Mobile Devices in Oral Proceedings Before the EPO Boards of Appeal

If you ever wanted to call your psychiatrist in the course of oral proceedings before the EPO boards of appeal but did not dare to do so, you may be relieved by taking note of the following notice published Wim van der Eijk Vice-President DG3:

In oral proceedings before the Boards of Appeal under Article 116 EPC the parties and their representatives are allowed to have with them and to use portable computers such as laptops, tablets or other electronic devices provided that their use does not create any nuisance or disturbance. Where, for example, the use of an electronic device disturbs the oral proceedings, the chairperson may decide to forbid its use.

This blogger wonders whether the gender-neutral word "chairperson" will become a trend in our business. Actually, in the EPO context the word chairperson has recently appeared in the rules of procedure of the EPO select committee for implementing the tasks in connection with the patent with unitary effect. The first decision of the select committee was, however, singed by a chairman. The agreement on the UPC is not quite consistent in this point. According to Art. 12(5) of the agreement,
the Administrative Committee shall elect a chairperson from among its members years, whereas Articles 9, 10 and 18 refer to a chairman of the Administrative Committee.

It appears that we all will have to get used to this.

Infringers as interveners in EPO proceedings

"EPC Article 105(1) practice curtails interveners' rights" is an article which is now available online to subscribers to the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP). The author, Dr Joseph Straus, is a multi-chaired academic and Emeritus Director at the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Munich. Article 105 states as follows:

"(1) Any third party may, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations, intervene in opposition proceedings after the opposition period has expired, if the third party proves that

(a) proceedings for infringement of the same patent have been instituted against him, or

(b) following a request of the proprietor of the patent to cease alleged infringement, the third party has instituted proceedings for a ruling that he is not infringing the patent.

(2) An admissible intervention shall be treated as an opposition".

According to the abstract:

"Under the rules of the European Patent Convention third parties may intervene in pending opposition proceedings.

In this article the author examines the requirements of intervention as applied by the case law of the European Patent Office in the light of the rationale and purpose of the adopted legal instrument.

The author makes several suggestions for a more balanced treatment of the rights of interveners".

This is not a subject on which there appears to be a large literature. PatLit would therefore like to hear of any experiences, good or bad, which readers may have had with regard to Article 105(1).