2004:"According to established jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, to satisfy the requirement of Rule 111(2) EPC, a decision should contain, in logical sequence, those arguments which support it. The conclusions drawn by the deciding body from the facts and evidence must be made clear. Therefore, all the facts, evidence and arguments which are essential to the decision must be discussed in detail in the decision including all the decisive considerations in respect of the factual and legal aspects of the case. The purpose of the requirement to reason the decision is to enable the parties and, in case of an appeal, also the board of appeal to examine whether the decision could be considered to be justified or not (see T 278/00, OJ EPO, 2003, 546; T 1366/05, not published in OJ EPO)".
240:
of appeal (i.e., the appeal grounds) must be filed, which shall contain the appellant's complete case. The appellant must also be adversely affected by the appealed decision. A party is only adversely affected by an appealed decision if the order of the appealed decision does not comply with its request (i.e., what the party requested during the first instance proceedings). For instance, when "the order of the decision of the opposition division is the revocation of the patent, an opponent who requested revocation of the patent in its entirety is not "adversely affected by" said decision... irrespective of the reasons given in the decision."
210:. Most appeals are filed (i.e., lodged) against decisions of Examining Divisions and Opposition Divisions, with a relatively small number of cases being appeals against decisions of the Receiving Section and Legal Division. An appeal has a suspensive effect, which means that, for example, "n the case of a refusal of an application, the filing of an appeal will have the effect of suspending the effect of the order refusing the application". The provisions applicable to the first instance proceedings from which the appeal derives also apply during appeal proceedings, "nless otherwise provided."
56:
231:
appellant has actually submitted" a request for reimbursement of the appeal fee. If the first instance department decides to grant the interlocutory revision but not a request of the appellant for reimbursement of the appeal fee, the first instance department has to remit "the request of the appellant for reimbursement of the appeal fee to a board of appeal". In other words, in such a case, the first instance department "is not competent to refuse a request of the appellant for reimbursement of the appeal fee." Instead, a Board is competent to decide on the request.
135:
of the
Enlarged Board of Appeal), in which case the Enlarged Board issues an opinion. Its purpose is to ensure uniform application of the European Patent Convention and to clarify or interpret important points of law in relation to the European Patent Convention. When fulfilling these two functions, the Enlarged Board of Appeal is composed of seven members, five legally qualified members and two technical members. The referral of a question of law by a Board of Appeal to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is fairly similar to a referral by a national court to the
275:
decision). When a board remits a case to the first instance, it does so notably to give the parties the possibility of defending their case before two instances, i.e. at two levels of jurisdiction, although there is no absolute right to have an issue decided upon by two instances. The boards generally take into account as well the need for procedural efficiency when deciding whether to remit a case to the first instance and "the general interest that proceedings are brought to a close within an appropriate period of time".
227:
rather unusual procedure within the EPO. Nonetheless, this is a very useful procedure, for procedural expediency and economy, for example if amendments are filed with the appeal, which clearly overcome the objections in the first instance decision. If the appeal is not allowed by the first instance department within three months of receipt of the statement of grounds, the first instance department has to transfer the case to the Board of Appeal without delay, and without comment as to its merit.
1519:, reasons, point 1 (Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04 17 June 2004) ("(...) admissibility issues can and have to be examined at every stage of the appeal procedure. According to established case law, the admissibility of an opposition must be checked ex officio in every phase of the opposition and ensuing appeal proceedings (T 522/94, point 3, OJ EPO 1998, 421). The same principles apply a fortiori to the examination of the admissibility of an appeal.").
429:". This third body would have its own budget, would have its seat in Munich, Germany and would be supervised "without prejudice to its judicial independence" by the Administrative Council of the EPO. The EPO has also proposed that the members of the Boards of Appeal should be appointed for lifetime, "with grounds for termination exhaustively regulated in the EPC". These changes would however need to be approved by a new Diplomatic Conference.
297:
oral proceedings in appeal are held in Haar or Munich, and are public unless very particular circumstances apply. This contrasts with oral proceedings held before an
Examining Division, which are not public. The list of public oral proceedings in appeal is available on the EPO web site. The right to oral proceedings is a specific and codified part of the procedural right to be heard. Oral proceedings may also be held by
704:"In decision G 1/99 (OJ 2001, 381) the Enlarged Board held that the appeal procedure is to be considered as a judicial procedure (see G 9/91, OJ 1993, 408, point 18 of the Reasons) proper to an administrative court (see G 8/91, OJ 1993, 346, point 7 of the Reasons; likewise G 7/91, OJ 1993, 356)." in Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office,
379:) is only binding on the Board of Appeal in respect of the appeal in question, i.e. on the Board of Appeal that referred the question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. Furthermore, in the event that a Board considers it necessary to deviate from an opinion or decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, a question must be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
266:) to admit facts or evidence which were not submitted in due time by a party, the Board "should only overrule such a decision, if it concludes that the department that took it applied the wrong principles, took no account of the right principles, or exercised its discretion in an unreasonable way, thus exceeding the proper limits of its discretion".
98:, a municipality located 12 km east of Munich's city centre. In contrast to the Boards of Appeal, the Examining Divisions and Opposition Divisions, i.e. the first instance departments carrying the examination of patent applications and of oppositions to granted European patents, are not all based in a single location; those may be in Munich, in
2242:
of expert courts (the Boards of Appeal and
Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO) involved daily in the administration of the EPC and secondly, because it would be highly undesirable for the provisions of the EPC to be construed differently in the EPO from the way they are interpreted in the national courts of a Contracting State."
1970:). See also Article 11 RPBA 2020: "The Board shall not remit a case to the department whose decision was appealed for further prosecution, unless special reasons present themselves for doing so. As a rule, fundamental deficiencies which are apparent in the proceedings before that department constitute such special reasons."
175:. The President of the Boards of Appeal is also the chairperson of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The "Presidium of the Boards of Appeal" is the autonomous authority within the Boards of Appeal Unit, and consists of the President of the Boards of Appeal and twelve members of the Boards of Appeal, elected by their peers.
