82:, "a petition under Article 112a, paragraph 2(a) to (d), is only admissible where an objection in respect of the procedural defect was raised during the appeal proceedings and dismissed by the Board of Appeal, except where such objection could not be raised during the appeal proceedings." In other words, unless the reason for an objection comes into light only in the written decision of the Board of Appeal, not raising an objection under Rule 106 EPC as early as possible during the appeal proceedings may be fatal to the admissibility of a petition for review. An objection under Rule 106 must be immediately recognizable by the Board of Appeal and it must be specific, i.e. "the party must indicate unambiguously which particular defect of those listed in paragraph 2(a) to (c) of Article 112a and Rule 104 EPC it intends to rely on".
371:, point 3: "That an objection is raised in good time is an indispensable prerequisite for the admissibility of a petition under Article 112a EPC. The wording of Rule 106 EPC does not say so explicitly, but it is in keeping with its spirit and purpose, which is that a party should draw the board's attention expressly, and separately from its other submissions, to any fundamental procedural defect to enable it to investigate and, if necessary, rectify the alleged defect while the proceedings are still pending – as envisaged in Rule 106 EPC – and thereby obviate the need for subsequent review proceedings under Article 112a EPC."
47:. The petition is a restricted form of judicial review, limited to examining serious errors of procedure which might have been committed by the Legal or Technical Boards of Appeal, prejudicing the right to a fair hearing of one or more appellants. Before the entry into force of the EPC 2000 in December 2007, it was not possible for a party who did not have his requests granted in an appeal to challenge the final decision of the Legal or Technical Board of Appeal on any grounds.
63:. The petition must be filed with a time limit of 2 months from the notification of the Board of Appeal's decision, except when based on the grounds that a criminal act may have affected the decision of the Board of Appeal. In the later case, the petition must be filed "within two months of the date on which the criminal act has been established", but no later than five years after notification of the Board of Appeal's decision. Furthermore, a fee must be paid.
128:
clearly cannot succeed." It is, in other words, a sifting process. To reject a petition as clearly inadmissible or unallowable, the three-member panel has to reach the decision unanimously. The decision is taken based only on what is in the petition, and the other party or parties, if any, are not involved and not invited to oral proceedings during that first stage. Most petitions are rejected during this first stage.
588:
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 4: Deciding on
548:
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 4: Deciding on
393:
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 4: Deciding on
136:
Secondly, if the petition is not rejected during the first stage, a five-member
Enlarged Board examines the petition as to its merits. If the petition is allowable, the decision is set aside, the case is re-opened and sent back to the Board which took the reviewed decision, and the fee paid upon
127:
First, a three-member
Enlarged Board decides whether the petition is clearly inadmissible or unallowable. If so, the petition is thrown out immediately. This first stage is "a quick screening process to be conducted by a three-member panel of the Enlarged Board in order to reject petitions which
110:
However, a procedural error marring the appeal proceedings does not, by itself, suffice to guarantee a successful petition. There must be a causal link between the alleged procedural defect and the damaging decision. Otherwise, the defect was not decisive and hence not fundamental.
863:
853:
146:
55:
A party to appeal proceedings may file a petition for review. To do so, the party must however have been adversely affected by the Board of Appeal's decision. The prescribed contents of the petition for review is laid out in
858:
66:
The review procedure has no suspensive effect on the Board of Appeal decision. If the petition is allowable, the
Enlarged Board of Appeal sets aside the decision and re‑opens proceedings before the Boards of Appeal.
43:". A petition for review can essentially only be based on a fundamental procedural defect. Its purpose is not to obtain a reconsideration of the application of substantive law, such as points relating to
137:
filing the petition for review is reimbursed to the successful petitioner. The
Enlarged Board of Appeal has also the power to replace members of the Board of Appeal who took the reviewed decision.
