3.3.1 Representation by a legal practitioner

In J 19/89 (OJ 1991, 425) the Legal Board of Appeal considered whether a patent attorney under national law should, in view of his legal qualifications and entitlement to act as a professional representative in national patent matters, be regarded as a "legal practitioner" within the meaning of Art. 134(7) EPC 1973 and hence be authorised to act before the EPO. The board decided that irrespective of his specialist qualifications and powers of representation in national patent matters, a patent attorney under national law could not be regarded as a "legal practitioner" within the meaning of Art. 134(7) EPC 1973, and therefore was not entitled to act as a professional representative before the EPO (see also D 14/93, OJ 1997, 561).

In J 27/95, the Legal Board of Appeal first made it clear that the competence of legal practitioners to undertake representation before the EPO depended directly on their complying with the provisions of Art. 134(7) EPC 1973. Thus, each time a legal practitioner made a request to act as a professional representative in proceedings before the EPO, the Legal Division had the right to examine whether he or she satisfied the conditions under Art. 134(7) EPC 1973. In its decision the board pointed out that a legal practitioner qualified in a contracting state had to have "his place of business in such State". The place of business within the meaning of Art. 134(7) EPC 1973 was the place (if any) at which a person practised his or her profession as legal practitioner.

See also T 643/01 (French lawyer) and T 1846/11 (no authorisation filed for legal practitioner, nor any subsequent approval by appellant submitted for steps taken by legal practitioner without such authorisation).