2241:
RPC 76 at 82: "… the United
Kingdom Courts … must have regard to the decisions of the European Patent Office ("EPO") on the construction of the EPC. These decisions are not strictly binding upon courts in the United Kingdom but they are of great persuasive authority; first, because they are decisions
437:
regarded an objection of partiality against the Vice-President DG3 (Directorate-General
Appeals) as justified on the grounds that he was acting both as chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal and as a member of the Management Committee of the EPO. The decision shows the persistent disquietude caused
230:
In the event of an interlocutory revision, the appeal fee is reimbursed in full "if such reimbursement is equitable by reason of a substantial procedural violation". Whether the appeal fee is to be reimbursed in the event of an interlocutory revision must be examined "regardless of whether or not the
871:
Case law of the EPO boards of appeal: a review by internal and external experts, The
Enlarged Board of Appeal: structure and function, its rules of procedure, pending referrals, the procedure for petition for review under Article 112a EPC with an overview of relevant decisions, Part 2: The first two
827:
Case law of the EPO boards of appeal: a review by internal and external experts, The
Enlarged Board of Appeal: structure and function, its rules of procedure, pending referrals, the procedure for petition for review under Article 112a EPC with an overview of relevant decisions, Part 2: The first two
420:
However, since "the boards' administrative and organisational attachment to the EPO which is an administrative authority obscures their judicial nature and is not fully commensurate with their function as a judicial body", there have been calls for creating, within the
European Patent Organisation,
343:
The appeal fee is reimbursed in full "if the appeal is withdrawn before the filing of the statement of grounds of appeal and before the period for filing that statement has expired." Besides, the appeal fee is partially reimbursed, at a rate of 75%, 50%, or 25%, if the appeal is withdrawn at certain
239:
For an appeal to be admissible, amongst other requirements, notice of appeal must be filed at the EPO within two months of notification of the contested decision, and the fee for appeal must be paid. In addition, within four months of notification of the decision, a statement setting out the grounds
205:
An appeal may be filed against a decision of a first instance department of the EPO, i.e. a decision of the
Receiving Section, of an Examining Division, of an Opposition Division or of the Legal Division. The Boards of Appeal are not competent, however, to review decisions taken by the EPO acting as
134:
of the Boards of Appeal becomes inconsistent or when an important point of law arises, either upon a referral from a Board of Appeal (first function of the
Enlarged Board of Appeal), in which case the Enlarged Board issues a decision, or upon a referral from the President of the EPO (second function
122:
In addition to the Boards of Appeal (i.e., the Technical Boards of Appeal and the Legal Board of Appeal), the European Patent Office also has an "Enlarged Board of Appeal" (sometimes abbreviated "EBoA" or "EBA"). The Enlarged Board of Appeal does not constitute an additional level of jurisdiction in
363:
A decision of a Board of Appeal is only binding on to the department whose decision was appealed, insofar as the facts are the same (if the case is remitted to the first instance of course). However, " the decision which was appealed emanated from the Receiving Section, the Examining Division shall
304:
To prepare the oral proceedings, the Board shall "issue a communication drawing attention to matters that seem to be of particular significance for the decision to be taken". Together with such a communication, "he Board may also provide a preliminary opinion" on the merits of the case. A decision
274:
After examining the allowability of an appeal, a Board has the discretion to either "exercise any power within the competence of the department which was responsible for the decision appealed" (correction of a decision) or "remit the case to that department for further prosecution" (cassation of a
170:
The Boards of Appeal, the Enlarged Board of Appeal, as well as their registries and support services, form a separate unit within the European Patent Office, the so-called "Boards of Appeal Unit". It is directed by the President of the Boards of Appeal, a position held as of 2018 by former Swedish
1614:
Late amendments OJ EPC 1994 775, reason 2.6; T 677/08, Payment Processing/SAP, reason 4.3; T 1883/12, No-spill drinking cup/Philips, reason 3.1.2; Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 9th edition, IV.C.4.5.2, V.A.3.5.1 and V.A.3.5.4; and with particular reference to the
1506:
Decision T 0193/07, Reasons for the Decision 2.3, referring to "decisions T 0854/02 of 14 October 2002 (points 3.1 and 3.2 of the reasons), decisions T 0981/01 of 24 November 2004 (points 5 and 6 of the reasons), T 1147/01 of 16 June 2004 (point 2 of the reasons), T 1341/04 of 10 May 2007 (points
405:
The members of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal are appointed by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation on a proposal from the President of the European Patent Office. Moreover, during their five-year term, the Board members may only be removed from
296:
During appeal proceedings, oral proceedings may take place at the request of the EPO or at the request of any party to the proceedings, i.e. the applicant (who is, in pre-grant appeal, the appellant), or the patentee or an opponent (who are, in opposition appeal, appellant and/or respondent). The
283:
Appeal proceedings conducted at the EPO may be accelerated "by giving a case priority over others". A party to the proceedings may request accelerated processing of the appeal proceedings. The request must be reasoned. The Board has the discretion to grant or refuse the request. Courts, competent
182:
to adopt the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal), and to assist the Administrative Council in supervising the Boards of Appeal. The Boards of Appeal Committee consists of six members, three of whom are members of the Administrative Council itself (i.e.
368:
of the Board of Appeal." However, if "a Board consider it necessary to deviate from an interpretation or explanation of the given in an earlier decision of any Board, the grounds for this deviation shall be given, unless such grounds are in accordance with an earlier decision or opinion of the
226:
proceedings (i.e., proceedings where the appellant is not opposed to another party) and if the first instance department that took the decision regards the appeal to be admissible and well founded, it has to rectify its decision. This is called an "interlocutory revision", which is said to be a
1172:
Auch nach ständiger Rechtsprechung sind die Beschwerdekammern grundsätzlich nicht zuständig, um die vom EPA als internationale Behörde getroffenen Entscheidungen zu überprüfen (J 14/98, Nr. 2.1 der Entscheidungsgründe; J 20/89, Nr. 2 der Entscheidungsgründe, ABl. 1991, 375; J 15/91, Nr. 2 der
432:
According to some experts, the calls to improve the institutional independence of the Boards of Appeal have not received so far the appropriate consideration by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation. Echoing these concerns, the Enlarged Board of Appeal in its decision
334:
More generally, a substantial procedural violation is "an objective deficiency affecting the entire proceedings". The expression "substantial procedural violation" is to be understood, in principle, as meaning "that the rules of procedure have not been applied in the manner prescribed by the
157:
The fourth function is to propose the removal from office of a member of the boards of appeal. Under Article 23(1) EPC, a member of the Enlarged Board or of a Board of Appeal may not be removed from office during the five-year term of appointment, other than on serious grounds and if the
1528:"The requirements for admissibility must be sustained throughout the duration of the appeal proceedings (see Singer/Stauder, EPĂś, 4th ed., Art. 110, margin number 6), i.e. approximately until a decision is issued in written proceedings or delivered at the end of oral proceedings." in
733:, Official Journal EPO 5/2009 page 318 par. 4: "Whereas EPO Boards of Appeal have been recognized as being courts or tribunals, they are not courts or tribunals of an EU member state but of an international organization whose contracting states are not all members of the EU."
1551:(...) In the favour of the appellant, the Board left open the question of the admissibility of the appeal. It is not necessary to decide on the appeal's admissibility since the appeal can be dismissed for the reason alone that none of the appellant's requests is allowable.
313:
The EPC provides that, if the Board of Appeal finds out that a substantial procedural violation took place during the first instance proceedings and if the Board considers the appeal to be allowable, the appeal fee shall be reimbursed if such reimbursement is equitable.
243:
The admissibility of an appeal may be assessed at every stage of the appeal proceedings. Furthermore, the requirements for admissibility must not only be satisfied when lodging the appeal, they must be sustained throughout the duration of the appeal proceedings.
1918:
Article 15(6) RPBA: "The Board shall ensure that each case is ready for decision at the conclusion of the oral proceedings, unless there are special reasons to the contrary. Before the oral proceedings are closed, the decision may be announced orally by the
1583:, p. 55, explanatory remarks to Article 12(2) RPBA 2020: "The Boards of Appeal constitute the first and final judicial instance in the procedures before the European Patent Office. In this capacity, they review appealed decisions on points of law and fact."
551:
The number before the oblique is the serial number, allocated by chronological order of receipt at the DG3, the Directorate General 3 (Appeals) of the European Patent Office. The last two digits give the year of receipt of the appeal in DG3. The letter
1100:
Baldan, Federica; Van Zimmeren, Esther (2015). "Exploring Different Concepts of Judicial Coherence in the Patent Context: The Future Role of the (New) Unified Patent Court and its Interaction with other (Old) Actors of the European Patent System".
2482:
Since the Sedemund-Treiber/Ferrand Study was submitted to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation, nothing has happened to improve the institutional independence of the Boards of Appeal. Rather, the opposite seems to be the
331:). To be properly reasoned, "a decision must contain, in logical sequence, those arguments which justify its order" "so as to enable the parties and, in case of an appeal, the board of appeal to examine whether the decision was justified or not".
2842:
2832:
559:
In addition to their alphanumeric reference, decisions are sometimes referred to and identified by their date to distinguish between decisions regarding the same case issued at a different date (e.g. T 843/91 of 17 March 1993
1129:
In particular, organisational and managerial reforms for a separation of the judiciary from the executive branches of the EPOrg were required following decision R 19/12 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) of 25 April 2014
2837:
1493:, Reasons for the Decision 2.1.2, first sentence; "A party is adversely affected if a decision does not accede to its requests (established jurisprudence; see T 961/00 of 9 December 2002, point 1 of the Reasons)" in
397:, "only linguistic errors, errors of transcription and obvious mistakes may be corrected" in decisions of the EPO. This possibility to correct a decision is also available for decisions of the EPO Boards of Appeal.
438:
by the integration of the Boards of Appeal into the European Patent Office. This question, namely the question of the independence of the Boards of Appeal, was also raised by Spain "against the Regulations on the
2476:
Re: Case No. G3/08, Referral of the President of the European Patent Office under Article 112 (1) (b) EPC of October 22, 2008, Statement According to Article 11 b Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of
1615:
review of a discretionary decision to admit a document into the proceedings, T 1209/05, Refrigerator oil/NIPPON MITSUBISHI, reason 2". This is considered to be "long-established jurisprudence" (reasons 4).
