Introduction
The decision T 0572/19 addresses a significant procedural issue in the patent revocation case involving European patent No. 2684187, owned by Autoneum Management AG. The appeal centered on whether the absence of a legally qualified member's signature in the written decision constitutes a substantial procedural violation under Rule 113(1) EPC. The Board found that the lack of signature was indeed a procedural violation, which led to the remittal of the case and reimbursement of the appeal fee. This case highlights the importance of strict procedural adherence in the EPO decision-making process.
Summary of the Invention
The invention concerns an automotive noise attenuating trim part that improves sound insulation in vehicles. The trim part is designed to reduce noise transmission from the vehicle's exterior to its interior by using sound-absorbing materials strategically placed within the vehicle's body. This design contributes to a quieter and more comfortable driving experience by minimizing noise pollution from external sources, such as road and engine noise.
Summary of the Decision
The case arose after the Opposition Division revoked the patent for failing to meet certain requirements of the European Patent Convention (EPC). The patent owner, Autoneum, appealed this decision. During the appeal, it was discovered that the written decision revoking the patent was missing the signature of one of the legally qualified members who had participated in the decision-making process. The patent owner argued that this missing signature represented a substantial procedural violation.
Opponent 1 (Faurecia Automotive) and Opponent 2 (International Automotive Components) both contended that the missing signature could be corrected under Rule 140 EPC, which allows for the correction of obvious mistakes in EPO decisions.
The Board of Appeal ruled that the signature requirement under Rule 113(1) EPC applies to the written decision as a whole, including its substantiation. The omission of the legally qualified member's signature could not be retrospectively corrected by another member, nor did it qualify as an obvious mistake under Rule 140 EPC. The missing signature broke the chain of responsibility required in the decision-making process, constituting a substantial procedural violation.
As a result, the Board set aside the decision of the Opposition Division and remitted the case for further prosecution. The appeal fee was also reimbursed in accordance with Rule 103(1)(a) EPC, given the procedural violation and the lack of substantial progress in the appeal.
Lessons to Be Learned
This decision underscores the importance of procedural rigor in the European patent system. Missing signatures in written decisions represent a significant procedural violation that cannot be corrected retrospectively, even if all parties agree on the decision's substance. This ruling reinforces the need for all members of the decision-making body to take personal responsibility for the final written decision, ensuring transparency and trust in the EPO's processes. Procedural missteps can lead to the invalidation of decisions, and applicants must remain vigilant to avoid such errors.
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.