Opposition procedure before the European Patent Office (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Opposition procedure before the European Patent Office" in English language version.

refsWebsite

Global rank English rank

80epo.org

low place

2bailii.org

3,544^th place

1,912^th place

2europa.eu

68^th place

117^th place

2doi.org

2^nd place

1ulb.ac.be

low place

1web.archive.org

1^st place

1suepo.org

low place

1europeanpatentcaselaw.blogspot.com

low place

1handle.net

102^nd place

76^th place

1worldcat.org

5^th place

1semanticscholar.org

11^th place

8^th place

1gesetze-im-internet.de

1,249^th place

4,347^th place

bailii.org

"... the opposition procedure is a purely administrative procedure ..." in G 8/91, Reasons, point 7; "... the merely administrative character of the opposition procedure ..." in G 9/91, Reasons, point 18; and "Proceedings at this level are called "administrative" rather than "judicial" though it is difficult to see why – after all the opposition division is deciding a dispute between rival parties." in Jacob LJ, Unilin Beheer BV v Berry Floor NV & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 364 (25 April 2007).
Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 23 (31 January 2008)

doi.org

van de Kuilen, Aalt (2013). "Successful European oppositions: Analysis for the patent information professional". World Patent Information. 35 (2): 126–129. doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2012.12.002.
Beck, Michaël (2017). "Conflicts of Laws in Proceedings Before the European Patent Office". IIC. 48 (8): 925–952. doi:10.1007/s40319-017-0643-5. hdl:10067/1470880151162165141. ISSN 0018-9855. S2CID 158498166. ... the Boards of Appeal have recognized the transfer of opponent status as an accessory of the assets of the business division in whose interest the opposition was lodged, the transfer of which is governed by national law, and as a result of a universal succession.

