tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3030821308943719252..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Guidelines for interlocutory revision need revisionVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10188118102125970032014-07-13T21:21:50.512+01:002014-07-13T21:21:50.512+01:00And even with an opponent: T 168/03, if the decisi...And even with an opponent: T 168/03, if the decision is to revoke the patent for an incorrectly assumed failure to pay the for publishing a new specification of failure to file translations of amended claims. Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57841169281642161552014-07-04T12:15:08.331+01:002014-07-04T12:15:08.331+01:00That last comment prompts the thought that distast...That last comment prompts the thought that distaste for what the activist President is busying himself with, widely spread within both of DG1 and DG3, can have the counter-intuitive and unforeseen effect of prompting DG1 and DG3 to sink their differences and start to co-operate better with each other, rather than each "passing the parcel" (of individual case files) backwards and forwards between the first instance and the second. I assume that neither DG1 nor DG3 wants to see taken away from the EPO the task of judicially reviewing decisions taken within the EPO.<br /><br />I would welcome a shift of attitudes in both DG1 and DG3, henceforth to do what they each can, to ease the workload in the other of the two DG's.<br /><br />As I see it, this is just one more way to raise "Quality". The self-interest of everybody in the EPO lies with that.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-35345466936699778822014-07-04T09:28:54.781+01:002014-07-04T09:28:54.781+01:00Just as a general note, my take-home message from ...Just as a general note, my take-home message from this decision was that the BoA was telling EDs to stop wasting their time with pointless appeals and instead do what the EPC says they should do.<br /><br />I note the previous comment about the potential for multiple cycles of interloc revision without being able to get before a BoA, but it does look like the BoA pushing back on unnecessary caseload, which has to be welcomed as helping to reduce pendency and the number of pending appeals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37506182263731379112014-07-04T08:03:10.966+01:002014-07-04T08:03:10.966+01:00It is not absolutely clear whether opposition proc...It is not absolutely clear whether opposition proceedings become ex-parte after the sole opponent has withdrawn his opposition. However, if an opposition division concedes interlocutory revision on an appeal by the patent proprietor in such circumstances, few cases would reach the boards of appeal so that they may rule whether this was a substantial procedural violation or not.<br />If for example the OD forgot to summon to the requested oral proceedings before issuing its decision and the proprietor then appeals, I doubt that the boards would consider it a serious procedural violation if the OD concedes interlocutory revision on the proprietor's appeal and holds the oral proceedings as requested. Of course in such a a situation the appeal fee should be refunded by the OD.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-43432825605233262672014-07-03T18:13:05.648+01:002014-07-03T18:13:05.648+01:00Anon @ 17:23 - I'm not the earlier anonymous c...Anon @ 17:23 - I'm not the earlier anonymous commenter, but I note T283/02 whose headnote says: <br /><br /><i>"The withdrawal of an opposition is a definitive procedural declaration which takes away the opponent’s status as an active party to the proceedings. This declaration does not require the agreement of either the opposition division or the patent proprietor. It shall take effect as soon as it is received by the EPO."</i> <br /><br />As the sole opponent loses its status as an active party, the only remaining active party is the patentee. Don't know if that's good enough to make the proceedings ex parte, but I'd be surprised if they were still regarded as inter partes. Also the Guidelines clearly indicate this is the EPO's interpretation of the law at E-X, 7.1 (Yes, I know, they're not the law etc., but they do cover the Office's legal interpretation and divisions are normally expected to work within them in normal cases, so they're not entirely irrelevant as some suggest.)David Brophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03756548361266218916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-78945823484172503832014-07-03T17:23:48.096+01:002014-07-03T17:23:48.096+01:00Would the commentator who stated opposition procee...Would the commentator who stated opposition proceedings become ex-parte because the opponent withdraws provide the full legal basis for their position?<br />Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-79842315929367479362014-07-03T10:47:17.614+01:002014-07-03T10:47:17.614+01:00Theoretically, interlocutory revision is possible ...Theoretically, interlocutory revision is possible in opposition proceedings. If the sole opponent has withdrawn its opposition, the proceedings may lead to the proprietor filing an appeal which would then be ex-parte.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-14986472175910122142014-07-03T08:28:19.457+01:002014-07-03T08:28:19.457+01:00Firstly, interlocutory revision apllies only for e...Firstly, interlocutory revision apllies only for ex-parte cases. Not for oppositions.<br />Secondly, one aspect to interlocutory revision is that it aims to reduce useless appeals, since their issue is already solved. However, it risks to trap the applicant in a never ending succession of refusals, appeals, interlocutory revisions, again refusals, etc., making it de facto impossible to reach the boards to have his case examined at two instances.<br />Thus interlocutory revision is a very delicate instrument that should be handled with great care and measure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-39363454674611969032014-07-02T21:51:16.374+01:002014-07-02T21:51:16.374+01:00Read the Guidelines for some general information o...Read the Guidelines for some general information on practice, but they have never been legally binding and are frequently unsupported by case law. The should never be taken at face value and it is lazy practice to do so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com