T 1466/19 - A concise notice of appeal

Key points

• The opponent's representative feels adventurous and files a notice of appeal which states neither the name of the appellant, nor the address of the appellant, nor an express request.
• " Rule 99(1) EPC requires the notice of appeal to state the name and address of the appellant (Rule 99(1)(a) EPC) in addition to the decision under appeal (Rule 99(1)(b) EPC), and a request must be made specifying the subject-matter of the appeal (Rule 99(1)(c) EPC)." 
• Is the appeal admissible?
• " Since the notice of appeal was drawn up by a professional representative who had already been involved in the opposition proceedings and had represented the opponent there, it was evident that the same professional representative had also lodged the appeal on behalf of the opponent WABCO Europe BVBA." 
• The opponent had stated the address in the statement of grounds, and hence before any invitation of the Board to do so.
• " The subject-matter of the appeal is, in turn, obvious in the present case, despite the absence of an explicit request: After the opponent as appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the opposition division to uphold the patent, it must be assumed that with its appeal it seeks the revocation of the patent in suit. " 
• The appeal is admissible.

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t191466du1.html

Machine translation

Reasons for decision

Admissibility of the complaint

1. The appeal is admissible. The notice of appeal satisfies the requirements of Rule 99 EPC.

1.1 Rule 99(1) EPC requires the notice of appeal to state the name and address of the appellant (Rule 99(1)(a) EPC) in addition to the decision under appeal (Rule 99(1)(b) EPC), and a request must be made specifying the subject-matter of the appeal (Rule 99(1)(c) EPC).

1.2 The Respondent requests that the appeal be dismissed as inadmissible because the notice of appeal does not specify who the complainant is and which application is ultimately made.

1.3 The notice of appeal names the patent proprietor and the opponent in the subject line. Since the notice of appeal was drawn up by a professional representative who had already been involved in the opposition proceedings and had represented the opponent there, it was evident that the same professional representative had also lodged the appeal on behalf of the opponent WABCO Europe BVBA.

1.4 However, the notice of appeal does not state the complainant's address.

However, the absence of an address in the notice of appeal is not per se a reason for dismissing the appeal as inadmissible if the information in the notice of appeal is sufficient to identify the party (see, for example, T 483/90, reasons 1; T 624/09, reasons 1.1; T 662/09, reasons 1.2).

If there is reason to do so (see also T 2330/10, Reasons 1.6), the absence of the address can mean that the board of appeal, following the procedure described in Rule 101(2) EPC, requests the party concerned to provide the address details within a to submit the deadline set. Only if the party so requested fails to submit the requested information will the Board of Appeal dismiss the appeal as inadmissible.

In the present case, the appellant informed in the statement of grounds of the address missing in the notice of appeal (see page 1 of the statement of grounds of appeal in the subject: "Appellant and opponent: WABCO Europe BVBA, Chaussée de la Hulpe 166, 1170 Brussels, Belgium") and came up with one possible invitation by the Board of Appeal to file the missing information under Rule 101(2) EPC.

1.5 The subject-matter of the appeal is, in turn, obvious in the present case, despite the absence of an explicit request: After the opponent as appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the opposition division to uphold the patent, it must be assumed that with its appeal it seeks the revocation of the patent in suit. This was repeatedly seen by the Boards of Appeal in analogous cases (see case law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 10th edition, V-A-2.5.2 c) and, for example, T 2561/11, reasons for decision 2.5), so that also in the present case the notice of appeal implicitly contains the request for revocation of the patent in suit.