epo.org

See also decision T 936/04 of 24 April 2008 on whether the double patenting prohibition can be raised in opposition proceedings: "It is within the discretion of the instances of the EPO to raise the objection in opposition or opposition appeal proceedings against proposed amended claims, but this should be done only in clear cases" (catchword 1).
"(...) in G 9/91 and G 10/91 (...) the Enlarged Board held that in view of their special post-grant character, opposition proceedings under the EPC are in principle to be considered as contentious proceedings between parties normally representing opposing interests." in Decision G 9/93 (6 July 1994), Reasons for the Decision, item 1.
"... the opposition procedure is a purely administrative procedure ..." in G 8/91, Reasons, point 7; "... the merely administrative character of the opposition procedure ..." in G 9/91, Reasons, point 18; and "Proceedings at this level are called "administrative" rather than "judicial" though it is difficult to see why – after all the opposition division is deciding a dispute between rival parties." in Jacob LJ, Unilin Beheer BV v Berry Floor NV & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 364 (25 April 2007).
T 22/09 (Party status/Fischer-Tropsch Catalysts/SASOL TECHNOLOGY), Reasons for the Decision, 2 (Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.07 of the European Patent Office 21 June 2013) ("Locus standi to oppose a European patent is defined in extremely broad terms. Under Article 99(1) EPC "any person" may file a notice of opposition within nine months of the publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin. The opponent does not have to have any special interest in challenging the patent: G 1/84 (OJ EPO 1985, 299) and T 798/93 (OJ EPO 1997, 363).").
"The function of Article 100 EPC is to provide, within the framework of the EPC, a limited number of legal bases, ie a limited number of objections on which an opposition can be based." in Decision G 1/95 (19 July 1996), reasons 4.1.
G9/93, 6 July 1994, Reasons, point 3.
T 84/19, reasons 5.3, citing "G 3/97, Reasons 3.2.2 and 3.2.3".
Decision G 9/91 dated 31 March 1993, point 8.
"By limiting the extent to which the patent is opposed to only certain subject-matters, the opponent deliberately refrains from making use of his right under the EPC to oppose remaining subject-matters covered by the patent. Such subject-matters are therefore, strictly speaking, not subject to any "opposition" in the sense of Articles 101 and 102 EPC, nor are there any "proceedings" in the sense of Articles 114 and 115 EPC in existence concerning such non-opposed subject-matters. Consequently, the EPO has no competence to deal with them at all." in Decision G 9/91 dated 31 March 1993, Reasons for the Decision, item 10.
(in German) Decision T 1644/10 (Versäumnis der Einspruchsfrist/UTISOL) of 26.10.2011, Catchword 1, Boards of Appeal of the EPO.
Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section d-iv, 1.4.1 : "Deficiencies which may no longer be remedied, as a result of which the opposition is deemed not to have been filed".
Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section d-iv, 1.4.2 : "Deficiencies which may no longer be remedied in accordance with Rule 77(1) and (2), resulting in the opposition being rejected as inadmissible"; Visser, "The Annotated European Patent Convention", ed. 2009, p. 227 (Art. 99(1), point 4 "Procedure after filing".).
T 22/09 (Party status/Fischer-Tropsch Catalysts/SASOL TECHNOLOGY), Reasons for the Decision, 2 (Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.07 of the European Patent Office 21 June 2013) ("An opposition may be filed by a "straw man", that is to say a party acting on behalf of another person (...).").
Decision G 3/97 (Opposition on behalf of a third party) of 21 January 1999, Headnote 1(a), 1(b).
Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section d-i, 4 : "Entitlement to oppose"
G 3/99 (Admissibility-joint opposition/appeal) of 18.2.2002, Headnote I. "An opposition filed in common by two or more persons, which otherwise meets the requirements of Article 99 EPC and Rules 1 and 55 EPC, is admissible on payment of only one opposition fee."; see also Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (9th edition, July 2019), iv.c.2.1.7.a : "Payment of a single opposition fee".
G 3/99 (Admissibility-joint opposition/appeal) of 18.2.2002, Headnote III.
G 9/91, reasons 16.
Decision T 383/11 of 17 April 2012, Reasons for the decision, 1.1. "The Boards of Appeal have derived, in particular from Rule 79(1) EPC, the principle that the proprietor does not have a right to have amendments admitted at any stage of opposition proceedings. At the discretion of the opposition division or the Board of Appeal, amendments can be refused if they are neither appropriate nor necessary (see case law of the Boards of Appeal, 6th edition 2010, VII.D.4.1.2, second paragraph)."
Decision T 1099/06, Reasons 6.
Decision G 9/91 of 31 March 1993, point 19 of the reasons: "(...) in case of amendments of the claims or other parts of a patent in the course of opposition or appeal proceedings, such amendments are to be fully examined as to their compatibility with the requirements of the EPC (...)".
Decision G 1/91 of 9 December 1991. The reference to Article 102(3) in the decision is a reference to Article 102(3) EPC 1973, corresponding to Article 101(3)(a) EPC (of the revised text of the Convention, the so-called EPC 2000).
EPO web site, Oral proceedings calendar. Consulted on 28 October 2012.
Decision T 1012/03 of 1 December 2006, Reasons 25. "The right to oral proceedings according to Article 116 EPC is a specific and codified part of the procedural right to be heard according to Article 113(1) EPC."
Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section e-iii, 9 : "Delivery of the decision"; G 4/95, reasons 4(c), second paragraph: "The decision of the opposition division or board of appeal can consequently usually be announced orally at the conclusion of the oral proceedings (...)".
See for instance decision T 36/11 of 30 January 2012, Reasons for the Decision, item 1.4. See also Rule 84(2) EPC (formerly Rule 60(2) EPC 1973) and Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section d-vii, 5 : "Continuation of the opposition proceedings in the cases covered by Rule 84".
"EPO Guidelines (2024), D-VI, 7.2.3, "Request for publishing fee, translations and a formally compliant version of amended text passages"". www.epo.org.
Article 16 of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 (RPBA), OJ EPO 2019, A63
(in French) Decision T 1306/05 of 10 July 2008, Boards of Appeal of the EPO.
Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section d-ix, 1.2 : "Decisions on the apportionment of costs".
Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (9th edition, July 2019), iii.r.3.2 : "Procedure for fixing costs", third paragraph: "Where the boards of appeal have to rule on the apportionment of costs, they have the power (...) not only to apportion but also to fix the costs (...)." See for example T 1663/13 of 14 July 2016.
Decision G 2/04 of 25 May 2005, Headnote I.(a).
Decision T 0384/08 of 26 June 2009, Reasons 24.
G 4/88, OJ EPO 1989, 468, point 4 of the Reasons; see also Decision T 518/10 of 9 April 2013, point 3.1 of the Reasons.
Article 105(1) EPC. Regarding the need for ongoing opposition proceedings for an intervention to be admissible, see for example "(...) opposition proceedings before the EPO cannot be "reopened" due to the advent of an intervener (...)" in Decision T 1713/11 of 12 December 2012, reasons 2.7.
Decision T 1713/11 of 12 December 2012, reasons 2.2.
Decision G 1/94 (OJ 1994, 787), headnote; decision T 1235/14 of 10 October 2018, point 3; decision T 2951/18 of 13 December 2021, point 4.2, third paragraph ("(...) the Board, taking into account the principle, firmly established in the case law, that an intervener has the right to present a new ground for opposition at the appeal stage (G 1/94), concludes that the purpose of an intervention under Article 105 EPC during appeal proceedings would be meaningless if the evidence upon which the intervener decides to rely was not admitted therein.").
Decision G 1/94 (OJ 1994, 787), point 10.
Decision G 3/04.
G4/88, 24 April 1989, Reasons, point 2.
Decision T 146/07 dated 13 December 2011, Reasons for the Decision, 3 to 6, citing Schachenmann in: Singer/Stauder, Europäisches Patentübereinkommen, 5th ed., Art. 115 marg. no. 13
See for instance Decision T 1349/10 (Composition of Opposition Division/ETHICON) of 2 February 2011, Reasons 4, citing also decisions T 251/88, T 939/91, T 382/92, T 476/95, and T 838/02.
T 1028/96 (Suspected partiality/DU PONT DE NEMOURS) of 15.9.1999, reasons 6.6: "Article 19(2) EPC requires i.a. that an examiner who has taken part in the proceedings for the grant of the European patent shall not be the chairman of the Opposition Division. The Board does have some sympathy for the respondents' argument that, in the circumstances set out above, such prohibition should apply all the more to the second instance in view of its judicial function at supreme level within the European patent system. (...)" See also T 1889/13 of 20.5.2015, reasons 2.4.1 and 2.4.2.

