Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 31 JULY 2017

Comparison Between Opposition Systems In Europe And Japan

Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Explore more from Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.

Opposition procedures before the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) have enough differences to put even the most experienced professional in difficulty.

GlobalIntellectual Property
Christian Köster
Christian Köster
Kazuya Sekiguchi
Kazuya Sekiguchi
Author LinkedIn connections

Opposition procedures before the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) have enough differences to put even the most experienced professional in difficulty. With this article (available in English and Japanese), Kazuya Sekiguchi and Dr. Christian Köster point out the main differences between the two systems in an effort to help other patent attorneys better navigate these shallow waters. 

Opposition procedures before the European Patent Office (EPO) against European Patents granted under the European Patent Convention (EPC) have recently undergone changes which are in effect since 1 July 2016 (Official Journal EPO, 2016, A42). With these changes the EPO has introduced a streamlined opposition procedure that is intended to simplify opposition proceedings and deliver decisions faster. Also, parties shall be given more time to react to summons and prepare for oral proceedings.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UPC CoA Confirms “gold Standard” For Added Matter In Sibio v Abbott

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court recently issued a decision examining whether omitting an elastomeric sealing member from a patent claim constitutes added matter, applying the EPO's "gold standard" test while emphasizing the importance of functional and structural relationships between features. The ruling provides crucial insight into how the UPC approaches intermediate generalizations and whether its methodology differs from the notoriously strict EPO practice on added subject-matter.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

G 1/25: When Must The Description Be Adapted To Amended Claims?

The European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued a landmark decision in G 1/25 "Hydroponics," addressing a fundamental question that has divided practitioners for years: when patent claims are amended during examination, must the description be adapted to match? The ruling establishes that inconsistencies between claims and descriptions only require correction when they result in non-compliance with the European Patent Convention, not merely for achieving formal consistency.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Article

DIAMS Infinity Redefines How Intellectual Property Is Managed In Practice

The Dennemeyer Group introduces DIAMS Infinity, a next-generation IP management software that leverages artificial intelligence to automate repetitive tasks and streamline portfolio management. How does this cloud-based solution address the operational complexity and manual coordination challenges that have long plagued IP professionals managing expanding portfolios?
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Article

G 1/25: When Must The Description Be Adapted To Amended Claims?

The European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued a landmark decision in G 1/25 "Hydroponics," addressing a fundamental question that has divided practitioners for years: when patent claims are amended during examination, must the description be adapted to match? The ruling establishes that inconsistencies between claims and descriptions only require correction when they result in non-compliance with the European Patent Convention, not merely for achieving formal consistency.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.