EPC. The EPC does not provide an explicit definition of what constitutes an invention. Instead, Article 52(2) EPC contains a non-exhaustive list of subject-matter that cannot be regarded as an invention. Article 52(3) EPC qualifies this list by stating that: “Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.” Current EPO approach Issues of non-patentable subject-matter very often arise in the context of computer-implemented inventions. The current approach to the assessment of computer-implemented inventions is summarised in the European Patent Office (EPO) Guidelines for Examination G-II, 3.6, where Article 138(1)(a) EPC Subject to Article 139, a European patent may be revoked with effect for a Contracting State only on the grounds that:
EPC. The notice of opposition and the fee were transmitted to the EPO in Munich, where they were received five days after the expiry of the nine-month period. The notice of opposi- tion was communicated to the patent proprietor pursuant to Rule 57(1) EPC, who immediately chal- lenged the admissibility of the opposition. The application of the "Administration Agreement dated 29 June 1981 between the German Patent Office and the European Patent Office concerning procedure on re- ceipt of documents and payments" (OJ EPO 1981, 381) (hereafter "the Agreement") to the notice of opposition and opposition fee in the case was questioned. In par- ticular, it was suggested that the notice of opposition had presumably been delivered by hand to the German Patent Office, and that the Agreement should not be interpreted as covering such delivery. In reply, the Formalities Officer of the Opposition Division issued a letter dated 28 January 1986 stating that he did not ac- cept that the opposition was inadmissible under Rule 56(1) EPC on the ground that it was filed outside the nine-month opposition period, because the Agreement "covers all documents which are intended for the EPO but which are sent to the post room of the German Pat- ent Office in Munich or Berlin The mechanism is to accept documents received at the post room of the German Patent Office as being filed at the post room of the European Patent Office and vice versa From the practical point of view it is rather difficult to distin- guish between filings made by error or intention. "Intended for the EPO" (German: "gerichtet", French: "destiné") refers to the final destination of the letter. The Agreement allows filings in either post room to be accorded a date of receipt ... . Whether or not the document was filed by hand does not, at the stage of the proceedings now reached, affect the stated opin- ion." In due course, the Opposition Division issued a substantive Decision which rejected the opposition, in which the opposition was held to be admissible for the reasons set out by the Formalities Officer and summa- rised above.
EPC. The property has an EPC Rating of ‘C’. A copy of the buildings Energy Performance Certificate is available on request.
EPC. An EPC has been commissioned and a copy will be available on re- quest. Tenure and Tenancy Kraft Premises, Lords Meadow Industrial Estate, Crediton 05
EPC. 5.7.1 You are responsible for ensuring that there is a valid EPC for the Property and that the required Energy Performance documentation is made available to Us. The Property cannot be marketed without a valid EPC.
EPC. So far as practicable and economically viable to have due regard to the impact of any activity carried on at the Premises upon the EPC rating for the Premises (subject to clause 4.15.7).
EPC. The EPC rating for the premise is D-85. Full Energy Performance Certificate available upon request. Viewing Staff are unaware of the pending disposal; therefore, viewing is strictly by prior appointment through joint agents: Subject to contract Xxxxxx X’Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xx.xx T 020 7462 9131 M 07824 143 468 Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx T 020 7491 8247 M 07970 274 222 8 Xxxxxxxx Street Kingston Upon Thames XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX LIMITED (AND THEIR JOINT AGENTS WHERE APPLICABLE) THEMSELVES FOR THE VENDORS OR LESSORS OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHOM THEY ACT, GIVE NOTICE THAT:
EPC. The preparatory documents for the EPC (see Minutes of the 4th Meeting of the In- ter-governmental conference, Doc. BR/125/71; Nos. 97, 100, 102) were relied upon in support. (b) The President was also entitled to conclude the Agreement with the German Patent Office without having to ask for prior authorisation and approval by the Administra- tive Council pursuant to Article 33(4) EPC, for the following reasons: Article 4(3) EPC confers on the EPO the task of the Organisation to grant European patents. Pursuant to Articles 10(1) and (2)(a) EPC, the EPO shall be directed by the President who shall, in particular, have the power to take all necessary steps to ensure the functioning of the EPO. An agreement rul- ing a particular aspect of the filing of documents for the
EPC. The establishment of the Berlin sub-office was announced in the Official Journal (OJ EPO 1978, 248). During the initial years of operation of the EPO, the Berlin sub- office was only responsible for carrying out searches. Documents intended for the EPO as part of proceedings before it could not be filed at the Berlin sub-office. However, on 10 May 1989, the President of the EPO made a Decision on the setting up of a Filing Office in the Berlin sub-office (OJ EPO 1989, 218), which came into force on 1 July 1989. Ac- cording to Article 1 of this Decision, the Berlin sub- office is authorised to receive all documents and fees intended for and due to the EPO.
EPC. Article 10(2) EPC contains a list of his particular functions and powers, which, as noted in paragraph 1.2 above, are essentially concerned with internal matters of the EPO. The extent to which, under Article 10 EPC the President can law- fully "direct the EPO" concerning any external activity without the supervision of the Administrative Council in accordance with Article 4(3) EPC, insofar as such external activity is not directly related to the President's particular functions and powers listed in Article 10(2) EPC, is not specifically defined by the EPC, and is a matter of interpretation. In the view of the Enlarged Board, the preparatory documents relied upon by the President are inconclusive in this connection. Having regard to what is set out below, it is not necessary for the Enlarged Board to consider this point of interpreta- tion of the EPC further in this Decision, however.