new.epo.org

The EPC does not provide any pre-grant opposition proceedings. However, during examination proceedings (and also during pending opposition proceedings), any third party may, pursuant to Article 115 EPC, file observations on the patentability of an invention which is the subject of a European patent application, in particular to draw the attention of the EPO to some relevant prior art documents. A person submitting third-party observations does not become party to the proceedings. See Observations by third parties under the EPC.
T 22/09 (Party status/Fischer-Tropsch Catalysts/SASOL TECHNOLOGY), Reasons for the Decision, 2 (Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.07 of the European Patent Office 21 June 2013) ("Locus standi to oppose a European patent is defined in extremely broad terms. Under Article 99(1) EPC "any person" may file a notice of opposition within nine months of the publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin. The opponent does not have to have any special interest in challenging the patent: G 1/84 (OJ EPO 1985, 299) and T 798/93 (OJ EPO 1997, 363).").
Article 99(1) EPC
Article 19(1) EPC
Rule 3 EPC
Rule 77(1) EPC
Rule 76(2)(c) EPC (formerly Rule 55(c) EPC 1973)
Rule 76(2)(a), (b) and (d) EPC (formerly Rule 55(a), (b) and (d) EPC 1973)
Rule 77(1) or (2) EPC (formerly Rule 56(1) or (2) EPC 1973)
Article 101(1) EPC
Article 114(1) EPC
Rule 80 EPC
Rule 79(1) EPC
Article 123(3) EPC
Article 101(3) EPC
Decision G 1/91 of 9 December 1991. The reference to Article 102(3) in the decision is a reference to Article 102(3) EPC 1973, corresponding to Article 101(3)(a) EPC (of the revised text of the Convention, the so-called EPC 2000).
Article 116(1) EPC
Article 19(2)(fourth sentence) EPC
Article 116(4) EPC
Article 116(3) EPC
Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section e-iii, 9 : "Delivery of the decision"; G 4/95, reasons 4(c), second paragraph: "The decision of the opposition division or board of appeal can consequently usually be announced orally at the conclusion of the oral proceedings (...)".
Article 102(2) EPC
See for instance decision T 36/11 of 30 January 2012, Reasons for the Decision, item 1.4. See also Rule 84(2) EPC (formerly Rule 60(2) EPC 1973) and Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section d-vii, 5 : "Continuation of the opposition proceedings in the cases covered by Rule 84".
Rule 84(1) EPC
Article 102(3) EPC
Article 102(1), (4) and (5) EPC
Article 106 EPC
Article 104 EPC and Rule 88(1) EPC
Rule 88(2) EPC
Article 105(1) EPC. Regarding the need for ongoing opposition proceedings for an intervention to be admissible, see for example "(...) opposition proceedings before the EPO cannot be "reopened" due to the advent of an intervener (...)" in Decision T 1713/11 of 12 December 2012, reasons 2.7.
Rule 89 EPC
Rule 89(1) EPC
Article 105(2) EPC
Article 115 EPC
Rule 114 EPC

