maiwald patentanwalts gmbh __________________________________ dr. walter maiwald practical...

Maiwald Patentanwalts GmbH

__________________________________

Dr. Walter Maiwald

Practical Approaches of European Practical Approaches of European

Oppositions Before The European Oppositions Before The European

Patent OfficePatent Office


1. Selecting and preparing evidence

The European Patent Convention provides no effective limitation of the evidence that can on principle be used in an opposition:

These are no final lists (note "include"). Other types of evidence are admissible (G 11/91, OJ EPO 93, 125).

Artikel 117

Beweismittel und Beweisaufnahme

Article 117

Means and taking of evidence

Article 117

Moyens de preuve et instruction

(1) In Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt sind insbesondere folgende Beweismittel zulässig:

a) Vernehmung der Beteiligten;

b) Einholung von Auskünften;

c) Vorlegung von Urkunden;

d) Vernehmung von Zeugen;

e) Begutachtung durch Sachverständige;

f) Einnahme des Augenscheins;

g) Abgabe einer schriftlichen Erklärung

unter Eid.

(1) In proceedings before the European Patent Office the means of giving or obtaining evidence shall include the following:

(a) hearing the parties;

(b) request for information;

(c) production of documents;

(d) hearing witnesses;

(e) opinions by experts;

(f) inspection;

(g) sworn statements in writing.

(1) Dans les procédures devant l’Office européen des brevets, les mesures d’instruction suivantes peuvent notamment être prises:

a) l’audition des parties ;

b) la demande de renseignements ;

c) la production de documents ;

d) l’audition de témoins ;

e) l’expertise ;

f) la descente sur les lieux ;

g) les déclarations écrites faites sous

la foi du serment.

(2) Das Verfahren zur Durchführung der Beweisaufnahme regelt die Ausführungs- verordnung.

(2) The procedure for taking such evidence shall be laid down in the Implementing Regulations.

(2) Le règlement d’exécution détermine la procédure relative à l’instruction.

Practical Approaches of European Oppositions Before The Practical Approaches of European Oppositions Before The

European Patent OfficeEuropean Patent Office


In terms of practical importance, the sequence is more like this:

• production of documents

• requests for information

• hearing witnesses - requires a decision under Rule 117 EPC • • • •

• hearing the parties - requires a decision under Rule 117 EPC

• opinion by experts - requires a decision under Rule 117 EPC

• sworn statements in writing - the EPO may involve a competent national

court under Rule 120 EPC

• inspection - requires a decision under Rule 117 EPC




Do not rely on the EPO to establish the facts you need, as an opponent,

for you! You have to make your own case, T 73/86; T 600/90; T 34/94;

compare especially T 472/92, OJ EPO 98, 161; T 750/94, OJ EPO 98, 32.

Where the EPO is convinced that your evidence is sufficiently relevant,

it may reverse the onus of proof – T 129/88, OJ EPO 93, 598; T 582/90

(for a prior public use). In such cases, there will be a consequent need

for the patentee, to establish the irrelevance of the opponent's allegation.




Documents include (but are not limited to):

- patent documents, e.g. all older published applications and granted patents;

file wrapper contents once open to inspection (everything, unless expressly

excluded from inspection!); priority documents in (foreign) public file

wrappers (T 315/02);

- "general knowledge of skilled persons" where laid down in Encyclopaedias,

textbooks, dictionaries – note that this does not apply where a relevant search

effort would be required, T 171/84, OJ EPO 1986, 95; T 676/94, or the info is

not straightforwardly and unambiguously applicable, T 206/93;

- technical and scientific publications – there are often problems showing the

fact and date of publication; T 611/95; T 842/91; T 314/99 (where it was not

enough to show that a thesis had been in a University library, in the absence

of evidence for corresponding information accessible to the public);




- commercial publications (company brochures, catalogues, manuals,

specifications, product leaflets …). Such materials are often difficult to

use in the absence of a printing date and sufficient evidence for actual

distribution T 37/96; T 328/00 etc.;

- published papers, transcripts, private notes etc. reflecting oral presentations,

e.g. at congresses, conventions, public presentations …… often used to

establish more disclosure than what they actually comprise, T 1212/97.