288:(UPC) may also request acceleration of proceedings relating to a specific patent, without providing a specific reason. The Board may also decide to accelerate the proceedings of its own motion.
2796:
665:
193:
The current organisational and managerial structure of the Boards of Appeal resulted from a reform undertaken by the Administrative Council as a reaction to Enlarged Board of Appeal decision
651:
A Board may also choose to leave open the question of admissibility of the appeal if none of the appellant's requests are considered to be allowable. An example of such a case is T 255/22.
2496:
421:
a third judicial body alongside the Administrative Council and the European Patent Office. This third judicial body would replace the present Boards of Appeal and could be called the "
2913:
2497:"EPO – Vice-president DG3 as Chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal – Conflict of interests between the tasks as member of the management and as a presiding judge in review cases"
35:
instituting the legal system according to which European patents are granted, contains provisions allowing a party to appeal a decision issued by a first instance department of the
2474:
1874:"Oral proceedings before the Boards of Appeal – continuation of the measures adopted due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and revised practice on oral proceedings by VICO"
2827:
2681:
2055:
2029:
1698:
1669:
706:
2945:
2419:
197:
of 25 April 2014. The reform was undertaken by the Administrative Council "within the existing framework of the European Patent Convention, without requiring its revision."
1771:, p. 52, explanatory remarks to Article 10(3) RPBA 2020: "Proposed new paragraph 3 gives the Board the discretionary power to decide on a party's request for acceleration."
2858:
1930:
2939:
2359:
EWCA Civ. 364. See also Leith, P, "Judicial and Administrative Roles: the patent appellate system in a European Context", Intellectual Property Quarterly, Issue 1, 2001.
2770:
2661:
382:
Outside the European Patent Office, the decisions of the Boards of Appeal are not strictly binding on national courts, but they certainly have a persuasive authority.
179:
1932:
Case law of the EPO boards of appeal: a review by internal and external experts, Oral proceedings before the EPO boards of appeal, Part 2: Before the oral proceedings
2898:
2806:
143:
981:"Supplementary publication 1, Official Journal 2018, Information from the Boards of Appeal Presidium, business distribution and texts relating to the proceedings"
869:
825:
668:. Decisions of an Examining Division in such proceedings are open to appeal (OJ 2007, Special edition 4/2007, page 118, item 6, and Articles 106(1) and 21 EPC).
2791:
2721:
2443:
2299:
2253:
84:
2950:
2893:
2925:
1734:
317:
A substantial procedural violation may for instance occur during the first instance proceedings if the right of the parties to be heard were violated (
360:
as binding." Under the EPC, there is no principle of binding case law. That is, the binding effect of board of appeal decisions is extremely limited.
2786:
146:
of decisions of the Boards of Appeal. The third function is relatively recent. It is indeed only since December 2007 and the entry into force of the
80:
40:
417:. They are not bound by any instructions, such as the "Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office". They have a duty of independence.
2933:
2390:
305:
may be, and often is, announced at the end of the oral proceedings, since the purpose of oral proceedings is to come to a conclusion on a case.
2965:
2918:
190:) and the remaining three are "serving or former judges of international or European courts or of national courts of the Contracting States".
2575:
2423:
1466:
Article 12(3) RPBA 2020, first sentence: "The statement of grounds of appeal and the reply shall contain a party's complete appeal case."
587:
159:
87:
procedures before the EPO. The Boards of Appeal have been recognised as courts, or tribunals, of an international organisation, the EPO.
17:
458:
Each decision of the Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal, as well as each opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, has an
158:"Administrative Council, on a proposal from the Enlarged Board of Appeal, takes a decision to this effect." The Enlarged Board has been
2714:
1047:
593:
252:
If the appeal is found to be admissible, the Board of Appeal examines whether the appeal is allowable, i.e. the Board addresses the
2654:, incorporating decisions up to the end of 2021 "as well as a number of particularly important ones from the first months of 2022".
1611:
1768:
1580:
2888:
90:
The Boards of Appeal of the EPO, including the Enlarged Board of Appeal, were until 2017 based at the headquarters of the EPO in
1936:
3268:
2707:
2624:
2605:
807:
2903:
1443:. Regarding the calculation of the two-month deadline for filing the notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee, see also
256:. When doing so, "the boards have competence to review appealed decisions in full, including points of law and fact".
2534:
1873:
876:
832:
2562:
2425:
Organisational autonomy of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office within the European Patent Organisation
2060:
1703:
1674:
2449:
2305:
2259:
1070:
2034:
743:
711:
2811:
980:
1489:"A party is only adversely affected if the order of the appealed decision does not comply with its request." in
1444:
466:. The first letter (or the text "Art 23") of the reference indicates the type of board which took the decision:
2139:... the withdrawal of the appeal must be expressed by an explicit and absolutely clear statement. (reasons 2.2)
1856:
682:
609:
1855:"The right to oral proceedings according to Article 116 EPC is a specific and codified part of the procedural
2165:
130:
The first two functions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal are to make decisions or to issue opinions when the
2730:
2150:
1860:
1652:
1593:
1576:
1454:
1256:
1159:
576:
573:
570:
567:
564:
561:
47:
is under the responsibility of its Boards of Appeal, which are institutionally independent within the EPO.
2671:
2015:
1994:
1516:
2646:
1898:
1529:
1162:(in German). Legal Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office. 30 January 2018. EntscheidungsgrĂĽnde, 2
2398:
2744:
2371:
2332:
2283:
2217:
2194:
2180:
2120:
2096:
2082:
1983:
1967:
1960:
1829:
1815:
1801:
1641:
1627:
1565:
1478:
1440:
1425:
1418:
1403:
1387:
1354:
1347:
1340:
1317:
1241:
1224:
1147:
1035:
1018:
1004:
961:
942:
928:
914:
900:
856:
678:
639:
544:
490:
477:
414:
394:
376:
328:
321:
263:
187:
151:
28:
2107:
1998:
1494:
1490:
635:
A revision of the European Patent Convention necessitates a Conference of the Contracting States, see
3263:
2878:
599:
532:
525:
518:
207:
136:
2598:
Proceedings Before the European Patent Office: A Practical Guide to Success in Opposition and Appeal
1542:
3278:
2883:
2873:
2651:
2908:
2579:
2445:
Case law of the EPO boards of appeal: a review by internal and external experts, Opening address
2301:
Case law of the EPO boards of appeal: a review by internal and external experts, Opening address
2255:
Case law of the EPO boards of appeal: a review by internal and external experts, Opening address
1841:
344:
stages of the appeal proceedings. The withdrawal of an appeal must be explicit and unambiguous.
338:
162:
to propose the removal from office of the same Board member, but did so in none of these cases.
3199:
2765:
413:, the members of the Boards of Appeal are "judges in all but name". They are only bound by the
172:
154:, that a petition for review of a decision of a Board may be filed, albeit on limited grounds.
68:
36:
55:
797:
76:
3273:
2955:
2664:
in decision CA/D 5/19 Corr. 1 of 26 June 2019), which entered into force on January 1, 2020
285:
1209:
730:
8:
3058:
2640:
765:
2686:
1282:
1186:
259:
In that context, if the first instance department exercised its discretion (pursuant to
2652:
Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 10th edition, July 2022
308:
253:
1980:
1964:
1422:
1344:
1284:
EPO boards of appeal and key decisions, The appeal procedure from A to Z (Part 3 of 3)
1188:
EPO boards of appeal and key decisions, The appeal procedure from A to Z (Part 1 of 3)
683:
decision of 23 September 2022 correcting an error in the decision of 20 September 2022
3215:
2620:
2601:
2558:
1123:
1114:
1073:[Reorganisation of the Boards of Appeal in the European Patent Organisation]
803:
590:, decisions relating to the suspension of a member of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO
71:(EPO) can be appealed, i.e. challenged, before the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, in a
2016:
Decision T 1205/12 (Optimization of decisions/LANDMARK GRAPHICS) of 14 December 2012
2667:
2448:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 4:52 to 6:17 minutes in. Archived from
2429:
2304:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 1:19 to 2:16 minutes in. Archived from
2258:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 2:16 to 4:01 minutes in. Archived from
1935:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 3:05 to 3:25 minutes in. Archived from
1118:
1110:
925:
911:
897:
875:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 7:32 to 7:45 minutes in. Archived from
831:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 0:50 to 1:15 minutes in. Archived from
615:
556:" is sometimes used to refer to a decision of an Examining or Opposition Division.
