3. Form of decisions
Overview
3. Form of decisions
|
You are viewing the 9th edition (2019) of this publication; for the 10th edition (2022) see here |
R. 111 EPC governs the form of decisions issued by the EPO. It must first of all be established whether a "decision" – as distinct from e.g. notices and communications (see in this chapter III.K.3.1.) ‒ has in fact been taken. Decisions are to be put in writing – even those that have been announced at oral proceedings – and accompanied by a communication pointing out the possibility of appeal (see in this chapter III.K.3.2.). R. 113 EPC also stipulates that a signature is required, although this may be replaced by a seal in the case of computer-generated decisions (see in this chapter III.K.3.3.). Under R. 111(2) EPC, appealable decisions must be reasoned (see in this chapter III.K.3.4.). Decisions must also be notified to the parties (see chapter III.S.).
- T 1713/20
The requirement in Rule 111(2) EPC of a decision being reasoned is not met if the decision merely contains statements that at best give rise to speculation about what the deciding body might have intended to express (Reasons, 1.3.3).
- T 3071/19
A decision open to appeal is not reasoned within the meaning of Rule 111(2) EPC if it does not enable the board of appeal to review its correctness. A decision should therefore not rely on evidence accessible only at a web page which is not guaranteed to remain accessible and unchanged. Rather, it should be ensured that a person inspecting the file can reliably access the cited evidence.
- T 989/19
Falls das Entscheidungsformblatt nicht die Unterschrift von allen Mitgliedern einer Prüfungsabteilung enthält, ist die Entscheidung der Prüfungsabteilung ungültig. Dies stellt einen wesentlichen Verfahrensmangel dar.
- T 899/17
The reasons for the failure of auxiliary requests which were skipped in the discussion during the oral proceedings before the opposition division in favour of more promising lower-ranking auxiliary requests and which were explicitly not withdrawn by the patent-proprietor have to be set out in the written decision.
- T 1787/16
Die Entscheidungsbegründung gemäß R. 111(2) EPÜ muss zwar nicht alle Argumente der Parteien im Detail behandeln, doch muss zumindest auf die entscheidenden Streitpunkte eingegangen werden. Sie hat auf die maßgeblichen Tatsachen, Beweismittel und Argumente einzugehen und die logische Kette zu enthalten, die zur Bildung des abschließenden Urteils geführt hat. Für die Verfahren vor dem EPA gilt der Grundsatz der Einheitlichkeit der Verfahrenssprache. Für die schriftliche Ausfertigung der Entscheidung ist dabei ausschließlich die Verfahrenssprache zu verwenden. Nur die Entscheidung in einer einheitlichen Verfahrenssprache wird auch den Anforderungen der R. 111(2) EPÜ an die Entscheidungsbegründung gerecht. Gemäß Art. 125 EPÜ sind, soweit das EPÜ keine Vorschriften über das Verfahren enthält, die in den Vertragsstaaten der Europäischen Patentorganisation im Allgemeinen anerkannten Grundsätze des Verfahrensrechts heranzuziehen. Dies gilt insbesondere für den zugleich in Art. 6(1) EMRK exemplarisch zum Ausdruck kommenden allgemeinen Rechtsgrundsatz des fairen Verfahrens, der als allgemeine Richtschnur für die Verfahrensgestaltung dient. Dazu zählt auch das Gebot, die Entscheidung so abzufassen, dass sie von einer der Verfahrenssprache mächtigen Partei verstanden werden kann.
- Case law 2021
- Case law 2020
-
In T 989/19, the board held that, where the cover page of the examining division's decision had not been signed by all the division's members, this amounted to a substantial procedural violation and the decision was invalid. Under R. 113(1) EPC, decisions had to be signed by the employee responsible and state their name. Since, in addition, Art. 18(2) EPC stipulated that examining divisions consisted of three examiners, the signatures of all three of those examiners were required (see also Guidelines, E-X, 1.3 – November 2018 version). The appellant in the case in hand had not raised the matter of the missing signature of the second examiner, but the board had examined it of its own motion. It was the boards' settled case law that the requirement laid down in R. 113(1) EPC, according to which EPO decisions had to be signed by the employee responsible and state their name, was not just a mere formality but an essential procedural step in the decision-taking process at first instance. The name and the signature served to identify the decision's authors and express that they unconditionally assumed responsibility for its content. This requirement was aimed at preventing arbitrariness and abuse and ensuring that it could be verified that the competent body had taken the decision. It therefore constituted an embodiment of the rule of law and its infringement amounted to a substantial procedural violation depriving the written decision of legal effect (see J 16/17 and T 390/86, OJ 1989, 30).
- Case law 2019
-
In J 16/17 the board held that the requirement laid down in R. 113(1) EPC, according to which decisions from the European Patent Office must be signed by and state the name of the employee responsible, is not just a mere formality but an essential procedural step in the decision-taking process. The name and the signature serve to identify the decision's authors and express that they unconditionally assume responsibility for its content. This requirement is aimed at preventing arbitrariness and abuse and ensuring that it can be verified that the competent body has taken the decision. It therefore constitutes an embodiment of the rule of law.
In T 655/13 the board held that in order for the examining division to make its reasoning on the basis of a pertinent prior-art document in a non-official EPO language comprehensible to the board, it must provide the translation used in the examination proceedings of at least the relevant sections of the document (or even of the whole document, if this is necessary for its overall understanding) into an official language of the EPO. Otherwise, the board is unable to examine the reasons for the decision, and in certain cases even whether the decision was justified or not, which amounts to a violation of the legal requirement for reasoned decisions under R. 111(2) EPC.