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 2025

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

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article