Appeal procedure before the European Patent Office

1993:"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)". 229:

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."

199:. 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." 45: 220:

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.

124:

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

264:

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".

216:

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.

1508:, 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."). 418:". 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. 286:

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

693:"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, 368:) 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. 255:) 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". 87:, 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 2231:

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."

1959:). 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." 164:. 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. 2230:

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

426:

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

219:

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

860:

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

816:

409:

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,

332:

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

228:

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

194:

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

123:

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

111:

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

352:

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

293:

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

263:

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

159:

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

1603:

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

1495:

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

394:

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

285:

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

272:

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

171:

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.

357:

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

215:

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

1161:

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

421:

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

323:

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

146:

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

1517:"The requirements for admissibility must be sustained throughout the duration of the appeal proceedings (see Singer/Stauder, EPÜ, 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 722:, 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." 1540:(...) 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. 302:

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.

232:

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.

1907:

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

1572:, 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." 540:

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

1089:

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".

2471:

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

320:). 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". 2831: 2821: 548:

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

1118:

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

2826: 1482:, 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 386:, "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. 427:

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

2465:

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

1604:

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).

277:(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. 2785: 654: 182:

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

640:

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.

2485: 410:

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 "

2902: 2486:"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" 24:

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

2463: 1863:"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" 2816: 2670: 2044: 2018: 1687: 1658: 695: 2934: 2408: 186:

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."

1760:, 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." 2847: 1919: 2928: 2348:

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.

2759: 2650: 371:

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.

168: 1921:

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

2887: 2795: 132: 970:"Supplementary publication 1, Official Journal 2018, Information from the Boards of Appeal Presidium, business distribution and texts relating to the proceedings" 858: 814: 657:. 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). 2780: 2710: 2432: 2288: 2242: 73: 2939: 2882: 2914: 1723: 306:

A substantial procedural violation may for instance occur during the first instance proceedings if the right of the parties to be heard were violated (

349:

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.

2775: 135:

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

69: 29: 406:. They are not bound by any instructions, such as the "Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office". They have a duty of independence. 2922: 2379: 294:

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.

2954: 2907: 179:) and the remaining three are "serving or former judges of international or European courts or of national courts of the Contracting States". 2564: 2412: 1455:

Article 12(3) RPBA 2020, first sentence: "The statement of grounds of appeal and the reply shall contain a party's complete appeal case."

576: 148: 76:

procedures before the EPO. The Boards of Appeal have been recognised as courts, or tribunals, of an international organisation, the EPO.

447:

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

147:"Administrative Council, on a proposal from the Enlarged Board of Appeal, takes a decision to this effect." The Enlarged Board has been 2703: 1036: 582: 241:

If the appeal is found to be admissible, the Board of Appeal examines whether the appeal is allowable, i.e. the Board addresses the

2643:, incorporating decisions up to the end of 2021 "as well as a number of particularly important ones from the first months of 2022". 1600: 1757: 1569: 2877: 79:

The Boards of Appeal of the EPO, including the Enlarged Board of Appeal, were until 2017 based at the headquarters of the EPO in

1925: 3257: 2696: 2613: 2594: 796: 2892: 1432:. Regarding the calculation of the two-month deadline for filing the notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee, see also 245:. When doing so, "the boards have competence to review appealed decisions in full, including points of law and fact". 2523: 1862: 865: 821: 2551: 2414:

Organisational autonomy of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office within the European Patent Organisation

2049: 1692: 1663: 2438: 2294: 2248: 1059: 2023: 732: 700: 2800: 969: 1478:"A party is only adversely affected if the order of the appealed decision does not comply with its request." in 1433: 455:. The first letter (or the text "Art 23") of the reference indicates the type of board which took the decision: 2128:... the withdrawal of the appeal must be expressed by an explicit and absolutely clear statement. (reasons 2.2) 1845: 671: 598: 1844:"The right to oral proceedings according to Article 116 EPC is a specific and codified part of the procedural 2154: 119:

The first two functions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal are to make decisions or to issue opinions when the

2719: 2139: 1849: 1641: 1582: 1565: 1443: 1245: 1148: 565: 562: 559: 556: 553: 550: 36:

is under the responsibility of its Boards of Appeal, which are institutionally independent within the EPO.

