« NL - Grimme v. Steenvoorden | Main | NL - Ratiopharm v. Sanofi-Aventis / Clopidogrel »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I would believe that it is important in this decision that because the other patent was the priority application, filed about one year before the present application, the applicant has a legitimate interest in getting a patent on the second application, as that second patent would expire about one year later than the earlier patent.

From the discussion on the Enlarged Board of Appeal decisions G 1/05 and G 1/06, as well as the discussion of German case-law in this decision, I would draw the conclusion that absent any such legitimate interest, the EPO ban on double patenting is still very much alive.

The comments to this entry are closed.


EPLAW Patent Blog sponsors:

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner