Changes to EPO appeal proceedings include new timeliness objective for settlement
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking 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

The group of lawyers, which includes seven IP partners, say they were impressed by ArentFox Schiff's wide-reaching experience
Andy Sherman, general counsel at Dolby Laboratories, says the company will continue to make GE Licensing’s patents available through existing pools
CMS, which represents Nestlé, had been told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later
Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network, explains why AI technologies were not part of an update to its cross-licensing project
Kirkland & Ellis partners explain how they secured the dismissal of a patent case in which the other side had lied under oath
Managing IP understands the association had been considering other options, including Madrid or Vienna, after concerns were raised over Dubai’s positions on various rights
Chris Marando tells Managing IP that he's excited to work on PTAB matters at Perkins Coie, which recently hired another lawyer from his former firm
To mark Pride month, Darren Smyth, cochair of IP Out, says the legal profession must not forget that some members still face exclusion and hostility
Lawyers say the opening of the Milan central division this month is likely to boost the so far 'modest' activity in Italy
Sharon Urias tells us why she still has to explain the difference between copyright and trademarks
Gift this article