EPO: EPO Appeal Board condemns examination delay

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

Cookies Settings

EPO: EPO Appeal Board condemns examination delay

While the recently released EPO performance statistics for 2015 show an increase in the number of grants compared to the previous year and a decrease of backlog of searches by two thirds, delay in examination of pending cases is still of concern to some. A recent appeal decision rendered in the field of computer implemented inventions reveals that excessive examination delays do not amuse the Boards of Appeal. More specifically, in decision T 823/11 rendered in December 2015, Board 3.5.07 has ruled that duration of examination proceedings of more than 12 years must be regarded as excessive and amounts to a substantial procedural violation.

In the case appealed, the examining division had refused an application relating to the configuration of a clinical device in a patient care management system. The application entered the European phase in December 1997, and the firstinstance decision refusing the application was dispatched in September 2010. During the examination proceedings, the applicant sent two letters in 2004 and 2006, respectively, reminding the examining division of the case. According to the appeal decision, the applicant dealt adequately with the examining division's objections in the examination phase. An amended set of claims filed by the applicant during oral proceedings before the examining division was, however, not admitted into the proceedings.

In decision T 823/11, the Board of Appeal noted in particular the delay of more than five years between the issuance of the search report and the examining division's first communication. Referring to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights dealing with delay of a national Norwegian patent application, the EPO appeal board held that the delay of the case, from which the appeal lies, was unacceptable having regard to the circumstances. The Board of Appeal further criticised the level of reasoning in the examining division's communications. The Board eventually admitted the applicant's auxiliary request, the subjectmatter of which was held patentable, and reimbursement of the appeal fee was ordered.

frederiksen.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen


Inspicos P/SKogle Allé 2DK-2970 HoersholmCopenhagen, DenmarkTel: +45 7070 2422Fax: +45 7070 2423info@inspicos.comwww.inspicos.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Gift this article