372:
appellant that the appeal proceedings were closed, the appellant requested a correction of the withdrawal of the appeal under Rule 139 EPC, and the Board's
Registrar informed the appellant that the appeal proceedings had already been closed and that the Board was no longer competent for the matter. The appellant then requested a written decision by the Board, which the Board did not issue. The Enlarged Board of Appeal held that a substantial procedural violation had occurred because the Board had decided on the appeal without deciding on a relevant request (namely the request for correction of the appeal under Rule 139 EPC). The Enlarged Board of Appeal consequently reopened the appeal proceedings, but in T 695/18 the request for correction of the decision was eventually rejected.
110:(inventive step), depriving the petitioner (the patent proprietor) from an opportunity to be heard on inventive step of the main request. The Enlarged Board considered this to be a violation of the petitioner right's to be heard, which arose from a misunderstanding between the Board and the petitioner. The Board apparently thought, when closing the debate, that the parties did not wish to make any submission orally on inventive step (beyond the parties' written submissions), whereas the petitioner apparently thought that they still would have an opportunity to present their arguments in that respect. The Enlarged Board set aside the decision of the Board to give an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard on inventive step.
87:) occurred during the underlying appeal proceedings, because the Board of Appeal apparently failed to forward the appellant's statement of grounds of appeal to the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore unaware of the grounds for the Board's decision until receiving the actual decision. The fact that the appellant's statement of grounds of appeal could have been obtained from the electronic public file by the petitioner or its representative was not considered material, because a party has the right to receive communications through the channels provided by law.
66:. The petition is a restricted form of judicial review, limited to examining serious errors of procedure which might have been committed by the Legal or Technical Boards of Appeal, prejudicing the right to a fair hearing of one or more appellants. Before the entry into force of the EPC 2000 in December 2007, it was not possible for a party who did not have his requests granted in an appeal to challenge the final decision of the Legal or Technical Board of Appeal on any grounds.
336:
296:
256:
203:
163:
123:
243:, the combination of all the necessary steps created an undue burden on the skilled person trying to perform the invention. The Enlarged Board held that the decision under review did not mention the sequence of facts or arguments that had led the Board to the conclusion that the combination of steps imposed an undue burden on the skilled person. The petition for review was consequently held allowable.
371:
In R 3/22, the appellant's representative had initially stated that the appellant was withdrawing the appeal, before withdrawing the request to withdraw the appeal the next day on the grounds that the appellant's initial instructions had been misinterpreted. The Board's
Registrar then informed the
79:
R 7/09 was a petition for review of T 27/07 and is the very first case in which a petition for review was successful since the institution of the procedure. In that case, the
Enlarged Board of Appeal held that a violation of the right to be heard (a right guaranteed by
840:
381:
845:
1271:
804:
238:
R 2/14 concerned decision T 1627/09 where Board 3.3.08 had held that the patent under consideration violated
Articles 83 and 100(b) EPC because, even though each of the steps of recloning could be performed by a
921:
679:
Ehlers, Jochen; Augustin, Till (2023). "Aktuelle
Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern des EPA - Notizen fĂĽr die Praxis" [Current case law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO - Notes for practitioners].
400:
The
Enlarged Board of Appeal considered that the communication from the Registrar that the appeal proceedings had already been closed and that the Board was no longer competent for the matter was a decision.
62:". A petition for review can essentially only be based on a fundamental procedural defect. Its purpose is not to obtain a reconsideration of the application of substantive law, such as points relating to
835:
601:
552:"Europäisches Patentübereinkommen – Erster erfolgreicher Antrag auf Überprüfung gemäß Art. 112a EPÜ" [European Patent Convention - First successful petition for review under Art. 112a EPC].
953:
866:
99:
of the main request had been discussed during the oral proceedings before the
Technical Board, after which, "when (...) closing the debate, the Chairman indicated that the Board would decide on
947:
778:
906:
814:
17:
799:
729:
958:
901:
809:
429:
48:
794:
941:
973:
926:
96:
722:
475:
896:
450:
715:
911:
47:(EPC), a petition for review is a request to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) to review a decision of a
103:". Inventive step had, however, not been discussed. Nevertheless, the Board then decided that the main request did not comply with
35:(EPO). These allowable petitions for review are listed below in chronological order of the dates when the decisions were issued.
