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) Requirements for appeal
Print
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

2.6.2 Procedural aspects

Overview

a) Requirements for appeal – paper form, statement of relief sought and payment of the appeal fee

The notice of appeal, to be filed in writing within one month from notification of the contested decision, must already include the statement setting out the grounds; the appeal fee is to be paid within the same period (Art. 24(2) REE).

The board in D 36/21 explained that to correctly interpret the term "filed in writing" under Art. 24(2), first sentence, REE this provision had to be read in conjunction with Art. 6(1), second sentence, and Art. 6(2) RPDBA. These provisions made it clear that a fax alone did not suffice as a means of communication for filing an appeal. The standard means of communication for filing an appeal, constituting the rule, was an appeal document in paper form signed by the appellant. This document could be sent by postal services or delivered by hand to the Secretariat. The sole exception to this rule was the option to file the appeal by fax in due time provided that the original was subsequently filed within two weeks (Art. 6(2) RPDBA). Since the appellant had filed an appeal solely by email within the time limit, the appeal was rejected as inadmissible.

Citing D 2/20 (see in this chapter V.C.3.1), the DBA in D 40/21 held that a request for re-evaluation of the appellant’s paper without requesting a better grade was inadmissible because such request was not aimed at eliminating a substantive adverse effect to the appellant. It was not sufficient to request that the decision be set aside without requesting (and reasoning why) a different (or further) legal effect should result from the appeal proceedings instead of the appealed legal effect.

In D 9/17 the DBA confirmed that the RFees applied, at least mutatis mutandis, to the payment of the fee for an appeal lodged under Art. 24(2) REE. This fee was to be paid by payment or transfer to a bank account held by the Office (Art. 5(1) RFees); in particular, payment of the fees according to Art. 17 REE by debit order was not provided for in the ADA (see chapter III.U.2.2.1).

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