T 0491/25 - Omitting the co-applicant

Key points

• The professional representative (solo practitioner, it seems) files a Notice of appeal using the annotations field in Form 1038, referring to 'the appellant' (with automatic debiting). The entire text is as follows:
• 
• After the filing of the statement of grounds, the Board's registry issues an invitation to state the name and address. On the same day, the representative provides the applicant's name and address.
• However, the application was filed by joint applicants (two human persons) and the representative stated the name of only one of the applicants (the first-named applicant) in his reply.

• The second named applicant is a natural person with address in Russia. 

• Five months later, the Board issues a communication.
• In reply (again consisting of Form 1038 and using the annotations field), the representative files a request under Rule 139, first sentence, to the effect that the correct appellants are the two persons jointly.
• "The request for correction merely asserts that the notice of appeal was actually and truly intended to be filed on behalf of the joint applicants and that one of the two co-applicants had been [...] omitted due to a mistake. It is not accompanied by any evidence of this true intention or by arguments explaining why this alleged true intention was "immediately apparent" in spite of the contrary indication given in the letter of 4 April 2025."
• "In its letter of 4 April 2025, the appellant confirmed that the (only) appellant was [person X]. This is an explicit indication that it had in fact been the true intention to file the appeal on behalf of [person X] as the sole appellant, rendering it no longer "immediately apparent" (cf. G 1/12, Reasons 37) that the appeal had been intended to be filed on behalf of both co-applicants. For example, the representative may have truly believed that [person X] was the only applicant, which would mean that the notice of appeal did not contain a mistake in the sense of an expression deviating from the representative's actual intention (see J 7/19, Reasons 6 and 7; T 2474/19, Reasons 2.6.2 and 2.7.1; and T 71/21, Reasons 6.4.2), or he may for some other reason have decided to file the appeal on behalf of [person X] only."
• "The board concludes that the applicants have not shown that the requested correction of the notice of appeal introduces what was originally actually intended, even less so according to the "heavy burden of proof" referred to in [G1/12]".
• In view of the above, the request for correction of the notice of appeal under Rule 139, first sentence, EPC is to be refused, and the appeal is to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 107 and Rule 101(1) EPC).
• 
  

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump.

T 1226/13 - Correction identity opponent

Key points

• An opposition was filed in October 2008 in the name of Leica Microsystems Heidelberg GmbH with address in Mannheim. At that time, "Leica Microsystems Heidelberg GmbH" did not exist anymore. The Board allows the correction of the opponent identity under Rule 139 EPC into "Leica Microsystems CMS GmbH". Some emails of the in-house patent counsel of Leica instructing an external patent attorney to file the Notice of opposition are relied on as evidence that the true intention was to file in the name of "Leica Microsystems CMS GmbH" (there are numerous Leica legal entities, but only one with the same address in Mannheim.  
• The submitted emails fulfil the "heavy burden of proof"  of G1/12, r.37(b). The critical email of Mr. O. to Ms. F reads in relevant part: " "wollen wir gegen EP 1 396 739 B1 von Zeiss einsprechen". Furthermore the evidence is that Mr. O. was an employee of  Leica Microsystems CMS GmbH based on the email signature. " Das bedeutet, dass Herr O. für die Leica Microsystems CMS GmbH, Am Friedensplatz 3, 68165 Mannheim den Auftrag zur Einlegung eines Einspruchs erteilt hat." 

• The decision is rather lengthy and was taken by the Board in extended composition (5 members), but overall seems a straightforward application of G1/12 (issued 30.04.2014, so during the appeal procedure)
• For some reason, the Board has written the decision for the relevant part as a copy/paste of the provisional opinion, with changed marked with square brackets. Hence, the paragraph numbering is rather confusing (paragraphs of the provisional opinion nested in the decision text). The interested reader can find the somewhat clearer formatted PDF decision in the usual place on the EPO website. 

EPO T 1226/13 - link

1. Die Beschwerde ist zulässig.

2. Der Einspruch ist ebenfalls zulässig. Dieses Ergebnis wird nachstehend im Einzelnen begründet.

Die Kammer hält insoweit im Wesentlichen an ihrer Darstellung des Sachverhalts und vorläufigen rechtlichen Würdigung in der oben, unter Nr. VI, erwähnten Mitteilung fest. Das gilt für Nr. 1, Seite 5, bis einschließlich Nr. 1.2.3c), Seite 32 (Ende des ersten vollen Absatzes, der mit den Worten "... nur ein weiteres.)" schließt. Der Auszug wird im Folgenden wörtlich und unter Beibehaltung der Nummerierung in der Mitteilung wiedergegeben.

Änderungen sind mit Hinzufügungen in eckigen Klammern bzw. Durchstreichungen oder Auslassungspunkten kenntlich gemacht.

Der Auszug wird in der nachstehenden Fassung endgültig.

An diesen Auszug schließt sich eine Darstellung und Bewertung der auf die vorgenannte Mitteilung der Kammer hin eingereichten Beweismittel der Beschwerdegegnerin (Einsprechenden) und der Stellungnahme der Beschwerdeführerin (Patentinhaberin) hierzu an.

Die Kammer hält im Übrigen auch an ihrer vorläufigen Auffassung in Abschnitt Nr. 1.2.4: "Vorlage bestimmter Fragen an die Große Beschwerdekammer" (Mitteilung, Seite 35 unten bis 37 oben) fest, welche damit ebenfalls endgültig wird.

