- The new President of the EPO has, at the start of his term, allowed the publication of three decision taken by the Enlarged Board on three requests for proposal for removal of a Board Member (the same Board Member, as is by now quite well known).
- The decision were already taken in 2015 and 2016, but apparently it was decided to not publish them on the EPO website during the term of the previous President, even though the Enlarged Board had stated in G 2302/15 that "the decision will be published, account being taken of confidentiality requirements". The Enlarged Board had also stated that: " The respondent (= the Board Member) requested re-publication of the decision in case [G2301/15], which was removed from public access shortly after being published [on the EPO website]."
- I consider EPO internal law (and politics) to be outside of the scope of this weblog, and note these decisions by way of exception. The reason is that I consider their publication on the EPO website to be a positive sign.
- Comments are turned off for this post.
G 2301/15 Headnote
1. The law-making bodies have so shaped the proceedings for a decision for a proposal under Article 23(1) EPC that they take proper judicial form. The arrangements laid down in Articles 2(5) RPEBA and Article 10 BDS/EBA for the composition of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in proceedings under Article 23(1) EPC are compatible with the European Patent Convention and general principles of law.
2. Article 12a(5) RPEBA requires that the request under Article 12a(1) RPEBA specify individual incidents and the evidence for them, and give reasons why they constitute a serious ground within the meaning of Article 23(1) EPC.
G 2301/16
For the Enlarged Board to be able to continue with these proceedings the position of the Petitioner [Administrative Council] would have to be that it did not agree with the Office President and acknowledged that, from an institutional point of view, the pressure exercised by the Office President in the present case was incompatible with the judicial independence of the Enlarged Board guaranteed by the EPC. As the Petitioner did not clearly distance itself from the Office President’s position, there is the threat of disciplinary measures against the members of the Enlarged Board. It is then the Enlarged Board’s judicial independence in deciding on this case which is fundamentally denied.
G 2301/15 - link
G 2302/15 - link