2660: 2004: 1983: 1505: 2635: 1887: 1518: 1151:(in German). Legal Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office. 30 January 2018. Entscheidungsgründe, 2 2387: 2733: 2360: 2321: 2272: 2206: 2183: 2169: 2109: 2085: 2071: 1972: 1956: 1949: 1818: 1804: 1790: 1630: 1616: 1554: 1467: 1429: 1414: 1407: 1392: 1376: 1343: 1336: 1329: 1306: 1230: 1213: 1136: 1024: 1007: 993: 950: 931: 917: 903: 889: 845: 667: 628: 533: 479: 466: 403: 383: 365: 317: 310: 252: 176: 140: 17: 2096: 1987: 1483: 1479: 624:

A revision of the European Patent Convention necessitates a Conference of the Contracting States, see

3252: 2867: 588: 521: 514: 507: 196: 125: 2587:

Proceedings Before the European Patent Office: A Practical Guide to Success in Opposition and Appeal

1531: 3267: 2872: 2862: 2640: 2897: 2568: 2434:

Case law of the EPO boards of appeal: a review by internal and external experts, Opening address

2290:

Case law of the EPO boards of appeal: a review by internal and external experts, Opening address

2244:

Case law of the EPO boards of appeal: a review by internal and external experts, Opening address

1830: 333:

stages of the appeal proceedings. The withdrawal of an appeal must be explicit and unambiguous.

327: 151:

to propose the removal from office of the same Board member, but did so in none of these cases.

3188: 2754: 402:, the members of the Boards of Appeal are "judges in all but name". They are only bound by the 161: 143:, that a petition for review of a decision of a Board may be filed, albeit on limited grounds. 57: 25: 44: 786: 65: 3262: 2944: 2653:

in decision CA/D 5/19 Corr. 1 of 26 June 2019), which entered into force on January 1, 2020

274: 1198: 719: 8: 3047: 2629: 754: 2675: 1271: 1175: 248:

In that context, if the first instance department exercised its discretion (pursuant to

2641:

Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 10th edition, July 2022

297: 242: 1969: 1953: 1411: 1333: 1273:

EPO boards of appeal and key decisions, The appeal procedure from A to Z (Part 3 of 3)

1177:

EPO boards of appeal and key decisions, The appeal procedure from A to Z (Part 1 of 3)

672:

decision of 23 September 2022 correcting an error in the decision of 20 September 2022

3204: 2609: 2590: 2547: 1112: 1103: 1062:[Reorganisation of the Boards of Appeal in the European Patent Organisation] 792: 579:, decisions relating to the suspension of a member of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO 60:(EPO) can be appealed, i.e. challenged, before the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, in a 2005:

Decision T 1205/12 (Optimization of decisions/LANDMARK GRAPHICS) of 14 December 2012

2656: 2437:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 4:52 to 6:17 minutes in. Archived from 2418: 2293:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 1:19 to 2:16 minutes in. Archived from 2247:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 2:16 to 4:01 minutes in. Archived from 1924:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 3:05 to 3:25 minutes in. Archived from 1107: 1099: 914: 900: 886: 864:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 7:32 to 7:45 minutes in. Archived from 820:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 0:50 to 1:15 minutes in. Archived from 604: 545:" is sometimes used to refer to a decision of an Examining or Opposition Division. 518: 511: 476: 112:

the classical sense. It is fundamentally a legal instance in charge of deciding on

2646: 2203: 2180: 2166: 2082: 2068: 1946: 1815: 1801: 1787: 1627: 1613: 1551: 1464: 1426: 1404: 1389: 1373: 1340: 1326: 1303: 1227: 1210: 1133: 1021: 1004: 990: 947: 842: 625: 463: 380: 362: 314: 307: 249: 3097: 2357: 2318: 2269: 1496:

1.2(i) and 1.3 of the reasons) and T 0473/98 (points 2.2 to 2.8 of the reasons)."

928: 607:, former Vice-President of the European Patent Office, head of the DG 3 (Appeals) 530: 399: 354: 287: 173: 1583:"T 0960/15 (Radiotherapeutic treatment plan adaptation / Philips) of 22.12.2021" 3162: 3002: 2949: 2688: 2528:, Le blog du droit européen des brevets, 6 July 2008. Consulted on 6 July 2008. 592: 428: 1060:"Neuorganisation der Beschwerdekammern in der Europäischen Patentorganisation" 3246: 3062: 2459: 346: 328:

Full or partial reimbursement of the appeal fee upon withdrawal of the appeal

113: 84: 2384:

Legislative initiatives > Organisational autonomy of the boards of appeal

1519:

Decision of the Legal Board of Appeal dated 31 March 2008, J 10/07 – 3.1.01

448: 529:– Enlarged Board of Appeal (proposals to the Administrative Council under 202: 3152: 3092: 2668: