T 1918/10 - Non-authorized representative

EPO T 1918/10

For the decision, click here 

Key point

• A sub-authorization to act during oral proceedings does not authorize to submit final written submissions. Which are deemed not filed in this case.
• Lots more of interesting aspects in the full decision.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Letters of the opponent dated 14 August 2014, 18 September 2014 and 24 September 2014

2.1 The validity of the opponent's representation was objected to by the patent proprietor, which raised doubts as to the extent of the representatives' entitlement to act. Therefore, the Board is empowered to deal with that issue (Spec. Ed. 3 OJ EPO 2007, L.1, Art. 1(3)).

2.2 The opposition in the name of the opponent was filed by Mr. [S] who is a registered European patent attorney of the law firm [X] Patentanwaltskanzlei which firm changed its name during the course of te proceedings to [Y] Patentanwälte.

According to the sub-authorisations dated 26 August 2014, Mr. [P] and Mr. [C], both registered European patent attorney of the law firm [F], were authorised by Mr. [S] to act for the opponent during the oral proceedings of 14 October 2014 (Board's emphasis). In that regard, the wording of the sub-authorisation leaves no doubt and can only be understood as being restricted to acting at the oral proceedings.

There is no evidence on file that Mr. [P] or Mr. [C] were authorised to perform any procedural act in the name of the opponent apart from representing them at the oral proceedings before the Board. The authorisations filed during the first oral proceedings before the Board are both post-dated (7 October 2014) and cannot serve to demonstrate that Mr. [P] and Mr. [C] were authorised to represent the opponent before that date.

Therefore, each of the letters dated 14 August 2014, 18 September 2014 and 24 September 2014 filed by Mr. [P] and Mr. [C] are deemed not have been filed (Rule 152(6) EPC).