Under R. 76(2)(b) EPC, the notice of opposition must contain, inter alia, the number of the patent, the name of the proprietor and the title of the invention. If the patent is not sufficiently identified, the opposition must be rejected as inadmissible under R. 77(1) EPC, unless the deficiency has been remedied before expiry of the opposition period.

In T 317/86 (OJ 1989, 378) the opponent had not indicated the title of the invention within the period specified under R. 56(2) EPC 1973 (R. 77(2) EPC) for remedying deficiencies other than those falling under R. 56(1) EPC 1973 (R. 77(1) EPC). The board decided that omission from the notice of opposition of the title of the invention – merely an item of bibliographical data identifying the contested patent – did not constitute a deficiency within the meaning of R. 56(2) EPC 1973, if the other particulars available to the EPO were together sufficient to identify easily and beyond doubt the patent being contested by means of an opposition.

In T 335/00 and T 336/00, the R. 55(b) EPC 1973 (R. 76(2)(b) EPC) requirements were not strictly fulfilled. Among other things, the title of the invention was missing, and the opposition was directed to the application. The board nonetheless deemed the opposition admissible because the contested patent was identifiable uniquely and fairly easily on the basis of the specified publication number. Even the mistake of opposing an application and the omission of the title did not seem serious enough to the board to render the opposition inadmissible.