817:
934:
848:
966:
879:
960:
474:
EPO boards of appeal and key decisions, Petitions for review to the
Enlarged Board under Article 112a EPC, four years on – an overview of decisions to date (Part 4 of 4)
419:
EPO boards of appeal and key decisions, Petitions for review to the
Enlarged Board under Article 112a EPC, four years on – an overview of decisions to date (Part 1 of 4)
332:
EPO boards of appeal and key decisions, Petitions for review to the
Enlarged Board under Article 112a EPC, four years on – an overview of decisions to date (Part 1 of 4)
791:
919:
812:
742:
971:
914:
437:
946:
242:
822:
200:
107:
occurred (violation of the right to be heard) is one of those most expected to be relied upon and, at the same time, it leaves much room for argument.
29:
807:
954:
226:
986:
939:
631:
533:
500:
488:
433:
648:
167:(application no 98116534). The first allowable petition for review was decision R 7/09, for a fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC.
735:
909:
1284:
728:
686:
924:
451:
Petitions for review of European Patent Office (EPO) Appeal Board decisions by the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal: part II
668:
586:
546:
391:
832:
221:
197:
Petitions for review of European Patent Office (EPO) Appeal Board decisions by the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal
751:
700:
254:
765:
627:
613:
573:
529:
515:
356:
304:
290:
276:
104:
94:
79:
60:
36:
17:
368:
899:
904:
894:
929:
643:
1220:
786:
25:
691:, Le blog du droit européen des brevets, September 24, 2008. Consulted on September 30, 2008.
714:
147:
List of successful petitions for review under Article 112a of the European Patent Convention
976:
122:
8:
1079:
472:
417:
330:
119:
The actual procedure for examination of the petitions for review involves two stages.
1236:
552:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 2:58 to 3:14 and 6:27 to 6:48 minutes in
422:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 0:20 to 0:28 and 0:59 to 1:48 minutes in
454:
353:
301:
287:
273:
204:
91:
33:
624:
610:
570:
526:
512:
223:
Frequently asked questions about the revised European Patent Convention (EPC 2000)
101:
76:
57:
1129:
717:
at the EPO, including a section on the "Petitions for review under Art. 112a EPC"
673:, Le blog du droit européen des brevets, July 6, 2008. Consulted on July 6, 2008.
652:
230:
1194:
1034:
981:
720:
1278:
1094:
44:
458:
453:, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2011) 6 (2): 85-92.
208:
367:
Regarding the obligation to raise the objection as early as possible, see
97:. The available grounds are strictly limited to these enumerated grounds.
1184:
1124:
1154:
1119:
1104:
859:
Decisions of the Boards of Appeal relating to Article 52(2) and (3) EPC
123:
First stage: Rejection of clearly inadmissible or unallowable petitions
70:
1099:
889:
1228:
1169:
1164:
1144:
1019:
770:
592:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 2:50 to 2:56 minutes in
477:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 4:17 to 5:07 minutes in
397:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 0:56 to 1:52 minutes in
335:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 2:45 to 4:50 minutes in
40:
701:
Decision R 7/09 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal dated 22 July 2009
1260:
1252:
1244:
1149:
1074:
1069:
1059:
1049:
1044:
1039:
1024:
1014:
1009:
1004:
884:
1189:
1179:
1159:
1139:
1134:
1114:
1089:
1064:
1054:
1029:
1174:
1109:
1084:
501:
Enlarged Board of Appeal decision R5/08 of February 5, 2009
688:
Premières décisions statuant sur des requêtes en révision
90:
There are five sets of grounds for review as laid out in
39:
when the EPC was revised in 2000, to form the so-called "
131:
864:
Successful petitions for review under Article 112a EPC
854:
Decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
24:
is a request to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the
243:
Basic proposal for the revision of the EPC, MR/2/00
201:
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
71:
Obligation to raise objections (Rule 106 objection)
910:European Round Table on Patent Practice (EUROTAB)
1276:
750:
324:
322:
320:
318:
316:
314:
312:
380:R 4/08, point 2.1, discussed in Cockbain, 2009.
