This moggy noticed a little while ago an extraordinary interlocutory decision from the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office in case R 19/12 (an application for review of a decision of a Board of Appeal). It is unfortunately in German (and seemingly will stay in German only, since it is not marked for publication in the Official Journal of the EPO), and so he is immensely grateful that Katfriend Rudolf Teschemacher of Bardehle Pagenberg has prepared a jolly useful note over on the EPLaw Patent Blog, which he urges interested readers to consult.
The decision does not seem to have sparked the interest that it deserves, despite the fact that it has profound ramifications. In fact, this Kat has seen only one other report, over in the news section of Dennemeyer's website.
|Who said "judicial independence"?|
The EBA adds that this conflict is not a consequence of the provisions of the Convention. The EPC stipulates neither that the VP DG3 is at the same time Chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal nor that VP DG3 is a member of the Management Committee or of other bodies with administrative functions.
Because the reason relates to the structure of the management of the EPO, it presumably applies to this member in any appeal case, and to any other Board of Appeal member that might occupy a management position with administrative function in future. This Kat supposes therefore that some readjustment of the management of DG3 will be required.