819:
738:
606:
752:
107:
84:
55:
44:
24:
886:
891:
881:
454:
426:
Petitions for review of
European Patent Office (EPO) Appeal Board decisions by the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal
28:
916:
487:
1207:
773:
657:
635:
569:
530:
508:
32:
963:
1066:
933:
1223:
701:
433:
382:
List of decisions and opinions of the
Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office
1116:
1181:
1021:
968:
240:
335:
295:
255:
202:
162:
122:
1265:
1081:
100:
63:
451:"Frequently asked questions about the revised European Patent Convention (EPC 2000)"
52:
21:
81:
704:
at the EPO, including a section on the "Petitions for review under Art. 112a EPC"
570:"R 0003/10 (Right to be heard in oral proceedings/SALMON BRANDS AS) of 29.9.2011"
104:
1171:
1111:
707:
1141:
1106:
1091:
1086:
876:
437:
1215:
1156:
1151:
1131:
1006:
757:
636:"R 0002/14 (Fundamental violation of the right to be heard) of 22.4.2016"
599:
Legal
Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office,
554:
59:
1247:
1239:
1231:
1136:
1061:
1056:
1046:
1036:
1031:
1026:
1011:
1001:
996:
991:
871:
846:
Decisions of the Boards of Appeal relating to Article 52(2) and (3) EPC
1272:
Case law of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office
1176:
1166:
1146:
1126:
1121:
1101:
1076:
1051:
1041:
1016:
1161:
1096:
1071:
711:
330:
290:
250:
197:
157:
117:
616: : "Successful petitions under Article 112a(2)(c) EPC"
488:"G 0001/97 (Request with a view to revision) of 10.12.1999"
95:
In case T 136/09 reviewed by the Enlarged Board in R 3/10,
58:
when the EPC was revised in 2000, to form the so-called "
347:
307:
267:
214:
174:
134:
851:
Successful petitions for review under Article 112a EPC
841:
Decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
453:. European Patent Office. question 14. Archived from
1190:
982:
859:
828:
787:
766:
745:
476:
Basic proposal for the revision of the EPC, MR/2/00
430:
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
658:"T 1627/09 (Desaturases/WASHINGTON) of 10.10.2013"
897:European Round Table on Patent Practice (EUROTAB)
27:have been successful, i.e. held allowable by the
974:Unitary patent (Switzerland and Liechtenstein)
723:
8:
420:
418:
416:
602:Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO
730:
716:
708:
682:Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte
412:
393:
7:
954:Standing Advisory Committee (SACEPO)
51:. The procedure was introduced in
14:
753:European Patent Convention (EPC)
334:
294:
254:
201:
161:
121:
887:European Patent Institute (epi)
1:
922:Observations by third parties
774:European Patent Office (EPO)
739:European Patent Organisation
531:"T 0027/07 () of 20.2.2009"
509:"R 0007/09 () of 22.7.2009"
91:R 3/10 of 29 September 2011
1288:
964:Unified Patent Court (UPC)
758:Revised version (EPC 2000)
605:(9th edition, July 2019),
367:R 3/22 of 22 November 2022
247:R 3/15 of 28 November 2017
194:R 16/13 of 8 December 2014
45:European Patent Convention
805:Limitation and revocation
287:R 4/17 of 29 January 2018
892:European Patent Register
882:European Patent Bulletin
702:Enlarged Board of Appeal
660:. European Patent Office
638:. European Patent Office
572:. European Patent Office
533:. European Patent Office
511:. European Patent Office
432:(2009) 4 (12): 876-892.
29:Enlarged Board of Appeal
867:Divisional applications
327:R 5/19 of 15 March 2021
234:R 2/14 of 22 April 2016
114:R 21/11 of 15 June 2012
1208:Bosnia and Herzegovina
948:Restitutio in integrum
779:Administrative Council
154:R 15/11 of 13 May 2013
75:R 7/09 of 22 July 2009
33:European Patent Office
625:R 3/10, reasons 2.16.
16:As of June 2024, ten
590:R 3/10, reasons 2.1.
