CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854

CALL US: 206.533.3854

SECTORS

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design

AEON law logo on grey background

New limits on divisional applications from European Patent Office

EPO decides new limitations on when a divisional application may be filed

This week, over protests from European patent practitioners, the EPO decided to add new limitations on when a divisional application may be filed, beginning next April. Of late, the EPO has become increasingly hostile towards what it regards as “abusive” filing of divisionals—practices such as repeatedly re-filing a divisional patent applications to avoid the effects of a rejection, or filing a divisional before an allowed application issues to pursue broader claims than were allowed.

To address these “abusive” practices, as of April 2010, the EPO will require that a divisional application be filed either:

  • within two years of the first communication from the Examining Division regarding the earliest application in a family; or
  • within two years of any objection from the Examining Division regarding a lack of unity of invention for any application within the family.

In Europe, a divisional application is the only allowed form of “continuing” application,  so the new rules will force patent applicants to identify discrete patentable inventions disclosed within their specification somewhat earlier than the current rules allow. The new rules may also make it difficult for patent applicants to spread out prosecution costs in Europe.

Related Articles

Federal Circuit: IPR Estoppel Doesn’t Reach System Prior Art

The federal circuit has resolved a longstanding split among district courts by ruling that IPR estoppel does not reach system prior art even when evidenced ...
Read More

Photographer Awarded Almost $3000 in Copyright Small Claims Case

"Conor McGregor in 2015" by Andrius Petrucenia on Flickr (Original version) UCinternational (Crop) is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
Read More

Federal Circuit Distinguishes between “Consist” and “Comprise”

Federal Circuit:
“Consist” does not mean “comprise”;
Other stuff disclaimed
Read More

Let's work together.

Contact us to set up a meeting with an attorney or team member.

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.

SECTORS

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design

call us  206.533.3854