Changes to EPO appeal proceedings include new timeliness objective for settlement
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Changes to EPO appeal proceedings include new timeliness objective for settlement

Sponsored by

Justice and law concept. Lawyer businesswoman touching on law innovation network icons.

Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos summarises revisions to the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal on the cut-off point for appeal case amendments, the issuance of preliminary opinions, and the announcement of decisions

The Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA) of the EPO have been amended with effect from January 1 2024 with a view to enhancing the timeliness objective of appeal proceedings (90% of cases to be settled within 24 months by the end of 2025).

Article 13(2) of the RPBA, establishing a cut-off point for amendments to a party’s appeal case, has been changed to set out that any amendment to a party's case shall, in principle, not be taken into account if the amendment is made after notification of the board of appeal’s preliminary opinion issued under Article 15(1) of the RPBA. Previously, the cut-off point was the date of notification of the summons to oral proceedings before a board of appeal.

At the same time, Article 15(1) of the RPBA has been amended to set out that, in inter partes cases, the board of appeal’s preliminary opinion shall not be issued any earlier than one month after receipt of the reply, or replies, to the appeal(s). In combination with the above-mentioned amendment to Article 13(2) of the RPBA, the change to Article 15(1) of the RPBA establishes a one-month period for parties to file rejoinders in appeal cases where a change to a party’s appeal case is introduced with the rejoinder.

Furthermore, a change has been made to Article 15(9) of the RPBA dealing with the obligations of the boards of appeal in the rarely occurring event that a decision is not announced orally at oral proceedings and cannot be despatched within three months after the closure of the oral proceedings.

An initially envisaged amendment to reduce the parties’ time limit for lodging a reply to the appeal(s) from four to two months has not been adopted.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Malisheia Douglas, who spent six years at Eaton Corporation, said she was attracted by the firm's global footprint
The European Parliament has voted in favour of overhauling the SEP framework, a proposal that has sparked deep division among patent owners and implementers
Daniel Poh talks about his journey to becoming managing partner and how firms can win new business from Chinese companies
Missing a deadline can have serious consequences but law firms should consider being lenient to those responsible
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
CMS, which was told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later, has rowed back on claims about an IT error
The deal could help Rouse gain a foothold in Australia and New Zealand for the first time
With a team of more than 80 patent lawyers and attorneys across 21 European offices, the firm is acting in some of the most high-profile UPC cases
Lippes Mathias has hired three partners and a counsel from Offit Kurman
External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
Gift this article