529:
522:
487:
123:
the classical sense. It is fundamentally a legal instance in charge of deciding on
2657:
2214:
2191:
2177:
2093:
2079:
1957:
1826:
1812:
1798:
1638:
1624:
1562:
1475:
1437:
1415:
1400:
1384:
1351:
1337:
1314:
1238:
1221:
1144:
1032:
1015:
1001:
958:
853:
636:
474:
391:
373:
325:
318:
260:
3108:
2368:
2329:
2280:
1507:
1.2(i) and 1.3 of the reasons) and T 0473/98 (points 2.2 to 2.8 of the reasons)."
939:
618:, former Vice-President of the European Patent Office, head of the DG 3 (Appeals)
541:
410:
365:
298:
184:
1594:"T 0960/15 (Radiotherapeutic treatment plan adaptation / Philips) of 22.12.2021"
3173:
3013:
2960:
2699:
2539:, Le blog du droit européen des brevets, 6 July 2008. Consulted on 6 July 2008.
603:
439:
1071:"Neuorganisation der Beschwerdekammern in der Europäischen Patentorganisation"
3257:
3073:
2470:
357:
339:
Full or partial reimbursement of the appeal fee upon withdrawal of the appeal
124:
95:
2395:
Legislative initiatives > Organisational autonomy of the boards of appeal
1530:
Decision of the Legal Board of Appeal dated 31 March 2008, J 10/07 – 3.1.01
459:
540:– Enlarged Board of Appeal (proposals to the Administrative Council under
213:
3163:
3103:
2679:
Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office,
2053:
Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office,
2027:
Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office,
1696:
Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office,
1667:
Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office,
107:
2121:"Decision T 193/20 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.02 of 13 March 2020"
1735:"Notice from the Boards of Appeal on accelerating proceedings | Epo.org"
3133:
3098:
3083:
2838:
Decisions of the Boards of Appeal relating to Article 52(2) and (3) EPC
1257:"Decision G 3/03 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal dated 28 January 2005"
353:
1713: : "No absolute right to have issue decided on at two instances".
400:
385:
3078:
2868:
2480:, Munich, 27 April 2009, and in particular, points 6.3.2 and 6.3.3: "
2348:
795:
103:
72:
39:(EPO). For instance, a decision of an Examining Division refusing to
1532:, Official Journal EPO 12/2008, p. 567, reasons 1.2., 2nd paragraph.
983:. European Patent Office. January 2018. pp. 2 (Note to readers)
664:
appeal proceedings following a decision of an Examining Division in
309:
Substantial procedural violation and reimbursement of the appeal fee
3207:
3148:
3143:
3123:
2998:
2749:
1287:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 1:30 to 3:03 minutes in
1191:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 0:51 to 1:58 minutes in
447:
443:
178:
Furthermore, a "Boards of Appeal Committee" has been set up by the
147:
131:
99:
606:, but which is not involved in the appeal procedure before the EPO
3239:
3231:
3223:
3128:
3053:
3048:
3038:
3028:
3023:
3018:
3003:
2993:
2988:
2983:
2863:
2615:
Meinders, Hugo; Lanz, Philipp; Weiss, GĂ©rard (28 February 2020).
434:
234:
194:
142:
The third function of the Enlarged Board of Appeal is to examine
2595:
1610:
The decision, reasons 3, refers in particular to: "for example,
183:
representatives of the Contracting States within the meaning of
75:
procedure (proper to an administrative court), as opposed to an
3168:
3158:
3138:
3118:
3113:
3093:
3068:
3043:
3033:
3008:
324:) or if the first instance decision was not properly reasoned (
111:
91:
60:
32:
2555:
Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office
796:
Hugo Meinders; Philipp Lanz; GĂ©rard Weiss (28 February 2020).
3153:
3088:
3063:
2420:
Standing Advisory Committee before the European Patent Office
1450:
721: : "Legal character of appeal procedure" > "General".
2351:
2008, Vol. 8–9, pages 658–662, referring to what he said in
547:
for removal from office of a member of the Boards of Appeal)
165:
63:, Germany, where the Boards of Appeal were based until 2017.
352:
The legal system established under the EPC differs from a
247:
180:
Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation
94:, Germany. In October 2017, the Boards of Appeal moved to
79:
procedure. These boards act as the final instances in the
2695:
Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal (AMBA)
473:– Enlarged Board of Appeal (decisions and opinions under
372:
A decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (pursuant to
356:
legal system in that " does not treat (...) established
2694:
2617:
Overview of the Appeal Proceedings according to the EPC
2596:
Marcus O. MĂĽller; Cees A.M. Mulder (27 February 2015).
799:
Overview of the Appeal Proceedings according to the EPC
486:– Enlarged Board of Appeal (petitions for review under
2843:
Successful petitions for review under Article 112a EPC
2833:
Decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
2549:
2547:
2545:
2293:
2291:
766:"Boards of Appeal starting work at their new location"
1692:
1690:
1663:
1661:
1455:
Board of Appeal decision T 2056/08 of 15 January 2009
1729:
1727:
1725:
1723:
1721:
1719:
423:
Court of Appeals of the European Patent Organisation
2542:
2435:
2428:6 June 2003 (pdf), archived on 9 April 2005 by the
2397:. European Patent Office. 2004–2006. Archived from
2288:
2245:
1259:. European Patent Office. Reasons 2, first sentence
401:
Independence of the members of the Boards of Appeal
386:
Correction of a Board's decision under Rule 140 EPC
67:Decisions of the first instance departments of the
2668:Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
1687:
1658:
1517: Decision T 15/01 (Mystery Swine Disease/SDLO)
1099:
791:
789:
787:
785:
783:
45:appeal procedure before the European Patent Office
2889:European Round Table on Patent Practice (EUROTAB)
2614:
1716:
1497:, Reasons for the Decision, 3.2, second sentence.
347:
3255:
2729:
2647:Search in the Board of Appeal decisions database
2557:, 5th edition, 2006, p. XXXII (Reader's Guide) (
2385:
2383:
2381:
2379:
2070: : "Violation must be of procedural nature"
660:A patentee may also be the sole appellant in an
2691: : Proceedings before the Boards of Appeal
2658:Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020
2576:"EPO boards of appeal decisions - help section"
1880:. Boards of Appeal of the EPO. 15 December 2020
780:
284:authorities of the contracting states, and the
2966:Unitary patent (Switzerland and Liechtenstein)
1859:according to Article 113(1) EPC." in Decision
235:Examination of the admissibility of the appeal
2715:
2376:
2345:National Courts and the EPO Litigation System
1276:
1274:
1251:
1249:
222:If an appeal is lodged against a decision in
2494:
2161:
2159:
1062:
2682:Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO
2056:Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO
2030:Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO
1699:Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO
1670:Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO
975:
973:
971:
969:
707:Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO
588:Art. 23 1/15, Art. 23 2/15 and Art. 23 1/16
117:
2722:
2708:
2044: : "Substantial procedural violation"
1446:The EPC "Ten Day Rule" – how not to use it
1368:
1359:
1322:
1271:
1246:
1140:
1138:
954:
952:
950:
2670:(RPEBA) (OJ 4/2015, A35) (also available
2156:
1122:
594:Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
278:
166:Organisational structure, and supervision
2578:. European Patent Office. Archived from
1684: : "Opposition appeal proceedings".
1234:
1232:
1160:"J 0010/15 (PCT Anmeldung) of 30.1.2018"
1028:
1026:
966:
768:. European Patent Office. 2 October 2017
406:office under exceptional circumstances.
127:, and has the four following functions.
54:
2325:
2323:
1769:Supplementary publication OJ EPO 2/2020
1581:Supplementary publication OJ EPO 2/2020
1383:G 3/03, Reasons 3.4.3; now codified in
1281:Yvonne Podbielski (8–9 November 2012).
