2.6. Appeals against decisions of the Examination Board and the Examination Secretariat
  1. Home
  2. Legal texts
  3. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
  4. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office
  5. V. Proceedings before the Boards of Appeal
  6. C. Proceedings before the Disciplinary Board of Appeal
  7. 2. European qualifying examination
  8. 2.6. Appeals against decisions of the Examination Board and the Examination Secretariat
  9. 2.6.2 Procedural aspects
  10. a) Time limit for appeal / rectification of decisions
Print
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

2.6.2 Procedural aspects

Overview

a) Time limit for appeal / rectification of decisions 

You are viewing the 9th edition (2019) of this publication; for the 10th edition (2022) see here

The notice of appeal, to be filed within one month from notification of the contested decision, must already include the statement setting out the grounds (cf. Art. 24(2) REE). Under Art. 24(3) REE, if the Examination Board or the Secretariat considers the appeal to be admissible and well-founded it must rectify its decision and order reimbursement of the appeal fee. If the appeal is not allowed within two months from notification of the decision, it is remitted to the DBA. The procedure according to Art. 27 REE 1994, which was the subject of the following two decisions, has therefore been streamlined.

In D 38/05 of 17 January 2007 date: 2007-01-17 and D 4/06 the DBA found that the provision for rectification of decisions of the Examination Board was modelled on Art. 109(1) EPC and designed to serve the same purpose in comparable situations. The aim, in either case, was that the department of first instance be able to set aside a decision of its own if it found an appeal against that decision, filed by the (sole) party, to be (admissible and) allowable. This was a quick and simple way of cancelling flawed decisions. Art. 27(3) REE 1994 (analogous to Art. 109(1) EPC) provided that the department whose decision was contested – in this case, the Examination Board – must rectify its decision if it considered the relevant requirements to be fulfilled. This also meant that the Examination Board was obliged to assess carefully whether or not these requirements were met before deciding to grant or refuse rectification and, in the latter case, referring the matter to the board of appeal. The two-month time limit for considering the appeal and deciding whether it must be allowed therefore only started to run on receipt of the statement of grounds for appeal, even though this was not expressly provided in Art. 27(3) REE 1994 – in contrast to Art. 109(2) EPC. See, however, the current provisions of Art. 24(2) and (3) REE, referred to in the previous paragraph. See also D 3/14 in chapter V.C.2.6.4 concerning the pre-examination.

Previous
Next
Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility