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

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

Erise IP has added a seven-practitioner trademark team from Hovey Williams, signalling its intention to help clients at all stages of development
News of prison sentences for ex-Samsung executives for trade secrets violation and an opposition filed by Taylor Swift were also among the top talking points
A multijurisdictional claim filed by InterDigital and a new spin-off firm in Germany were also among the top talking points
Duarte Lima, MD of Spruson & Ferguson’s Asia practice, says practitioners must adapt to process changes within IP systems, as well as be mindful of the implications of tech on their practices
Practitioners say the UK Supreme Court’s decision could boost the attractiveness of the UK for AI companies
New awards, including US ‘Firm of the Year’ and Latin America ‘Firm to Watch’, are among more than 90 prizes that will recognise firms and practitioners
DWF helped client Dairy UK secure a major victory at the UK Supreme Court
Hepworth Browne led Emotional Perception AI to victory at the UK Supreme Court, which rejected a previous appellate decision that said an AI network was not patentable
James Hill, general counsel at Norwich City FC, reveals how he balances fan engagement with brand enforcement, and when he calls on IP firms for advice
In the second of a two-part article, Gabrielle Faure-André and Stéphanie Garçon at Santarelli unpick EPO, UPC and French case law to assess the importance of clinical development timelines in inventive step analyses
Gift this article