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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A copyright win for AI firm Anthropic and a new executive order against law firm Jenner & Block were also among the top talking points this week
A principal at Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner explains how AI tools, including DeepIP, can position the firm to help clients
The firm explains why AI-empowered data analytics could make it a more efficient advocate for its clients
Penelope Aspinall, of IP wellbeing charity Jonathan’s Voice, explains why managers should take a three-tiered approach to looking after workers’ mental health
Heath Hoglund talks about the value proposition of patent pools and why it went ahead with its first-ever series of pool meetings in China
Ryan Richardson, Chris O’Brien, and Jean Selep of Sterne Kessler analyse the treatment of SEPs at the UPC and ITC and highlight why SEP holders and implementers should be mindful of current developments in both forums
A ruling concerning the UPC’s jurisdiction, questions over costs transparency, and a missed deadline by Amazon were among the top talking points this fortnight
Exclusive data and analysis reveal how firms can differentiate themselves when it comes to costs and value
The Berlin office will mark the firm’s fourth German base and tenth overall
As we build up to another busy year for the IP STARS rankings and Managing IP Awards, we give a rundown of some of the major IP firms and trends in the UK
Gift this article