987:Unitary patent (Switzerland and Liechtenstein)
736:
309:
191:
189:
187:
185:
183:
181:
179:
50:
743:
729:
443:
100:The ground for review that a violation of
255:"Enlarged Board of Appeal Decision G1/97"
233:, item 14. Consulted on October 31, 2007.
176:
645:Petitions for review under Art. 112a EPC
151:The first petitions for review included
471:Kevin Garnett, QC (8–9 November 2012).
416:Kevin Garnett, QC (8–9 November 2012).
329:Kevin Garnett, QC (8–9 November 2012).
1277:
724:
585:Kevin Garnett QC (23–24 March 2011).
545:Kevin Garnett QC (23–24 March 2011).
390:Kevin Garnett QC (23–24 March 2011).
132:Second stage: Five-member examination
85:
967:Standing Advisory Committee (SACEPO)
13:
32:. The procedure was introduced in
14:
1296:
708:
589:petitions for review of decisions
549:petitions for review of decisions
394:petitions for review of decisions
766:European Patent Convention (EPC)
655:, consulted on December 3, 2008.
28:(EPO) to review a decision of a
900:European Patent Institute (epi)
694:
676:
658:
636:
618:
604:
578:
564:
538:
520:
506:
494:
464:
409:
383:
374:
361:
670:Premières requêtes en révision
347:
295:
281:
267:
247:
236:
214:
163:(application no 01943244) and
1:
935:Observations by third parties
170:
140:
1285:European Patent Organisation
787:European Patent Office (EPO)
752:European Patent Organisation
114:
7:
159:(application no 00936978),
155:(application no 97600009),
10:
1301:
977:Unified Patent Court (UPC)
771:Revised version (EPC 2000)
144:
18:European Patent Convention
1203:
995:
872:
841:
818:Limitation and revocation
800:
779:
758:
905:European Patent Register
895:European Patent Bulletin
715:Enlarged Board of Appeal
203:(2009) 4 (12): 876-892.
51:Requirements and effects
880:Divisional applications
1221:Bosnia and Herzegovina
961:Restitutio in integrum
792:Administrative Council
26:European Patent Office
459:10.1093/jiplp/jpq169
209:10.1093/jiplp/jpp168
982:Unitary patent (EU)
949:reformatio in peius
828:Petition for review
685:Laurent Teyssedre,
667:Laurent Teyssedre,
22:petition for review
651:2009-01-27 at the
229:2009-10-14 at the
86:Grounds for review
1272:
1271:
1265:
1257:
1249:
1241:
1233:
1225:
1213:
1207:
925:Judges' Symposium
449:Julian Cockbain,
195:Julian Cockbain,
1292:
1263:
1255:
1247:
1239:
1231:
1223:
1211:
1205:
972:Software patents
941:Official Journal
930:London Agreement
745:
738:
731:
722:
721:
703:
698:
692:
684:
680:
674:
666:
662:
656:
640:
634:
622:
616:
608:
602:
601:
599:
597:
582:
576:
568:
562:
561:
559:
557:
542:
536:
524:
518:
510:
504:
498:
492:
486:
484:
482:
468:
462:
447:
441:
431:
429:
427:
413:
407:
406:
404:
402:
387:
381:
378:
372:
365:
359:
351:
345:
344:
342:
340:
326:
307:
299:
293:
285:
279:
271:
265:
264:
262:
261:
251:
245:
240:
234:
218:
212:
193:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1268:
1209:
1199:
1130:North Macedonia
997:
996:EPC contracting
991:
947:Prohibition of
868:
837:
808:Grant procedure
796:
775:
754:
749:
711:
706:
699:
695:
682:
681:
677:
664:
663:
659:
653:Wayback Machine
641:
637:
623:
619:
609:
605:
595:
593:
584:
583:
579:
569:
565:
555:
553:
544:
543:
539:
525:
521:
