Zusammenfassung von EPC2000 R 006 für die Entscheidung T0084/19 vom 21.10.2022

See also abstract under Art. 13(2) RPBA 2020. In T 84/19 the board held that the entitlement to pay a reduced appeal fee under the conditions set by Art. 2, item 11, RFees and R. 6(4), (5) EPC must be assessed vis- à-vis the entity which has assumed the procedural status of an appellant. In the case at hand, the opponent patent attorney firm which had filed the appeal was the only appellant in the proceedings. It had exercised its own right as a member of the public to file an opposition, even if a third party (the "principal") had incited the opponent to file the opposition. In such a case the opponent could not be regarded to act on the basis of the principal's personal entitlement. Whether the opponent's acts accorded with the intentions or instructions of the principal was relevant only to the internal relationship between the latter and the opponent, and had no bearing on the opposition proceedings. Accordingly, there could not be another true opponent apart from the formally authorised opponent so that the principal could under no circumstances be treated as a party (cf. G 3/97, Reasons 2.1 and 2.2). As such, the patent attorney firm qualified as a small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) within the meaning of Art. 2 of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003. The board did not find support in the present case for applying the concept of "linked enterprises" according to Art. 3(3) of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 to the situation of an appeal filed by a straw man opponent.