BOARDS OF APPEAL
Information from the Enlarged Board of Appeal
Referrals by boards of appeal
I. In decision T 803/93 dated 19 July 1995, Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.1 referred the following point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 112(1)(a) EPC:
(Official text)
1. During oral proceedings before the EPO under Article 116 EPC, and in the context of opposition or opposition appeal proceedings, having regard to the provisions of Article 133 EPC, may a person who is not qualified in accordance with Article 134 EPC to represent parties to proceedings before the EPO, but who is accompanied by a person who is both qualified and authorised to represent a party to the proceedings, make oral submissions on behalf of that party on legal issues which arise in the case?
2. During oral proceedings before the EPO under Article 116 EPC, and in the context of opposition or opposition appeal proceedings, having regard to the provisions of Articles 117 and 133 EPC, may a person who is not qualified in accordance with Article 134 EPC to represent parties to proceedings before the EPO, but who is accompanied by a person who is both qualified and authorised to represent a party to the proceedings, make oral submissions on behalf of that party on technical issues which arise in the case, otherwise than by giving evidence orally in accordance with the provisions of Article 117(3) EPC?
3. In relation to each of questions (1) and (2) above taken separately:
(a) If the answer is "yes", can such oral submissions be made on behalf of the party as a matter of right, or can they only be made with the permission of and under the discretion of the EPO?
(b) If such oral submissions can only be made under the discretion of the EPO, what criteria should be considered when exercising such discretion?
(c) Do special criteria apply to qualified patent lawyers of countries which are not contracting states to the EPC?
The case is pending under Ref. No. G 4/95 .
II. In decision T 276/93 dated 15 September 1995, Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.3 referred the following point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 112(1)(a) EPC:
(Official text)
1. Does it lie within the general powers of the Administrative Council pursuant to Article 33(1)(b) EPC to change an existing rule of procedure of the boards of appeal which it had already enacted pursuant to special powers under Article 23(4) EPC?
2. If the answer to the above question is "yes", to what extent, if any, does Article 23(3) EPC limit the changes which the Administrative Council may so enact?
The case is pending under Ref. No. G 6/95.
III. In decision T 514/92 dated 21 September 1995, Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.2 referred the following point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 112(1)(a) EPC:
(Official text)
In the case where a patent has been opposed under Article 100(a) EPC, on the basis that the claims lack an inventive step in view of documents cited in the opposition statement, and the opponent introduces during appeal proceedings a new allegation that the claims lack novelty in view of one of the documents previously cited or in view of a document introduced during the appeal proceedings, must a board of appeal exclude the new allegation because it introduces a new ground of opposition?
The case is pending under Ref. No. G 7/95.