Übersetzung für "Opposed patent" in Deutsch

Most of these documents had been published after the priority date of the opposed patent.

The invention which is the subject of the opposed patent relates to the genetic engineering of plants.

Otherwise, the information in question may later be opposed to the patent as published prior art.

It was not Spain that opposed a patent in the past, it was other countries, which are now rushing to have one.

We therefore ask for this monopoly position, which is in nobody's interest, to be opposed and the patent application to be rejected.

In the cases where they opposed a patent, generic companies prevailed in approximately 60% of final decisions rendered by the EPO (including appeal) in the period 2000 to 2007. e scope of the originator patent was restricted in another 15% of the cases.

The advantage of registering a utility model, as opposed to a patent, is that it is a quicker, cheaper and more simple procedure.

Instead, the only course of action open to the respondent was to restrict the thermoplastic binder film in claim 1 to specific resins which were both explicitly mentioned in the opposed patent and proved to possess the loss modulus characteristic defined by the feature objected to.

The board observed in T111/10 that the exceptional possibilities for amendment foreseen by G1/99 in application of the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in peius only applied if the patent would otherwise have to be revoked, i.e. provided that, in view of the prohibition of reformatio in peius, the patent proprietor (respondent) did not have any other possibility of amendment which would allow rescue of even part of the opposed patent.

Where an opposition is filed by a company which subsequently, under the relevant national law governing the company, for all purposes ceases to exist, but that company is subsequently restored to existence under a provision of that governing national law, by virtue of which the company is deemed to have continued in existence as if it had not ceased to exist, all these events taking place before a decision of the Opposition Division maintaining the opposed patent in amended form becomes final, the European Patent Office must recognize the retroactive effect of that provision of national law and allow the opposition proceedings to be continued by the restored company.

If during the opposition proceedings it becomes apparent that the previous application from which the opposed patent claims priority is not in an official language of the European Patent Office and the validity of the priority claim is relevant to the determination of the patentability of the subject-matter of the patent concerned, the opposition division will invite the patent proprietor to file a translation of that application into one of the official languages within a period to be specified.

As opposed to a patent, however, a utility model may also protect the program logic on which programs for data processing devices are based, even if these programs are word processing or accounting programs.

Claim 1 of the opposed patent states merely that at least one of the reactants is fed in in solid form.

This must be assessed on an objective basis, from the point of view of a reasonably skilled man in the art to which the opposed patent relates.

In particular, the fact that a document is mentioned in the opposed patent already does not provide any justification for citing this document for the first time in support of lack of invention outside the nine month opposition period (point 6, paragraph 2).

The patent opposed is referred to as "Netherlands patent application No. 0 002 606".

Thus claim 9 of E2 is referred to, although this claim specifies "cylinders of a superconducting material", whereas claim 3 of the opposed patent is specifically restricted to "a resistive screening coil" via its reference to claim 1.

This applies in particular if all the reasons for revocation of the opposed patent were known to the patent proprietor before it received the impugned decision (T 936/09).

Thus, a legal person who was a subsidiary of the opponent at the time when the opposition was filed and who carries on the business to which the opposed patent relates cannot acquire the status as opponent if all its shares are assigned to another company.

Those circumstances included not just the technical complexity of the subject-matter in the opposed patent and the citations but also the number of claims the patent in question contained and the number of citations – even if in principle an opposition could contain any number of attacks or citations.

Any opinion issued by the Enlarged Board in referral G2/12 would be highly relevant also for the validity of the opposed patent.

However, a legal person who was a subsidiary of the opponent when the opposition was filed and who carries on the business to which the opposed patent relates cannot acquire the status of opponent if all its shares are assigned to another company (seeG 2/04).

A legal person who was 100% owned by the opponent when the opposition was filed (and who carried on the business to which the opposed patent related) could not acquire opponent status if 100% of its shares were purchased by another party (and if all persons involved in the transaction agreed to the transfer of the opposition).