May be supplemented by witness statement, commonly in the form of a

declaration. The witness may be summoned to oral proceedings and cross-

examined;




- Prior public use is generally supported by documents, and these are generally

accepted "at face value". However, there will be a tendency, in most cases,

to refrain from interpreting such documents – especially from adding to their

straightforward disclosure. Beware of gaps and do not rely on "plausible" or

"self-evident" facts to fill any gap.

To support prior public use, the opponent must prove

("beyond reasonable doubt" or "to the hilt")

- the features of the allegedly used product or method

- the fact that these features were made available to the public (one act

of publication, to one member of the public, may be quite enough,

T 482/89; T 1022/99).

In both aspects, declarations by witnesses may be highly relevant.

Where this is the case, prepare for the witnesses being summoned to

appear at oral proceedings, and prepare (then) for cross-examination.




Witness evidence by interrogating the witness in oral proceedings

inevitably means that the EPO takes an active role in establishing the facts.

The EPO will do its own questioning and it is difficult to control this, as a

party. There is very little formality involved. Preliminary discussions between

a party and its witness are basically acceptable (and expected) but attempts

at influencing a witness can be detected (even in the initial interrogation by

by the Division, and especially in the later cross-examination).

The examiners are free to evaluate the witness statement as they think fit,

T 665/00; T 270/90, OJ EPO 93, 725; T 750/94, OJ EPO 98, 32. Most

examiners are technically trained people, with an addiction to facts and data,

and a healthy cautiousness where "lawyering" and legalistic arguments are

concerned.




- You may use evidence generated by yourself.

You may need to supplement your documents with data that need to

be generated first by experiment or test. Many oppositions fail because

no such data are supplied by the opponent, or the supplied data can be

criticized for being inaccurate and/or not squarely based on the reference

obtained by inappropriate testing or experimentation etc.

Experiments need to be carefully planned, and always take longer

to perform. This is an aspect you need to address as early as possible

- and this is true for both parties!




- Any party can rely on its own expert statements. These are commonly

supplied in the form of declarations. Any party may bring their own

expert(s) to oral proceedings, and the expert may provide statements

there and then.

- A party expert may only speak at oral proceedings if

- this is expressly requested by the party; the expert has to be

identified, and it has to be stated what he/she will speak about;

- this request must be made well before the oral proceedings

(usually, by the submission deadline of Rule 115 (1) EPC);

- the expert must make his/her statements under supervision of

the party's legal representative;

- the "expert" can be a patent lawyer from a non-EU country,

G 4/95, OJ EPO 96, 412.




- The EPO will rarely interrogate a party, and is even less likely to

appoint an expert.

It will generally avoid taking evidence by inspection, or trying to

force anybody to provide a sworn statement.




So: Rely on documents, especially those not created for the purposes of the

opposition procedure, as the basis of your argument.

Where necessary, supplement the disclosure of your documents by the

results of your own testing or experimentation.

You may need to supply additional facts, and/or support your allegations

based on documents, by offering (and initially, at least basically, providing

by declaration) witness evidence.

You may also need to file your own expert statements, by declaration

- and you may bring your own expert to oral proceedings.

Make sure your written evidence leaves no gaps and is commensurate

with the claims in dispute. Make sure your data are complete, correctly

obtained, and support your position!

Understand what your witnesses and experts can (and will) contribute,

also under cross-examination!




2. Using evidence

- Rule 76 (c) EPC (only) requires that an opponent must make a (potentially successful) argument, to open the opposition procedure.This has been confirmed in a number of decisions, e.g. T 222/85, OJ 88, 128; T 925/91, OJ EPO 95, 469; T 1097/98. There is no need

to provide all evidence necessary for a final examination, within thenine month opposition terms, T 1069/96. Generally, the EPO's Opposition Divisions and Appeal Boards are disinclined to reject an opposition under Rule 76 (c) EPC, for insufficient initial argument.

- This means that additional evidence can be submitted by an opponent after the end of the opposition term.




- The patentee will be given an (extendable) term for responding

to the opposition, Rule 79 (1) EPC. There is no sanction comparable

to rejection of the opposition as inadmissible under Rule 76 (c) EPC.

