J 0001/23 - Entitled to a share

Key points

• "The appeal of the registered applicant Beamocular AB (Beamocular) lies against the decision of the Legal Division, dated 13 October 2022, providing that the previously stayed patent grant proceedings for European patent application No. 16 708 122.3 (the application) be resumed, with Beamocular and the third party within the meaning of Rule 14 EPC, C-Rad Imaging AB (C-Rad), as co-applicants. "
• "-Rad informed the EPO that it had instituted proceedings before the Stockholm District Court (in case No. PMT 6829-17) against Beamocular to seek a decision within the meaning of Article 61(1) EPC, and it requested that the patent grant proceedings based on the application be stayed under Rule 14(1) EPC. "
• Proceedings were stayed.
• The Swedish Court of Appeal held that: "[...] declares that C-RAD Imaging AB has a better title than Beamocular AB (in bankruptcy) to half of the or those inventions specified in the patent claims [...] in the European patent application with publication number EP 3265852 as worded after the amendment made when the application was pursued at the European Patent office [...]"
• Seems the procedure before the EPO was not interrupted despite the bankruptcy (note, interruption must be applied by the EPO ex officio if it sees grounds).
• Note also that the resumption was first communication with a  Communication. The party requested an appealable decision, which was then issued. It says 'will be resumed'. Note that the party can appeal it, which is one of the few permitted procedural acts during a stay, I think.
• "It is established case law that the EPO is not competent to examine the substance and merits of a national entitlement decision (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th edition, July 2022, III.M.3.1.2, fifth and sixth paragraphs; G 3/92, Reasons 3.3 and 3.4). The Swedish Court explicitly based its decision on, inter alia, Article 18(1) of the Swedish Patents Act, (page 5, fourth full paragraph, "Legal points of departure"), and the Board has no competence to review the correctness of this legal basis."
• 
  
• A translation of the Swedish court decision can be found in the EPO file here.
• I omit a discussion of the headnote. It is a reply to the argument that "" the Swedish decision does not mention any ground, by agreement or law, for a transfer of rights from the inventors to C-Rad, i.e. that there is no reference to a legal situation or transaction which would have made C-Rad successor in title in compliance with Article 81, second sentence EPC in conjunction with Article 60(1) EPC". The interested reader could read the  Swedish decision to see how the court came to its conclusion. 
• The Legal Board explains that in "cases where a final sovereign decision of a national court  [of an EPC contracting state, it must be added!] has determined that a person other than the applicant is entitled to the grant of the European patent under Article 61(1) EPC. In such instances, the matter of by whom and how the right to the patent was acquired is deliberated and settled by the competent national court, and the EPO is bound by the court's conclusion without further requirement." 

EPO 

You can find the link to the decision after the jump. 

J 0003/18 - Resumption after stay

Key points

• This is an appeal relating to a stay of proceedings under Rule 14. As a refresher, if a stay is granted, the applicant is not heard. The applicant can not appeal the decision to stay as such (Singer/Stauder/Luginbuhl, 8th ed. Art.61 rdn. 14). The applicant, however, can request resumption of the proceedings. If the Legal Division refuses the request, the applicant can appeal. The appeal proceedings are inter partes. The present case is an example.
• The Board does not allow the appeal. "Rule 14(3) EPC is to be interpreted as a discretionary provision giving the deciding body of the EPO the power to exercise it. The Board has therefore to decide whether the [Legal Division] exercised its discretion properly", in line with G7/93. The Legal Board can also lift the stay if changes have occurred in the facts of the situation during the appeal procedure (J4/17).  
• "The fact, as accepted by both parties, that litigation in the Belgian legal system is extremely long until the final decision is reached, cannot influence the outcome of these appeal proceedings, because it is unclear how long these proceedings will actually take and which consequences this will have for the parties." 
• The stay as of 19 July 2016 remains in place.
• As a preliminary comment, I wonder whether, the (possible) slowness of the competent national court can be a ground for lifting the stay at all, because the Diplomatic Conference has decided that entitlement proceedings are the exclusive competence of the national courts. It was the choice of the Diplomatic Conference to entrust the national courts with entitlement proceedings, so possibly it can be said that the EPO has to respect this including any resulting delays. 

