EPO's Administrative Council powerless to amend the EPC: The latest on T 1063/18

The IPKat recently reported on the EPO board of appeal decision on the patentability of plant products produced by essentially biological processes, a decision mired in political controversy. The Board ruled that Rule 28(2) EPC, excluding plant products produced by essentially biological processes from patentability was void in view of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decision in Broccoli/Tomatoes II (G2/12 and G2/13) (IPKat post here). Rule 28(2) EPC was introduced by the EPO Administrative Council (AC) following a Notice from the EU commission that plant products produced by essentially biological processes are not patentable under the Biotech Directive (Directive 98/44/EC) (IPKat post here)

The written decision of the technical board of appeal (TBA) has now been issued - here. Minutes of the oral proceedings - here.

The technical board of appeal (TBA)'s position is unequivocal: the AC does not have the power to amend the EPC using the Rules. The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA)'s interpretation of the Articles is binding on Board of Appeals (BA), unless the BA has reason to refer the issue again to the EBA. Here is a brief summary of some interesting points covered in the decision.

The  application (EP2753168) relates to a new pepper
Is the TBA bound by the EBA's interpretation of the Articles?

In reviewing the history of the case, and in particular the contradiction between Rule 28 (2) and Article 53(b) EPC, the TBA noted that, whilst decisions of the EBA are only binding with respect of the appeal which gave rise to the referral, "these decisions have a de facto binding effect on the Boards of Appeal, up to the point at which they consider it necessary to deviate from them, at which point they must refer the question to the EBA" (r. 20).

The TBA further noted that the EBA's interpretation of the EPC effectively has a retroactive effect "and implies that the law should always have been read in conformity with that interpretation". The interpretation should thus be applied to all pending and future cases before the EPO (r. 21).

The TBA also roundly dismissed the reasoning of the Examining Division in the case that new Rule 28(2) EPC merely provided clarification to the scope of Article 53(b). The TBA found the meaning of the rule to be in clear conflict with Article 53(b) as interpreted by the EBA (r. 23). The TBA further found that the contradiction between Rule 28(2) and the interpretation of Article 53(b) by the EBA was such that it could not be resolved by way of interpretation (r. 24).

Were there reasons for the TBA to deviate from the EBA's interpretation of the Articles?

The TBA also addressed the question as to whether there were reasons to deviate from Broccoli/Tomatoes II (G2/12 and G2/13). Particularly, the Board noted that the powers of the Administrative Council to lay down the law by means of the Implementing Regulations are limited by Article 164(2) EPC. This provision states that the Articles shall prevail over the rules. As such, the TBA concluded that it had to apply Broccoli/Tomatoes II (G2/12 and G2/13) unless it had reasons to refer the decision for reconsideration by the EBA.

The TBA further noted that whilst the AC has the power to amend the Articles of the EPC under Article 33(1)(b) EPC, the AC is not competent to amend the EPC by means of amendment of the implementing regulations (r. 33-35). The Board roundly dismissed the Notice from the EU Commission on the interpretation of the Biotech directive as providing any reason for referring the question to the EBA, given that it lacked any legal authority.

The TBA also considered the third party submissions to proceedings regarding the negative effects of plant patents on the interests of plant breeders.  However, the TBA noted that such considerations are for the legislative body and "cannot play a role in the legal assessment of the issues raised in the present case".

The Board set aside the appealed decision and remitted the case back to the Examining Division.

The TBA decision makes it clear that the Board did not feel it necessary to refer the question back to the EBA at this stage.  It seems we can expect future boards to follow the TBAs approach in this case. How will the EPO now respond? The IPKat will keep you updated with developments.
EPO's Administrative Council powerless to amend the EPC: The latest on T 1063/18 EPO's Administrative Council powerless to amend the EPC:  The latest on T 1063/18 Reviewed by Rose Hughes on Wednesday, February 20, 2019 Rating: 5

3 comments:

  1. The BoA on this case was 3.3.04, and they are also hearing the appeal on EP2825024, so no prizes for guessing how that one will be decided.

    Yes, the AC are competent under Art. 33(1)(b) EPC to amend "Parts II to VIII and Part X of this Convention, to bring them into line with an international treaty relating to patents or European Community legislation relating to patents;", and Art 53 EPC is in Part II of the Convention.

    However, as the article notes, "The Board roundly dismissed the Notice from the EU Commission on the interpretation of the Biotech directive as providing any reason for referring the question to the EBA, given that it lacked any legal authority." So there's no basis under Art. 33(1)(b) EPC to amend the EPC itself. Also, Art 35(3) EPC states that amendment of the EPC under Art 33(1)(b) requires unanimity of the Contracting States, requires all of them to be represented, and Art 35(4) says (effectively) no abstentions.

    So as things currently stand, the AC has no way to re-introduce this. The only way that the AC will be able to try this again would seem to be if the CJEU makes a decision on the interpretation of the Biotech Directive in line with Rule 28(2) EPC.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the clear explanation, also the connection with Art 35(3). The AC can amend Art. 53(b), with unanimity in the AC, and with the 12 month period for any Contracting State to protest (Art. 35(3) last sentence); furthermore provided that the amendment is to bring the EPC into line with EU legislation on patents (or an international treaty). However, without a need for ratification by the Contracting States, so no parliamentary procedures. However the EPO news item of today suggests that the plan is "measures to obtain an opinion from the Enlarged Board of Appeal on the matter".

    ReplyDelete
  3. News update from the EPO:
    https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2019/20190220.html

    ReplyDelete

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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.