EPO: New referrals to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

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

EPO: New referrals to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

Two issues have arisen recently causing the Technical Boards of Appeal to refer questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA).

At oral proceedings on February 7 in respect of case T 318/14, the competent Board of Appeal referred questions relating to double patenting to the EBA. More specifically, the EBA is to consider if a European patent application can be refused if it claims the same subject matter as a European patent granted to the same applicant where the granted patent does not form part of the state of the art. In the affirmative, the EBA is further asked what the conditions would be for such a refusal, and if different conditions would have to be applied where the application is (a) filed on the same date as the already granted patent, or (b) a divisional of the parent, or (c) claims priority from that application upon which the parent was granted. Finally, in the case of point (c) above, the EBA is asked to consider if an applicant has a legitimate interest in the grant of the subsequent European patent application in view of the fact that the term of the patent is calculated on the basis of the filing date and not the priority date.

Further, by decision T 831/17 of February 25, an Appeal Board referred questions relating to (1) the right for oral proceedings, (2) a third party's possible right to appeal, and (3) the venue of oral proceedings in appeal. In relation to the third issue, in particular the EBA is to consider if the president or the Administrative Council of the EPO had the powers to move the Boards of Appeals' premises to Munich suburb Haar in 2017. In late 2016 the chairmen of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO adopted a resolution objecting to the relocation of the Boards of Appeal to Haar. At that time the issue appeared to be of a purely political nature, but now the matter is clearly becoming a legal one.

frederiksen-jakob-pade.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

New members of the Access Advance patent pool and Harvard University coming under fire were also among the top talking points
Team from Graham Watt & Co will join Beck Greener’s London office
The firm reported a small uptick in overall revenue and profit per equity partner, while its IP team secured notable life sciences victories
Paul Ainsworth, who secured a settlement for his client in a patent dispute, says the case shows why medical claims by dietary supplement companies can threaten IP rights
Boies Schiller Flexner joins forces with Grünecker to target Skechers in Europe following US lawsuit
Helen Mutimer discusses how the firm’s IP advisory services are filling a gap in the market, and why life sciences work is soaring
In major recent developments, a confidentiality request was rejected, Samsung and its representative A&O Shearman secured a partial win, and EIP made a new hire
Tomas Wässingbo joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to explain why he wants to change the perception around designs
PepsiCo was represented by PwC, while the Australian Taxation Office was advised by Australian-headquartered law firm MinterEllison
The firm said revenue from its ‘refreshed and expanded’ IP team increased by 4% in FY25
Gift this article