EPO: EPO Appeal Board condemns examination delay

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

EPO: EPO Appeal Board condemns examination delay

While the recently released EPO performance statistics for 2015 show an increase in the number of grants compared to the previous year and a decrease of backlog of searches by two thirds, delay in examination of pending cases is still of concern to some. A recent appeal decision rendered in the field of computer implemented inventions reveals that excessive examination delays do not amuse the Boards of Appeal. More specifically, in decision T 823/11 rendered in December 2015, Board 3.5.07 has ruled that duration of examination proceedings of more than 12 years must be regarded as excessive and amounts to a substantial procedural violation.

In the case appealed, the examining division had refused an application relating to the configuration of a clinical device in a patient care management system. The application entered the European phase in December 1997, and the firstinstance decision refusing the application was dispatched in September 2010. During the examination proceedings, the applicant sent two letters in 2004 and 2006, respectively, reminding the examining division of the case. According to the appeal decision, the applicant dealt adequately with the examining division's objections in the examination phase. An amended set of claims filed by the applicant during oral proceedings before the examining division was, however, not admitted into the proceedings.

In decision T 823/11, the Board of Appeal noted in particular the delay of more than five years between the issuance of the search report and the examining division's first communication. Referring to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights dealing with delay of a national Norwegian patent application, the EPO appeal board held that the delay of the case, from which the appeal lies, was unacceptable having regard to the circumstances. The Board of Appeal further criticised the level of reasoning in the examining division's communications. The Board eventually admitted the applicant's auxiliary request, the subjectmatter of which was held patentable, and reimbursement of the appeal fee was ordered.

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

News of Health Hoglund joining Sisvel and the Delhi High Court staying a $2.2 million decree in favour of Philips were also among the top talking points
The firm is continuing its aggressive IP hiring streak with the addition of partner Matthew Rizzolo
Pantech counsel Shogo Matsunaga speaks exclusively to Managing IP about how his team proved Google’s unwillingness, and ultimately secured a landmark SEP settlement
New partners, including the firm’s first female head of a department, are eyeing a deeper focus on client understanding
Chunguang Hu of China PAT explains why his ‘insider’ experience as a patent examiner benefits clients and why he wants to debunk the myth that IP has limited value in China
Essenese Obhan shares his expansion plans and vision of creating a ‘one-stop shop’ for clients after Indian firms Obhan & Associates and Mason & Associates joined forces
From AI and the UPC to troublesome trademarks in China, experts name the IP trends likely to dominate 2026
Colm Murphy says he is keen to help clients navigate cross-border IP challenges in Europe
With 2025 behind us, US practitioners sit down with Managing IP to discuss the major IP moments from the year and what to expect in 2026
Large-scale transatlantic mergers will give US entities a strong foothold at the UPC, and could spark further fragmentation of European patent practices
Gift this article