1185:Yvonne Podbielski (8–9 November 2012).
1135:
947:
744:"New location for the Boards of Appeal"
248:Examination of the merits of the appeal
14:
3256:
43:may be appealed by the applicant. The
2703:
1995:Decision T 689/05 of 7 September 2010
1929:Giovanni Pricolo (23–24 March 2011).
1577:Decision T 1604/16 of 7 December 2020
1495:decision T 0109/08 of 27 January 2012
1229:
1103:Review of European Administrative Law
1068:
1023:
868:Kevin Garnett QC (23–24 March 2011).
824:Kevin Garnett QC (23–24 March 2011).
679:decision T 17/22 of 20 September 2022
666:limitation and revocation proceedings
2946:Standing Advisory Committee (SACEPO)
2643:at the European Patent Office (EPO)
2529:(application no 98116534), cited in
2320:
2239:Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v Norton
1899:Article 15(1), fourth sentence, RPBA
269:
2495:Teschemacher, Rudolf (5 May 2014).
2442:Peter Messerli (23–24 March 2011).
2298:Peter Messerli (23–24 March 2011).
2252:Peter Messerli (23–24 March 2011).
1999:decision T 0306/09 of 25 April 2012
1909:Article 15(1), sixth sentence, RPBA
1374:G 3/03, Reasons 3, second sentence.
1328:G 3/03, Reasons 2, second sentence.
1210:Decision J 4/11 of 25 November 2011
291:
214:Possible interlocutory revision in
41:grant a European patent application
24:
2589:
2391:"Autonomy of the boards of appeal"
2355:RPC 245 at p. 277 and repeated in
1453:blog, 27 April 2009, referring to
1365:G 3/03, Reasons 3, first sentence.
1305:G 3/03, Reasons 2, first sentence.
453:
206:international authority under the
25:
3290:
2634:
1491:Decision T 0193/07 of 11 May 2011
575:and T 261/88 of 16 February 1993
369:Enlarged Board of Appeal (...)."
2745:European Patent Convention (EPC)
2619:. Kluwer Law International B.V.
2568:
2511:
2488:
2464:
1846:. Consulted on 19 December 2021.
1543:"T 0255/22 10-05-2023 | Epo.org"
1115:10.7590/187479815X14465419060785
427:European Court of Patent Appeals
2879:European Patent Institute (epi)
2525:(application no 00936978), and
2413:
2362:
2337:
2274:
2231:
2222:
2208:
2199:
2192:Article 111(2)(second sentence)
2185:
2171:
2144:
2113:
2101:
2087:
2073:
2047:
2021:
2009:
1988:
1973:
1951:
1922:
1912:
1903:
1892:
1866:
1863:of 1 December 2006, Reasons 25.
1849:
1834:
1820:
1806:
1792:
1783:
1774:
1762:
1753:
1646:
1639:Article 111(1)(second sentence)
1632:
1618:
1586:
1570:
1556:
1535:
1522:
1510:
1500:
1483:
1469:
1460:
1431:
1409:
1393:
1377:
1331:
1308:
1299:
1215:
1203:
1178:
1152:
1093:
1040:
1009:
995:
933:
919:
905:
671:
654:
645:
629:
2536:Premières requêtes en révision
2178:Article 111(2)(first sentence)
1655:of 11 January 2008, Reasons 7.
1625:Article 111(1)(first sentence)
891:
861:
847:
817:
758:
746:. European Patent Office. 2017
736:
724:
698:
610:European Patent Office Reports
569:and T 59/87 of 14 August 1990
563:and T 843/91 of 5 August 1993
511:– Disciplinary Board of Appeal
348:Binding character of decisions
13:
1:
2914:Observations by third parties
692:
572:or T 261/88 of 28 March 1991
3269:European Patent Organisation
2766:European Patent Office (EPO)
2731:European Patent Organisation
2110:of 31 May 2016, Catchword 3.
1401:Rule 103(6)(second sentence)
1385:Rule 103(6)(second sentence)
1048:"Boards of Appeal Committee"
462:reference, such as decision
200:
160:requested on three occasions
7:
2685:(10th edition, July 2022),
2600:. Edward Elgar Publishing.
2521:(application no 97600009),
1352:Rule 103(6)(first sentence)
612:(EPOR), a case law reporter
581:
566:, T 59/87 of 26 April 1988
499:– Technical Board of Appeal
50:
18:Boards of Appeal of the EPO
10:
3295:
2956:Unified Patent Court (UPC)
2750:Revised version (EPC 2000)
2059:(9th edition, July 2019),
2033:(9th edition, July 2019),
1702:(9th edition, July 2019),
1673:(9th edition, July 2019),
710:(9th edition, July 2019),
681:, which was followed by a
602:, the appeal court of the
415:European Patent Convention
364:similarly be bound by the
152:European Patent Convention
29:European Patent Convention
3182:
2974:
2851:
2820:
2797:Limitation and revocation
2779:
2758:
2737:
2094:Rule 103(2), (3), and (4)
1843:Oral proceedings calendar
1124:10067/1308360151162165141
600:European Court of Justice
208:Patent Cooperation Treaty
137:European Court of Justice
2884:European Patent Register
2874:European Patent Bulletin
2660:(RPBA) (Approved by the
2553:European Patent Office,
1600:. European Patent Office
1579:, point 3.1.7; see also
1050:. European Patent Office
622:
118:Enlarged Board of Appeal
31:(EPC), the multilateral
2859:Divisional applications
2205:Article 20(1) RPBA 2020
1789:Article 10(5) RPBA 2020
1780:Article 10(4) RPBA 2020
1759:Article 10(3) RPBA 2020
1069:Klett, Kathrin (2017).
596:(BPAI), US appeal court
505:– Legal Board of Appeal
3200:Bosnia and Herzegovina
2940:Restitutio in integrum
2771:Administrative Council
2662:Administrative Council
1997:, point 4.1. See also
517:– Decision concerning
279:Accelerated processing
69:European Patent Office
64:
37:European Patent Office
2582:on 29 September 2007.
1173:EntscheidungsgrĂĽnde).
872:functions of the EBoA
828:functions of the EBoA
58:
2228:Article 21 RPBA 2020
1081:(in German) (3): 119
286:Unified Patent Court
144:petitions for review
59:EPO headquarters in
2961:Unitary patent (EU)
2928:reformatio in peius
2807:Petition for review
2533:Laurent Teyssedre,
2499:. EPLAW Patent Blog
879:on 22 February 2014
835:on 22 February 2014
802:. Wolters Kluwer.
