G 2/24 - Intervention in appeal

Key points

• The Enlarged Board confirmed that G 3/04 is still good law: after withdrawal of all appeals, appeal proceedings may not be continued with a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings.
• The Technical Board of Appeal wished to depart from G 3/04 and had referred the question under Art. 21 RPBA. 
• "Although Article 21 RPBA allows for, and even encourages, the further development of the case law, thereby granting the boards of appeal ample discretion for referral, the Enlarged Board does not find the prospect of a board of appeal referring a question of law solely because it disagrees with an earlier G-decision or opinion to be particularly appealing in terms of safeguarding consistent case law. In view of the legislative intent of Article 112 EPC to ensure a uniform application of the law, a board of appeal is expected to substantiate why it considers the earlier ruling on the interpretation of the law to have been superseded by a subsequent change in the law or for potential gaps in its reasoning. Another motivation for referring a question that had previously been answered by the Enlarged Board could be that a board of appeal is confronted with a new factual or procedural situation that distinguishes it substantially from the situation underlying the earlier referral. The Enlarged Board takes note of the referring board's criticism of the legal reasoning behind decision G 3/04 and will consider this in the following points."
• It seems that the President of the EPO, the epi and the German Patentanwaltskammer had also proposed to revise G 3/04. 
• Compared to the two recent decisions of the EBA, the present decision is of the usual length and contains detailed reasoning, applying the conventional types of legal reasoning.
• The EBA observes that there have been no relevant changes to the EPC since the time G 3/04 was given.
• The EBA analyses the 'legal concept of appeals' under the EPC,  citing the case law and the legal literature (handbooks), and in the same way analyses the legal concept of a 'party' to the proceedings (also citing the travaux), and the concept of intervention.
• The EBA also compares the legal situation in several EPC contracting states.
• "It follows from this comparative study that the procedural treatment of an intervener essentially depends on the specific regulation applicable in the respective court system. In the absence of a specific statutory provision stating that an intervention is independent of the main parties' procedural actions, an intervention is considered an accessory to the proceedings and ceases to have effect if the proceedings are terminated by the main parties."
• "As in the laws analysed in the comparative study, awarding an intervener an independent party status would require an explicit legal provision in the EPC. Hence, following and implementing the general, abstract and to some extent rather political observations of the President of the Office, four amicus curiae briefs (epi, Patentanwaltskammer, Mr Exner and Mr Thomas) and, to a certain extent, the referring board, would thus require amending the legal framework, i.e. the EPC and/or the Implementing Regulations."
• cf. Niklas Luhmann, Legitimiation durch Verfahren, page 131 (in the German original): "All dies ist bei Konditionalprogrammen [i.e., as in legal proceedings]  im Prinzip und weitgehend auch in der Praxis anders. Hier wird nach Maßgabe eines »Wenn« das programmierte »Dann« gewählt. Die Folgen werden von dem Entscheidenden nicht mit verantwortet, sondern dem angelastet, der das Programm erließ (und damit vielleicht seinerseits bestimmte Zwecke erreichen wollte). Die Verantwortlichkeit kann hier in weitem Umfange nach oben abgeschoben werden. Beim konditional programmierten Entscheiden geht es nur noch um den Nachweis, daß ein bestimmter Tatbestand faktisch vorliegt und daß es sich dabei um jenes Signal handelt, das nach dem Programm die Entscheidung auslösen sollte. Zum Entscheiden genügt juristischer Sachverstand, der sich nach Bedarf durch Zeugen und Sachverständige informieren läßt, die Entscheidung aber allein verantwortet. Auf diese Weise kann die Entscheidung gegen zahlreiche Möglichkeiten der Kritik praktisch immunisiert werden, vor allem ...  (4) gegen eine Kritik der Auswirkungen (im Unterschied zu den rein juristischen Konsequenzen). (...) Der dichotomisch zugeschliffene Darstellungsstil juristischer Begründungen, das Feststellen von Begriffen und Fakten als so und nicht anders, entspricht genau dieser Funktion, die Kritikfähigkeit einer Entscheidung zu reduzieren und auf wenige kontrollierbare Fehlerquellen zu beschränken - im Unterschied zum Denken in Wahrscheinlichkeiten und Chancen, gleitenden Skalen, Nutzenschätzungen, Wertverhältnissen und zeitbedingten Opportunitäten, das bei Zweckprogrammen [i.e., political decision-making] angebracht ist.
• Note that in the quote above, the part "i.e. the EPC and/or the Implementing Regulations" might be a key insight that was not a priori evident.
• The EBA refers in poin 37 to the 'rubrum' of the decision ("More specifically, the parties to the proceedings are first of all the parties for whom the deciding body intended to issue the decision. These are the parties that are named in the rubrum of the decision.")  It appears to be a German term (as explained e.g. here: https://www.pf.um.si/site/assets/files/5987/germany.pdf ) 

• EPO

The link to the decision can be found after the jump.

https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/g240002ex1