An incomplete reply can generally be supplemented later, including

the submission of amended claims.




- However, there is a deadline to be observed by both parties:

Note, the "need not" language: Belated evidence may, and will in most cases, be considered if the Opposition Division considers it relevant. Belated amended claims will in most cases be considered if grantable.Note also the "unless" language: Where e.g. the patentee files materially amended claims by the final date, the opponent must be permitted to react. Where the opponent submit a relevant reference by the deadline, the patentee must be allowed to react.

Regel 116Vorbereitung der mündlichen Verhandlung

Rule 116Preparation of oral proceedings

Règle 116Préparation de la procédure orale

(1) Mit der Ladung weist das Europäische Patentamt auf die Fragen hin, die es für die zu treffende Entscheidung als erörterungsbedürf- tig ansieht. Gleichzeitig wird ein Zeitpunkt bestimmt, bis zu dem Schriftsätze zur Vorbe-reitung der mündlichen Verhandlung einge-reicht werden können. Regel 132 ist nicht anzuwenden. Nach diesem Zeitpunkt vorge-brachte neue Tatsachen und Beweismittel brauchen nicht berücksichtigt zu werden, soweit sie nicht wegen einer Änderung des dem Verfahren zugrunde liegenden Sachver-halts zuzulassen sind.

(1) When issuing the summons, the European Patent Office shall draw attention to the points which in its opinion need to be discussed for the purposes of the decision to be taken. At the same time a final date for making written sub-missions in preparation for the oral proceedings shall be fixed. Rule 132 shall not apply. New facts and evidence presented after that date need not be considered, unless admitted on the grounds that the subject of the proceedings has changed.

(1) Dans la citation, l’Office européen des brevets signale les questions qu’il juge nécessaire d’examiner aux fins de la décision à rendre. En même temps, il fixe une date jusqu’à laquelle des documents peuvent être produits en vue de la préparation de la procédure orale. La règle 132 n’est pas applicable. De nouveaux faits ou preuves présentés après cette date peuvent ne pas être pris en considération, à moins qu’il ne convienne de les admettre en raison d’un changement intervenu dans les faits de la cause.

(2) Sind dem Anmelder oder Patentinhaber die Gründe mitgeteilt worden, die der Erteilung oder Aufrechterhaltung des Patents entgegen-stehen, so kann er aufgefordert werden, bis zu dem in Absatz 1 Satz 2 genannten Zeitpunkt Unterlagen einzureichen, die den Erforder-nissen des Übereinkommens genügen. Absatz 1 Sätze 3 und 4 ist entsprechend anzuwenden.

(2) If the applicant or patent proprietor has been notified of the grounds prejudicing the grant of maintenance of the patent, he may be invited to submit, by the date specified in paragraph 1, second sentence, documents which meet the requirements of the Convention. Paragraph 1, third and fourth sentences, shall apply mutatis mutandis.

(2) Si le demandeur ou le titulaire du brevet a reçu notification des motifs s’opposant à la délivrance ou au maintien du brevet, il peut être invité à produire, au plus tard à la date visée au paragraphe 1, deuxième phrase, des pièces satisfaisant aux exigences de la convention. Le paragraphe 1, troisième et quatrième phrases, est applicable.




In our experience, it is not generally a good idea to supply the EPO with

all evidence which might possibly be relevant.

Where the objections raised are well substantiated, we prefer to use only the

most relevant evidence, at least initially, and keep the discussion focused on

this, also in the later procedure. Often, this is a scenario for early, brief

submissions and quick responses.

Where the evidence is suboptimal, it can however be advantageous to submit

all evidence at hand, without much analysis. Some EPO examiners will then

try to make the submitting party's case, better than the party itself. Often,

this is a scenario for late, long submissions and last minute responses.

This applies, mutatis mutandis, also to the patentee's strategy.




3. Combating the other party's arguments

The EPO's Opposition Divisions and Appeal Boards are formed from

technical examiners (legally trained members, if at all involved, play very

limited roles). Most examiners are fact-oriented, but have no specialist

technical knowledge in the case's field. Most examiners are wary of

being manipulated by clever lawyers.