254:merits of the case
65:
3251:
3250:
3244:
3236:
3228:
3220:
3212:
3204:
3192:
3186:
2904:Judges' Symposium
2626:978-94-035-2090-2
2607:978-1-78471-010-1
2343:Sir Robin Jacob,
2237:Lord Hoffmann in
1857:right to be heard
1741:. 19 January 2024
1653:Decision T 154/06
1399:G 3/03, Order I;
809:978-94-035-2090-2
731:G 2/06, Reasons 4
374:Article 112(1)(a)
270:Optional remittal
16:(Redirected from
3286:
3264:Appellate review
3242:
3234:
3226:
3218:
3210:
3202:
3190:
3184:
2951:Software patents
2920:Official Journal
2909:London Agreement
2724:
2717:
2710:
2701:
2700:
2689:
2641:Boards of Appeal
2630:
2611:
2584:
2583:
2572:
2566:
2551:
2540:
2532:
2515:
2509:
2508:
2506:
2504:
2492:
2486:
2468:
2462:
2461:
2459:
2457:
2439:
2433:
2430:Internet Archive
2417:
2411:
2410:
2408:
2406:
2387:
2374:
2366:
2360:
2341:
2335:
2327:
2318:
2317:
2315:
2313:
2295:
2286:
2278:
2272:
2271:
2269:
2267:
2249:
2243:
2235:
2229:
2226:
2220:
2212:
2206:
2203:
2197:
2189:
2183:
2175:
2169:
2163:
2154:
2148:
2142:
2141:
2136:
2134:
2125:
2117:
2111:
2105:
2099:
2091:
2085:
2077:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2051:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2025:
2019:
2013:
2007:
1992:
1986:
1977:
1971:
1955:
1949:
1948:
1946:
1944:
1926:
1920:
1916:
1910:
1907:
1901:
1896:
1890:
1889:
1887:
1885:
1870:
1864:
1853:
1847:
1838:
1832:
1824:
1818:
1810:
1804:
1796:
1790:
1787:
1781:
1778:
1772:
1766:
1760:
1757:
1751:
1750:
1748:
1746:
1731:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1694:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1665:
1656:
1650:
1644:
1636:
1630:
1622:
1616:
1609:
1607:
1605:
1590:
1584:
1574:
1568:
1560:
1554:
1553:
1539:
1533:
1526:
1520:
1514:
1508:
1504:
1498:
1487:
1481:
1473:
1467:
1464:
1458:
1435:
1429:
1413:
1407:
1397:
1391:
1381:
1375:
1372:
1366:
1363:
1357:
1335:
1329:
1326:
1320:
1312:
1306:
1303:
1297:
1296:
1294:
1292:
1278:
1269:
1268:
1266:
1264:
1253:
1244:
1236:
1227:
1219:
1213:
1207:
1201:
1200:
1198:
1196:
1182:
1176:
1175:
1169:
1167:
1156:
1150:
1142:
1133:
1132:
1126:
1097:
1091:
1090:
1088:
1086:
1076:
1066:
1060:
1059:
1057:
1055:
1044:
1038:
1030:
1021:
1013:
1007:
999:
993:
992:
990:
988:
977:
964:
956:
945:
937:
931:
923:
917:
909:
903:
895:
889:
888:
886:
884:
865:
859:
851:
845:
844:
842:
840:
821:
815:
813:
793:
778:
777:
775:
773:
762:
756:
755:
753:
751:
740:
734:
728:
722:
718:
714:
702:
686:
677:See for example
675:
669:
658:
652:
649:
643:
633:
616:Wim van der Eijk
292:Oral proceedings
21:
3294:
3293:
3289:
3288:
3287:
3285:
3284:
3283:
3279:Legal procedure
3254:
3253:
3252:
3247:
3188:
3178:
3109:North Macedonia
2976:
2975:EPC contracting
2970:
2926:Prohibition of
2847:
2816:
2787:Grant procedure
2775:
2754:
2733:
2728:
2687:
2637:
2627:
2608:
2592:
2590:Further reading
2587:
2574:
2573:
2569:
2552:
2543:
2530:
2516:
2512:
2502:
2500:
2493:
2489:
2469:
2465:
2455:
2453:
2452:on 7 April 2014
2441:
2440:
2436:
2418:
2414:
2404:
2402:
2401:on 3 March 2011
2389:
2388:
2377:
2367:
2363:
2357:Unilin v. Berry
2353:Lenzing's Appn.
2342:
2338:
2328:
2321:
2311:
2309:
2308:on 7 April 2014
2297:
2296:
2289:
2279:
2275:
2265:
2263:
2262:on 7 April 2014
2251:
2250:
2246:
2236:
2232:
2227:
2223:
2213:
2209:
2204:
2200:
2190:
2186:
2176:
2172:
2164:
2157:
2149:
2145:
2132:
2130:
2123:
2119:
2118:
2114:
2106:
2102:
2092:
2088:
2078:
2074:
2065:
2061:
2052:
2048:
2039:
2035:
2026:
2022:
2014:
2010:
1993:
1989:
1978:
1974:
1956:
1952:
1942:
1940:
1939:on 7 April 2014
1928:
1927:
1923:
1917:
1913:
1908:
1904:
1897:
1893:
1883:
1881:
1872:
1871:
1867:
1854:
1850:
1839:
1835:
1825:
1821:
1811:
1807:
1797:
1793:
1788:
1784:
1779:
1775:
1767:
1763:
1758:
1754:
1744:
1742:
1733:
1732:
1717:
1708:
1704:
1695:
1688:
1679:
1675:
1666:
1659:
1651:
1647:
1637:
1633:
1623:
1619:
1603:
1601:
1592:
1591:
1587:
1575:
1571:
1561:
1557:
1549:. Reasons 1.2.
1541:
1540:
1536:
1527:
1523:
1515:
1511:
1505:
1501:
1488:
1484:
1474:
1470:
1465:
1461:
1436:
1432:
1414:
1410:
1398:
1394:
1382:
1378:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1360:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1323:
1313:
1309:
1304:
1300:
1290:
1288:
1280:
1279:
1272:
1262:
1260:
1255:
1254:
1247:
1237:
1230:
1220:
1216:
1208:
1204:
1194:
1192:
1184:
1183:
1179:
1165:
1163:
1158:
1157:
1153:
1143:
1136:
1098:
1094:
1084:
1082:
1074:
1067:
1063:
1053:
1051:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1031:
1024:
1014:
1010:
1000:
996:
986:
984:
979:
978:
967:
957:
948:
938:
934:
926:Article 112a(2)
924:
920:
912:Article 112a(1)
910:
906:
898:Article 112a(5)
896:
892:
882:
880:
867:
866:
862:
852:
848:
838:
836:
823:
822:
818:
814:(section 16.10)
810:
794:
781:
771:
769:
764:
763:
759:
749:
747:
742:
741:
737:
729:
725:
716:
712:
703:
699:
695:
690:
689:
676:
672:
659:
655:
650:
646:
634:
630:
625:
584:
521:reserves under
456:
454:Case references
411:Sir Robin Jacob
403:
388:
366:ratio decidendi
350:
341:
311:
299:videoconference
294:
281:
272:
250:
237:
220:
203:
168:
120:
53:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
3292:
3282:
3281:
3276:
3271:
3266:
3249:
3248:
3246:
3245:
3237:
3229:
3221:
3213:
3205:
3196:
3194:
3180:
3179:
3177:
3176:
3174:United Kingdom
3171:
3166:
3161:
3156:
3151:
3146:
3141:
3136:
3131:
3126:
3121:
3116:
3111:
3106:
3101:
3096:
3091:
3086:
3081:
3076:
3071:
3066:
3061:
3056:
3051:
3046:
3041:
3036:
3031:
3026:
3021:
3016:
3014:Czech Republic
3011:
3006:
3001:
2996:
2991:
2986:
2980:
2978:
2972:
2971:
2969:
2968:
2963:
2958:
2953:
2948:
2943:
2936:
2934:Representation
2931:
2923:
2916:
2911:
2906:
2901:
2896:
2891:
2886:
2881:
2876:
2871:
2866:
2861:
2855:
2853:
2852:Related topics
2849:
2848:
2846:
2845:
2840:
2835:
2830:
2824:
2822:
2818:
2817:
2815:
2814:
2809:
2804:
2799:
2794:
2789:
2783:
2781:
2777:
2776:
2774:
2773:
2768:
2762:
2760:
2756:
2755:
2753:
2752:
2747:
2741:
2739:
2738:Founding texts
2735:
2734:
2727:
2726:
2719:
2712:
2704:
2698:
2697:
2692:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2665:
2655:
2649:
2636:
2635:External links
2633:
2632:
2631:
2625:
2612:
2606:
2591:
2588:
2586:
2585:
2567:
2541:
2510:
2487:
2463:
2434:
2412:
2375:
2361:
2336:
2319:
2287:
2273:
2244:
2230:
2221:
2215:Article 112(3)
2207:
2198:
2184:
2170:
2155:
2143:
2112:
2100:
2086:
2080:Rule 103(1)(b)
2072:
2046:
2020:
2018:, Reasons 1.2.
2008:
2006:
2005:
2001:, reasons 2:
1987:
1972:
1958:Rule 103(1)(a)
1950:
1921:
1911:
1902:
1891:
1865:
1848:
1840:EPO web site,
1833:
1827:Article 116(3)
1819:
1813:Article 116(4)
1805:
1799:Article 116(1)
1791:
1782:
1773:
1761:
1752:
1715:
1686:
1657:
1645:
1631:
1617:
1585:
1569:
1555:
1534:
1521:
1509:
1499:
1482:
1468:
1459:
1430:
1408:
1392:
1376:
1367:
1358:
1338:Rule 103(1)(a)
1330:
1321:
1315:Article 109(2)
1307:
1298:
1270:
1245:
1239:Article 109(1)
1228:
1214:
1202:
1177:
1151:
1145:Article 106(1)
1134:
1109:(2): 377–408.
