EPC reform may be necessary, EPO told
An organisation representing European patent lawyers has written to the European Patent Office (EPO) to say that revision of the treaty that set up the office may be necessary to properly reform its appeal boards.
The letter, sent on Thursday (June 4), was in response to the EPO’s proposals for reforming the various appeal boards. It said revising the European Patent Convention (EPC) is “desirable” but should not be taken lightly.
In the letter, Richard Ebbink, of the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW), said it is concerned by the EPO’s proposals to increase the autonomy, independence and efficiency of the boards but without reforming the EPC, the framework that binds the office and appeal boards.
The EPO’s boards of appeal, of which there are more than 20, are supposed to be independent in their decision making and are bound only by the EPC.
According to the proposals, which were put forward in February this year, the aim is to “improve the functioning of the boards of appeal within the system of the EPO”.
But the EPLAW said that revision of the EPC is not a task to be taken lightly and that the issue of desired judicial independence is a fundamental issue.
The EPLAW letter, sent to EPO president Benoît Battistelli, added: “We believe that these subjects (autonomy, independence and efficiency) require separate handling. The larger task of a treaty revision should not detract from the benefits the proposed reforms could bring in the interim.”
The EPLAW’s letter follows a similar suggestion by the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) in February this year.
In a letter sent to Jesper Kongstad, who is the chair of the EPO’s supervisory body the Administrative Council (AC), James Boff, chair of CIPA’s patents committee, said reform is necessary to guarantee the separation of powers between the AC, the EPO and the appeal boards.
The boards of appeal and the subject of their independence has attracted interest over the last 12 months.
Last year, Battistelli was criticised by some sections of the EPO’s workforce after he imposed a ‘house ban’ on a member of the office’s Enlarged Board of Appeal, one of the appeal boards, following allegations of misconduct.
Battistelli’s decision was backed in December by the AC, which suspended the member.
The comment period for the EPO’s proposals closes on June 30.
The EPO had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.
