Join us now at the IRC channel.
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/01/aftermath-of-crispr-hearing-highlights.html?showComment=1580652663113#c6742237360223231672 | Feb 03 04:01 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | " | Feb 03 04:01 |
| schestowitz | Considering the appellants’ conduct of proceedings, it would be rather surprising if The Broad filed a petition for review in order to get the decision T 844/16 set aside. The consistent case law of the Enlarged Board of Appeal requires for a petition to be admissible that the petitioner has raised an objection under R. 106 EPC which must be specific, indicating clearly and unambiguously on which procedural defect the petitioner intends to | Feb 03 04:01 |
| schestowitz | actually rely. The objection has to be additional to and distinct from other statements, such as arguing or even protesting against the conduct of the proceedings or against an individual procedural finding. | Feb 03 04:01 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Aftermath of the CRISPR hearing - Highlights from the blogosphere - The IPKat | Feb 03 04:01 | |
| schestowitz | The appellants’ representative in the oral proceedings may be supposed to know this requirement quite well. Following the discussion of the appellants’ three approaches why the priority should be considered valid, the Chairman informed the parties of the Board’s conclusion not to refer a point of law to the EBA. Whereas the representative submitted that the appellants’ right to be heard had been violated by not discussing the question | Feb 03 04:01 |
| schestowitz | of a referral separately, he did not raise an express objection. Even after the break requested before the final requests, such an objection was not raised. | Feb 03 04:01 |
| schestowitz | The Board’s conclusion not to refer a point of law was the result of the oral proceedings which apparently clarified the priority question to an extent that the Board can answer the question by reference to the EPC and the Paris Convention without doubt. Thus, the Board may have considered a referral not to be required within the meaning of Art. 112 (1) EPC. | Feb 03 04:01 |
| schestowitz | " | Feb 03 04:01 |
| <--acer-box has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Feb 03 07:32 | |
| <--libertybox_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat) | Feb 03 07:32 | |
| -->libertybox (~schestowi@host81-154-169-104.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Feb 03 07:32 | |
| -->acer-box (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Feb 03 07:32 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!