EPO: Board of Appeal communication not sufficient for late filings

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

EPO: Board of Appeal communication not sufficient for late filings

As previously discussed in this column, the Boards of Appeal of the EPO have a few tools at their disposal, which they use to conduct EPO appeal proceedings efficiently. In particular, Article 12(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA) requires appellants to provide their complete case in their statement of grounds of appeal or response to an appeal.

Using this Article, the Boards of Appeal can choose not to admit evidence or amendments to a patent that are filed late in appeal proceedings.

It has generally been accepted, however, that late-filed evidence or claim amendments could be admitted into appeal proceedings, if they are a response to a filing or argument made by another party. So, for example, if a patentee-appellant files new data with their appeal to support an invention, an opponent-appellant should be able to submit counter-evidence, for example in the form of experiments. In effect, a late-filing needs to be justified by a change in circumstances.

When summoning the parties to oral proceedings, a Board of Appeal will often provide a preliminary opinion on the issues to be discussed. When the summons to oral proceedings and preliminary opinion are issued, appellants can be motivated to file new arguments, evidence or claim amendments as a "response" to the Board's preliminary opinion.

In some cases, parties to appeal proceedings have attempted to justify a late-filed submission on the grounds that a preliminary opinion from the Board of Appeal is negative. However, the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal (Chapter IV, C-1.3.9) reminds parties that "The purpose of a communication of a board of appeal …is not an invitation to the parties to make further submissions or to file further requests (T 1459/11)."

In other words, the Boards of Appeal will not allow late-filed submissions to be justified solely for the reason that their preliminary opinion was negative in some respect. There has to be additional justification.

Decision T1459/11 quoted above is supported by another recent decision T0128/14, in which a patentee-appellant attempted to introduce new requests into proceedings, for the reason that the preliminary opinion from the Board was negative. This justification was not deemed sufficient.

It appears that justification for late-filing can only be based on actions of other parties, and not the EPO itself.

Edward J Farrington


Inspicos A/S

Kogle Allé 2

DK-2970 Hoersholm

Copenhagen, Denmark

Tel: +45 7070 2422

Fax: +45 7070 2423

info@inspicos.com

www.inspicos.com



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

As Marshall Gerstein celebrates its 70-year anniversary, Jeffrey Sharp, managing partner, reflects on lessons that shaped both his career and the firm’s success
News of two pharma deals involving Novo Nordisk and GSK and a loss for Open AI were also among the top talking points
Howard Hogan, IP partner at Gibson Dunn, says AI deepfakes are driving lawyers to rethink how IP protects creativity and innovation
Vivien Chan joins us for our ‘Women in IP’ series to discuss gender bias in the legal profession and why the business model followed by law firms leaves little room for women leaders
Partner Jeremy Hertzog explains how his team worked through a huge amount of disclosure from Adidas and what victory means for the firm
Evarist Kameja and Hadija Juma at Bowmans explain why a new law in Tanzania marks a significant shift in IP enforcement
In the wake of controversy surrounding Banksy’s recent London mural, AJ Park’s Thomas Huthwaite and Eloise Calder delve into the challenges street artists face in protecting their works and rights
Alex Levkin, founder of IPNote, discusses reshaping the filing industry through legal tech, and why practitioners’ advice should stretch beyond immediate legal needs
Cohausz & Florack, together with Krieger Mes & Graf von der Groeben, has taken action against Amazon on behalf of three VIA LA licensors
In the fourth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss unconscious bias in the IP workplace and how to address it
Gift this article