opposition-Archiv - meier ip

G 2/24 – intervener in appeal proceedings

Florian Meier — Thu, 25 Sep 2025 18:53:03 +0000

As reported by the EPO in a Press Communiqué of 25 September 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal has rendered decision G 2/24 (“Skin cleanser”) that relates to the procedural status of an intervener in opposition appeal proceedings.

The Enlarged Board confirmed its previous decision G 3/04 and concluded that, after withdrawal of all appeals, appeal proceedings may not be continued with a third party who intervened only during the appeal proceedings (see the EPO’s Press Communiqué of 25 September 2025).

Der Beitrag G 2/24 – intervener in appeal proceedings erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

EPO acceleration of opposition proceedings

Florian Meier — Thu, 29 Feb 2024 07:34:49 +0000

The EPO will accelerate opposition proceedings when an infringement or revocation action has been instituted before the UPC. See the EPO News of 22.02.2024 and EPO OJ 2023, A99. The EPO deems that “concluding the EPO parallel opposition proceedings swiftly fosters legal certainty and procedural efficiency, as well as high quality and uniformity in the European patent system.”

I am interested to learn whether divergence between the EPO and the UPC in parallel opposition/revocation proceedings can indeed be avoided going forward.

Der Beitrag EPO acceleration of opposition proceedings erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

BPatG: Opponent must be clearly indicated

Florian Meier — Thu, 08 Feb 2024 07:23:38 +0000

The German Federal Patents Court (BPatG) decision 20 W (pat) 8/23 dated 15 November 2023 illustrates how important it is that the identity of a party to the proceedings be clear from the outset. The BPatG affirmed that an opposition is inadmissible if the identity of the opponent cannot be derived from the opposition. In the decided case, a patent attorney signed the opposition brief and argued that he was the opponent. The BPatG did not concur with this reasoning.

The official headnote reads, in English translation:
“If a patent attorney files an opposition against a patent in his or her own name (also as a “straw man”), his/her role as the sole opponent must be clear from the information provided within the opposition period, either directly or by way of interpretation. The mere signing of the notice of opposition by the attorney, who usually acts on behalf of third parties, is not sufficient [to clearly indicate that he/she acts not as representative but as party to the proceedings].”

This signifies the importance of adding a passage as to the identity of the opponent in an opposition brief filed with the GPTO (which – other than the EPO’s form 2300 – does not provide an official form reminding the party of the information required for an opposition to be admissible).

Der Beitrag BPatG: Opponent must be clearly indicated erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

EPO – strawman’s appeal fee

Florian Meier — Wed, 05 Apr 2023 14:07:15 +0000

A new EPO Boards of Appeal decision T 84/19 deals with an interesting question relating to appeal fees. The decision holds that an opponent who is a natural person or otherwise entitled to benefit from the reduced appeal fee does not have to pay the full appeal fee, even if there is a secret sponsor (akin to the ‘real party in interest’ in post-grant proceedings in other jurisdictions). This holds as long as the opposition does not constitute a circumvention of the law regarding the entitlement to pay a reduced appeal fee.

By way of background for the readers familiar with or otherwise interested in USPTO post-grant proceedings: According to decisions G 3/97, G 4/97, it is not required that the ‘real party in interest’ be named in EPO opposition proceedings. Thus, the situation may (and does) occur in which an opponent as party to the EPO proceedings may be different from the person interested in the revocation or amendment of the patent.

Der Beitrag EPO – strawman’s appeal fee erschien zuerst auf meier ip.