EPO J 0003/18 -  link

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This appeal lies against the decision of the Legal Division of 12 January 2018 not to set a date for resumption of the grant proceedings pursuant to Rule 14(3) EPC.

II. The appellant and applicant had applied for the grant of a patent whose inventor according to the application no 14722800.1 is [mr X], resident of Bruges, a former employee until 2011 of the respondent/third party.

III. The respondent/third party in accordance to Rule 14 EPC requested with letter dated 8 July 2016 the stay of the proceedings for grant, having, as alleged inter alia, entitlement claims regarding the patent it had initiated on 30 June 2016 legal proceedings against its former employee, its company EL Research & Consultancy BVBA and the applicant, before the Dutch speaking Commercial Court in Brussels.

IV. The Legal Division, with a communication dated 19 July 2016 requested from the respondent/third party evidence regarding the service of said writ of summons to the applicant. Meanwhile the Examining Division with a decision dated 6 July 2017 decided to grant the European patent. The mention of the grant was to be published in the European Patent Bulletin 17/31 of 2 August 2017.

J 0018/14 - Undoing of transfer

EPO J 18/14

For the decision, click here [DE]

 

Note 02.01.2024: an English version of the decision is available as J 0016/1: link

EPO Headnote

Die Rückumschreibung einer vollzogenen Umschreibung im Europäischen Patentregister ist nicht ohne weiteres gerechtfertigt, wenn nachträglich Zweifel an dem hinreichenden Nachweis der behaupteten Rechtsnachfolge auftreten. Gegebenenfalls kommt vielmehr zugunsten des ursprünglich Eingetragenen die Aussetzung des Eintragungs- bzw. Einspruchsverfahrens in Betracht.

EPO Headnote (informal translation)

Undoing a completed registration of a transfer of a patent or patent application in the European Patent Register is not justified without more, when subsequently doubts occur about whether the proof of the alleged succesion in title is sufficient. Rather, suspension of the examination or opposition proceedings is to be considered in favour of the originally registered person.

"When a title to a European patent or patent application has been transferred and the European Patent Register has been amended to reflect this, it is not justified, if doubt later arises as to sufficient proof of succession in title,to undo the registration of the transfer. Nevertheless a request,(by the party having been registered before), for staying the grant and/or the opposition proceedings could be taken into consideration" (J 16/14)

Key points

• A transfer of a patent application was registered. The previous applicant was informed of the transfer. The previous applicant filed a protest and requested the transfer to be undone. The Legal Division reversed the transfer. The assignee (new owner) filed an appeal.
• The Board decides that the Legal Division was not correct in undoing the transfer, because a duly signed written contract had been submitted as evidence. Questions of whether the person signing on behalf of the assignor was had authority to sign and/or whether the transfer was unlawful, are beyond the scope of examination by the EPO. Because the assignee had been registered as applicant, he is deemed to be entitled in proceedings before the EPO (Article 60(3) EPC).
• The Board suspends proceedings under Rule 14, and considers the proceedings before the national courts regarding the invalidity of the transfer to be proceedings under Article 61.

Sachverhalt und Anträge

I. Die Beschwerde richtet sich gegen die Entscheidung der Rechtsabteilung vom 28. April 2014, mit der sie den Antrag der Beschwerdeführerin, sie wiederum als Anmelderin bzw. Patentinhaberin an den folgenden Patentanmeldungen und erteilten Patenten (im Folgenden "die betroffenen Anmeldungen und Patente") im Europäischen Patentregister einzutragen, zurückgewiesen hat:

Europäische Patentanmeldungen mit den Anmeldenummern
05 002 204.5 (Beschwerdeaktenzeichen J 22/14)
06 013 136.4 (Beschwerdeaktenzeichen J 16/14)
06 762 753.9 (Beschwerdeaktenzeichen J 21/14)
06 762 754.7 (Beschwerdeaktenzeichen J 20/14)
08 008 210.0 (Beschwerdeaktenzeichen J 17/14)

Europäische Patente
EP 1 907 634 (Beschwerdeaktenzeichen J 18/14)
EP 1 698 733 (Beschwerdeaktenzeichen J 19/14).

