J 0014/19 - (II) Stay of proceedings

Key points

• The Legal Board uses this case to give an overview of the legal framework for the stay of proceedings under Rule 14 EPC. A translation is given below. I recommend reading the entire decision.
• All following quotes are translations.
• “[A stay] will take place immediately. The applicant is informed of the stay of the proceedings by means of a communication - without having to be heard beforehand. He then has the opportunity to oppose this and to obtain an appealable decision []. The stay of the grant procedure takes effect immediately on the day on which the fulfillment of the requirements of Rule 14(1) EPC has been proven by the third party [] and can also be pronounced retrospectively to this day” (internal citations omitted).”
• “3.5 If the stay of the proceedings was wrongly ordered by [the Legal Division], in the appeal proceedings only the continuation of the granting proceedings with effect for the future can be ordered. The immediate effect of the stay can neither be eliminated retrospectively nor reversed by a decision in the appeal proceedings [].”
• “According to Rule 14(1) EPC, in order to stay the grant procedure, a third party must prove that the third party (i) has initiated proceedings (ii) against the applicant, (iiii) with the aim of obtaining a decision within the meaning of Article 61(1) EPC”
• “the European Patent Office has no discretion in deciding on a stay under Rule 14 (1) EPC. If a third party proves that the requirements specified in Rule 14 (1) EPC have been met in good time, the grant procedure must be stayed”
• The applicant had also requested a lifting of the stay, based on the argument that the stay was abuse of procedure. The Legal Board then turns to the meaning of that concept under the EPC.
• “ In order to avoid contradictions in valuation, such questions [about alleged abuse of procedure] are to be assessed by the European Patent Office autonomously within the framework of the stay procedure, i.e. independently of national legal systems". 
• “The improper use of a legal right can under certain circumstances constitute abuse of procedure. This is the case, for example, if the exercise of rights is predominantly intended to cause damage and other legitimate purposes take a back seat. Abuse of procedure must be unequivocal and requires careful examination and weighing of the individual circumstances. The burden of proof lies with the person who invokes abuse of procedure”

 

Headnote (translation)

1.) Evidence of the existence of the prerequisites for the stay of the proceedings under Rule 14(1) EPC must be provided during pending grant proceedings and thus before the notice of grant is published in the European Patent Bulletin. Evidence that is submitted after this point in time may not be taken into account by the European Patent Office (No. 4.3 of the reasons).


2.) The question at which point in time a national procedure within the meaning of Rule 14 (1) EPC in conjunction with Article 61(1) EPC is deemed to have been initiated is to be assessed according to the procedural law of the state whose courts are responsible for taking a decision within the meaning of Article 61 (1) EPC (No. 6.1 and 6.2 of the reasons).



3.) When applying foreign law, the European Patent Office must apply this, as far as possible, in the overall context of the foreign legal system. As an international organization independent of state authorities and courts, the European Patent Office is not bound by the case law of national courts for the interpretation of the foreign legal norms to be applied. However, if known to the European Patent Office, national case law of the highest court in particular should be taken into account and assessed in the decision-making process (No. 6.5 of the reasons).


4.) Questions of abuse of rights also arise in the proceedings before the European Patent Office (see e.g. Article 16 (1) e) RPBA 2020). In order to avoid contradictions in valuation, such questions are to be assessed by the European Patent Office autonomously within the framework of the stay procedure, i.e. independently of national legal systems (No. 6.22 of the reasons).

5.) The improper use of a right can under certain circumstances constitute abuse of procedure. This is the case, for example, if the exercise of rights is predominantly intended to cause damage and other legitimate purposes take a back seat. Abuse of procedure must be unequivocal and requires careful examination and weighing of the individual circumstances. The burden of proof lies with the person who invokes abuse of procedure (No. 13.1 of the reasons).

J 0014/19 -  J14/09

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/j190014du1.html

 

Translation

 [...]

2. Right to the grant of a European patent

 2.1 According to Article 60(1) EPC, the right to a European patent belongs to the inventor or his successor in title. In proceedings before the European Patent Office, according to Article 60(3) EPC, it is deemed that the respective applicant - i.e. the person who formally requested the grant of the European patent - has the right to the European patent.

2.2 The European Patent Office is not empowered to decide whether a particular applicant has a claim under Article 60(1) EPC to the grant of a European patent for the subject matter of a particular application (G 3/92, No. 3 of the reasons). According to the Protocol on Recognition, the courts of the contracting states are exclusively responsible for this. These can award the right to the grant of the European patent to a person who is different from the applicant before the European Patent Office.

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 0024/13 - Stay of proceedings

EPO J 24/13

For the decision, click here

Key points

• A third party had obtained a stay of the grant procedure  under Rule 14 EPC based on an entitlement action in Belgium.
• The third party had recognised that it was not in a position to pursue this (first) entitlement action due to a lack of evidence. Therefore, it had withdrawn ("waived") "without prejudice" the Belgian entitlement action against the applicant. The applicant refused the waiver, so that the entitlement action formally continued. However no further action was taken in that Belgium action, instead a procedure including discovery was started in the USA.
• The Board: " In such circumstances, the third party cannot be regarded as truly seeking a national court decision recognising its right to the patent. In drawing this conclusion the Board is not considering the merits of the entitlement proceedings, as it is not within its competence to do so, but accepts the conclusion drawn by the respondent itself that its case before the Belgian Court was without prospect of success in the case at issue." 
• Therefore, a date for resumption of the procedure is set by the Board.
  

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from the decision by the Legal Division of 14 June 2013 refusing the applicant's main request that "the suspension of the grant proceedings be undone" and the auxiliary request that "a date for the resumption of the proceedings be set pursuant to Rule 14(3) EPC". The decision under appeal concerns both European patent applications Nos. 08 749 615.4 and 08 736 405.5. The present decision deals only with the first application.

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. [...]