral of this point to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President admissible. 7. The Enlarged Board of Appeal cannot identify any other inconsistencies between the grounds of the decisions which the referral by the President alleges are divergent. The referral is therefore inadmissible under Article 112(1)(b) EPC.
+G 4/08 (G080004EP1) [EN] The Enlarged Board of Appeal, in response to the three points of law referred to it, concludes that: Question 1: If an international patent application has been filed and published under the PCT in an official language of the EPO, it is not possible, on entry into the European phase, to file a translation of the application into another EPO official language. Question 2: In written proceedings on a European patent application or an international application in the regional phase, EPO departments cannot use an EPO official language other than the language of proceedings used for the application under Article 14(3) EPC. Question 3: This question is redundant.
+G 1/09 (G090001EP1) [EN] In the case where no appeal is filed, a European Patent application which has been refused by a decision of the Examining Division is thereafter still pending within the meaning of Rule 25 EPC 1973 (Rule 36(1) EPC) until the expiry of the time limit for filing a notice of appeal.
+G 1/10 (G100001EP1) [EN] The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows: 1. Since Rule 140 EPC is not available to correct the text of a patent, a patent proprietor's request for such a correction is inadmissible whenever made, including after the initiation of opposition proceedings. 2. In view of the answer to the first referred question, the second referred question requires no answer.
+G 2/10 (G100002EP1) [EN] The question referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is answered as follows: 1a. An amendment to a claim by the introduction of a disclaimer disclaiming from it subject-matter disclosed in the application as filed infringes Article 123(2) EPC if the subject-matter remaining in the claim after the introduction of the disclaimer is not, be it explicitly or implicitly, directly and unambiguously disclosed to the skilled person using common general knowledge, in the application as filed. 1b. Determining whether or not that is the case requires a technical assessment of the overall technical circumstances of the individual case under consideration, taking into account the nature and extent of the disclosure in the application as filed, the nature and extent of the disclaimed subject-matter and its relationship with the subject-matter remaining in the claim after the amendment.
+G 1/11 (G110001EP1) [EN] A technical board of appeal is competent to hear an appeal against an EPO examining division's decision – taken separately from its decision granting a patent or refusing the application – not to refund search fees under Rule 64(2) EPC.
+G 1/12 (G120001EP1) [EN] The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows: Question (1): The answer to reformulated question (1) - namely whether when a notice of appeal, in compliance with Rule 99(1)(a) EPC, contains the name and the address of the appellant as provided in Rule 41(2)(c) EPC and it is alleged that the identification is wrong due to an error, the true intention having been to file on behalf of the legal person which should have filed the appeal, is it possible to correct this error under Rule 101(2) EPC by a request for substitution by the name of the true appellant - is yes, provided the requirements of Rule 101(1) EPC have been met. Question (2): Proceedings before the EPO are conducted in accordance with the principle of free evaluation of evidence. This also applies to the problems under consideration in the present referral. Question (3): In cases of an error in the appellant's name, the general procedure for correcting errors under Rule 139, first sentence, EPC is available under the conditions established by the case law of the boards of appeal. Question (4): Given the answers to questions (1) and (3), there is no need to answer question (4).
+G 2/12 (G120002EP1) [EN] 1. The exclusion of essentially biological processes for the production of plants in Article 53(b) EPC does not have a negative effect on the allowability of a product claim directed to plants or plant material such as a fruit. 2. In particular, the fact that the only method available at the filing date for generating the claimed subject-matter is an essentially biological process for the production of plants disclosed in the patent application does not render a claim directed to plants or plant material other than a plant variety unallowable. 3. In the circumstances, it is of no relevance that the protection conferred by the product claim encompasses the generation of the claimed product by means of an essentially biological process for the production of plants excluded as such under Article 53(b) EPC.
+G 1/13 (G130001EP1) [EN] The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows: 1. Where an opposition is filed by a company which subsequently, under the relevant national law governing the company, for all purposes ceases to exist, but that company is subsequently restored to existence under a provision of that governing national law, by virtue of which the company is deemed to have continued in existence as if it had not ceased to exist, all these events taking place before a decision of the Opposition Division maintaining the opposed patent in amended form becomes final, the European Patent Office must recognize the retroactive effect of that provision of national law and allow the opposition proceedings to be continued by the restored company. 2. Where, in the factual circumstances underlying Question 1, a valid appeal is filed in due time in the name of the non-existent opponent company against the decision maintaining the European patent in amended form, and the restoration of the company to existence, with retroactive effect as described in Question 1, takes place after the expiry of the time limit for filing the notice of appeal under Article 108 EPC, the Board of Appeal must treat the appeal as admissible. 3. Not applicable.
+G 2/13 (G130002EP1) [EN] 1. The exclusion of essentially biological processes for the production of plants in Article 53(b) EPC does not have a negative effect on the allowability of a product claim directed to plants or plant material such as plant parts. 2.(a) The fact that the process features of a product-by-process claim directed to plants or plant material other than a plant variety define an essentially biological process for the production of plants does not render the claim unallowable. 2.(b) The fact that the only method available at the filing date for generating the claimed subject-matter is an essentially biological process for the production of plants disclosed in the patent application does not render a claim directed to plants or plant material other than a plant variety unallowable. 3. In the circumstances, it is of no relevance that the protection conferred by the product claim encompasses the generation of the claimed product by means of an essentially biological process for the production of plants excluded as such under Article 53(b) EPC.
+G 1/14 (G140001EP1) [EN] 1. If a board of appeal refers a point of law to the Enlarged Board under Article 112(1)(a) EPC, it is primarily up to the former to explain, in its referral decision, that – and why – it believes it needs an Enlarged Board ruling on the point arising in the case before it. This is also clear from Article 22(2), second sentence, RPBA, requiring the referring board to state the context in which the point originated. 2. In any event, the Enlarged Board must examine whether the referral fulfils the criteria of Article 112(1)(a) EPC (including that a "decision is required") and is thus admissible. 3. But if the referral is clearly the result of misapplying the law, and on a correct application an answer from the Enlarged Board is no longer necessary for the decision in the appeal proceedings, it is to be dismissed as inadmissible.
+G 3/14 (G140003EP1) [EN] In considering whether, for the purposes of Article 101(3) EPC, a patent as amended meets the requirements of the EPC, the claims of the patent may be examined for compliance with the requirements of Article 84 EPC only when, and then only to the extent that the amendment introduces non-compliance with Article 84 EPC.
