Door opened to filing EPO divisional applications after grant of parent patent

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Door opened to filing EPO divisional applications after grant of parent patent

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
EPO

Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos reviews a recent decision of the EPO Legal Board of Appeal relating to the impact of an applicant’s appeal against a decision to grant a patent

On April 16 2024, the Legal Board of Appeal of the EPO rendered a decision, J 1/24, that means a divisional application may be validly filed after grant of the parent patent, if an appeal against the decision to grant the parent patent is in existence on the date of filing the divisional application.

Pursuant to Rule 36(1) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), an applicant may file a divisional application relating to any pending earlier European patent application. Following EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 1/09, the pending status of a European patent application ceases on the day before the mention of grant is published.

The date of mention of grant of a European patent normally lies approximately one month after the date of the decision to grant, whereas, pursuant to Article 108 of the EPC, the time limit for filing a notice of appeal against a decision expires two months from the date of the decision. As such, the time limit for lodging an appeal normally expires after the date of grant.

Article 106(1) of the EPC provides that an appeal has suspensive effect. Consistently, it is well established practice of the EPO to treat appeals against the grant of a patent as validly filed and to delete the date of grant. Following termination of the appeal proceedings, a new date of grant is allotted, if the conditions for grant are fulfilled at that time.

Following the reasons underlying decision J 1/24, by virtue of the suspensive effect of an appeal against the decision to grant, the application remains pending while appeal proceedings against the decision to grant that application are in existence. Consequently, a divisional application may still be validly filed, even after the parent patent has initially been granted, and even if the appeal is eventually held inadmissible.

The decision opens a door for applicants who wish to extend the period for filing a divisional application beyond the date of grant, or who may want to extend the period for requesting unitary effect and/or the time limit for national validation, to achieve this by lodging an appeal against the decision to grant.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The firm reveals how its litigation strategies informed the arguments that took Masimo’s judgment past $818 million
The firm was rebuilding its IP practice through a string of patent hires and a Texas expansion, but its dissolution has put the newly built talent back into the market
AI can exploit longstanding gaps in copyright protection at remarkable speed, but EU law still provides tools to fight back, says Simon Hembt at Bird & Bird
The firm has tapped a local patent trio to establish a foothold in the market and broaden its national presence
New Asia-Pacific IP head Jonathan Chu is eyeing opportunities arising from Chinese technology licensing, overseas enforcement and increasingly IP-heavy cross-border deals
Europe’s largest intellectual property convention and trade fair is back: IP Service World 2026 takes place in Munich from November 23–25 – the 16th edition, with 1,400-plus attendees from 55-plus nations, 100-plus speakers, and 100-plus exhibitors. Three days. Two focused areas. One IP marketplace.
Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
Gift this article