Late requests allowed in EP appeal proceedings; conditions apply

In its Decision T 1311/13 of 17 January 2018 (re: EP 1 224 299), the EPO’s Board of Appeal has provided clarification as to late-filed requests in appeal proceedings. Novagraaf’s Charles-Henri Bertaux explains the implications.

European Patent (EP) 1 224 299 is a patent claiming a method for preserving a sample from Gram-negative contamination, comprising adding to said sample a polypeptide selected from a defined group of sequences, a purification/ detection process of Gram negative bacteria using said sequences, or some coupled to other proteins/peptides.

In the latest action (following an initial opposition and appeal), the Board of Appeal summoned the patent proprietor to oral proceedings. In a communication annexed to that summons, the Board expressed a provisional, non-binding opinion on the issues of the case. The patent proprietor filed a new main request and first auxiliary request in response to that summons. Following that notification, the board identified the items which seemed to be of particular importance and/or made observations which could help to concentrate the oral proceedings on essential items.

The new main request corresponded to the one filed with the earlier appeal, with the exception of a sequence in a claim that had been deleted. The auxiliary request corresponded to the main request filed in the appeal except with the deletion of two claims.

Too late to stand?

These requests could be considered as late filings, in that they were filed after the date of the oral proceedings had been fixed. An evaluation of their eligibility was thus carried out, namely: as the filings came in late should they be refused?

As a general rule, the Boards of Appeal examine and admit modifications and amended main/auxiliary requests after the date of the oral proceedings has been fixed, if: (1) their late filing can be said to be justified; (2) it does not extend the scope of the discussion defined by the grounds of appeal and answers, and (3) the request is prima facie relevant.

In its decision, the Board of Appeal, exercising its discretion (Article 114 (2) EPC), admitted these late filing elements/requests, on the grounds there were:

  • a direct reply to an objection (under Article 123 (2) EPC) issued in its notification, and
  • did not, by their nature, change the object of the appeal nor raise new considerations/objections.

It appears that under certain conditions, therefore, requests/amendments filed late in an appeal procedure, in particular prior to oral proceedings, could be accepted and used to defend the patentability of the invention. It is worth considering such actions, if required, during EP procedures.

For further information or support on the patent prosecution process, including techniques to ensure the smooth running of examination, opposition and appeal procedures, please speak to your patent attorney or contact us below.

Charles-Henri Bertaux is a Patent Attorney at Novagraaf in Paris

Insights liés

Nova IP Hour

Rencontre entre l’OEB et l’OAPI au sujet de la future réforme de l’OAPI

Le 26 avril dernier, les Présidents de l’OEB et de l’OAPI se sont entretenus en visioconférence. Il a notamment été question de la réforme des brevets à venir à l’OAPI en 2025, avec l’instauration d’un système de validation des brevets similaire au système européen. L’OEB a rappelé sa volonté d’accompagner l’OAPI dans ces changements, à la fois sur les plans juridique, administratif et technique. Lire la suite

Par Rose-Marie Ehanno,
Rencontre entre l’OEB et l’OAPI au sujet de la future réforme de l’OAPI
Nova IP Hour

Rapport de la Commission européenne sur les pays à risque en matière de Propriété Intellectuelle

La Commission européenne vient de publier son rapport biannuel, déterminant les « pays prioritaires », hors de l’UE, au seins desquels la protection et l’application des droits de propriété intellectuelle sont les plus préoccupants d’un point de vue économique. La Chine demeure le premier pays prioritaire pour l'UE, et pour cause, les dépôts frauduleux restent nombreux et ce pays est toujours le principal pays de provenance (70 %) des marchandises soupçonnées de contrefaçon. Suivent en priorité 2 l’Inde et la Turquie. Lire la suite

Par Carole Roger,
Rapport de la Commission européenne sur les pays à risque en matière de Propriété Intellectuelle

Pour plus d'informations ou de conseils contactez-nous

Confidentialité et cookies

Pour fournir la meilleure expérience possible aux visiteurs du site Web, Novagraaf utilise des cookies. En cliquant sur "Accepter" ou en continuant d’utiliser le site, vous acceptez notre politique de confidentialité, y compris la politique en matière de cookies.