This has some important consequences:

- Data , test results, experimental results and other such "hard facts" play

a major role in convincing a panel. You win opposition cases based on

data. Do that experiment, and a second one if you can. Do it upfront –

you may not have the time later (and it will take longer to do than you

think, anyway).

- Where the other side relies on data, expose any weakness in them and

submit your own data.

- Avoid legalistic arguments. Many examiners have a fondness for

"technical reality" (or rather, what they believe this is) and prefer a

technical argument over a dogmatic one. Where you have a legal point,

make it short and snappy.

- If your case is in trouble, it may help to submit your evidence at a late stage.




4. Timing of submissions

There are circumstances where late submission of evidence appears

advantageous.

Note however, that

- submitting new data by the deadline of Rule 116 (1) may cause then

to be disregarded. The other side will argue that there is not enough

time left to do its own testing.




- Submitting arguments and evidence too late (though well before the

Rule 116 (1) deadline) may be ineffective, if the panel has already

formed its opinion and is reluctant to revisit a taken position. Where,

in first instance, the panel must initially consider the merits (when it

has to write the Rule 116 (1) EPC communication, when summoning

the parties to oral proceedings) it may take a position which it is later

unwilling to change.

- Submitting (admissible, since relevant) non-data evidence after the

deadline of Rule 116 (1) EPC may be ineffective, if you get too close

to the hearing date, and only get it in after the panel's deliberation

preparing the hearing.




5. Oral Proceedings

- Generally take place only if requested by at least one party.

- Should be requested

- because this makes timing easier,

- to avoid surprise decisions,

- because the discussion may produce the panel's opinion, or even

change it,

- because they often are the patentee's last chance to revise

the claims.




The EPO will issue a summons to attend oral proceedings, at least two months before the hearing date (Rule 115 (1) EPC).

In first instance, the EPO must provide at least some comments on what must be discussed, with the summons (Rule 116 (1) EPC).

These comments may range from the bleak ("Novelty will have to be discussed") to the copious (the draft decision grounds). Note that the AB's are not required to provide such comments, but sometimes do.

These comments needs to be studied very carefully. An experienced European Patent practitioner will often be able to read from them quite precisely the strengths and weaknesses of the parties' respective positions.

Any submissions after receipt of the summons should address the issues raised in the EPO's comments.




6. Rejecting panel members or panels

A party may, in certain cases, come to believe that the unfavourable

actions of a single examiner or indeed a complete Division or

Appeal Board are in conflict with accepted EPO practise, and that there

is method behind this.

But can you do something about this?




Consider Article 24 (3) EPC:

Artikel 24

Ausschließung und Ablehnung

Article 24

Exclusion and objection

Article 24

Abstention et récusation

(1) Die Mitglieder der Beschwerdekammern und der Großen Beschwerdekammer dürfen nicht an der Erledigung einer Sache mitwirken, an der sie ein persönliches Interesse haben, in der sie vorher als Vertreter eines Beteiligten tätig gewesen sind oder an deren ab-schließender Entscheidung in der Vor-instanz sie mitgewirkt haben.

(1) Members of the Boards of Appeal or of the Enlarged Board of Appeal may not take part in a case in which they have any personal interest, or if they have previously been involved as representatives of one of the parties, or if they participated in the decision under appeal.

(1) Les membres d’une chambre de recours et de la Grande Chambre de recours ne peuvent participer au règlement d’une affaire s’ils y possèdent un intérêt personnel, s’ils y sont antérieurement intervenus en qualité de représentants de l’une des parties ou s’ils ont pris part à la décision qui fait l’objet du recours.

(2) Glaubt ein Mitglied einer Beschwerdekammer oder der Großen Beschwerdekammer aus einem der in Absatz 1 genannten Gründe oder aus einem sonstigen Grund an einem Verfahren nicht mitwirken zu können, so teilt es dies der Kammer mit.

(2) If, for one of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 1, or for any other reason, a member of a Board of Appeal or of the Enlarged Board of Appeal considers that he should not take part in any appeal, he shall inform the Board accordingly.

(2) Si, pour l’une des raisons mentionnées au paragraphe 1 ou pour tout autre motif, un membre d’une chambre de recours ou de la Grande Chambre de recours estime ne pas pouvoir participer au règlement d’une affaire, il en avertit la chambre.

