Introduction
The Enlarged Board of Appeal issued decision R 0005/23 on July 1, 2024, in which it ruled on a request for the review of an interlocutory decision (T 2078/17). The request was ultimately rejected as inadmissible, underlining the boundaries of what constitutes an admissible request for review under Article 112a EPC. This case focuses on the limits of applying for a review, especially in cases involving interlocutory decisions.
Summary of the Invention
The invention covered by the European patent application EP 09007605.0 relates to a device and method for storing and removing goods and cleaning the storage. The technology improves the efficiency of warehouse operations, facilitating both the storage and retrieval of items and ensuring that the storage area remains clean during these operations. This is achieved through automated systems designed to streamline handling and cleanliness in industrial environments.
Summary of the Decision
The case under consideration arose after the opponent, Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH, filed a review request under Article 112a EPC against the interlocutory decision T 2078/17, in which the Technical Board of Appeal rejected the opponent's request for the removal of three members of the board due to alleged partiality.
The opponent argued that the decision violated Article 113(1) EPC (right to be heard), as the written reasons supporting the decision were not disclosed before it was made. The patentee, KHT Kommissionier- und Handhabungstechnik GmbH, supported the decision of the Technical Board.
Ultimately, the Enlarged Board rejected the request for review as inadmissible, stating that interlocutory decisions concerning procedural matters such as recusals do not fall under the scope of decisions that can be reviewed under Article 112a EPC. The Board referred to the limitations of Article 112a, emphasizing that only final decisions in appeal cases can be subject to review.
Lessons to be Learned
This decision reinforces the principle that requests for review under Article 112a EPC are strictly limited to final decisions that conclude a case. Interlocutory decisions on procedural matters, such as the rejection of a recusal request, are not subject to review. Legal practitioners should be cautious when attempting to use the review mechanism for decisions that are procedural rather than substantive.
Contact
If you have any questions concerning intellectual property issuesor need assistance with patent applications, oppositions, or appeals, please do not hesitate to contact us at Novitech IP. Our team of experienced professionals is here to provide you with expert guidance and support. Reach out to us today to discuss how we can help protect your innovations and navigate the complexities of IP law.
To stay informed about the latest reviewsand updates in IP law, subscribe to our blog. Join our community and receive notifications whenever we publish new reviews and insights on important case law and developments in the field of intellectual property.
Legal Disclaimer
The information provided in this blog post is for generalinformational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary and analysis of the EPO case are based on publicly available information and are intended to offer insights into the decision and its implications. This content should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances. For advice related to any specific legal matters, you should consult a qualified attorney.