Changes to EPO appeal proceedings include new timeliness objective for settlement

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

Changes to EPO appeal proceedings include new timeliness objective for settlement

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Yossi Sivan explains how Israeli judgment is a pro-brand owner departure from the norm and why it sends a strong message that corporate structures are not always a shield
Halim Shehadeh, group CEO of IP firm CWB, says that in the rush to discuss what AI can do, IP firms are overlooking the more important question of whether they are ready
Caitlin Heard, who formally joined the firm from CMS last month, says she is excited by the ‘energy’ of the London office
Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
The initial contempt of court claim targeted Stobbs and the firm’s client for allegedly interfering with the administration of justice
Acquisition of platform developed by Boehmert & Boehmert lawyer set to create a combined platform for patent drafting and prosecution in Europe
Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
Gift this article