II. Dem liegt folgender Sachverhalt zugrunde:

Die Beschwerdegegnerin war ursprünglich als Anmelderin der genannten fünf Europäischen Patentanmeldungen und als Inhaberin der genannten beiden Europäischen Patente in das europäische Patentregister eingetragen. Als europäischer Vertreter war jeweils Herr Patentanwalt Weigel im Patentregister genannt. Mit Schreiben vom 23. Juni 2010 (für EP 1 698 733: 22. Juni 2010) hat Herr Patentanwalt Weigel beim EPA unter Berufung darauf, dass er sowohl die bisherige Anmelderin/Inhaberin als auch die zukünftige Anmelderin/Inhaberin der betroffenen Anmeldungen und Patente (die jetzige Beschwerdeführerin), vertrete, jeweils die Umschreibung des Registers auf die Beschwerdeführerin beantragt und zum Nachweis des Rechtsübergangs Auszüge aus einer Übertragungsvereinbarung ("Assignment Agreement") vom 25. März 2010 vorgelegt, die auf Seiten der Übertragenden von Herrn Richard Heindl, von Seiten der Erwerberin von Herrn Enrico Farroni als Präsident ihres Verwaltungsrats unterzeichnet war. Zum Nachweis der Vertretungsbefugnis des Herrn Richard Heindl für die Beschwerdegegnerin lag ein an diesen gerichtetes Schreiben vom 27. Oktober 2003 vor, in dem ihm von Herr Roberto Redondo Wendt als "President" der Beschwerdegegnerin bestätigt wurde, dass Richard Heindl zum CEO der Beschwerdegegnerin bestellt ist ("named and recognized as the CEO of PilePro LLC").

III. Die Umschreibung des Registers auf die Beschwerdeführerin wurde jeweils antragsgemäß vorgenommen.

IV. Hiergegen hat sich die Beschwerdegegnerin mit ihrem am 19. August 2011 beim EPA eingegangenen Schreiben gewendet und die Rückumschreibung oder hilfsweise die Aussetzung der Verfahren bis zum rechtskräftigen Abschluss des über die betroffenen Anmeldungen und Patente anhängigen Zivilverfahrens vor dem Kantonsgericht Zug (Schweiz) beantragt. Die Beschwerdegegnerin hat gerügt, dass Herr Patentanwalt Weigel betreffend die Umschreibverfahren keine Vertretungsmacht für sie besessen habe. Außerdem hat die Beschwerdegegnerin beanstandet, dass der Umschreibungsstelle die Übertragungsvereinbarung nur auszugsweise vorgelegen habe, weswegen die Umschreibung nicht hätte vorgenommen werden dürfen. Die Übertragungsvereinbarung sei auch nicht wirksam, denn Herr Richard Heindl habe keine alleinige Zeichnungsberechtigung für diese Vereinbarung besessen. Nach allgemeinen Rechtsgrundsätzen sei das EPA zum Widerruf von rechtswidrigen Verwaltungsakten, im vorliegenden Fall der Umschreibungen, verpflichtet. Jedenfalls aber seien alle anhängigen Verfahren vor dem EPA wegen einer einstweiligen Verfügung des Schweizerischen Kantonsgerichts Zug vom 1. September 2010, mit der der jetzigen Beschwerdeführerin unter Androhung von Zwangsmaßnahmen untersagt worden war, über die hier betroffenen Anmeldungen und Patente zulasten der jetzigen Beschwerdegegnerin Verfügungen zu treffen, auszusetzen. Die entsprechende Hauptklage sei fristgerecht bei dem Schweizerischen Kantonsgericht anhängig gemacht worden. [...]