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

European Patent Office: Frontloaded proceedings at the Boards




One of the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal has recently reminded the community of the front-loaded nature of inter partes opposition proceedings. In proceedings leading to decision T 2193/14 dated 14 March 2017 and made publicly available on May 11 2017, the opponent was deprived of the possibility of having certain prior art citations considered which purportedly were relevant for the assessment of non-obviousness. The Board of Appeal denied the admissibility into the proceedings of the aforementioned citations, which were submitted by the opponent on appeal only, and eventually confirmed the patentability of the claimed subject-matter without having considered the citations in question on their substantive merits.

The opposed patent included three dependent claims. One month ahead of oral proceedings in the first instance proceedings in 2014, the patentee had filed an auxiliary request based on the combination of granted dependent claims 2 and 4. Following a minor amendment to the request made during the oral proceedings, the subject-matter defined by the combination of claims 2 and 4 had been held allowable. With its subsequent statement of grounds of appeal, the opponent had submitted five fresh prior art citations which had not been filed in the first-instance proceedings. These citations were, in the opponent's view, relevant for the assessment of non-obviousness of the request held allowable by the first-instance department, and they were said to have been filed in response to the findings of the first-instance department.

In its decision the Board of Appeal, however, refused to consider the fresh citations on their substantive merits. Referring to Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 9/91, which in essence lays down that the legal and factual framework of opposition proceedings is in principle defined by the originally filed notice of opposition, and that appeal proceedings before the EPO are to be considered as a judicial procedure which by nature is less investigative than an administrative procedure, the Board exercised its discretionary powers to not admit the citations into the proceedings. The thrust of the Board's reasoning in this regard was that the opponent could and should have submitted them in the first-instance proceedings.

The decision emphasises the general aspiration of the EPO, notably the Boards of Appeal, to frontload opposition proceedings, and opponents are well advised to present a complete case from the outset.

Jakob Pade Frederiksen

Inspicos P/S
Kogle Allé 2
DK-2970 Hoersholm
Copenhagen, Denmark
Tel: +45 7070 2422
Fax: +45 7070 2423
info@inspicos.com
www.inspicos.com


Comments






profile

Managing IP

ManagingIP

ManagingIP profile

"The recent proposal of automatically granting pending applications without examination is nothing but a desperate… https://t.co/9lE4RD00Rz

Nov 20 2017 09:17 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

New speakers announced at our NY https://t.co/sCxge69xRz and CA https://t.co/BGVnkVWSpC European Patent Events. F… https://t.co/3MlekFfPZR

Nov 20 2017 03:33 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

India’s Supreme Court pushes for faster IPR suits https://t.co/G0vmxWOc5g Delhi High Court has been given until mid… https://t.co/W576LiUGCF

Nov 20 2017 10:05 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
More from the Managing IP blog


null null null

null null null

October 2017

Courts grapple with scope of patent protection

The Supreme Court’s decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly introduced a doctrine of equivalents and arguably also established a doctrine of prosecution history estoppel in the UK. We look at the law across Europe, and the impact the decision might have. Kingsley Egbuonu, Michael Loney and James Nurton set the scene



Most read articles

Supplements