< Back to latest news & events

News

EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G4/19 – a European patent application can be refused by reason of the prohibition on double patenting

June 2021

The European Patent Office today confirmed in Decision G4/19 of the Enlarged board of Appeal that a European patent application can be refused for ‘double patenting’.  Such a refusal can be made even absent the European Patent Convention having an explicit double patenting provision.

The claiming of the same subject matter in two applications having the same filing or priority date to the same Applicant is referred to as double patenting.  The European Patent Convention does not contain an explicit prohibition against this practice. However, previous decisions against double patenting have relied upon a reference to general principles of patent law in EPC Contracting States embodied in Article 125 EPC.  For example, Section 18(5) of the UK Patents Act provides such an explicit double patenting provision.  It was argued that the double patenting provision embodied in Article 125 EPC only prevented double patenting in the case of applications filed on the same day or between a divisional application and its parent.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal confirmed that Article 125 EPC compelled the EPO to refuse applications for double patenting by taking into account national law of Contracting States.  Furthermore, the Enlarged Board found that double patenting is also prohibited in the case of internal priority i.e. where two applications benefit from the same priority and claim the same subject matter.

It is worth pointing out that the EPO only construes the probation on double patenting narrowly in order to prevent two patents claiming the same identical subject matter.  Therefore, where differences exist between the claims, the double patenting prohibition should not apply.

This article was prepared by HGF Partner Chris Benson. If you would like further advice on this or any other matter, please contact Chris. Alternatively, you can contact your usual HGF representative or visit our Contact page to get in touch with your nearest HGF office.

Latest updates

The EPO Board of Appeal comments on the scope of the morality exclusion from patentability

The recent decision, T1553/22 of the Board of Appeal required the Board to consider the scope of the exclusions from patentability under Article 53(a) EPC. The invention in this case …

Read article

T 1847/22: Procedural considerations in appeal: Re-ordering of requests and the impact on admissibility

Background This case concerned EP 3 085 344 B1, which relates to a wound pad, a self-adhesive member comprising a wound pad. The patent was opposed by two opponents. During …

Read article

Regulation of NGT plants in Europe- Polish Presidency proposes an alternative solution to the Patent ban

In the latest development on the new proposed legislation for the regulation of NGT (gene-edited) plants in the EU, the Polish Presidency have proposed an amendment which removes the proposed …

Read article

T 0295/22: EPO Technical Board of Appeal relies on “bonus effect” case law to find Amgen’s patent to orally administered apremilast lacking in inventive step

This case concerned Amgen’s European patent no. 2962690 for apremilast, a drug sold under the brand name Otezla®, licensed for the treatment of e.g., psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.  The patent …

Read article
Event - 18th March 2025

Salzburg Seminar: Pitfalls in trade mark practice - What can be protected as a trade mark?

The registration of trade marks is a central component of trade mark protection – but which signs can actually be protected? In recent years, the national trade mark offices and …

Event details

Can the Chancellor’s so-called “Europe’s Silicon Valley” really replicate the innovative activity of its namesake?

The Chancellor of the UK, Rachel Reeves, recently unveiled plans to deliver an Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor that promises to boost the UK economy by up to £78 billion by 2035.  …

Read article

UPC’s CFI (Milan) extends deadline to file defence to infringement claim to align with parallel EPO appeal proceedings

Dainese S.p.A. v. Alpinestars S.p.A. & ors. UPC_CFI_472/2024 – Milan Local Division (Perrotti, Zana, Klein, Ashley) – 15 January 2025 The Milan Local Division granted a defendant’s request for an …

Read article