European Patent Office: Reform of the EPO appeal boards

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: Reform of the EPO appeal boards

The supervisory authority of the EPO, the Administrative Council, decided in its July meeting on the long-debated structural reform of the Boards of Appeal. Despite rumours that the Boards would be moved away from Munich to for example Berlin or Vienna, the AC eventually decided that the Boards will remain in Munich, albeit in premises not shared with other departments of the EPO.

The Council also decided on an organisational reform which entails "a better cost coverage for appeals". According to a report presented by the president of the EPO to the Council, the ratio of the income of the Boards of Appeal to their costs amounted to just 4.2% in 2015, whereas a cost coverage of about 20%-25% purportedly could be reached by increasing the appeal fee and improvement of efficiency.

A first increase of the appeal fee is envisaged to come into effect in 2018, and the ultimate 20%-25% cost coverage goal is aimed at within the next five years.

In addition to predictable concerns among users of the EPO as regards preservation of quality and independence of appeal decisions, the EPO's ambitions with regard to cost coverage are seen as problematic by many due to the future increase of the appeal fee. A four- or five-fold increase of the appeal fee may well prove prohibitive to appeals, even in respect of clearly flawed first-instance decisions, or may put a heavy economic burden on parties to proceedings in respect of cases which are subject to multiple appeals in respect of the same patent or patent application.

Initiatives to reduce the risk of cases ping-ponging between the Boards of Appeal and the lower instances, as well as initiatives to increase predictability and quality of first-instance decisions, would seem appropriate and necessary if the appeal fee in fact increases significantly within the next five years.

frederiksen.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen


Inspicos P/SKogle Allé 2DK-2970 HoersholmCopenhagen, DenmarkTel: +45 7070 2422Fax: +45 7070 2423info@inspicos.comwww.inspicos.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Erise IP has added a seven-practitioner trademark team from Hovey Williams, signalling its intention to help clients at all stages of development
News of prison sentences for ex-Samsung executives for trade secrets violation and an opposition filed by Taylor Swift were also among the top talking points
A multijurisdictional claim filed by InterDigital and a new spin-off firm in Germany were also among the top talking points
Duarte Lima, MD of Spruson & Ferguson’s Asia practice, says practitioners must adapt to process changes within IP systems, as well as be mindful of the implications of tech on their practices
Practitioners say the UK Supreme Court’s decision could boost the attractiveness of the UK for AI companies
New awards, including US ‘Firm of the Year’ and Latin America ‘Firm to Watch’, are among more than 90 prizes that will recognise firms and practitioners
DWF helped client Dairy UK secure a major victory at the UK Supreme Court
Hepworth Browne led Emotional Perception AI to victory at the UK Supreme Court, which rejected a previous appellate decision that said an AI network was not patentable
James Hill, general counsel at Norwich City FC, reveals how he balances fan engagement with brand enforcement, and when he calls on IP firms for advice
In the second of a two-part article, Gabrielle Faure-André and Stéphanie Garçon at Santarelli unpick EPO, UPC and French case law to assess the importance of clinical development timelines in inventive step analyses
Gift this article