438:10.1093/jiplp/jpp168
18:petitions for review
969:Unitary patent (EU)
936:reformatio in peius
815:Petition for review
490:. December 10, 1999
457:on 14 October 2009
346:. You can help by
306:. You can help by
266:. You can help by
213:. You can help by
173:. You can help by
133:. You can help by
1259:
1258:
1252:
1244:
1236:
1228:
1220:
1212:
1200:
1194:
912:Judges' Symposium
424:Julian Cockbain,
364:
363:
324:
323:
284:
283:
231:
230:
191:
190:
151:
150:
1279:
1250:
1242:
1234:
1226:
1218:
1210:
1198:
1192:
959:Software patents
928:Official Journal
917:London Agreement
732:
725:
718:
709:
690:
689:
676:
670:
669:
667:
665:
654:
648:
647:
645:
643:
632:
626:
623:
617:
613:
609:
597:
591:
588:
582:
581:
579:
577:
566:
560:
559:
549:
543:
542:
540:
538:
527:
521:
520:
518:
516:
505:
499:
498:
496:
495:
484:
478:
473:
467:
466:
464:
462:
447:
441:
422:
401:
398:
359:
356:
338:
331:
319:
316:
298:
291:
279:
276:
258:
251:
226:
223:
205:
198:
186:
183:
165:
158:
146:
143:
125:
118:
1287:
1286:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1255:
1196:
1186:
1117:North Macedonia
984:
983:EPC contracting
978:
934:Prohibition of
855:
824:
795:Grant procedure
783:
762:
741:
736:
698:
693:
688:(7–8): 308–321.
678:
677:
673:
663:
661:
656:
655:
651:
641:
639:
634:
633:
629:
624:
620:
611:
607:
598:
594:
589:
585:
575:
573:
568:
567:
563:
551:
550:
546:
536:
534:
529:
528:
524:
514:
512:
507:
506:
502:
493:
491:
486:
485:
481:
474:
470:
460:
458:
449:
448:
444:
423:
414:
410:
405:
404:
399:
395:
390:
378:
369:
360:
354:
351:
344:needs expansion
329:
320:
314:
311:
304:needs expansion
289:
280:
274:
271:
264:needs expansion
249:
236:
227:
221:
218:
211:needs expansion
196:
187:
181:
178:
171:needs expansion
156:
147:
141:
138:
131:needs expansion
116:
93:
77:
72:
49:board of appeal
41:
12:
11:
5:
1285:
1283:
1275:
1274:
1264:
1263:
1257:
1256:
1254:
1253:
1245:
1237:
1229:
1221:
1213:
1204:
1202:
1188:
1187:
1185:
1184:
1182:United Kingdom
1179:
1174:
1169:
1164:
1159:
1154:
1149:
1144:
1139:
1134:
1129:
1124:
1119:
1114:
1109:
1104:
1099:
1094:
1089:
1084:
1079:
1074:
1069:
1064:
1059:
1054:
1049:
1044:
1039:
1034:
1029:
1024:
1022:Czech Republic
1019:
1014:
1009:
1004:
999:
994:
988:
986:
980:
979:
977:
976:
971:
966:
961:
956:
951:
944:
942:Representation
939:
931:
924:
919:
914:
909:
904:
899:
894:
889:
884:
879:
874:
869:
863:
861:
860:Related topics
857:
856:
854:
853:
848:
843:
838:
832:
830:
826:
825:
823:
822:
817:
812:
807:
802:
797:
791:
789:
785:
784:
782:
781:
776:
770:
768:
764:
763:
761:
760:
755:
749:
747:
746:Founding texts
743:
742:
737:
735:
734:
727:
720:
712:
706:
705:
697:
696:External links
694:
692:
691:
671:
649:
627:
618:
592:
583:
561:
544:
522:
500:
479:
468:
442:
411:
409:
406:
403:
402:
392:
391:
389:
386:
385:
384:
377:
374:
368:
365:
362:
361:
341:
339:
328:
325:
322:
321:
301:
299:
288:
285:
282:
281:
261:
259:
248:
245:
241:skilled person
235:
232:
229:
228:
208:
206:
195:
192:
189:
188:
168:
166:
155:
152:
149:
148:
128:
126:
115:
112:
92:
89:
82:Article 113(1)
76:
73:
71:
68:
40:
37:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1284:
1273:
1270:
1269:
1267:
1249:
1246:
1241:
1238:
1233:
1230:
1225:
1222:
1217:
1214:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1203:
1189:
1183:
1180:
1178:
1175:
1173:
1170:
1168:
1165:
1163:
1160:
1158:
1155:
1153:
1150:
1148:
1145:
1143:
1140:
1138:
1135:
1133:
1130:
1128:
1125:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1115:
1113:
1110:
1108:
1105:
1103:
1100:
1098:
1095:
1093:
1090:
1088:
1085:
1083:
1082:Liechtenstein
1080:
1078:
1075:
