Friend of the IPKat Darren Smyth has informed the IPKat of a new decision by the EPO Englarged Board of Appeal. He writes

Article 105 EPC allows a person against whom a patentee has started infringement proceedings to "intervene" in any pending Opposition proceedings relating to the patent concerned, even though the period for filing an Opposition has passed. The intervener must file a reasoned statement as to why the patent should be revoked. In general, the intervener is then treated in the same way as a regular Opponent.G01/94 confirmed that it was possible to intervene during Appeal proceedings as well as during the first instance proceedings before the Opposition Division.

The new Decision G03/04 now states that, in the case of intervention during appeal proceedings, if the Opponent-Appellant withdraws the sole Appeal, proceedings cannot be continued with the intervener.

The IPKat says thanks Darren!
NEW EPO DECISION NEW EPO DECISION Reviewed by Unknown on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 Rating: 5


  1. To expand upon this comment, essentially, the Enlarged Board considered that the status of an assumed infringer who intervenes only during appeal proceedings to be that of a party to the proceedings but not an appellant. The intervenor cannot obtain the status of an appealing party since there is no basis in the EPC for the payment of the appeal fee during appeal proceedings. Accordingly, if the appeal is withdrawn, the intervention does not alter the position and proceedings are terminated.

    The decision (in German) can be found at:

  2. The decision can be found in English at


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.