1092:
1061:
1039:
1022:
1008:
994:
965:
946:
932:
918:
904:
890:
860:
854:Article 112(1)
846:
816:
808:
779:
757:
735:
723:
696:
694:
691:
688:
687:
670:
653:
644:
627:
626:
624:
621:
620:
619:
613:
607:
604:European Union
597:
591:
583:
580:
549:
548:
535:
512:
506:
500:
494:
481:
455:
452:
440:unitary patent
402:
399:
387:
384:
349:
346:
340:
337:
319:Article 113(1)
310:
307:
293:
290:
280:
277:
271:
268:
261:Article 114(2)
249:
246:
236:
233:
219:
212:
202:
199:
173:Carl Josefsson
167:
164:
150:, the revised
119:
116:
77:administrative
52:
49:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3291:
3280:
3277:
3275:
3272:
3270:
3267:
3265:
3262:
3261:
3259:
3241:
3238:
3233:
3230:
3225:
3222:
3217:
3214:
3209:
3206:
3201:
3198:
3197:
3195:
3181:
3175:
3172:
3170:
3167:
3165:
3162:
3160:
3157:
3155:
3152:
3150:
3147:
3145:
3142:
3140:
3137:
3135:
3132:
3130:
3127:
3125:
3122:
3120:
3117:
3115:
3112:
3110:
3107:
3105:
3102:
3100:
3097:
3095:
3092:
3090:
3087:
3085:
3082:
3080:
3077:
3075:
3074:Liechtenstein
3072:
3070:
3067:
3065:
3062:
3060:
3057:
3055:
3052:
3050:
3047:
3045:
3042:
3040:
3037:
3035:
3032:
3030:
3027:
3025:
3022:
3020:
3017:
3015:
3012:
3010:
3007:
3005:
3002:
3000:
2997:
2995:
2992:
2990:
2987:
2985:
2982:
2981:
2979:
2973:
2967:
2964:
2962:
2959:
2957:
2954:
2952:
2949:
2947:
2944:
2942:
2941:
2937:
2935:
2932:
2930:
2929:
2924:
2922:
2921:
2917:
2915:
2912:
2910:
2907:
2905:
2902:
2900:
2897:
2895:
2892:
2890:
2887:
2885:
2882:
2880:
2877:
2875:
2872:
2870:
2867:
2865:
2862:
2860:
2857:
2856:
2854:
2850:
2844:
2841:
2839:
2836:
2834:
2831:
2829:
2828:Case Law book
2826:
2825:
2823:
2819:
2813:
2810:
2808:
2805:
2803:
2800:
2798:
2795:
2793:
2790:
2788:
2785:
2784:
2782:
2778:
2772:
2769:
2767:
2764:
2763:
2761:
2757:
2751:
2748:
2746:
2743:
2742:
2740:
2736:
2732:
2725:
2720:
2718:
2713:
2711:
2706:
2705:
2702:
2696:
2693:
2690:
2684:
2683:
2678:
2673:
2669:
2666:
2663:
2659:
2656:
2653:
2650:
2648:
2645:
2644:
2642:
2639:
2638:
2628:
2622:
2618:
2613:
2609:
2603:
2599:
2594:
2593:
2581:
2577:
2571:
2564:
2563:3-89605-084-2
2560:
2556:
2550:
2548:
2546:
2538:
2537:
2528:
2524:
2520:
2514:
2498:
2491:
2484:
2479:
2478:
2472:
2471:Joseph Straus
2467:
2451:
2447:
2446:
2438:
2431:
2427:
2426:
2421:
2416:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2386:
2384:
2382:
2380:
2373:
2370:
2369:Article 23(3)
2365:
2358:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2340:
2334:
2331:
2330:Article 23(1)
2326:
2324:
2307:
2303:
2302:
2294:
2292:
2285:
2282:
2281:Article 11(3)
2277:
2261:
2257:
2256:
2248:
2240:
2234:
2225:
2219:
2216:
2211:
2202:
2196:
2193:
2188:
2182:
2179:
2174:
2167:
2162:
2160:
2153:, Reasons 2.3
2152:
2147:
2140:
2129:
2122:
2116:
2109:
2104:
2098:
2095:
2090:
2084:
2081:
2076:
2069:
2058:
2057:
2050:
2043:
2032:
2031:
2024:
2017:
2012:
2003:
2002:
2000:
1996:
1991:
1985:
1982:
1976:
1969:
1966:
1962:
1959:
1954:
1938:
1934:
1933:
1925:
1915:
1906:
1900:
1895:
1879:
1875:
1869:
1862:
1858:
1852:
1845:
1844:
1837:
1831:
1828:
1823:
1817:
1814:
1809:
1803:
1800:
1795:
1786:
1777:
1770:
1765:
1756:
1740:
1736:
1730:
1728:
1726:
1724:
1722:
1720:
1712:
1701:
1700:
1693:
1691:
1683:
1672:
1671:
1664:
1662:
1654:
1649:
1643:
1640:
1635:
1629:
1626:
1621:
1613:
1599:
1595:
1589:
1582:
1578:
1573:
1567:
1564:
1559:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1538:
1531:
1525:
1518:
1513:
1503:
1496:
1492:
1486:
1480:
1477:
1472:
1463:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1447:
1442:
1439:
1434:
1427:
1424:
1421:, previously
1420:
1417:
1412:
1405:
1402:
1396:
1389:
1386:
1380:
1371:
1362:
1356:
1353:
1349:
1346:
1342:
1339:
1334:
1325:
1319:
1316:
1311:
1302:
1286:
1285:
1277:
1275:
1258:
1252:
1250:
1243:
1240:
1235:
1233:
1226:
1223:
1218:
1212:, Reasons 14.
1211:
1206:
1190:
1189:
1181:
1174:
1161:
1155:
1149:
1146:
1141:
1139:
1131:
1125:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1096:
1080:
1072:
1065:
1049:
1043:
1037:
1034:
1029:
1027:
1020:
1017:
1012:
1006:
1003:
998:
982:
976:
974:
972:
970:
963:
960:
955:
953:
951:
944:
941:
940:Article 23(1)
936:
930:
927:
922:
916:
913:
908:
902:
899:
894:
878:
874:
873:
864:
858:
855:
850:
834:
830:
829:
820:
811:
805:
801:
800:
792:
790:
788:
786:
784:
767:
761:
745:
739:
732:
727:
720:
709:
708:
701:
697:
684:
680:
674:
667:
663:
657:
648:
641:
638:
632:
628:
617:
614:
611:
608:
605:
601:
598:
595:
592:
589:
586:
585:
579:
577:
574:
571:
568:
565:
562:
557:
555:
546:
543:
539:
536:
534:
531:
527:
524:
520:
516:
513:
510:
507:
504:
501:
498:
495:
492:
489:
485:
482:
479:
476:
472:
469:
468:
467:
465:
461:
451:
449:
445:
441:
436:
430:
428:
424:
418:
416:
412:
409:According to
407:
398:
396:
393:
383:
380:
378:
375:
370:
367:
361:
359:
358:jurisprudence
355:
345:
336:
335:Convention."
332:
330:
327:
323:
320:
315:
306:
302:
300:
289:
287:
276:
267:
265:
262:
257:
255:
245:
241:
232:
228:
225:
217:
211:
209:
198:
196:
191:
189:
186:
181:
176:
174:
163:
161:
155:
153:
149:
145:
140:
138:
133:
128:
126:
125:points of law
115:
113:
109:
105:
102:(a suburb of
101:
97:
93:
88:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
62:
57:
48:
46:
42:
38:
34:
30:
19:
2938:
2927:
2919:
2801:
2680:
2616:
2597:
2580:the original
2570:
2554:
2535:
2526:
2522:
2518:
2513:
2501:. Retrieved
2490:
2481:
2475:
2466:
2454:. Retrieved
2450:the original
2444:
2437:
2424:
2415:
2403:. Retrieved
2399:the original
2394:
2364:
2356:
2352:
2344:
2339:
2310:. Retrieved
2306:the original
2300:
2276:
2264:. Retrieved
2260:the original
2254:
2247:
2238:
2233:
2224:
2210:
2201:
2187:
2173:
2168:, Reasons 1.