+G 1/15 (G150001EP1) [EN] Under the EPC, entitlement to partial priority may not be refused for a claim encompassing alternative subject-matter by virtue of one or more generic expressions or otherwise (generic "OR"-claim) provided that said alternative subject-matter has been disclosed for the first time, directly, or at least implicitly, unambiguously and in an enabling manner in the priority document. No other substantive conditions or limitations apply in this respect.
+G 2301/15 (G152301EU1) [EN] 1. The law-making bodies have so shaped the proceedings for a decision for a proposal under Article 23(1) EPC that they take proper judicial form. The arrangements laid down in Articles 2(5) RPEBA and Article 10 BDS/EBA for the composition of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in proceedings under Article 23(1) EPC are compatible with the European Patent Convention and general principles of law. 2. Article 12a(5) RPEBA requires that the request under Article 12a(1) RPEBA specify individual incidents and the evidence for them, and give reasons why they constitute a serious ground within the meaning of Article 23(1) EPC.
+G 1/16 (G160001EP1) [EN] For the purpose of considering whether a claim amended by the introduction of an undisclosed disclaimer is allowable under Article 123(2) EPC, the disclaimer must fulfil one of the criteria set out in point 2.1 of the order of decision G 1/03. The introduction of such a disclaimer may not provide a technical contribution to the subject-matter disclosed in the application as filed. In particular, it may not be or become relevant for the assessment of inventive step or for the question of sufficiency of disclosure. The disclaimer may not remove more than necessary either to restore novelty or to disclaim subject-matter excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons.
+G 2301/16 (G162301EU1) [EN] For the Enlarged Board to be able to continue with these proceedings the position of the Petitioner would have to be that it did not agree with the Office President and acknowledged that, from an institutional point of view, the pressure exercised by the Office President in the present case was incompatible with the judicial independence of the Enlarged Board guaranteed by the EPC. As the Petitioner did not clearly distance itself from the Office President’s position, there is the threat of disciplinary measures against the members of the Enlarged Board. It is then the Enlarged Board’s judicial independence in deciding on this case which is fundamentally denied.
+G 1/18 (G180001EP1) [EN] 1. An appeal is deemed not to have been filed in the following cases: (a) where notice of appeal was filed within the two-month time limit prescribed in Article 108, first sentence, EPC AND the appeal fee was paid after expiry of that two month time limit; (b) where notice of appeal was filed after expiry of the two month time limit prescribed in Article 108, first sentence, EPC AND the appeal fee was paid after expiry of that two month time limit; (c) where the appeal fee was paid within the two month time limit prescribed in Article 108, first sentence, EPC for filing notice of appeal AND notice of appeal was filed after expiry of that two month time limit. 2. In the cases referred to in answers 1(a) to (c), reimbursement of the appeal fee is to be ordered ex officio. 3. Where the appeal fee was paid within or after the two month time limit prescribed in Article 108, first sentence, EPC for filing notice of appeal AND no notice of appeal was filed at all, the appeal fee is to be reimbursed.
+G 1/19 (G190001EX1) [EN] A computer-implemented simulation of a technical system or process that is claimed as such can, for the purpose of assessing inventive step, solve a technical problem by producing a technical effect going beyond the simulation's implementation on a computer. For that assessment it is not a sufficient condition that the simulation is based, in whole or in part, on technical principles underlying the simulated system or process. The answers to the first and second questions are no different if the computer-implemented simulation is claimed as part of a design process, in particular for verifying a design.
+G 2/19 (G190002EP1) [EN] 1. A third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC who has filed an appeal against a decision to grant a European patent has no right to have its request for an order that examination proceedings in respect of the European patent be reopened for the purpose of removing allegedly unclear claims (Article 84 EPC) heard at oral proceedings before a board of appeal of the European Patent Office. An appeal filed in such a way has no suspensive effect. 2. Oral proceedings before the boards of appeal at their site in Haar do not infringe Articles 113(1) and 116(1) EPC.
+G 3/19 (G190003EP1) [EN] Taking into account developments after decisions G 2/12 and G 2/13 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the exception to patentability of essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals in Article 53(b) EPC has a negative effect on the allowability of product claims and product-by-process claims directed to plants, plant material or animals, if the claimed product is exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process or if the claimed process features define an essentially biological process. This negative effect does not apply to European patents granted before 1 July 2017 and European patent applications which were filed before that date and are still pending.
+G 4/19 (G190004EX1) [EN] 1. A European patent application can be refused under Articles 97(2) and 125 EPC if it claims the same subject-matter as a European patent which has been granted to the same applicant and does not form part of the state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) and (3) EPC. 2. The application can be refused on that legal basis, irrespective of whether it a) was filed on the same date as, or b) is an earlier application or a divisional application (Article 76(1) EPC) in respect of, or c) claims the same priority (Article 88 EPC) as the European patent application leading to the European patent already granted.
+G 1/21 (G210001EX3) [EN] During a general emergency impairing the parties' possibilities to attend in-person oral proceedings at the EPO premises, the conduct of oral proceedings before the boards of appeal in the form of a videoconference is compatible with the EPC even if not all of the parties to the proceedings have given their consent to the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference.
+G 2/21 (G210002EU1) [EN] I. Evidence submitted by a patent applicant or proprietor to prove a technical effect relied upon for acknowledgement of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence, on which the effect rests, had not been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and was filed after that date. II. A patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention.
+G 1/22 (G220001EU1) [EN] I. The European Patent Office is competent to assess whether a party is entitled to claim priority under Article 87(1) EPC. There is a rebuttable presumption under the autonomous law of the EPC that the applicant claiming priority in accordance with Article 88(1) EPC and the corresponding Implementing Regulations is entitled to claim priority. II. The rebuttable presumption also applies in situations where the European patent application derives from a PCT application and/or where the priority applicant(s) are not identical with the subsequent applicant(s). In a situation where a PCT application is jointly filed by parties A and B, (i) designating party A for one or more designated States and party B for one or more other designated States, and (ii) claiming priority from an earlier patent application designating party A as the applicant, the joint filing implies an agreement between parties A and B allowing party B to rely on the priority, unless there are substantial factual indications to the contrary.