511:
507:
499:
495:
480:
478:
470:
469:
465:
448:
444:
425:
423:
415:
414:
410:
400:
398:
389:
388:
384:
379:
375:
366:
362:
354:Article 112a(5)
352:
348:
338:
336:
328:
327:
310:
302:Article 112a(3)
300:
296:
288:Article 112a(4)
286:
282:
274:Article 112a(1)
272:
268:
259:
257:
253:
252:
248:
241:
237:
231:Wayback Machine
219:
215:
194:
177:
173:
149:
143:
134:
125:
117:
92:Article 112a(1)
88:
73:
53:
30:board of appeal
12:
11:
5:
1298:
1288:
1287:
1270:
1269:
1267:
1266:
1258:
1250:
1242:
1234:
1226:
1217:
1215:
1201:
1200:
1198:
1197:
1195:United Kingdom
1192:
1187:
1182:
1177:
1172:
1167:
1162:
1157:
1152:
1147:
1142:
1137:
1132:
1127:
1122:
1117:
1112:
1107:
1102:
1097:
1092:
1087:
1082:
1077:
1072:
1067:
1062:
1057:
1052:
1047:
1042:
1037:
1035:Czech Republic
1032:
1027:
1022:
1017:
1012:
1007:
1001:
999:
993:
992:
990:
989:
984:
979:
974:
969:
964:
957:
955:Representation
952:
944:
937:
932:
927:
922:
917:
912:
907:
902:
897:
892:
887:
882:
876:
874:
873:Related topics
870:
869:
867:
866:
861:
856:
851:
845:
843:
839:
838:
836:
835:
830:
825:
820:
815:
810:
804:
802:
798:
797:
795:
794:
789:
783:
781:
777:
776:
774:
773:
768:
762:
760:
759:Founding texts
756:
755:
748:
747:
740:
733:
725:
719:
718:
710:
709:External links
707:
705:
704:
693:
675:
657:
642:EPO web site,
635:
617:
603:
577:
563:
537:
519:
513:Rule 109(2)(a)
505:
493:
487:(referring to
463:
442:
432:(referring to
408:
382:
373:
360:
346:
308:
294:
280:
266:
246:
235:
220:EPO web site,
213:
174:
172:
169:
142:
139:
133:
130:
124:
121:
116:
113:
87:
84:
72:
69:
52:
49:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1297:
1286:
1283:
1282:
1280:
1262:
1259:
1254:
1251:
1246:
1243:
1238:
1235:
1230:
1227:
1222:
1219:
1218:
1216:
1202:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1183:
1181:
1178:
1176:
1173:
1171:
1168:
1166:
1163:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1143:
1141:
1138:
1136:
1133:
1131:
1128:
1126:
1123:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1113:
1111:
1108:
1106:
1103:
1101:
1098:
1096:
1095:Liechtenstein
1093:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1083:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1073:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1053:
1051:
1048:
1046:
1043:
1041:
1038:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1028:
1026:
1023:
1021:
1018:
1016:
1013:
1011:
1008:
1006:
1003:
1002:
1000:
994:
988:
985:
983:
980:
978:
975:
973:
970:
968:
965:
963:
962:
958:
956:
953:
951:
950:
945:
943:
942:
938:
936:
933:
931:
928:
926:
923:
921:
918:
916:
913:
911:
908:
906:
903:
901:
898:
896:
893:
891:
888:
886:
883:
881:
878:
877:
875:
871:
865:
862:
860:
857:
855:
852:
850:
849:Case Law book
847:
846:
844:
840:
834:
831:
829:
826:
824:
821:
819:
816:
814:
811:
809:
806:
805:
803:
799:
793:
790:
788:
785:
784:
782:
778:
772:
769:
767:
764:
763:
761:
757:
753:
746:
741:
739:
734:
732:
727:
726:
723:
716:
713:
712:
702:
697:
690:
689:
679:
672:
671:
661:
654:
650:
647:
646:
639:
633:
629:
626:
621:
615:
612:
607:
591:
590:
581:
575:
572:
567:
551:
550:
541:
535:
531:
528:
523:
517:
514:
509:
503:, Reasons 33.
