Error message

Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Optional parameter $type declared before required parameter $nid is implicitly treated as a required parameter in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).

CLR V A 2.4.1.B Appeal filed in name of representative

An appeal filed in the name of the representative instead of the party adversely affected by the decision impugned was rejected as inadmissible in J 1/92.

CLR V A 2.4.1.A Appeal filed by wrong company

CLR V A 2.4.1 Formal aspects under Article 107 EPC

Under Art. 107, first sentence, EPC, an EPO decision can be appealed only by a party to the proceedings which gave rise to it. Concerning the entitlement to appeal of a transferee of a patent, see chapter III.O.1. "Party status as patent proprietor".

CLR V A 2.4 Entitlement to appeal

2.4.1 Formal aspects under Article 107 EPC

2.4.2 Party adversely affected (Article 107 EPC)

2.4.3 Procedural status of the parties

CLR V A 2.3.2.B Request for a search-fee refund

Where a request under R. 64(2) EPC for a refund of a further search fee paid under R. 64(1) EPC is first filed on appeal against an examining division decision, the board has no competence to decide on it and it must therefore be refused as inadmissible (T 2076/15).

CLR V A 2.3.2.A Interruption of proceedings

CLR V A 2.3.2 Specific cases

a) Interruption of proceedings

b) Request for a search-fee refund

CLR V A 2.3.1.C Legal Board of Appeal competent

CLR V A 2.3.1.B Technical board of appeal competent

Art. 21(3)(a) EPC expressly states that appeals against decisions concerning the limitation or revocation of European patents should be heard by the technical boards of appeal.