archive.epo.org

Decision of the President of the European Patent Office dated 10 May 2011 concerning the filing of third party observations under Article 115 EPC by means of an online form, EPO Official Journal 7/2011, p. 418; Notice from the European Patent Office dated 10 May 2011 concerning the filing of third party observations under Article 115 EPC by means of an online form, EPO OJ 7/2011, p. 420.

documents.epo.org

EPO web site, CA/PL 29/99 dated 8.11.1999, Revision of the EPC: limitation procedure, in Travaux préparatoires 1997-2000, Patent Law Committee documents, item II.7.

europa.eu

ec.europa.eu

European Commission Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry, Preliminary Report - 28 November 2008, Comments from the EPO, 10.03.2009 (Final), page 5.
European Commission, Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry, Preliminary Report (DG Competition Staff Working Paper), 28 November 2008, pages 10-11 (pdf, 1.95 MB).

europeanpatentcaselaw.blogspot.com

(in French) Laurent Teyssedre, T1306/05 : répartition des frais, Le blog du droit européen des brevets, 19 October 2008. Consulted on 8 November 2008.

gesetze-im-internet.de

"Patent Act (Patentgesetz – PatG)". www.gesetze-im-internet.de. - Section 81(2) German Patent Act

handle.net

hdl.handle.net

Beck, Michaël (2017). "Conflicts of Laws in Proceedings Before the European Patent Office". IIC. 48 (8): 925–952. doi:10.1007/s40319-017-0643-5. hdl:10067/1470880151162165141. ISSN 0018-9855. S2CID 158498166. ... the Boards of Appeal have recognized the transfer of opponent status as an accessory of the assets of the business division in whose interest the opposition was lodged, the transfer of which is governed by national law, and as a result of a universal succession.

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

Beck, Michaël (2017). "Conflicts of Laws in Proceedings Before the European Patent Office". IIC. 48 (8): 925–952. doi:10.1007/s40319-017-0643-5. hdl:10067/1470880151162165141. ISSN 0018-9855. S2CID 158498166. ... the Boards of Appeal have recognized the transfer of opponent status as an accessory of the assets of the business division in whose interest the opposition was lodged, the transfer of which is governed by national law, and as a result of a universal succession.

suepo.org

Bossung, Otto. "The Return of European Patent Law in the European Union". IIC. 27 (3/1996). Archived from the original on 4 March 2012. Retrieved 30 June 2012. (...) these courts [the courts of the EU Member States] cannot confirm a patent that an EPO appeal board has held to be unpatentable, or has revoked on opposition.

ulb.ac.be

dipot.ulb.ac.be

Malwina Mejer, Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, "Economic Incongruities in the European Patent System"^{[permanent dead link]}, ECARES working paper 2009‐003, January 2009.

web.archive.org

Bossung, Otto. "The Return of European Patent Law in the European Union". IIC. 27 (3/1996). Archived from the original on 4 March 2012. Retrieved 30 June 2012. (...) these courts [the courts of the EU Member States] cannot confirm a patent that an EPO appeal board has held to be unpatentable, or has revoked on opposition.

worldcat.org

search.worldcat.org

Beck, Michaël (2017). "Conflicts of Laws in Proceedings Before the European Patent Office". IIC. 48 (8): 925–952. doi:10.1007/s40319-017-0643-5. hdl:10067/1470880151162165141. ISSN 0018-9855. S2CID 158498166. ... the Boards of Appeal have recognized the transfer of opponent status as an accessory of the assets of the business division in whose interest the opposition was lodged, the transfer of which is governed by national law, and as a result of a universal succession.