2.1 Zulässigkeit des Einspruchs

[Beginn des Auszugs aus der mit der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung übersandten Mitteilung]

1. Zulässigkeit des Einspruchs

1.1 Sachverhalt

1.1.1 Einspruchsverfahren vor der Einspruchsabteilung

In dem am 2. Oktober 2008, dem letzten Tag der Einspruchsfrist eingelegten und von ,,Dr. Landskron (Zusammenschluss Nr. 35)", Kanzlei Schaumburg, Thoenes, Thurn, Landskron, Eckert, unterschriebenen Einspruch ist die Leica Microsystems Heidelberg GmbH mit Anschrift Am Friedensplatz 3, 68165 Mannheim als Einsprechende bezeichnet. Mit Schreiben vom 18. November 2008 teilten die Vertreter dem EPA mit, dass ,,der Firmenname der Einsprechenden Leica Microsystems Heidelberg GmbH in Leica Microsystems CMS GmbH geändert" (eigene Hervorhebung) worden sei und beantragten, ,,die Änderungen entsprechend zu vermerken". Als Nachweis war eine beglaubigte Kopie einer notariellen Bescheinigung beigelegt (Anlage 3), in welcher als letzte Ereignisse der Unternehmensgeschichte eine Änderung der Firma in Leica Microsystems CMS GmbH und sodann deren Verschmelzung - am 12. April 2005 - mit der Leica Microsystems Wetzlar GmbH genannt sind. Die neue Firma laute Leica Microsystems CMS GmbH.

T 1755/14 - Non-existent opponent and correction identity

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, it becomes apparent that the legal entity named as opponent in the Notice of opposition, did not exist at the date of filing the opposition, because it was a KG (limited partnership under German law) which was dissolved about 1 October, i.e. before the  Notice of opposition was filed on 8 October. The Board is satisfied that a universal succession took place on 1 October from the KG to the AG (a different entity, and a partner in the KG).  Hence, the KG no longer existed on 8 October.
• The Board allows a correction of the opponent identity under Rule 139 from the KG to the AG. 
• " There is nothing to indicate that the true intention was to file the opposition in the name of a person other than the only successor of the person who originally instructed its representative to file the opposition. The board is convinced that the representative (who may not have been aware of the succession on 8 October 2010) had intended to file the opposition on behalf of the entity which had acquired all the assets and liabilities of the entity that gave him the instruction to file the opposition".
• The OD had found the opposition to be inadmissible due to the non-existence of the KG at the filing date of the opposition; the Board allows the appeal and remits the case.

EPO T 1755/14 - link

Reasons for the Decision

1. Admissibility of the appeal

1.1 The opposition was filed on behalf of SymKG and the opponent was referred to as "SymKG" throughout the opposition proceedings. The respondent challenged the admissibility of the appeal filed by SymAG, arguing that the requirements of Article 107 EPC were not met since SymAG had not been a party to the opposition proceedings.

1.2 Since no other issues concerning the admissibility of the appeal have been raised by the respondent or identified by the board, the admissibility of the appeal depends solely on the identity of the opponent. If SymAG was recognised as the opponent, it would be adversely affected by the decision under appeal and its appeal would be admissible.

2. Universal succession from SymKG to SymAG

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)

T 1458/12 - Correction of address appellant

EPO  T 1458/12 - link - [C]

Key points

• In the notice of appeal, an incorrect address of the appellant had been given. The address can be corrected and the appeal is admissible.
• " The board is also satisfied that a "wrong address" may be corrected pursuant to Rule 139, first sentence, EPC (see e.g. G 1/12, reasons 34 and 35) and that the appellant requested faultlessly that its originally indicated address be changed due to an "objectively incorrect designation of this address" [] - regardless of whether it was considered incorrect before or after [the date of filing the notice of appeal]. In this context, the board adds that - although it is advisable that a party notifies an address change as quickly as possible - there is no provision in the EPC prescribing a specific time period for indicating a party's address change, whether or not the corresponding representative is aware of that change.

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is against the decision of the opposition division to revoke the present European patent [...]

III. The notice of appeal of the appellant (patent proprietor) indicated that an appeal was lodged "in the name and on behalf of our client Innovative Sonic Limited; P.O. Box 957; offshore incorporations centre Road Town, Tortola BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS". [...]

V. With a letter of reply, the respondent (opponent) requested that the appeal be rejected as inadmissible or that the appeal be dismissed, and provided arguments in support of those requests. With regard to the purported inadmissibility of the appeal, it further filed two documents, namely a letter from the appellant's then representative of 27 February 2012 (document A8) and an excerpt from the British Virgin Islands Business Companies Act, 2004 (document A9) as evidence that, at the time the appeal was filed, the appellant had ceased to exist due to discontinuation of the company Innovative Sonic Limited in BVI.

VI. In response to a communication of the board under Rule 100(2) EPC inviting the appellant and its representative to assist in clarifying the particular circumstances of the discontinuation and to file an authorisation under Rule 152(1) EPC, the appellant requested by letter dated 16 April 2014 that the "patentee's address" be changed in two steps, firstly "from

INNOVATIVE SONIC LIMITED; P.O. Box 957; offshore incorporations centre; Road Town, Tortola; British Virgin Islands

to INNOVATIVE SONIC LIMITED; 4**(th) Floor, Unicorn Centre; 18N Frere Felix De Valois Street; Port Louis; Mauritius"

and then, in a second step (as of February 2014), "to INNOVATIVE SONIC LIMITED; 2nd Floor, The Axis, 26 Cybercity, Ebene 72201, Mauritius".

This registration of an address change was requested because the original address given in the notice of appeal had been incorrect since 20 October 2010. In addition, the appellant filed, besides the authorisation of its then representative, a "certificate of discontinuance" (from the authorities of the British Virgin Islands) and a "certificate of registration by continuation" (from the authorities of the Republic of Mauritius) as evidence that the above change constituted a mere change of address.