+G 1/83 (G830001EP1) [EN] I. A European Patent with claims directed to the use may not be granted for the use of a substance or composition for the treatment of the human or animal body by therapy. II. A European patent may be granted with claims directed to the use of a substance or composition for the manufacture of a medicament for a specified new and inventive therapeutic application. For corresponding English text see decision G_0005/83
+G 5/83 (G830005EP1) [EN] I. A European Patent with claims directed to the use may not be granted for the use of a substance or composition for the treatment of the human or animal body by therapy. II. A European patent may be granted with claims directed to the use of a substance or composition for the manufacture of a medicament for a specified new and inventive therapeutic application.
+G 1/84 (G840001EP1) [EN] A notice of opposition against a European patent is not inadmissible merely because it has been filed by the proprietor of that patent.
+G 1/86 (G860001EP1) [EN] Article 122 EPC is not to be interpreted as being applicable only to the applicant and patent proprietor. An appellant as opponent may have his rights re-established under Article 122 EPC if he has failed to observe the time limit for filing the statement of grounds of appeal.
+G 1/88 (G880001EP1) [EN] The fact that an opponent has failed, within the time allowed, to make any observations on the text in which it is intended to maintain the European patent after being invited to do so under Rule 58(4) EPC does not render his appeal inadmissible.
+G 2/88 (G880002EP1) [EN] I. A change of category of granted claims in opposition proceedings is not open to objection under Article 123(3) EPC, if it does not result in extension of the protection conferred by the claims as a whole, when they are interpreted in accordance with Article 69 EPC and its Protocol. In this context, the national laws of the Contracting States relating to infringement should not be considered. 2. An amendment of granted claims directed to "a compound" and to "a composition including such compound", so that the amended claims are directed to "the use of that compound in a composition" for a particular purpose, is not open to objection under Article 123(3) EPC. 3. A claim to the use of a known compound for a particular purpose, which is based on a technical effect which is described in the patent, should be interpreted as including that technical effect as a functional technical feature, and is accordingly not open to objection under Article 54(1) EPC provided that such technical feature has not previously been made available to the public.
+G 4/88 (G880004EP1) [EN] An opposition pending before the European Patent Office may be transferred or assigned to a third party as part of the opponent's business assets together with the assets in the interests of which the opposition was filed.
+G 5/88 (G880005EP1) [EN] 1. The capacity of the President of the European Patent Office to represent the European Patent Organisation by virtue of Article 5(3) EPC is one of his functions but is not one of his powers. The extent of the President's power is governed by the EPC, but not by Article 5(3) EPC. 2. To the extent that the Administrative Agreement dated 29 June 1981 between the President of the EPO and the President of the German Patent Office contains terms regulating the treatment of documents intended for the EPO and received by the German Patent Office in Berlin, the President of the EPO did not himself have the power to enter into such an agreement on behalf of the EPO, at any time before the opening of the Filing Office for the EPO in Berlin on 1 July 1989. 3. In application of the principle of good faith and the protection of the legitimate expectations of users of the EPO, if a person has at any time, since publication of the Agreement in the Official Journal and before 1 July 1989, filed documents intended for the EPO at the German Patent Office in Berlin (otherwise than by hand), the EPO was then bound to treat such documents as if it had received them on the date of receipt at the German Patent Office in Berlin.
+G 6/88 (G880006EP1) [EN] A claim to the use of a known compound for a particular purpose, which is based on a technical effect which is described in the patent, should be interpreted as including that technical effect as a functional technical feature, and is accordingly not open to objection under Article 54(1) EPC provided that such technical feature has not previously been made available to the public.
+G 1/89 (G890001EP1) [EN] The agreement between the European Patent Organisation and WIPO dated 7 October 1987, including the obligation under its Article 2 for the EPO to be guided by the PCT guidelines for international search, is binding upon the EPO when acting as an ISA and upon the Boards of Appeal of the EPO when deciding on protests against the charging of additional search fees under the provisions of Article 17(3)(a) PCT. Consequently, as foreseen in these guidelines, an international application may, under Article 17(3)(a) PCT, be considered not to comply with the requirement of unity of invention, not only "a priori" but also "a posteriori", i.e. after taking prior art into consideration. However, such consideration has only the procedural effect of initiating the special procedure laid down in Article 17 and Rule 40 PCT and is, therefore, not a "substantive examination" in the normal sense of that term.
+G 2/89 (G890002EP1) [EN] The EPO in its function as an ISA may, pursuant to Article 17(3)(a) PCT, request a further search fee where the international application is considered to lack unity of invention "a posteriori".
+G 3/89 (G890003EP1) [EN] 1. The parts of a European patent application or of a European patent relating to the disclosure (the description, claims and drawings) may be corrected under Rule 88, second sentence, EPC only within the limits of what a skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of these documents as filed. Such a correction is of a strictly declaratory nature and thus does not infringe the prohibition of extension under Article 123(2) EPC. 2. Evidence of what was common general knowledge on the date of filing may be furnished in connection with an admissible request for correction in any suitable form.
+G 1/90 (G900001EP1) [EN] The revocation of a patent under Article 102(4) and (5) EPC requires a decision.
+G 2/90 (G900002EP1) [EN] 1. Under Article 21(3)(c) EPC, the Legal Board of Appeal is competent only to hear appeals against decisions taken by an Examining Division consisting of fewer than four members when the decision does not concern the refusal of a European patent application or the grant of a European patent. In all other cases, i.e. those covered by Article 21(3)(a), (3)(b) and (4) EPC, the Technical Board of Appeal is competent. 2. The provisions relating to competence in Article 21(3) and (4) EPC are not affected by Rule 9(3) EPC.
+G 1/91 (G910001EP1) [EN] Unity of invention (Article 82 EPC) does not come under the requirements that a European patent and the invention to which it relates must meet under Article 102(3) EPC when the patent is maintained in amended form. It is consequently irrelevant in opposition proceedings that the European patent as granted or amended does not meet the requirement of unity.
+G 2/91 (G910002EP1) [EN] 1. A person who is entitled to appeal but does not do so and instead confines himself to being a party to the appeal proceedings under Article 107, second sentence, EPC, has no independent right to continue the proceedings if the appellant withdraws the appeal. 2. Appeal fees cannot be reimbursed simply because several parties to proceedings before the EPO have validly filed an appeal against the same decision.
+G 3/91 (G910003EP1) [EN] Article 122(5) EPC is applicable both to the time limits provided for in Articles 78(2) and 79(2) EPC and to those provided for in Rule 104b(1)(b) and (c) EPC in conjunction with Articles 157(2)(b) and 158(2) EPC.
