T 0516/14 - No interruption for opponent

Key points

• " The insolvency administrator of [German] opponent 1 submitted that with the opening of insolvency proceedings over the assets of opponent 1, the appeal proceedings had to be interrupted according to § 240 S1 ZPO, German law." 
• The Board points out that in proceedings before the EPO, the applicable law is the EPC. 
• " Rule 142(1)(b) EPC stipulates that proceedings before the EPO are to be interrupted "in the event of the applicant for or proprietor of a patent, as a result of some action taken against his property, being prevented by legal reasons from continuing the proceedings". "Neither this nor any other provision mentions an opponent in opposition proceedings." 
• " The application of Rule 142(1)(b) EPC to an opponent by analogy is not justified either. Generally, in opposition proceedings, the legal situation for an opponent is different from that of a patent proprietor. While for a patent proprietor the irremediable loss of its patent is at stake, the opponent, if unsuccessful, could still bring an action for revocation before national courts." 
• The Board points out that the insolvency administrator becomes, under German law, the party to the proceedings ex officio "as of 14 July 2016. This provided the administrator with enough time to become acquainted with the case and prepare for the oral proceedings scheduled on 25 January 2019" 

EPO T 0516/14 - link

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeals are admissible.

2. The invention

The invention relates to a device for producing a three-dimensional tomographic mammography image, with the general objective of making possible an early detection of breast cancer.

The device is generally depicted in figure 2A, reproduced below.

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

J 0007/16 - Interruption and mental health

Key points

• In this case, a renewal fee was not paid in time. The request for re-establishment of rights was refused. The appeal was filed late. The Board grants re-establishment of rights for the appeal and for the renewal fee.
• The professional representative "  suffered from severe stress caused by the death of his wife and several other deaths in his circle of acquaintances".
• The Board examines ex officio whether interruption of proceedings should be applied (retroactively). However, the Board considers that "[in] view of the fact that declaration of the legal incapacity of a professional representative has serious consequences for his professional life", a medical certificate is indispensable. In the absence of such medical certificate, interruption is not applied. As a comment, this is in agreement with J 900/85, hn IV.
• Re-establishment for the time limit for the Notice of appeal and the Statement of grounds is granted. Only one re-establishment fee was due (following T 832/99).
• Re-establishment is granted, due to the mental health of the former professional representative (having a one person firm). The date of removal of the cause of non-compliance is the date that the applicant himself checked the status of the application, after rumours that the former representative had mismanaged other applications.
• The re-establishment is also granted for the payment of the renewal fee, because the mental health problem of the former representative had been substantiated in appel.  

EPO J 0007/16 - link

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The applicant's appeal is directed against the decision of the Receiving Section dated 29 July 2015 to reject a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC concerning European patent application 11812841.2.

II. The renewal fee for the third year, which fell due on 30 June 2013, was not paid by the due date. By communication dated 2 August 2013 notified to the applicant's former representative Mr E. (in the following 'former representative') the applicant was informed that the renewal fee could still validly be paid up to the last day of the sixth calendar month following the due date provided that the additional fee was paid at the same time. Furthermore it stated that the patent application would be deemed to be withdrawn pursuant to Article 86(1) EPC if the renewal fee and the additional fee were not paid in due time.

T 0854/12 - Non-existing and insolvent patentee

Key points

• The opponent appeals against the rejection of the opposition. During the first instance opposition proceedings, the patent was assigned to a woman who was the subject of (German) insolvency proceedings and had an insolvency administrator appointed. The Board finds that the Administrator had become the party to the opposition proceedings. The Board decides that no interruption of proceedings (Rule 142 EPC) had occurred in this case, despite the new patentee not being able to act herself in the proceedings (the condition laid down in Rule 142(1)(b) EPC). The reason is that the administrator had consented to the assignment and needs no time to familiarize himself with the situation, unlike the case envisaged in Rule 142 wherein a party (to EPO proceedings) becomes insolvent.
• Moreover, the (Technical) Board of Appeal can decide whether an interruption had occurred, there is no need for a decision by the Legal Division. The Board does not agree with the comments submitted by the EPO President that the Legal Division would have exclusive competence. 
• A further issue was that during the PCT phase, an earlier transfer of the application had been registered by WIPO, but the name registered as patentee, " [S] & Company Unternehmensberatung" was not the name of legal or natural person. Rather it was a (non-registered) tradename of the enterprise of the same woman. The procedure before the OD had been carried out with that tradename as patentee and party. This constitutes a substantial procedural violation because the enterprise is not a legal person and can not be party to proceedings before the EPO. 
• The Board remits the case back to the OD. That the substantive arguments (novelty etc. ) will likely be the same after the remittal, is not unusual in cases wherein a substantial procedural violation occurs and can not be a special ground for not remitting the case. 
• The Board awards costs against the patentee because the incorrect registration of the enterprise as patentee contributed to the substantial procedural violation. Incidentally, the original applicant was a man with the same family name as the woman. In view of various circumstances and statements made by the woman, the Board certainly does not exclude that the intention of originally registering a tradename as applicant, was to be able to keep open and only later fill in the identity of the applicant. However, abuse is suggested, but not proven, according to the Board. 

