• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal under revision

6. August 2018

Among other things, the Rules of Procedure of the EPO Board of Appeal have so far been used to refuse submissions by parties as late rather than credible. A new draft is now available – the Rules of Procedure are to be revised.

Revision of the Rules affects many areas

The proposed revision of the Rules of Procedure aims to improve the efficiency and predictability of appeal proceedings before the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO). The proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure concern in particular:

  • the consolidation of procedures (Article 10)
  • Evidence based on the procedure (Art. 12)
  • Changes in the appeal procedure concerning the amendment of a party’s case (Art. 13)
    the oral hearing (Art. 15); a (renewable) three-month period for the written decision after the oral hearing is provided for. Abridged justification is possible in individual cases. At the same time, a third person who is not a member of the Chamber should be appointed to keep the minutes. In this way, the protocol can quickly become much more comprehensive than it is now.

New evidence before Boards of Appeal

ProcedureIf new evidence could have been and should have been submitted in the first instance proceedings, the current draft provides that any new evidence must be refused admission. Exceptions to this would be in the case of an unexpected decision of the first instance or new evidence or arguments of the other party. One can imagine that this would also be used specifically in the process. However, new evidence should not allow an opponent to lodge a new appeal during the appeal phase.

The Rules of Procedure for new evidence are therefore less problematic if a potential exception or delimitation is disclosed in the application (disclosed disclaimer). However, the situation becomes difficult as soon as there is no explicit or implicit disclosure (undisclosed disclaimer). Find here more about the previous jurisdiction on the subject of disclaimers: Info Blog: Undisclosed disclaimer – permissible extension in German patent law?

Procedure more efficent after revision?

Is the envisaged revision appropriate to improve the appeal procedures before the Boards of Appeal of the EPO?

It’s not safe. In particular, there is a risk that the disputes in the appeal procedure could be shifted to procedural issues – without efficiency gains. The proposed amendments would limit the parties’ ability to make further requests in the course of the appeal procedure and even at the beginning of the appeal procedure. However, this could lead to both the first instance and the subsequent appeal proceedings being overloaded with precautionary submissions.

The revision of the Rules of Procedure also takes into account the concerns of procedural participants to reduce backlogs. The present draft seems to answer this request with less time per case and more summary decisions. However, a careful examination of the case with a sufficient number of staff in the Board of Appeal was probably more desirable.

Nothing has been decided yet, a user survey was conducted by the EPO until May 2018, the results of which will certainly lead to further changes in the first draft for revision.

 

Are you interested in patent protection in the European Union?

Please take your chance and contact us. Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

 

 

Sources:

EPO completed consultation

Picture:

TheAndrasParta / pixabay.com / CCO License

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconInternational Intellectual Property,  Patent Law Tag iconBoard of Appeal of the European Patent Office,  Board of Appeals,  disclaimer,  new evidence,  Revision,  Rules of Procedure,  undisclosed disclaimer

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: International Intellectual Property

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

28. January 2022
CFI: Intel rebate system – Intel successfull in legal dispute

CFI: Intel rebate system – Intel successfull in legal dispute

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.