+G 4/91 (G910004EP1) [EN] I. It is a prerequisite for intervention in opposition proceedings by an assumed infringer pursuant to Article 105 EPC that there are opposition proceedings in existence at the point in time when a notice of intervention is filed. II. A decision by an Opposition Division which decides upon the issues raised by the opposition is a final decision in the sense that thereafter the Opposition Division has no power to change its decision. III. Proceedings before an Opposition Division are terminated upon issue of such a final decision, regardless of when such decision takes legal effect. IV. In a case where, after issue of a final decision by an Opposition Division, no appeal is filed by a party to the proceedings before the Opposition Division, a notice of intervention which is filed during the two-month period for appeal provided by Article 108 EPC has no legal effect.
+G 5/91 (G910005EP1) [EN] 1. Although Article 24 EPC applies only to members of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the requirement of impartiality applies in principle also to employees of the departments of the first instance of the EPO taking part in decision-making activities affecting the rights of any party. 2. There is no legal basis under the EPC for any separate appeal against an order of a director of a department of the first instance such as an Opposition Division rejecting an objection to a member of the division on the ground of suspected partiality. However, the composition of the Opposition Division may be challenged on such a ground of appeal against the final decision of the division or against an interlocutory decision under Article 106(3) EPC allowing separate appeal.
+G 6/91 (G910006EP1) [EN] 1. The persons referred to in Article 14(2) EPC are entitled to the fee reduction under Rule 6(3) EPC if they file the essential item of the first act in filing, examination or appeal proceedings in an official language of the State concerned other than English, French or German, and supply the necessary translation no earlier than simultaneously. 2. The essential item of the first act in appeal proceedings is the notice of appeal, so to secure entitlement to the reduction in the appeal fee it suffices that said document be filed in a Contracting State official language which is not an official language of the European Patent Office and translated into one of the latter languages, even if subsequent items such as the statement of grounds of appeal are filed only in an EPO official language.
+G 7/91 (G910007EP1) [EN] In so far as the substantive issues settled by the contested decision at first instance are concerned, a Board of Appeal may not continue opposition appeal proceedings after the sole appellant, who was the opponent in the first instance, has withdrawn his appeal.
+G 8/91 (G910008EP1) [EN] In so far as the substantive issues settled by the contested decision at first instance are concerned, appeal proceedings are terminated, in ex parte and inter partes proceedings alike, when the sole appellant withdraws the appeal.
+G 9/91 (G910009EP1) [EN] The power of an Opposition Division or a Board of Appeal to examine and decide on the maintenance of a European patent under Articles 101 and 102 EPC depends upon the extent to which the patent is opposed in the notice of opposition pursuant to Rule 55(c) EPC. However, subject-matters of claims depending on an independent claim, which falls in opposition or appeal proceedings, may be examined as to their patentability even if they have not been explicitly opposed, provided their validity is prima facie in doubt on the basis of already available information.
+G 10/91 (G910010EP1) [EN] 1. An Opposition Division or a Board of Appeal is not obliged to consider all the grounds for opposition referred to in Article 100 EPC, going beyond the grounds covered by the statement under Rule 55(c) EPC. 2. In principle, the Opposition Division shall examine only such grounds for opposition which have been properly submitted and substantiated in accordance with Article 99(1) in conjunction with Rule 55(c) EPC. Exceptionally, the Opposition Division may in application of Article 114(1) EPC consider other grounds for opposition which, prima facie, in whole or in part would seem to prejudice the maintenance of the European patent. 3. Fresh grounds for opposition may be considered in appeal proceedings only with the approval of the patentee.
+G 10/91 (G910010EX1) [EN] 1. An Opposition Division or a Board of Appeal is not obliged to consider all the grounds for opposition referred to in Article 100 EPC, going beyond the grounds covered by the statement under Rule 55(c) EPC. 2. In principle, the Opposition Division shall examine only such grounds for opposition, which have been properly submitted and substantiated in accordance with Article 99(1) in conjunction with Rule 55(c) EPC. Exceptionally, the Opposition Division may in application of Article 114(1) EPC consider other grounds for opposition, which, prima facie, in whole or in part would seem to prejudice the maintenance of the European patent. 3. Fresh grounds for opposition may be considered in appeal proceedings only with the approval of the patentee.
+G 12/91 (G910012EP1) [EN] The decision-making process following written proceedings is completed on the date the decision to be notified is handed over to the EPO postal service by the decision-taking department's formalities section.
+G 1/92 (G920001EP1) [EN] 1. The chemical composition of a product is state of the art when the product as such is available to the public and can be analysed and reproduced by the skilled person, irrespective of whether or not particular reasons can be identified for analysing the composition. 2. The same principle applies mutatis mutandis to any other product.
+G 2/92 (G920002EP1) [EN] An applicant who fails to pay the further search fees for a non-unitary application when requested to do so by the Search Division under Rule 46(1) EPC cannot pursue that application for the subject-matter in respect of which no search fees have been paid. Such an applicant must file a divisional application in respect of such subject-matter if he wishes to seek protection for it.
+G 3/92 (G920003EP1) [EN] When 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, it is not a pre-condition for the application to be accepted that the earlier original usurping application is still pending before the EPO at the time the new application is filed.
+G 4/92 (G920004EP1) [EN] 1. A decision against a party who has been duly summoned but who fails to appear at oral proceedings may not be based on facts put forward for the first time during those oral proceedings. 2. Similarly, new evidence may not be considered unless it has been previously notified and it merely supports the assertions of the party who submits it, whereas new arguments may in principle be used to support the reasons for the decision.
+G 5/92 (G920005EP1) [EN] The time limit under Article 94, paragraph 2, EPC is excluded from the restitutio in integrum by the provisions of paragraph 5 of Article 122 EPC.
+G 9/92 (G920009EP1) [EN] 1. If the patent proprietor is the sole appellant against an interlocutory decision maintaining a patent in amended form, neither the Board of Appeal nor the non-appealing opponent as a party to the proceedings as of right under Article 107, second sentence, EPC, may challenge the maintenance of the patent as amended in accordance with the interlocutory decision. 2.If the opponent is the sole appellant against an interlocutory decision maintaining a patent in amended form, the patent proprietor is primarily restricted during the appeal proceedings to defending the patent in the form in which it was maintained by the Opposition Division in its interlocutory decision. Amendments proposed by the patent proprietor as a party to the proceedings as of right under Article 107, second sentence, EPC, may be rejected as inadmissible by the Board of Appeal if they are neither appropriate nor necessary.
