tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4459397067670091033..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Clarity is needed from the Boards of Appeal on the EPO's "co-applicant approach" to priorityVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81690678892127703632019-11-29T20:43:16.167+00:002019-11-29T20:43:16.167+00:00One should not forget that the present problem of ...One should not forget that the present problem of invalid priorities is a direct consequence of the peculiarities of US law. Why should the rest of the world change its mind just to please US applicants?<br /><br />Coming now with T 1933/12 is nothing more than an attempt to have the view of the Broad Institute taken over by the Board of Appeal. <br /><br />It is perfectly legitimate that the EPO, or a third party, checks whether the transfer of priority has been correctly carried out. The EPO is not just there to check whether there is identity of the invention for the priority to be validly claimed. Any applicant is not merely one of the group of the original co-applicants. <br /><br />If in a later application there is on top of the original co-applicants a further applicant claiming priority from an earlier application, it is in no way detrimental for the original co-applicants as they are still named as co-applicants. Furthermore, one can presume is such a situation that the original co-applicants have agreed to accept a further co-applicant in the subsequent application.<br /><br />But for the same token the EPO could also check whether the new co-applicant had the agreement of the original ones. This would put co-applicants and subsequent applicants not comprising all the original co-applicants on a par. <br /><br />Clarity might be needed, but not a change of case law just to please US applicants. attentive Observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81226482417977454122019-11-29T09:07:09.532+00:002019-11-29T09:07:09.532+00:00Labelling the co-applicants approach an EPO approa...Labelling the co-applicants approach an EPO approach appears somewhat misleading. Requiring that co-owners of the priority right exercise their right in common has been widespread practice in the member states to the Paris Convention outside the US and is present practice in the EPC Contracting States as exemplified by the recent decisions in the UK HTC v Gemalto , [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat), at pt. 131 f., confirming Edvards v Cook, [2009] EWHC 1304 (Pat), at pt. 99, and in Germany, BGH – Drahtloses Kommunikationsnetz, GRUR 2019, 271, at pt. 60ff. The co-applicants approach is an expression of the general legal principle that jointly owned rights have to be exercised in common. It protects the co-owner of the priority right against the exploitation of this right without his participation.The Convention Watchdognoreply@blogger.com