(3) Die Mitglieder der Beschwerdekammern oder der Großen Beschwerdekammer können von jedem Beteiligten aus einem der in Absatz 1 genannten Gründe oder wegen Besorgnis der Befangenheit abgelehnt werden. Die Ablehnung ist nicht zulässig, wenn der Beteiligte Verfahrenshandlungen vorge-nommen hat, obwohl er bereits den Ablehnungs-grund kannte. Die Ablehnung kann nicht mit der Staatsangehörigkeit der Mitglieder begründet werden.

(3) Members of a Board of Appeal or of the Enlarged Board of Appeal may be objected to by any party for one of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 1, or if suspected of partiality. An objection shall not be admissible if, while being aware of a reason for objection, the party has taken a procedural step. An objection may not be based upon the nationality of members.

(3) Les membres d’une chambre de recours et de la Grande Chambre de recours peuvent être récusés par toute partie pour l’une des raisons mentionnées au paragraphe 1 ou s’ils peuvent être soupçonnés de partialité. La récusation n’est pas recevable lorsque la partie en cause a accompli des actes de procédure bien qu’elle ait déjà eu connaissance du motif de récusation. La récusation ne peut être fondée sur la nationalité des membres.

(4) Die Beschwerdekammern und die Große Beschwerdekammer entscheiden in den Fällen der Absätze 2 und 3 ohne Mitwirkung des betroffenen Mitglieds. Bei dieser Entscheidung wird das abgelehnte Mitglied durch seinen Vertreter ersetzt.

(4) The Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal shall decide as to the action to be taken in the cases specified in paragraphs 2 and 3, without the participation of the member concerned. For the purposes of taking this decision the member objected to shall be replaced by his alternate.

(4) Les chambres de recours et la Grande Chambre de recours statuent, dans les cas visés aux paragraphes 2 et 3, sans la participation du membre concerné. Pour prendre cette décision, le membre récusé est remplacé par son suppléant.




- While Article 24 EPC verbatim only relates to Appeal Board members,

it is applicable to examiners at Divisional level, G 5/91, OJ EPO 92, 617.

- According to T 433/93, OJ EPO 97, 509 and T 900/02, the standard

is whether the party concerned could, for good reasons, fear that the

office procedure might not be fair (in a case where retrial by the

Opposition Division was ordered by an Appeal Board, and the party

was afraid that the Division might be influenced by its original opinion).




- Note that by these standards, incompetence is not a valid ground of

objection to a panel member. Objection is only given where a party is

deliberately disadvantaged, or has a good reason to fear that this might

occur.

- Consider a case we had, T 479/04. We were acting for the opponent.

The problem started when we received a preliminary opinion from the

Opposition Division, of the "full decision grounds" type, stating not

only that the Opposition Division intended to maintain the patent in

amended form, but further asking the opponent to withdraw the request

for oral proceedings, and requesting the patentee to adapt the description

to the amended claims.




We objected to the complete Opposition Division for fear of prejudice.

The Opposition Division went on with the procedure, including oral proceedings, without paying any attention to our objection. It decided (without argument) that there was no ground for the objection, in its decision on the merits. The Appeal Board (3.3.3, under R. Young) decided that this was correct – there was no need for the Opposition Division to decide on the objection before deciding on the merits.

The Appeal Board did not accept that this effectively removes the right to object, one important purpose of which is to prevent decisions on the merits by biased examiners.

Consider an Opposition Division which was found to have been lavishly entertained by a party, while working on the case, and consider that this did indeed influence the panel. What would you expect to happen?




Dr. Walter Maiwald [email protected]@maiwald.euMaiwald Patentanwalts GmbH www.maiwald.euMünchen – Hamburg – Düsseldorf, Germany

Thank you for your attention.

Practical Approaches of European Practical Approaches of European

Oppositions Before The European Oppositions Before The European

Patent OfficePatent Office

maiwald patentanwalts gmbh __________________________________ dr. walter maiwald practical...

Documents

european patent officeartikel

oj epo

patent documents

epc inspection

evidence article

types of evidence

epc opinion

onus of proof t