+G 10/92 (G920010EP1) [EN] Under the amended version of Rule 25 EPC in force since 1 October 1988 an applicant may only file a divisional application on the pending earlier European patent application up to the approval in accordance with Rule 51(4) EPC.
+G 1/93 (G930001EP1) [EN] 1. If a European patent as granted contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed within the meaning of Article 123(2) EPC and which also limits the scope of protection conferred by the patent, such patent cannot be maintained in opposition proceedings unamended, because the ground for opposition under Article 100(c) EPC prejudices the maintenance of the patent. Nor can it be amended by deleting such limiting subject-matter from the claims, because such amendment would extend the protection conferred, which is prohibited by Article 123(3) EPC. Such a patent can, therefore, only be maintained if there is a basis in the application as filed for replacing such subject-matter without violating Article 123(3) EPC. 2. A feature which has not been disclosed in the application as filed but which has been added to the application during examination and which, without providing a technical contribution to the subject-matter of the claimed invention, merely limits the protection conferred by the patent as granted by excluding protection for part of the subject-matter of the claimed invention as covered by the application as filed, is not to be considered as subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed within the meaning of Article 123(2) EPC. The ground for opposition under Article 100(c) EPC therefore does not prejudice the maintenance of a European patent which includes such a feature.
+G 1/93 (G930001EX1) [EN] 1. If a European patent as granted contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed in the sense of Article 123(2) EPC and which also limits the scope of protection conferred by the patent, such patent cannot be maintained in opposition proceedings unamended, because the ground for opposition under Article 100(c) EPC prejudices the maintenance of the patent. Nor can it be amended by deleting such limiting subject-matter from the claims, because such amendment would extend the protection conferred, which is prohibited by Article 123(3) EPC. Such a patent can, therefore, only be maintained if there is a basis in the application as filed for replacing such subject-matter without violating Article 123(3) EPC. 2. A feature which has not been disclosed in the application as filed but which has been added to the application during examination and which, without providing a technical contribution to the subject-matter of the claimed invention, merely limits the protection conferred by the patent as granted by excluding protection for part of the subject-matter of the claimed invention as covered by the application as filed, is not to be considered as subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed in the sense of Article 123(2) EPC. The ground for opposition under Article 100(c) EPC therefore does not prejudice the maintenance of a European patent which includes such a feature.
+G 2/93 (G930002EP1) [EN] The information concerning the file number of a culture deposit according to Rule 28(1)(c) EPC may not be submitted after expiry of the time limit set out in Rule 28(2)(a) EPC.
+G 3/93 (G930003EP1) [EN] 1. A document published during the priority interval, the technical contents of which correspond to that of the priority document, constitutes prior art citable under Article 54(2) EPC against a European patent application claiming that priority, to the extent such priority is not validly claimed. 2. This also applies if a claim to priority is invalid due to the fact that the priority document and the subsequent European application do not concern the same invention because the European application claims subject-matter not disclosed in the priority document.
+G 4/93 (G930004EX1) [EN] I. If the patent proprietor is the sole appellant against an interlocutory decision maintaining a patent in amended form, neither the Board of Appeal nor the non-appealing opponent as a party to the proceedings as of right under Article 107, second sentence, EPC, may challenge the maintenance of the patent as amended in accordance with the interlocutory decision. II. If the opponent is the sole appellant against an interlocutory decision maintaining a patent in amended form, the patent proprietor is primarily restricted during the appeal proceedings to defending the patent in the form in which it was maintained by the Opposition Division in its interlocutory decision. Amendments proposed by the patent proprietor as a party to the proceedings as of right under Article 107, second sentence, EPC, may be rejected as inadmissible by the Board of Appeal if they are neither appropriate nor necessary.
+G 5/93 (G930005EP1) [EN] The provisions of Article 122(5) EPC apply to the time limits provided for in Rule 104b(1)(b)(i) and (ii) EPC in conjunction with Articles 157(2)(b) and 158(2) EPC. This notwithstanding, Euro-PCT applicants may be re-established in the time limit for paying the national fee provided for in Rule 104b EPC in all cases where re-establishment of rights was applied for before decision G 3/91 was made available to the public.
+G 5/93 (G930005EX1) [EN] The provisions of Article 122(5) EPC apply to the time limits provided for in Rule 104b(1)(b) (i) and (ii) EPC in conjunction with Articles 157(2)(b) and 158(2) EPC. This nothwithstanding, Euro-PCT applicants may be re-established in the time limit for paying the national fee provided for in Rule 104b EPC in all cases where re-establishment of rights was applied for before Decision G 3/91 was made available to the public.
+G 7/93 (G930007EP1) [EN] 1. An approval of a notified text submitted by an applicant pursuant to Rule 51(4) EPC does not become binding once a communication in accordance with Rule 51(6) EPC has been issued. Following issue of such a communication under Rule 51(6) EPC and until issue of a decision to grant the patent, the Examining Division has a discretion under Rule 86(3), second sentence, EPC, whether or not to allow amendment of the application. 2. When exercising such discretion following issue of a communication under Rule 51(6) EPC, an Examining Division must consider all relevant factors. In particular it must consider and balance the applicant's interest in obtaining a patent which is legally valid in all of the designated States, and the EPO's interest in bringing the examination procedure to a close by the issue of a decision to grant the patent. Having regard to the object underlying the issue of a communication under Rule 51(6) EPC, which is to conclude the granting procedure on the basis of the previously approved text, the allowance of a request for amendment at that late stage in the granting procedure will be an exception rather than the rule. 3.Reservations under Article 167(2) EPC do not constitute requirements of the EPC which have to be met according to Article 96(2) EPC.
+G 7/93 (G930007EX1) [EN] I. An approval of a notified text submitted by an applicant pursuant to Rule 51(4) EPC does not become binding once a communication in accordance with Rule 51(6) EPC has been issued. Following issue of such a communication under Rule 51(6) EPC and until issue of a decision to grant the patent, the Examining Division has a discretion under Rule 86(3) EPC, second sentence, whether or not to allow amendment of the application. II. When exercising such discretion following issue of a communication under Rule 51(6) EPC, an Examining Division must consider all relevant factors. In particular it must consider and balance the applicant's interest in obtaining a patent which is legally valid in all of the designated States, and the EPO's interest in bringing the examination procedure to a close by the issue of a decision to grant the patent. Having regard to the object underlying the issue of a communication under Rule 51(6) EPC, which is to conclude the granting procedure on the basis of the previously approved text, the allowance of a request for amendment at that late stage in the granting procedure will be an exception rather than the rule. III. Reservations under Article 167(2) EPC do not constitute requirements of the EPC which have to be met according to Article 96(2) EPC.
