European Patent Office: Patentees remain in control

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

European Patent Office: Patentees remain in control

In appeal proceedings before the EPO, patentees and applicants frequently withdraw failed requests at the end of oral proceedings. For example, if the patentee's second auxiliary request is allowed, whereas the main and first auxiliary requests are rejected, most patentees will routinely withdraw the main and first auxiliary requests. Such withdrawal may in particular be made with a view to expediting the Board of Appeals' subsequent preparation of the written decision, as no written reasoning is to be prepared in respect of withdrawn requests.

In proceedings pertaining to EPO decision T 1477/15 dated February 23 2017 (made available online on July 26 2017), the Board was prompted to consider the allowability of such withdrawal of requests. The patentee's main requests as well as the first and second auxiliary requests had been rejected during the course of the oral proceedings, whereas the third auxiliary request had succeeded. The second auxiliary request corresponded to the request held allowable by the first-instance department in the decision under appeal. At the end of the oral proceedings in appeal, the patentee withdrew the first and second auxiliary requests. The opponents took the view that they had a right to a substantiated decision on their successful appeal against the impugned decision, so the patentee had no right to withdraw the request.

Referring to Article 113(2) EPC, according to which the EPO can only decide on the text submitted by the applicant or patentee, the Board, however, held that there was no basis in the European Patent Convention for not allowing the patentee to withdraw the contested requests. The Board further noted that "it is generally accepted that in appeal proceedings the principle of party disposition applies, meaning that parties can put forward, withhold or withdraw their requests as they see fit". The Board therefore had no power to object to the patentee's withdrawal of the first and second auxiliary requests.

Applicants and patentees are thus reassured that they remain in control of the requests that will eventually be scrutinised in the appeal boards' written decisions.

frederiksen.jpg

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

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

VO, which has offices in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, is the second European IP firm to secure external backing this week
The Bardehle Pagenberg attorneys-at-law discuss the firm’s Managing IP EMEA Awards 2026 success, Unified Patent Court litigation strategy, and evolving European patent trends
A patent battle between two legal tech companies and a loss for Elon Musk’s xAI against OpenAI were also among the top talking points
With drug prices a hot topic in the US, courts are seemingly more reluctant to prevent the entry of generics to the market
Academic Eden Sarid joins us during Pride Month to discuss queer expression and IP law, Patagonia v Pattie Gonia, and how queer and AI-generated creations both pose novelty concerns
Patent attorney Michael Henson joins the firm to lead its freshly launched blockchain and digital assets practice
A dispute over mammogram technology, and a development in the case between GSK and Moderna were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
With rankings for Western Europe set to be published on June 25, we sat down with our research lead to find out what practitioners and law firms can expect
Peter O’Sullivan, a professional services executive, says he is looking forward to helping Pearce IP become the leading life sciences firm in Australia and New Zealand
Matteo Di Lernia, advocate at LCA Studio Legale, unpicks the CJEU’s ruling in M.M. Ristorazione v Villa Ramazzini, including its impact on litigation strategies
Gift this article