2146:
2138:
2131:. Retrieved
2127:
2115:
2103:
2089:
2075:
2054:
2049:
2028:
2023:
2011:
1990:
1975:
1953:
1941:. Retrieved
1937:the original
1931:
1924:
1914:
1905:
1894:
1882:. Retrieved
1877:
1868:
1851:
1842:
1836:
1822:
1808:
1794:
1785:
1776:
1764:
1755:
1743:. Retrieved
1738:
1697:
1668:
1648:
1634:
1620:
1602:. Retrieved
1597:
1588:
1572:
1558:
1550:
1546:
1537:
1524:
1512:
1502:
1485:
1471:
1462:
1445:
1433:
1411:
1395:
1379:
1370:
1361:
1333:
1324:
1310:
1301:
1289:. Retrieved
1283:
1261:. Retrieved
1217:
1205:
1193:. Retrieved
1187:
1180:
1171:
1164:. Retrieved
1154:
1128:
1106:
1102:
1095:
1083:. Retrieved
1078:
1064:
1052:. Retrieved
1042:
1011:
997:
985:. Retrieved
935:
921:
907:
893:
881:. Retrieved
877:the original
870:
863:
849:
837:. Retrieved
833:the original
826:
819:
798:
770:. Retrieved
760:
748:. Retrieved
738:
726:
705:
700:
673:
661:
656:
647:
631:
558:
553:
550:
537:
514:
508:
502:
496:
488:Article 112a
483:
470:
463:
460:alphanumeric
457:
431:
426:
422:
419:
408:
404:
389:
381:
371:
362:
351:
342:
333:
316:
312:
303:
295:
282:
273:
258:
251:
242:
238:
229:
223:
221:
215:
204:
192:
177:
169:
156:
141:
129:
121:
89:
66:
44:
26:
3274:Judiciaries
3189:validation
3164:Switzerland
3104:Netherlands
2812:Enforcement
2531:(in French)
1884:19 December
1739:www.epo.org
1598:www.epo.org
1563:Article 110
1547:new.epo.org
1476:Article 107
1438:Article 108
1416:Rule 101(1)
1222:Rule 100(1)
1166:12 February
1016:Rule 12b(2)
1002:Rule 12b(1)
959:Rule 12a(1)
637:Article 172
475:Article 112
442:" in cases
326:Rule 111(2)
218:proceedings
114:, Germany.
108:Netherlands
3258:Categories
3183:Extension
3134:San Marino
3099:Montenegro
3084:Luxembourg
2899:Guidelines
2792:Opposition
2422:(SACEPO),
2405:6 February
1981:Rule 68(2)
1963:(formerly
1745:28 January
1343:(formerly
1263:22 October
1085:4 February
1054:4 February
987:4 February
693:References
542:Article 23
425:" or the "
354:common law
185:Article 26
85:opposition
3079:Lithuania
2869:Espacenet
2780:Procedure
2349:GRUR Int.
2166:T 1099/06
2108:T 1402/13
1979:formerly
1861:T 1012/03
772:6 October
530:Rule 68.3
523:Rule 40.2
201:Procedure
110:), or in
104:The Hague
3208:Cambodia
3149:Slovenia
3144:Slovakia
3124:Portugal
2999:Bulgaria
2821:Case law
2456:3 August
2312:3 August
2266:3 August
2151:T 740/98
1984:EPC 1973
1968:EPC 1973
1943:5 August
1426:EPC 1973
1348:EPC 1973
1033:Rule 12c
883:5 August
839:5 August
750:1 August
662:ex parte
582:See also
464:T 285/93
448:C-147/13
444:C-146/13
392:Rule 140
224:ex parte
216:ex parte
148:EPC 2000
132:case law
100:Rijswijk
81:granting
73:judicial
51:Overview
3240:Tunisia
3232:Morocco
3224:Moldova
3216:Georgia
3129:Romania
3059:Ireland
3054:Iceland
3049:Hungary
3039:Germany
3029:Finland
3024:Estonia
3019:Denmark
3004:Croatia
2994:Belgium
2989:Austria
2984:Albania
2864:epoline
2128:epo.org
1965:Rule 67
1919:Chair."
1878:epo.org
1423:Rule 65
1345:Rule 67
1195:30 June
538:Art. 23
435:R 19/12
195:R 19/12
3193:states
3169:Turkey
3159:Sweden
3139:Serbia
3119:Poland
3114:Norway
3094:Monaco
3069:Latvia
3044:Greece
3034:France
3009:Cyprus
2977:states
2802:Appeal
2759:Organs
2623:
2604:
2561:
2503:12 May
2477:Appeal
2068:.9.5.1
1711:.7.2.1
1682:.3.2.1
1612:G 7/93
1291:7 July
806:
390:Under
171:Judge
112:Berlin
92:Munich
61:Munich
33:treaty
3154:Spain
3089:Malta
3064:Italy
2527:R4/08
2523:R2/08
2519:R1/08
2483:case.
2133:3 May
2124:(PDF)
1604:4 May
1451:IPKat
1130:(...)
1075:(PDF)
623:Notes
2894:Fees
2672:here
2621:ISBN
2602:ISBN
2559:ISBN
2517:See
2505:2014
2458:2012
2407:2018
2314:2012
2268:2012
2135:2020
2042:.9.5
1945:2012
1886:2020
1747:2024
1606:2022
1293:2013
1265:2019
1197:2013
1168:2018
1087:2018
1079:Sic!
1056:2018
989:2018
885:2012
841:2012
804:ISBN
774:2017
752:2017
719:.1.1
446:and
96:Haar
83:and
27:The
3243:(V)
3235:(V)
3227:(V)
3219:(V)
3211:(V)
3203:(E)
3191:(V)
3187:and
3185:(E)
2372:EPC
2333:EPC
2284:EPC
2218:EPC
2195:EPC
2181:EPC
2097:EPC
2083:EPC
1961:EPC
1830:EPC
1816:EPC
1802:EPC
1642:EPC
1628:EPC
1566:EPC
1479:EPC
1441:EPC
1419:EPC
1404:EPC
1388:EPC
1355:EPC
1350:);
1341:EPC
1318:EPC
1242:EPC
1225:EPC
1148:EPC
1119:hdl
1111:doi
1036:EPC
1019:EPC
1005:EPC
962:EPC
943:EPC
929:EPC
915:EPC
901:EPC
857:EPC
640:EPC
578:).
545:EPC
533:PCT
528:or
526:PCT
519:PCT
491:EPC
478:EPC
395:EPC
377:EPC
329:EPC
322:EPC
301:.
264:EPC
188:EPC
139:.
3260::
2565:).
2544:^
2473:,
2393:.
2378:^
2347:,
2322:^
2290:^
2158:^
2137:.
2126:.
1876:.
1737:.
1718:^
1689:^
1660:^
1596:.
1545:.
1449:,
1273:^
1248:^
1231:^
1170:.
1137:^
1127:.
1117:.
1105:.
1077:.
1025:^
968:^
949:^
782:^
450:.
106:,
2723:e
2716:t
2709:v
2688:v
2674:)
2629:.
2610:.
2507:.
2485:"
2460:.
2432:.
2409:.
2316:.
2270:.
2066:a
2064:.
2062:v
2040:a
2038:.
2036:v
1947:.
1888:.
1749:.
1709:a
1707:.
1705:v
1680:a
1678:.
1676:v
1608:.
1457:.
1428:.
1406:.
1390:.
1295:.
1267:.
1199:.
1121::
1113::
1107:8
1089:.
1058:.
991:.
887:.
843:.
812:.
776:.
754:.
717:a
715:.
713:v
685:.
642:.
554:V
552:"
515:W
509:D
503:J
497:T
493:)
484:R
480:)
471:G
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.