InternationalUSRemember you can easily switch between MIP US and MIP International at any time

EPO: EPO Appeal Board condemns examination delay




While the recently released EPO performance statistics for 2015 show an increase in the number of grants compared to the previous year and a decrease of backlog of searches by two thirds, delay in examination of pending cases is still of concern to some. A recent appeal decision rendered in the field of computer implemented inventions reveals that excessive examination delays do not amuse the Boards of Appeal. More specifically, in decision T 823/11 rendered in December 2015, Board 3.5.07 has ruled that duration of examination proceedings of more than 12 years must be regarded as excessive and amounts to a substantial procedural violation.

In the case appealed, the examining division had refused an application relating to the configuration of a clinical device in a patient care management system. The application entered the European phase in December 1997, and the firstinstance decision refusing the application was dispatched in September 2010. During the examination proceedings, the applicant sent two letters in 2004 and 2006, respectively, reminding the examining division of the case. According to the appeal decision, the applicant dealt adequately with the examining division's objections in the examination phase. An amended set of claims filed by the applicant during oral proceedings before the examining division was, however, not admitted into the proceedings.

In decision T 823/11, the Board of Appeal noted in particular the delay of more than five years between the issuance of the search report and the examining division's first communication. Referring to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights dealing with delay of a national Norwegian patent application, the EPO appeal board held that the delay of the case, from which the appeal lies, was unacceptable having regard to the circumstances. The Board of Appeal further criticised the level of reasoning in the examining division's communications. The Board eventually admitted the applicant's auxiliary request, the subjectmatter of which was held patentable, and reimbursement of the appeal fee was ordered.

Jakob Pade Frederiksen

Inspicos P/S
Kogle Allé 2
DK-2970 Hoersholm
Copenhagen, Denmark
Tel: +45 7070 2422
Fax: +45 7070 2423


Comments






profile

Managing IP

ManagingIP

ManagingIP profile

RT @UPCtracker: This is one of nine (9) cases allocated to Justice Prof Huber (among them consolidated complaint re: adequate legal protect…

Feb 21 2018 05:15 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

The complaint against the legislation enabling Germany to ratify the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court is includ… https://t.co/91NMMhmuYn

Feb 21 2018 05:15 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Pfizer argued that plausibility should be an "evidential tool" not a "threshold test", while Actavis warned against… https://t.co/EqhdqxmE6J

Feb 21 2018 05:09 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
More from the Managing IP blog


null null null

null null null

February 2018

FRAND aid: Is the European Commission’s SEP guidance useful?

Both patent owners and implementers have welcomed the European Commission’s communication on standard essential patents. Does that mean it has successfully balanced competing interests or merely dodged the difficult questions? James Nurton investigates



Most read articles

Supplements