+G 8/93 (G930008EP1) [EN] The filing by an opponent, who is sole appellant, of a statement withdrawing his opposition immediately and automatically terminates the appeal proceedings, irrespective of whether the patent proprietor agrees to termination of those proceedings and even if in the Board of Appeal's view the requirements under the EPC for maintaining the patent are not satisfied.
+G 9/93 (G930009EP1) [EN] A European patent cannot be opposed by its own proprietor (overturns ruling in G 1/84).
+G 10/93 (G930010EP1) [EN] In an appeal from a decision of an examining division in which a European patent application was refused the board of appeal has the power to examine whether the application or the invention to which it relates meets the requirements of the EPC. The same is true for requirements which the examining division did not take into consideration in the examination proceedings or which it regarded as having been met. If there is reason to believe that such a requirement has not been met, the board shall include this ground in the proceedings.
+G 1/94 (G940001EP1) [EN] Intervention of the assumed infringer under Article 105 EPC is admissible during pending appeal proceedings and may be based on any ground for opposition under Article 100 EPC.
+G 2/94 (G940002EP1) [EN] 1. A board of appeal has a discretion to allow an accompanying person (who is not entitled under Article 134(1) or (7) EPC to represent parties to proceedings before the EPO) to make submissions during oral proceedings in ex parte proceedings, in addition to the complete presentation of a party's case by the professional representative. 2. (a) In ex parte proceedings a professional representative should request permission for the making of such oral submissions in advance of the day appointed for oral proceedings. The request should state the name and qualifications of the person for whom permission is requested, and should specify the subject-matter of the proposed oral submissions. The board of appeal should exercise its discretion in accordance with the circumstances of each individual case. The main criterion to be considered is that the board should be fully informed of all relevant matters before deciding the case. The board should be satisfied that the oral submissions are made by the accompanying person under the continuing responsibility and control of the professional representative. (b) During either ex parte or inter partes proceedings, a board of appeal should refuse permission for a former member of the boards of appeal to make oral submissions during oral proceedings before it, unless it is completely satisfied that a sufficient period of time has elapsed following termination of such former member's appointment to the boards of appeal, so that the board of appeal could not reasonably be suspected of partiality in deciding the case if it allowed such oral submissions to be made. A board of appeal should normally refuse permission for a former member of the boards of appeal to make oral submissions during oral proceedings before it, until at least three years have elapsed following termination of the former member's appointment to the boards of appeal. After three years have elapsed, permission should be granted except in very special circumstances.
+G 1/95 (G950001EP1) [EN] In a case where a patent has been opposed on the grounds set out in Article 100(a) EPC, but the opposition has only been substantiated on the grounds of lack of novelty and lack of inventive step, the ground of unpatentable subject-matter based upon Articles 52(1) and (2) EPC is a fresh ground for opposition and accordingly may not be introduced into the appeal proceedings without the agreement of the patentee.
+G 1/95 (G950001EX1) [EN] In a case where a patent has been opposed on the grounds set out in Article 100(a) EPC, but the opposition has only been substantiated on the grounds of lack of novelty and lack of inventive step, the ground of unpatentable subject-matter based upon Articles 52(1), (2) EPC is a fresh ground for opposition and accordingly may not be introduced into the appeal proceedings without the agreement of the patentee.
+G 2/95 (G950002EP1) [EN] The point of law referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is to be answered as follows: The complete documents forming a European patent application, that is the description, claims and drawings, cannot be replaced by way of a correction under Rule 88 EPC by other documents which the applicants had intended to file with their request for grant.
+G 3/95 (G950003EP1) [EN] 1. In decision T 356/93 (OJ EPO 1995, 545) it was held that a claim defining genetically modified plants having a distinct, stable, herbicide-resistance genetic characteristic was not allowable under Article 53(b) EPC because the claimed genetic modification itself made the modified or transformed plant a "plant variety" within the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC. 2. This finding is not in conflict with the findings in either of decisions T 49/83 (OJ EPO 1984, 112) or T 19/90 (OJ EPO 1990, 476). 3. Consequently, the referral of the question: "Does a claim which relates to plants or animals but wherein specific plant or animal varieties are not individually claimed contravene the prohibition on patenting in Article 53(b) EPC if it embraces plant or animal varieties?" to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President of the EPO is inadmissible under Article 112(1)(b) EPC.
+G 3/95 (G950003EX1) [EN] 1. In Decision T 356/93 (OJ EPO 1995, 545) it was held that a claim defining genetically modified plants having a distinct, stable, herbicide-resistance genetic characteristic was not allowable under Article 53(b) EPC because the claimed genetic modification itself made the modified or transformed plant a "plant variety" within the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC. 2. This finding is not in conflict with the findings in either of Decisions T 49/83 (OJ EPO 1984, 112) or T 19/90 (OJ EPO 1990, 476). 3. Consequently, the referral of the question: Does a claim which relates to plants or animals but wherein specific plant or animal varieties are not individually claimed contravene the prohibition on patenting in Article 53(b) EPC if it embraces plant or animal varieties?" to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President of the EPO is inadmissible under Article 112(1)(b) EPC.
+G 4/95 (G950004EP1) [EN] 1. During oral proceedings under Article 116 EPC in the context of opposition or opposition appeal proceedings, a person accompanying the professional representative of a party may be allowed to make oral submissions on specific legal or technical issues on behalf of that party, otherwise than under Article 117 EPC, in addition to the complete presentation of the party's case by the professional representative. 2. (a) Such oral submissions cannot be made as a matter of right, but only with the permission of and under the discretion of the EPO. (b) The following main criteria should be considered by the EPO when exercising its discretion to allow the making of oral submissions by an accompanying person in opposition or opposition appeal proceedings: (i) The professional representative should request permission for such oral submissions to be made. The request should state the name and qualifications of the accompanying person, and should specify the subject-matter of the proposed oral submissions. (ii) The request should be made sufficiently in advance of the oral proceedings so that all opposing parties are able properly to prepare themselves in relation to the proposed oral submissions. (iii) A request which is made shortly before or at the oral proceedings should in the absence of exceptional circumstances be refused, unless each opposing party agrees to the making of the oral submissions requested. (iv) The EPO should be satisfied that oral submissions by an accompanying person are made under the continuing responsibility and control of the professional representative. (c) No special criteria apply to the making of oral submissions by qualified patent lawyers of countries which are not contracting states to the EPC.
