Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

EPO: Appeal board of EPO provides guidance on amendments filed late

In opposition proceedings before the EPO, the formal admissibility of amendments filed late by proprietors is a frequently debated topic and differently decided on. A recent appeal decision, T 500/15, reiterates the criteria for the assessment of admissibility of amendments that are filed late and the specific criteria the competent departments of the EPO should apply when exercising their discretionary powers with regard to admissibility.

Decision T 500/15 concerns an appeal against a first instance decision revoking a European patent. In the first instance opposition proceedings, the patentee had not filed a substantiated reply to the opposition. No amendments or substantiated arguments were submitted by the patentee within the time limit set by the EPO for making written submissions ahead of the oral proceedings. The patentee had, however, eventually filed an amended set of claims as his main request 10 days prior to the oral hearing. Following a debate of only 15 minutes at the oral proceedings, the opposition division had decided not to admit the amended claims into the proceedings and thus to revoke the patent.

The opposition division's reason for not admitting the amended claims was, in particular, that the examination of the amended claims would have required extensive discussions, and that admitting them into the proceedings would have compromised the need for procedural economy.

In the subsequent second instance proceedings, the appeal board entrusted with the matter came to the conclusion in decision T 500/15 that the first instance department had not adequately exercised its discretionary powers with regard to the admissibility of the amended claims. The board of appeal in particular held that the department of first instance had failed to examine the amended claims on their substantive merits. According to the board, procedural aspects, notably the need for procedural economy, are to be considered only in conjunction with a case-specific, substantive examination of the prima facie permissibility of the amended claims. Such substantive assessment had not been conducted by the opposition division. The case is therefore now being remitted back to the department of first instance for further prosecution.


Jakob Pade Frederiksen

Inspicos P/S

Kogle Allé 2

DK-2970 Hoersholm

Copenhagen, Denmark

Tel: +45 7070 2422

Fax: +45 7070 2423

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library