1073:
1070:
1068:
1065:
1063:
1060:
1058:
1055:
1053:
1050:
1048:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1035:
1033:
1030:
1028:
1025:
1023:
1020:
1018:
1015:
1013:
1010:
1008:
1005:
1003:
1000:
998:
995:
993:
990:
989:
987:
981:
975:
972:
970:
967:
965:
962:
960:
957:
955:
952:
950:
949:
945:
943:
940:
938:
937:
932:
930:
929:
925:
923:
920:
918:
915:
913:
910:
908:
905:
903:
900:
898:
895:
893:
890:
888:
885:
883:
880:
878:
875:
873:
870:
868:
865:
864:
862:
858:
852:
849:
847:
844:
842:
839:
837:
836:Case Law book
834:
833:
831:
827:
821:
818:
816:
813:
811:
808:
806:
803:
801:
798:
796:
793:
792:
790:
786:
780:
777:
775:
772:
771:
769:
765:
759:
756:
754:
751:
750:
748:
744:
740:
733:
728:
726:
721:
719:
714:
713:
710:
703:
700:
699:
695:
687:
683:
675:
672:
659:
653:
650:
637:
631:
628:
622:
619:
615:
604:
603:
596:
593:
587:
584:
571:
565:
562:
557:
556:
548:
545:
532:
526:
523:
510:
504:
501:
489:
483:
480:
477:
472:
469:
456:
452:
446:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
421:
419:
417:
413:
407:
397:
394:
387:
383:
380:
379:
375:
373:
366:
358:
349:
345:
342:This section
340:
337:
333:
332:
326:
318:
315:February 2018
309:
305:
302:This section
300:
297:
293:
292:
286:
278:
269:
265:
262:This section
260:
257:
253:
252:
246:
244:
242:
233:
225:
216:
212:
209:This section
207:
204:
200:
199:
193:
185:
176:
172:
169:This section
167:
164:
160:
159:
153:
145:
136:
132:
129:This section
127:
124:
120:
119:
113:
111:
109:
106:
102:
101:patentability
98:
90:
88:
86:
83:
74:
69:
67:
65:
64:patentability
61:
57:
54:
50:
46:
38:
36:
34:
30:
26:
23:
19:
946:
935:
927:
850:
685:
681:
674:
662:. Retrieved
652:
640:. Retrieved
630:
621:
600:
595:
586:
574:. Retrieved
564:
558:: 875. 2009.
553:
547:
535:. Retrieved
525:
513:. Retrieved
503:
492:. Retrieved
482:
471:
459:. Retrieved
455:the original
445:
425:
396:
370:
355:October 2021
352:
348:adding to it
343:
312:
308:adding to it
303:
275:January 2018
272:
268:adding to it
263:
237:
222:January 2018
219:
215:adding to it
210:
182:January 2018
179:
175:adding to it
170:
142:January 2018
139:
135:adding to it
130:
94:
78:
53:Article 112a
42:
22:Article 112a
15:
1197:validation
1172:Switzerland
1112:Netherlands
820:Enforcement
1191:Extension
1142:San Marino
1107:Montenegro
1092:Luxembourg
907:Guidelines
800:Opposition
494:2020-03-15
408:References
105:Article 56
43:Under the
39:Background
1087:Lithuania
877:Espacenet
788:Procedure
461:1 January
1266:Category
1216:Cambodia
1157:Slovenia
1152:Slovakia
1132:Portugal
1007:Bulgaria
829:Case law
555:GRUR Int
376:See also
60:EPC 2000
1248:Tunisia
1240:Morocco
1232:Moldova
1224:Georgia
1137:Romania
1067:Ireland
1062:Iceland
1057:Hungary
1047:Germany
1037:Finland
1032:Estonia
1027:Denmark
1012:Croatia
1002:Belgium
997:Austria
992:Albania
872:epoline
664:29 July
642:29 July
614:.4.3.19
576:29 July
537:29 July
515:29 July
97:novelty
31:of the
1201:states
1177:Turkey
1167:Sweden
1147:Serbia
1127:Poland
1122:Norway
1102:Monaco
1077:Latvia
1052:Greece
1042:France
1017:Cyprus
985:states
810:Appeal
767:Organs
20:under
1162:Spain
1097:Malta
1072:Italy
388:Notes
902:Fees
666:2018
644:2018
578:2018
539:2018
517:2018
463:2018
70:List
1251:(V)
1243:(V)
1235:(V)
1227:(V)
1219:(V)
1211:(E)
1199:(V)
1195:and
1193:(E)
686:114
434:doi
350:.
310:.
270:.
217:.
177:.
137:.
108:EPC
85:EPC
56:EPC
25:EPC
1268::
684:.
428:,
415:^
731:e
724:t
717:v
668:.
646:.
612:b
610:.
608:v
580:.
541:.
519:.
497:.
465:.
440:.
436::
357:)
353:(
317:)
313:(
277:)
273:(
224:)
220:(
184:)
180:(
144:)
140:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
