Introduction
In decision T 2274/22, the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) addressed concerns of partiality during opposition proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3399191. The case, between Kaeser Kompressoren SE and Atlas Copco Airpower N.V., revolved around a procedural issue that arose during a hearing. The decision focused on the involvement of an opposing party's representative in a preparatory meeting, which led to allegations of partiality and a significant procedural violation.
Summary of the Invention
The patent at issue, EP 3399191, involves a screw compressor with multi-layer coating for the rotor screws. The invention focuses on a specialized coating applied to rotor screws within a compressor to improve performance, efficiency, and durability. This multi-layer coating ensures optimal operation under high-stress conditions, reducing wear and extending the lifetime of the compressor.
Key Elements of the Decision
Arguments of the Patentee (Kaeser Kompressoren SE)
- The Patentee claimed that there was a major procedural violation during the opposition proceedings. They argued that a representative of the opponent, Atlas Copco, was present at a preparatory meeting held between members of the opposition division and interpreters. This, they argued, led to an appearance of bias and partiality, violating the principle of fair treatment.
Arguments of the Opponent (Atlas Copco Airpower N.V.)
- The Opponent argued that the representative’s presence at the preparatory meeting was a mistake and that no substantial advantage had been gained from this presence. The Opponent contended that the incident did not lead to any unfair treatment or procedural imbalance.
Board of Appeal’s Decision
- The Board acknowledged that the presence of the opponent’s representative at the preparatory meeting created an appearance of partiality. Although the presence may have been accidental, the Board concluded that the failure of the opposition division to promptly address the issue resulted in a procedural violation that could have impacted the perception of fairness.
- The Board determined that the appropriate remedy was to remand the case to the opposition division with instructions to reconstitute the division and to retry the case with a different set of members. This decision was made under Article 24(3) EPC and Article 11 of the RPBA 2020.
Lessons to Be Learned
The key lesson from this case is the importance of ensuring absolute impartiality and fairness in opposition proceedings. Even minor procedural mishaps, if not addressed promptly, can create an appearance of bias that undermines the integrity of the process. This decision serves as a reminder that procedural transparency is essential in maintaining trust in the patent examination and opposition processes.
- Article 24(3) EPC establishes that no member of a decision-making body should be involved if there is a reasonable concern about their impartiality.
- The case underscores the need for careful management of opposition hearings, especially in virtual settings, to avoid any situations that might lead to perceptions of unfairness.
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.