Taking off from where our last article in this series ended; another referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA), G2/19, includes questions relating to two seemingly unrelated matters. The first question relates to whether an appeal filed by a third party is, at first glance, inadmissible. The second question relates to a suggestion that the location of the EBA may no longer be in conformity with the EPC, following their move to the municipality of Haar, which lies just outside Munich.
The questions which were referred to the EBA (in the original German and translated into English) are as follows:
[Original German]
1. Ist im Beschwerdeverfahren das Recht auf Durchführung einer
mündlichen Verhandlung gemäß Artikel 116 EPÜ
eingeschränkt, wenn die Beschwerde auf den ersten Blick
unzulässig ist?
2. Wenn die Antwort auf Frage 1 ja ist, ist eine Beschwerde gegen
den Patenterteilungsbeschluss in diesem Sinne auf den ersten Blick
unzulässig, die ein Dritter im Sinne von Artikel 115 EPÜ
eingelegt und damit gerechtfertigt hat, dass im Rahmen des EPÜ
kein alternativer Rechtsbehelf gegen eine Entscheidung der
Prüfungsabteilung gegeben ist, seine Einwendungen betreffend
die angebliche Verletzung von Artikel 84 EPÜ nicht zu
berücksichtigen?
3. Wenn die Antwort auf eine der ersten beiden Fragen nein ist,
kann die Kammer ohne Verletzung von Artikel 116 EPÜ die
mündliche Verhandlung in Haar durchführen, wenn die
Beschwerdeführerin diesen Standort als nicht EPÜ-konform
gerügt und eine Verlegung der Verhandlung nach München
beantragt hat?
[Translation]
1. In the appeal proceedings, is the right to oral proceedings
under Article 116 EPC limited if the appeal is inadmissible at
first sight?
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, is an appeal against the
decision to grant a patent in this sense inadmissible at first
sight if it is filed by a third party within the meaning of Article
115 EPC who justifies the filing of the appeal in that no
alternative remedy is available under the EPC against a decision by
the examining division not to take into account the third
party's objections concerning the alleged infringement of
Article 84 EPC?
3. If the answer to one of the first two questions is no, may the
board of appeal hold the oral proceedings in Haar without breach of
Article 116 EPC if the appellant has complained that the location
was not in
conformity with the EPC and requested a transfer to Munich?
This case is of considerable interest because it creates a procedural question mark over its handling by the EPO thus far. To recap, the EPC states that any party to proceedings adversely affected by a decision may file an appeal (Article 107 EPC). Despite the name, third parties are not parties to the proceedings and are not entitled to file an appeal against a decision even if they are adversely affected (Article 115 EPC). In the present case, the decision "adversely affecting" the third party is in fact the grant of a patent. Therefore, the existence of this appeal, and indeed its referral to the EBA, is a procedural anomaly and many European patent attorneys would say it should have been deemed inadmissible from the start.
In this case, the third party filed observations with the EPO while the application was still pending which were apparently either ignored or not overtly taken into account by the Examiner. The observations stated that the application, which was subsequently granted, fell foul of Article 84 EPC. It appears that, since Article 84 EPC is not a ground for opposition of the patent, the third party tried their luck by filing their case as an appeal.
In the referral, the second question to the EBA includes the statement that "no other remedy is available to third parties". This, of course, is true by design so that third parties don't do exactly what is happening here, i.e. file third party observations and appeal if the application still proceeds to grant. In this case, it appears the third party is not entitled to appeal and, regarding the Article 84 EPC issue, if it's good enough for the Examiner, many might say that should be good enough for the third party.
The second part of this referral relates to the question of whether the new location of the Boards of Appeal is contrary to the EPC, because it means that at least one section of the EPO is no longer located in either Munich or The Hague (Article 6 EPC). This question appears to have nothing to do with the first two questions forming the basis for this referral to the EBA, and indeed it may give a hint as to why the appeal exists at all.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
