EPO: New referrals to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

EPO: New referrals to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

Two issues have arisen recently causing the Technical Boards of Appeal to refer questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA).

At oral proceedings on February 7 in respect of case T 318/14, the competent Board of Appeal referred questions relating to double patenting to the EBA. More specifically, the EBA is to consider if a European patent application can be refused if it claims the same subject matter as a European patent granted to the same applicant where the granted patent does not form part of the state of the art. In the affirmative, the EBA is further asked what the conditions would be for such a refusal, and if different conditions would have to be applied where the application is (a) filed on the same date as the already granted patent, or (b) a divisional of the parent, or (c) claims priority from that application upon which the parent was granted. Finally, in the case of point (c) above, the EBA is asked to consider if an applicant has a legitimate interest in the grant of the subsequent European patent application in view of the fact that the term of the patent is calculated on the basis of the filing date and not the priority date.

Further, by decision T 831/17 of February 25, an Appeal Board referred questions relating to (1) the right for oral proceedings, (2) a third party's possible right to appeal, and (3) the venue of oral proceedings in appeal. In relation to the third issue, in particular the EBA is to consider if the president or the Administrative Council of the EPO had the powers to move the Boards of Appeals' premises to Munich suburb Haar in 2017. In late 2016 the chairmen of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO adopted a resolution objecting to the relocation of the Boards of Appeal to Haar. At that time the issue appeared to be of a purely political nature, but now the matter is clearly becoming a legal one.

frederiksen-jakob-pade.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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Melissa Harwood, who joined this week, said she was impressed by the firm's Seattle presence and is anticipating a busy schedule
Exclusive data and analysis show why counsel in some regions may demand stronger DEI compliance from law firms than their peers elsewhere
Amazon’s bid to restrict access to documents, a ruling on the UPC’s reach, and a case that could bar in-house lawyers were among the top stories
Fish & Richardson’s CEO explains why opening a Chicago office was a natural step and outlines his hopes for attracting new talent
Thomas Chartres-Moore, partner at Stephens Scown, explains how he combined the skills of his IP team with the firm's commercial team to defeat Aldi
The firm says the agreement will help provide ‘world-class’ legal services that are practical and innovative
Vijayalakshmy Malkani worked as a brand protection counsel for 20 years before taking on her new role at Sun Pharma
Nixon Peabody was one of the US’s most active IP recruiters in 2024, while US firms in the UK and Europe also made waves
Firms reflect on how they’re managing their design patent practices as brands seek to enforce their rights at the Northern District of Illinois and beyond
The firm is keen to expand and tap into new market talent, with the UPC one area of focus
Gift this article