Search for: "Roel van Woudenberg" Results 1 - 4 of 4
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jan 2020, 5:41 am
Indeed, Roel van Woudenberg could be said to be pushing the issue merely because he disagrees with the removal of the purposive selection criteria (as argued his article cited by EPI). [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 3:20 am
Roel van Woudenberg (DeltaPatents), Derk Visser, EPI, the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI) and Union-IP all submit that if an appeal fee is paid after the Article 108 EPC deadline for filing an appeal, the appeal should be deemed not filed, and the appeal fee reimbursed.Dr Visser notes that if the intention of the legislator in Article 108 EPC was to set an additional condition for filing an admissible appeal, why wasn't the Article… [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 3:42 am by Roel van Woudenberg
 The introductory paragraph in the article in epi Information further reads (see here):"As reflected by the articles of Derk Visser (Novelty test for sub-ranges) and Roel van Woudenberg (EPO Guidelines November 2019: purposive selection no longer needed for novelty of sub-ranges?) [read post]
13 Jan 2020, 12:22 am by Derk Visser
Roel van Woudenberg argues in his recent article, that the purposive selection criterion should be kept in the test, as being consistent with the disclosure test used for novelty (see epi Information, issue 4|2019, page 34-39). [read post]