502:
497:
491:, and R11/08)
490:
476:
475:
467:
460:
456:
452:
446:
439:
435:
421:
420:
412:
396:
395:
386:
377:
370:
364:
358:
355:
350:
334:
333:
325:
323:
321:
319:
317:
315:
313:
306:
303:
298:
292:
289:
284:
278:
275:
270:
256:
250:
244:
239:
232:
228:
225:
224:
217:
210:
206:
202:
198:
192:
190:
188:
186:
184:
182:
180:
175:
168:
166:
162:
158:
154:
148:
138:
129:
120:
112:
108:
106:
103:
98:
96:
93:
83:
81:
78:
68:
64:
62:
59:
48:
46:
45:patentability
42:
38:
35:
31:
27:
23:
19:
959:
948:
940:
827:
696:
687:
678:
669:
660:
644:
638:
620:
606:
594:. Retrieved
587:
580:
566:
554:. Retrieved
547:
540:
522:
508:
496:
479:. Retrieved
473:
466:
450:
445:
424:. Retrieved
418:
411:
399:. Retrieved
392:
385:
376:
363:
349:
337:. Retrieved
331:
297:
283:
269:
258:. Retrieved
249:
238:
222:
216:
196:
164:
160:
156:
152:
150:
135:
126:
118:
109:
99:
89:
74:
65:
54:
34:Article 112a
21:
15:
1210:validation
1185:Switzerland
1125:Netherlands
833:Enforcement
683:(in French)
665:(in French)
625:Rule 108(3)
527:Rule 109(3)
481:November 9,
102:Article 113
1204:Extension
1155:San Marino
1120:Montenegro
1105:Luxembourg
920:Guidelines
813:Opposition
260:2020-05-05
171:References
145:See also:
141:Statistics
16:Under the
1100:Lithuania
890:Espacenet
801:Procedure
596:August 5,
556:August 5,
401:August 5,
115:Procedure
20:(EPC), a
1279:Category
1229:Cambodia
1170:Slovenia
1165:Slovakia
1145:Portugal
1020:Bulgaria
842:Case law
649:Archived
611:Rule 110
571:Rule 108
227:Archived
77:Rule 106
58:Rule 107
41:EPC 2000
1261:Tunisia
1253:Morocco
1245:Moldova
1237:Georgia
1150:Romania
1080:Ireland
1075:Iceland
1070:Hungary
1060:Germany
1050:Finland
1045:Estonia
1040:Denmark
1025:Croatia
1015:Belgium
1010:Austria
1005:Albania
885:epoline
426:July 8,
339:July 8,
1214:states
1190:Turkey
1180:Sweden
1160:Serbia
1140:Poland
1135:Norway
1115:Monaco
1090:Latvia
1065:Greece
1055:France
1030:Cyprus
998:states
823:Appeal
780:Organs
632:R 5/08
534:R 5/08
489:R 1/08
438:R 2/08
434:R 1/08
369:R 1/14
75:Under
1175:Spain
1110:Malta
1085:Italy
165:R4/08
161:R3/08
157:R2/08
153:R1/08
915:Fees
630:and
598:2012
558:2012
532:and
483:2013
436:and
428:2013
403:2012
341:2013
1264:(V)
1256:(V)
1248:(V)
1240:(V)
1232:(V)
1224:(E)
1212:(V)
1208:and
1206:(E)
628:EPC
614:EPC
574:EPC
530:EPC
516:EPC
455:doi
357:EPC
305:EPC
291:EPC
277:EPC
205:doi
105:EPC
95:EPC
80:EPC
61:EPC
37:EPC
1281::
311:^
199:,
178:^
744:e
737:t
730:v
600:.
560:.
485:.
461:.
457::
440:)
430:.
405:.
343:.
263:.
211:.
207::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.