< Zurück zu den aktuellen Neuigkeiten & Events

Neuigkeiten

Referral to EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal on “Entitlement to Priority”

Februar 2022

A referral has been made to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the EPO concerning entitlement to priority. T 2719/19 has been consolidated with T 1513/17 and the following questions referred to the EBA:

I. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC?

II. If question I is answered in the affirmative:

Can a party B validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT-application for the purpose of claiming priority rights under Article 87(1) EPC in the case where

1. a PCT-application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States including regional European patent protection and

2. the PCT-application claims priority from an earlier patent application that designates party A as the applicant and

3. the priority claimed in the PCT-application is in compliance with Article 4 of the Paris Convention?

Background to the Referral

US priority application US 60/571444 (P1) was filed by 3 inventor applicants: R.P. Rother, H. Wang and Z. Zhong. Subsequently, a PCT application was filed which named R.P. Rother, H. Wang and Z. Zhong as applicants for the USA, whereas it named Alexion Pharmaceuticals and the University of Western Ontario as the applicants for a European patent.

An assignment of the priority rights of the inventors Wang and Zhong to Alexion Pharmaceuticals or the University of Western Ontario had not taken place prior to filing of PCT application; only the priority right of the inventor Rother had been assigned to Alexion Pharmaceuticals.

The validity of the priority claim was subsequently contested because Alexion Pharmaceuticals and the University of Western Ontario were not applicants or successors in title to the priority application since Wang and Zhong had not transferred their priority right at the time of filing.

However, Alexion appealed, arguing that where the applicants for a PCT application were not the same for all designated states, they should nevertheless be regarded as „joint applicants“.

The „joint applicants approach“ is where party A is an applicant for the priority application and parties A and B are applicants for the subsequent application in which the priority right was invoked. Party B can benefit from the priority right to which their co-applicant party A was entitled. A separate transfer of the priority right to party B was not needed. The joint applicants approach was developed in EPO case law and is described in Article 118:

„Where the applicants for or proprietors of a European patent are not the same in respect of different designated Contracting States, they shall be regarded as joint applicants or proprietors for the purposes of proceedings before the European Patent Office. The unity of the application or patent in these proceedings shall not be affected; in particular the text of the application or patent shall be uniform for all designated Contracting States, unless this Convention provides otherwise.“

Alexion’s argument was that the joint applicants approach should also apply to PCT applications. That is, Alexion believed that themselves, The University of Western Ontario, Rother, Wang and Zhong were all joint applicants of the PCT application.

The Board of Appeal particularly noted divergent practice on the PCT joint applicant approach and a number of cases in which the validity the PCT joint applicant approach had or was in dispute (T 2749/18, T 2842/18, T 1837/19 and T 845/19). The Board of Appeal concluded that the issue was a point of law of fundamental importance and therefore deserved a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for guidance on the priority issue. Interestingly, the referred questions included a question on whether the EPO is even competent to determine questions of assignment of the right to priority, as the Board of Appeal also felt there was need for clarification on this issue.


This update was prepared by HGF Professional Standards Officer Dr Edward Pullicino.

Aktuelle Neuigkeiten

HGF ist die Nummer 1 in Großbritannien für Markenportfolios im Bericht „Trade Mark Filing Trends 2025“ von Clarivate

HGF hat im neu veröffentlichten Bericht „Trade Mark Filing Trends 2025“ von Clarivate den ersten Platz für Markenportfolios in Großbritannien erreicht. Damit wird die Kanzlei als führende Kraft bei der …

Weiterlesen

Die Beschwerdekammer des EPA äußert sich zum Umfang des Ausschlusses der Sittenwidrigkeit von der Patentierbarkeit

Die jüngste Entscheidung T1553/22 der Beschwerdekammer verpflichtete die Kammer, den Umfang der Ausschlüsse von der Patentierbarkeit gemäß Artikel 53(a) EPÜ zu prüfen. Die Erfindung in diesem Fall bezog sich auf …

Weiterlesen

IP Ingredients: Summer Case Law Review 2025

As the British summer swings once again between sunburn and showers, it’s a great time to take stock of what the first half of the year has delivered by way …

Weiterlesen

Prüfungserfolg bei HGF!

Wir freuen uns einmal mehr, Ihnen mitteilen zu können, dass unsere Kolleginnen und Kollegen bei ihren jüngsten Prüfungen erfolgreich waren! Ihr Engagement, ihre Ausdauer und ihr Einsatz für die berufliche …

Weiterlesen

Ist die Ablehnung des Obersten Gerichtshofs im Fall Thatcher ein schwerer Schlag für Doppelgänger?

Der Streit zwischen Thatcher’s Cider Company und Aldi Stores Limited dauert schon lange an und hat im Laufe der Zeit juristische Kontroversen ausgelöst. Am 4. Juni 2025 verweigerte der Oberste …

Weiterlesen

HGF wurde in den IP STARS Patent Rankings 2025 als eine der führenden Patentkanzleien Europas ausgezeichnet

HGF hat erneut einen deutlichen Eindruck in der aktuellen Kanzlei-Rangliste „Managing IP Stars 2025“ hinterlassen und wurde für seine Expertise im Bereich Patentrecht in mehreren Rechtsordnungen mit einer Spitzenplatzierung ausgezeichnet. …

Weiterlesen

Die Große Beschwerdekammer hat heute ihre Entscheidung in der wegweisenden Rechtssache G1/24 veröffentlicht

G1/24, der als einer der wichtigsten Fälle seit Jahrzehnten bezeichnet wird, betrifft die Frage, wie Patentansprüche von den Beschwerdekammern und damit von allen Organen des Europäischen Patentamts auszulegen sind. Die …

Weiterlesen