3.3. Signatures on a decision under Rule 113 EPC
Overview
3.3. Signatures on a decision under Rule 113 EPC
|
You are viewing the 9th edition (2019) of this publication; for the 10th edition (2022) see here |
Under R. 113 EPC EPO decisions must be signed by, and state the name of, the employee responsible. Under R. 113(2) EPC a seal may replace the signature when a decision is produced using a computer. The requirements for board decisions are set out in R. 102 EPC.
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.
- 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.
- 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.