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 2025

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of Appeals' subsequent preparation of the written decision, as no written reasoning is to be prepared in respect of withdrawn requests.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

Daniel Raymond, who will serve as head of client relations, tells Managing IP that law firms must offer ‘brave’ opinions if they want to keep winning new business
The new outfit, Ashurst Perkins Coie, will bring together around 3,000 lawyers across 23 countries
In the seventh episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Out, a network for LGBTQAI+ professionals and their allies
Sara Horton, co-chair of Willkie’s IP litigation group, reflects on launching the firm’s Chicago office during a global pandemic, and how she advises young, female attorneys
Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Gift this article