+G 4/95 (G950004EX1) [EN] I. During oral proceedings under Article 116 EPC in the context of opposition or opposition appeal proceedings, a person accompanying the professional representative of a party may be allowed to make oral submissions on specific legal or technical issues on behalf of that party, otherwise than under Article 117 EPC, in addition to the complete presentation of the party's case by the professional representative. II. (a) Such oral submissions cannot be made as a matter of right, but only with the permission of and under the discretion of the EPO. (b) The following main criteria should be considered by the EPO when exercising its discretion to allow the making of oral submissions by an accompanying person in opposition or opposition appeal proceedings: (i) The professional representative should request permission for such oral submissions to be made. The request should state the name and qualifications of the accompanying person, and should specify the subject- matter of the proposed oral submissions. (ii) The request should be made sufficiently in advance of the oral proceedings so that all opposing parties are able properly to prepare themselves in relation to the proposed oral submissions. (iii) A request which is made shortly before or at the oral proceedings should in the absence of exceptional circumstances be refused, unless each opposing party agrees to the making of the oral submissions requested. (iv) The EPO should be satisfied that oral submissions by an accompanying person are made under the continuing responsibility and control of the professional representative. (c) No special criteria apply to the making of oral submissions by qualified patent lawyers of countries which are not Contracting States to the EPC.
+G 6/95 (G950006EP1) [EN] Rule 71a(1) EPC does not apply to the boards of appeal.
+G 6/95 (G950006EX1) [EN] Rule 71a(1) EPC does not apply to the Boards of Appeal.
+G 7/95 (G950007EP1) [EN] In a case where a patent has been opposed under Article 100(a) EPC on the ground that the claims lack an inventive step in view of documents cited in the notice of opposition, the ground of lack of novelty based upon Articles 52(1) and 54 EPC is a fresh ground for opposition and accordingly may not be introduced into the appeal proceedings without the agreement of the patentee. However, the allegation that the claims lack novelty in view of the closest prior art document may be considered in the context of deciding upon the ground of lack of inventive step.
+G 7/95 (G950007EX1) [EN] In a case where a patent has been opposed under Article 100(a) EPC on the ground that the claims lack an inventive step in view of documents cited in the notice of opposition, the ground of lack of novelty based upon Articles 52(1), 54 EPC is a fresh ground for opposition and accordingly may not be introduced into the appeal proceedings without the agreement of the patentee. However, the allegation that the claims lack novelty in view of the closest prior art document may be considered in the context of deciding upon the ground of lack of inventive step.
+G 8/95 (G950008EP1) [EN] An appeal from a decision of an Examining Division refusing a request under Rule 89 EPC for correction of the decision to grant is to be decided by a technical board of Appeal.
+G 8/95 (G950008EX1) [EN] An appeal from a decision of an Examining Division refusing a request under Rule 89 EPC for correction of the decision to grant is to be decided by a Technical Board of Appeal.
+G 1/97 (G970001EP1) [EN] I. In the context of the European Patent Convention, the jurisdictional measure to be taken in response to requests based on the alleged violation of a fundamental procedural principle and aimed at the revision of a final decision of a board of appeal having the force of res judicata should be the refusal of the requests as inadmissible. II. The decision on inadmissibility is to be issued by the board of appeal which took the decision forming the subject of the request for revision. The decision may be issued immediately and without further procedural formalities. III. This jurisdictional measure applies only to requests directed against a decision of a board of appeal bearing a date after that of the present decision. IV. If the Legal Division of the EPO is asked to decide on the entry in the Register of European Patents of a request directed against a decision of a board of appeal, it must refrain from ordering that the entry be made if the request, in whatever form, is based on the alleged violation of a fundamental procedural principle and aimed at the revision of a final decision of a board of appeal.
+G 2/97 (G970002EP1) [EN] The principle of good faith does not impose any obligation on the boards of appeal to notify an appellant that an appeal fee is missing when the notice of appeal is filed so early that the appellant could react and pay the fee in time, if there is no indication - either in the notice of appeal or in any other document filed in relation to the appeal - from which it could be inferred that the appellant would, without such notification, inadvertently miss the time limit for payment of the appeal fee.
+G 2/97 (G970002EX1) [EN] The principle of good faith does not impose any obligation on the boards of appeal to notify an appellant that an appeal fee is missing when the notice of appeal is filed so early that the appellant could react and pay the fee in time, if there is no indication--either in the notice of appeal or in any other document filed in relation to the appeal--from which it could be inferred that the appellant would, without such notification, inadvertently miss the time-limit for payment of the appeal fee.
+G 3/97 (G970003EP1) [EN] 1(a): An opposition is not inadmissible purely because the person named as opponent according to Rule 55(a) EPC is acting on behalf of a third party. 1(b): Such an opposition is, however, inadmissible if the involvement of the opponent is to be regarded as circumventing the law by abuse of process. 1(c): Such a circumvention of the law arises, in particular, if: - the opponent is acting on behalf of the patent proprietor; - the opponent is acting on behalf of a client in the context of activities which, taken as a whole, are typically associated with professional representatives, without possessing the relevant qualifications required by Article 134 EPC. 1(d): However, a circumvention of the law by abuse of process does not arise purely because: - a professional representative is acting in his own name on behalf of a client; - an opponent with either a residence or principal place of business in one of the EPC contracting states is acting on behalf of a third party who does not meet this requirement. 2: In determining whether the law has been circumvented by abuse of process, the principle of the free evaluation of evidence is to be applied. The burden of proof is to be borne by the person alleging that the opposition is inadmissible. The deciding body has to be satisfied on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that the law has been circumvented by abuse of process.
