V. Représentation
1. Vue d'ensemble
L'art. 133 CBE définit les principes généraux relatifs à la représentation. L'art. 134 CBE régit la représentation devant l'Office européen des brevets. L'art. 134bis CBE concerne l'Institut des mandataires agréés près l'Office européen des brevets.
Les art. 133 et 134 CBE, la règle 152 CBE ainsi que la décision de la Présidente de l'OEB, en date du 12 juillet 2007, relative au dépôt de pouvoirs (JO éd. spéc. 3/2007, 128, L.1.) fournissent un ensemble complet et autonome de règles de droit portant sur la représentation dans les procédures instituées par la CBE. L'art. 133(1) CBE dispose que, sous réserve des dispositions de l'art. 133(2) CBE, nul n'est tenu de se faire représenter par un mandataire agréé dans les procédures instituées par la CBE. Cependant, selon l'art. 133(2) CBE, les personnes physiques qui n'ont pas leur domicile dans un État partie à la CBE doivent être représentées par un mandataire agréé (art. 134(1) CBE) ou un avocat (art. 134(8) CBE) et agir par son entremise dans toute procédure instituée par la CBE, sauf pour le dépôt d'une demande de brevet européen (T 578/14).
Les Directives relatives à l'examen pratiqué à l'OEB (version de mars 2022) contiennent des informations détaillées relatives à la représentation, particulièrement : Partie A‑III, 2 ; Partie A‑VIII, 1 et D‑I, 7.
- T 1893/22
Résumé
In T 1893/22, the proprietor-appellant had requested an enlargement of the board due to the case potentially setting a precedent regarding proper representation in proceedings established by the EPC. The board held that the case did not go beyond what might be handled by a board with an ordinary composition. Mr N, the representative of the opponent, a French company in the form initially of a SASU (société simplifiée unipersonnelle), was the President of the SASU and also a professional representative.
The proprietor had contested the admissibility of the opposition relying on the following points: (i) the opponent's professional representative could not represent the company since he was simultaneously managing the legal entity he represented; (ii) the identity of the opponent was not unequivocally determined; (iii) the opponent carrying out activities reserved to professional representatives without the necessary qualifications circumvented the principles of representation; (iv) the opponent's change of name; (v) the reference in the notice of opposition to the German translation of the claims.
Concerning the representation, the board stated that – contrary to the proprietor's allegations – Art. 133 and 134 EPC together with R. 152 EPC and the Decision of the President of the EPO of 12 July 2007 on the filing of authorisations (OJ SE 3/2007, 128) indeed constituted a complete and self-contained set of rules on representation in proceedings established by the EPC (a request in this respect to refer the question to the Enlarged Board was also submitted by the proprietor). A legal person having its seat in an EPC contracting state is not obliged to be represented by a professional representative (Art. 133(1) EPC). Furthermore, persons whose names appear on the list of professional representatives are entitled to act in all proceedings established by the EPC (Art. 134 EPC). A legal person having its seat in an EPC contracting state can act in proceedings before the EPO through its legal representatives. At the time the opposition was filed, Mr N in his capacity as President of the SASU was entitled to represent the SASU since under French law (Art. L. 227 Commercial Code) he was entitled to act on behalf of the legal person in all circumstances. Mr N as a professional representative would have been entitled to act not only as the president of the SASU, but also as a professional representative appointed by that legal person.
For the sake of completeness, the board detailed why neither the references to French law (Civil Code) nor German law, nor the reference to general principles under Art. 125 EPC could, in its view, prevent the company from appointing Mr N as its professional representative before the EPO.
Regarding the identity of the opponent, the board held that the opposition was clearly filed on behalf of SARL Cabinet NÜ (see the notice of opposition which mentioned the initial legal form of the company "SASU Cabinet NÜ"). The only uncertainty, based on the submissions of the proprietor itself, concerned whether Mr N was representing the opponent as a European patent attorney or in his capacity as the president of that company. Nonetheless, this alleged ambiguity could not raise any doubt about the identity of the opponent.
The alleged circumvention of the law was also rejected by the board, which observed first that this would occur if a person not entitled to act as a professional representative performed all the activities typically carried out by professional representatives while assuming the role of a party, in order to circumvent the prohibition on unqualified representation, but Mr N was a qualified professional representative.
As regards the change of the opponent's name, the board endorsed the analysis set out in the contested decision (Art. 15(8) RPBA). A change of legal form of the company (SASU to SARL) had taken place, which indicated a change of name and not a transfer of assets to a different entity. The use of the old legal form on the company stationery in a submission filed close to the date of change of the legal form did not undermine this. The reference to the German version of the claims did not make the respective attacks incomprehensible. In conclusion, the opposition was admissible and the request for a referral was rejected. The appeal was also dismissed.