Category: EPO

EPO related topics

Posted on

EPO – strawman’s appeal fee

A new EPO Boards of Appeal decision T 84/19 deals with an interesting question relating to appeal fees. The decision holds that an opponent who is a natural person or otherwise entitled to benefit from the reduced appeal fee does not have to pay the full appeal fee, even if there is a secret sponsor (akin to the ‘real party in interest’ in post-grant proceedings in other jurisdictions). This holds as long as the opposition does not constitute a circumvention of the law regarding the entitlement to pay a reduced appeal fee.

By way of background for the readers familiar with or otherwise interested in USPTO post-grant proceedings: According to decisions G 3/97, G 4/97, it is not required that the ‘real party in interest’ be named in EPO opposition proceedings. Thus, the situation may (and does) occur in which an opponent as party to the EPO proceedings may be different from the person interested in the revocation or amendment of the patent.

Posted on

EPO Opposition Matters 2022 conference

Very interesting professional training event at the EPO – Opposition Matters 2022. Lots of practical advice as regards opposition proceedings in general, and specifically oral proceedings and amendments of a party’s case. Very engaging presenters and very useful practical tips. The event materials and recordings of the key presentations will be made available at the EPO e-learning center. You may want to check this out if you are involved in EPO oppositions.

Posted on

EPO Case Law Conference 2022

Interesting (online) educational event at the EPO yesterday and today on the case law and practice of the Boards of Appeal.

As regards procedural aspects, appellants and defendants should be aware of the way in which the Boards apply the rules relating to late-filing (Art. 12, 13 RPBA 2020). See, e.g., T 2843/19, T 1707/17, and T 1869/18. While a party to appeal proceedings has a right to react to new developments (Art. 113 EPC), the party must exercise this right as soon as possible in the proceedings. Thus, it is advisable to react in a timely manner to new developments that may be brought about by the other party’s grounds of appeal or response brief, or the Board’s communication under Art. 15(1) RPBA 2020.

Posted on

US applicants – beware of the EPO’s ‘due care’ criterion

EPO Board of Appeal decision J 8/21 discusses the relevant criteria for re-establishment of rights (restitutio ad integrum). In the matter under appeal, the USPTO as Receiving Office of a PCT application decided to restore the right of priority based on the finding that the criterion for restoration applied by it was satisfied, namely that the failure to file the international application within the priority period had been unintentional. This decision of the USPTO is not effective in the EPO which applies the stricter ‘due care‘ criterion (R. 49ter.1(b) PCT). The Board held that the EPO was right in refusing the request for re-establishment of rights by the Designated Office under R. 49ter.2 PCT when applying the ‘due care‘ criterion. The Board noted that, contrary to applicant-appellant’s arguments, there can be different results when two different patent offices apply different criteria, and that this is inherent to the PCT system.

The decision illustrates that applicants should be aware of the fact that a re-establishment of rights by the USPTO as Receiving Office under the ‘unintentional’ criterion is not effective in EPO proceedings which applies the ‘due care’ criterion.