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: Board of Appeal communication not sufficient for late filings

As previously discussed in this column, the Boards of Appeal of the EPO have a few tools at their disposal, which they use to conduct EPO appeal proceedings efficiently. In particular, Article 12(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA) requires appellants to provide their complete case in their statement of grounds of appeal or response to an appeal.

Using this Article, the Boards of Appeal can choose not to admit evidence or amendments to a patent that are filed late in appeal proceedings.

It has generally been accepted, however, that late-filed evidence or claim amendments could be admitted into appeal proceedings, if they are a response to a filing or argument made by another party. So, for example, if a patentee-appellant files new data with their appeal to support an invention, an opponent-appellant should be able to submit counter-evidence, for example in the form of experiments. In effect, a late-filing needs to be justified by a change in circumstances.

When summoning the parties to oral proceedings, a Board of Appeal will often provide a preliminary opinion on the issues to be discussed. When the summons to oral proceedings and preliminary opinion are issued, appellants can be motivated to file new arguments, evidence or claim amendments as a "response" to the Board's preliminary opinion.

In some cases, parties to appeal proceedings have attempted to justify a late-filed submission on the grounds that a preliminary opinion from the Board of Appeal is negative. However, the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal (Chapter IV, C-1.3.9) reminds parties that "The purpose of a communication of a board of appeal …is not an invitation to the parties to make further submissions or to file further requests (T 1459/11)."

In other words, the Boards of Appeal will not allow late-filed submissions to be justified solely for the reason that their preliminary opinion was negative in some respect. There has to be additional justification.

Decision T1459/11 quoted above is supported by another recent decision T0128/14, in which a patentee-appellant attempted to introduce new requests into proceedings, for the reason that the preliminary opinion from the Board was negative. This justification was not deemed sufficient.

It appears that justification for late-filing can only be based on actions of other parties, and not the EPO itself.

Edward J Farrington

Inspicos A/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