EPO T 0854/12 - link

EPO Headnote - informal translation

1. Interruptions of proceedings pursuant to Rule 142 EPC are at any time to be taken into account by the Office of its own motion. Their registration in the Register is not constitutive for the interrupting effect, but is only declaratory.

2. An interruption pursuant to Rule 142(1)(b) EPC [insolvency] takes effect, when a patentee, who was initially not limited in his control of the proceedings, is "prevented from continuing the proceedings" by the opening of insolvency proceedings. The proceedings are not interrupted when a patent is transferred, with consent of the insolvency administrator, to a patentee who already is limited in his capacity to act, who thus does not become a party to the proceedings, but acts from the outset for the insolvency administrator, who is not limited in his capacity to act.

3. The Board deciding on the case must decide itself, whether on the basis of the facts submitted, and if applicable, facts additionally provided by the Office, the conditions for an interruption are met, in as far as this poses a preliminary question for the decision to be taken.

4. No binding effect of the state of the Register exists, and neither, if applicable, of relevant adopted appeal decisions. The consistency of appeal decisions of the Office follows from the substantive discussion in view of already adopted parallel decisions and, if applicable, the hearing of the Legal Division about pending parallel proceedings.

5. The requirement of party status is at any time to be considered ex officio. An enterprise is, differently from the person or legal entity behind it (Article 58 EPC), not a party in proceedings before the EPO. If the person or legal entity can not be determined beyond reasonable doubt, the proceedings suffers from a substantial procedural violation.

6. A different cost apportionment pursuant to Article 104 EPC and Rule 88 EPC is justified, when the uncertainty about which legal person is behind the enterprise putatively acting as party was deliberately exploited or the continued existence thereof was consciously accepted and parts of the proceedings must therefore unnecessarily be repeated.

7. Because of the healing effect of the non-appealable decision to grant (notwithstanding the possibility of opposition, which is restricted to limited grounds of opposition), any defect in the grant or international phase play no role in later procedural stages. A possible setback in the grant or PCT phase is therefore not an option.

EPO Headnote - original

1. Unterbrechungen des Verfahrens gemäß Regel 142 EPÜ sind jederzeit von Amts wegen zu berücksichtigen. Ihre Eintragung in das Register ist für die Unterbrechungswirkung nicht konstitutiv, sondern wirkt nur deklaratorisch. (Gründe 1.1.1)

2. Eine Unterbrechung nach Regel 142 (1) b) EPÜ tritt ein, wenn ein Patentinhaber, der in der Verfahrensführung zunächst nicht beschränkt war, nun infolge Eröffnung des Insolvenzverfahrens "verhindert ist, das Verfahren fortzuführen".

Eine Unterbrechung tritt nicht ein, wenn ein Patent mit Zustimmung des Insolvenzverwalters auf einen schon verfügungsbeschränkten Patentinhaber übertragen wird, der damit nicht selbst Partei des Verfahrens wird, sondern für den von Anfang an der in seiner Verfügungsgewalt nicht beschränkte Insolvenzverwalter handelt. (Gründe 1.1.2)

3. Eine mit der Entscheidung befasste Beschwerdekammer muss selbst entscheiden, ob aufgrund der vorgetragenen und ggfs. von Amts wegen ergänzend zu ermittelnden Fakten die Voraussetzungen einer Unterbrechung vorliegen, sofern dies eine Vorfrage für die zu treffende Entscheidung darstellt.

(Gründe 1.2.1 - 1.2.9)

4. Eine Bindung an den Stand des Registers und an ggfs. diesbezüglich ergangene Beschwerdeentscheidungen besteht nicht. Eine Vereinheitlichung der Rechtsprechung des Amtes erfolgt durch inhaltliche Auseinandersetzung mit bereits ergangenen Parallelentscheidungen und ggfs. die Anhörung der Rechtsabteilung zu anhängigen Parallelverfahren.

(Gründe 1.2.5, 1.2.6 und 2.4)

5. Das Erfordernis der Parteifähigkeit ist jederzeit von Amts wegen zu berücksichtigen. Ein Unternehmen ist, anders als die hinter ihm stehende Person oder Gesellschaft (Artikel 58 EPÜ), im Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt nicht parteifähig. Lässt sich diese Person oder Gesellschaft nicht zweifelsfrei ermitteln, so leidet das Verfahren an einem wesentlichen Verfahrensfehler. (Gründe 3.2 und 3.3)

6. Eine abweichende Kostenverteilung nach Artikel 104 und Regel 88 EPÜ ist gerechtfertigt, wenn die Unklarheit über den Rechtsträger des als vermeintliche Partei auftretenden Unternehmens im Verfahren gezielt ausgenutzt oder ihr Fortbestand jedenfalls bewusst in Kauf genommen wurde und Teile des Verfahrens daher unnötigerweise wiederholt werden müssen. (Gründe 5.3 und 6.2)

7. In Folge der Heilungswirkung des mit Rechtsbehelfen (unbeschadet der auf wenige Einspruchsgründe beschränkten Einspruchsmöglichkeit) nicht angreifbaren Erteilungsbeschlusses nach Artikel 97, 98 EPÜ spielen etwaige Mängel des Erteilungs- oder internationalen Verfahrens in späteren Verfahrensstadien keine Rolle mehr. Eine etwaige Zurückversetzung in die Erteilungs- oder PCT-Phase kommt daher nicht in Betracht. (Gründe 7)