+G 4/97 (G970004EP1) [EN] 1(a): An opposition is not inadmissible purely because the person named as opponent according to Rule 55(a) EPC is acting on behalf of a third party. 1(b): Such an opposition is, however, inadmissible if the involvement of the opponent is to be regarded as circumventing the law by abuse of process. 1(c): Such a circumvention of the law arises, in particular, if: - the opponent is acting on behalf of the patent proprietor; - the opponent is acting on behalf of a client in the context of activities which, taken as a whole, are typically associated with professional representatives, without possessing the relevant qualifications required by Article 134 EPC. 1(d): However, a circumvention of the law by abuse of process does not arise purely because: - a professional representative is acting in his own name on behalf of a client; - an opponent with either a residence or principal place of business in one of the EPC contracting states is acting on behalf of a third party who does not meet this requirement. 2: In determining whether the law has been circumvented by abuse of process, the principle of the free evaluation of evidence is to be applied. The burden of proof is to be borne by the person alleging that the opposition is inadmissible. The deciding body has to be satisfied on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that the law has been circumvented by abuse of process. 3: The admissibility of an opposition on grounds relating to the identity of an opponent may be challenged during the course of the appeal, even if no such challenge had been raised before the opposition division.
+G 1/98 (G980001EP1) [EN] I. A claim wherein specific plant varieties are not individually claimed is not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC even though it may embrace plant varieties. II. When a claim to a process for the production of a plant variety is examined, Article 64(2) EPC is not to be taken into consideration. III. The exception to patentability in Article 53(b), first half-sentence, EPC applies to plant varieties irrespective of the way in which they were produced. Therefore, plant varieties containing genes introduced into an ancestral plant by recombinant gene technology are excluded from patentability.
+G 1/98 (G980001EX1) [EN] I. A claim wherein specific plant varieties are not individually claimed is not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b), EPC even though it may embrace plant varieties. II. When a claim to a process for the production of a plant variety is examined, Article 64(2) EPC is not to be taken into consideration. III. The exception to patentability in Article 53(b), 1st half-sentence, EPC applies to plant varieties irrespective of the way in which they were produced. Therefore, plant varieties containing genes introduced into an ancestral plant by recombinant gene technology are excluded from patentability.
+G 2/98 (G980002EP1) [EN] The requirement for claiming priority of "the same invention", referred to in Article 87(1) EPC, means that priority of a previous application in respect of a claim in a European patent application in accordance with Article 88 EPC is to be acknowledged only if the skilled person can derive the subject-matter of the claim directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the previous application as a whole.
+G 3/98 (G980003EP1) [EN] For the calculation of the six-month period referred to in Article 55(1) EPC, the relevant date is the date of the actual filing of the European patent application; the date of priority is not to be taken account of in calculating this period.
+G 4/98 (G980004EP1) [EN] I. Without prejudice to Article 67(4) EPC, the designation of a contracting state party to the EPC in a European patent application does not retroactively lose its legal effect and is not deemed never to have taken place if the relevant designation fee has not been paid within the applicable time limit. II. The deemed withdrawal of the designation of a contracting state provided for in Article 91(4) EPC takes effect upon expiry of the time limits mentioned in Article 79(2), Rules 15(2), 25(2) and 107(1) EPC, as applicable, and not upon expiry of the period of grace provided by Rule 85a EPC.
+G 4/98 (G980004EX1) [EN] I. Without prejudice to Article 67(4) EPC, the designation of a Contracting State party to the EPC in a European patent application does not retroactively lose its legal effect and is not deemed never to have taken place if the relevant designation fee has not been paid within the applicable time limit. II. The deemed withdrawal of the designation of a Contracting State provided for in Article 91(4) EPC takes effect upon expiry of the time limits mentioned in Article 79(2), Rules 15(2), 25(2) and 107(1) EPC, as applicable, and not upon expiry of the period of grace provided by Rule 85a EPC.
+G 1/99 (G990001EP1) [EN] In principle, an amended claim, which would put the opponent and sole appellant in a worse situation than if it had not appealed, must be rejected. However, an exception to this principle may be made in order to meet an objection put forward by the opponent/appellant or the Board during the appeal proceedings, in circumstances where the patent as maintained in amended form would otherwise have to be revoked as a direct consequence of an inadmissible amendment held allowable by the Opposition Division in its interlocutory decision. In such circumstances, in order to overcome the deficiency, the patent proprietor/respondent may be allowed to file requests, as follows: - in the first place, for an amendment introducing one or more originally disclosed features which limit the scope of the patent as maintained; - if such a limitation is not possible, for an amendment introducing one or more originally disclosed features which extend the scope of the patent as maintained, but within the limits of Article 123(3) EPC; - finally, if such amendments are not possible, for deletion of the inadmissible amendment, but within the limits of Article 123(3) EPC.
+G 3/99 (G990003EP1) [EN] I. An opposition filed in common by two or more persons, which otherwise meets the requirements of Article 99 EPC and Rules 1 and 55 EPC, is admissible on payment of only one opposition fee. II. If the opposing party consists of a plurality of persons, an appeal must be filed by the common representative under Rule 100 EPC. Where the appeal is filed by a non-entitled person, the Board of Appeal shall consider it not to be duly signed and consequently invite the common representative to sign it within a given time limit. The non-entitled person who filed the appeal shall be informed of this invitation. If the previous common representative is no longer participating in the proceedings, a new common representative shall be determined pursuant to Rule 100 EPC. III. In order to safeguard the rights of the patent proprietor and in the interests of procedural efficiency, it has to be clear throughout the procedure who belongs to the group of common opponents or common appellants. If either a common opponent or appellant (including the common representative) intends to withdraw from the proceedings, the EPO shall be notified accordingly by the common representative or by a new common representative determined under Rule 100(1) EPC in order for the withdrawal to take effect.
+G 3/99 (G990003EX1) [EN] 1. An opposition filed in common by two or more persons, which otherwise meets the requirements of Article 99 EPC and Rules 1 and 55 EPC, is admissible on payment of only one opposition fee. 2. If the opposing party consists of a plurality of persons, an appeal must be filed by the common representative under Rule 100 EPC. Where the appeal is filed by a non-entitled person, the Board of Appeal shall consider it not to be duly signed and consequently invite the common representative to sign it within a given time limit. The non-entitled person who filed the appeal shall be informed of this invitation. If the previous common representative is no longer participating in the proceedings, a new common representative shall be determined pursuant to Rule 100 EPC. 3. In order to safeguard the rights of the patent proprietor and in the interests of procedural efficiency, it has to be clear throughout the procedure who belongs to the group of common opponents or common appellants. If either a common opponent or appellant (including the common representative) intends to withdraw from the proceedings, the EPO shall be notified accordingly by the common representative or by a new common representative determined under Rule 100(1) EPC in order for the withdrawal to take effect.

requirements.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+gradio
+chromadb
+langchain-chroma
+langchain-community
+sentence-transformers
+huggingface-hub