EPO: Board of Appeal communication not sufficient for late filings

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: 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

info@inspicos.com

www.inspicos.com



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Find out which firms secured the most nominations for Managing IP’s Asia-Pacific Awards 2025, ahead of the winners being revealed on November 6
Raluca Vasilescu joins our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss patent mining and watercolour painting
Jan Phillip Rektorschek, founding partner at Pentarc in Germany, explains why the firm broke away from Taylor Wessing and discusses its plans for staying competitive
Royal Mail Group wins copyright and database right infringement case, in a dispute that can be linked to the history of postcodes in the UK
Managing partner Mark O’Donnell explains why people are at the centre of the Australian outfit’s investment focus and how being independent benefits the firm
IP is becoming one of the most significant drivers of major deals, and law firms are altering their practices to reflect the change
In the second in a new podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IPause, a network set up to support those experiencing (peri)menopause
Firms are adapting litigation strategy as Brazil’s unique legal system and technical expertise have made preliminary injunctions a key tool in global patent disputes
A ruling on confidentiality by the the England and Wales Court of Appeal and an intervention from the US government in the InterDigital v Disney litigation were also among top talking points
Moore & Van Allen hires former Teva counsel Larry Rickles to help expand the firm’s life sciences capabilities
Gift this article