Source: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-is-precedent-and-does-epo-have-it.html
Timestamp: 2016-08-25 02:41:58
Document Index: 777046464

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 111', 'Art. 112', 'Art. 112', 'Art. 112', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 10']

The application of the Guidelines to individual European patent applications or patents is the responsibility of the examining staff and they may depart from these instructions in exceptional cases. Nevertheless, as a general rule, parties can expect the EPO to act in accordance with the Guidelines until such time as they – or the relevant legal provisions – are amended. Notices concerning such amendments are published in the Official Journal of the EPO and on the EPO website. The reference to “exceptional cases” places the Guidelines, in the opinion of this Kat, high in the “persuasive” category of precedent, so that reference to the Guidelines if they support your case is highly likely to be effective, while achieving at first instance an outcome that conflicts with the Guidelines is likely to be challenging. While, as David’s post noted, the Guidelines sometime lag behind the caselaw, in general the EPO updates them when a landmark decision emerges.
If, in its decision, a Board gives a different interpretation of the Convention to that provided for in the Guidelines, it shall state the grounds for its action if it considers that this decision will be more readily understood in the light of such grounds.[Emphasis added by IPKat] The point is that in contrast to the first part of Article 20 referring to Board of Appeal decisions (see above), reasons for different interpretation do not have to be given. This reflects the fact that the Guidelines, being "instructions", do not apply to Board of Appeal members when reaching their decisions, reflecting Article 23(3) EPC:
Top post!My problem is that the whole issue of precedent at the EPO is a microcosm of the EPO's judicial side as a whole, i.e., it is a law unto itself and it does what it d**n well likes, with nobody to overrule it. There is no appeal from a BoA decision (although there have recently been some challenges at the Bundespatentgericht). Perhaps we really do need a UPC that can smack the EPO around the head when it gets silly.
Blogs in the USA demand a definition of "technical" to be laid down NOW, by a Binding Precedent from Europe's Supreme Court. Is that helpful? Or is Darwinian Evolution a better way for the meaning of "technical" to emerge, from the carpet of hundreds of EPO Decisions that is laid down each year. I mean, a degree of fuzziness at the margin of patent eligibility, a degree that steadily diminishes, is to my mind better than a clodhopping Supreme Court of non-patent judges screwing the whole thing up for a generation or more, by telling us that the test of eligibility is whether or not the claimed inventive concept is or is not significantly more than an abstract idea. I ask you! Are they serious in DC? Or is SCOTUS deliberately NOT laying down a "Binding" precedent, because it is well aware how counter-productive that can be. Instead, they are leaving it to the USPTO and the CAFC to put flesh on the abstract bone.What say you, gentle readers?
Of course, Max, nearly everyone now lacks the greatest of all precedents:http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1959/67.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=%5ENational%20Research%20Development%20Corporation
MaxDrei @18:13,You use the term "Darwinian Evolution" in apparent disregard for the article that you comment falls under.Only in a true binding precedent environment would Darwin's strict evolutionary winner take all principle be applicable.You also indicate a "steadily diminishing" when without binding precedent, no such diminishing is possible, as mere persuasion cannot change the possibility of a sea-shift in views from one day to the next.I do hope this this is said gently enough not to offend. My apologies aforehand if offense is taken.
Re: Perhaps we really do need a UPC that can smack the EPO around...in principle, an appeal to the UPC from a decision of the EPO's BoA, from a legal point of view, is justifiable. it is like, an administrative decision -> an appeal within the same institution -> an appeal to an independent court. Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 20:08:00 BST
maybe it will be very general or obvious for the readers, nevertheless, there is something intrinsically binding in a decision of an appeal board. please correct me if i'm wrong, a decision is usually binding for the same court and lower courts. it has to do with a legal certainly. as far as, I understand a deviation from the earlier decision is made in case there is a new understanding of the subject of the appeal. it can be seen that some core legal categories are redefined with time by the court. somebody mentioned category "technical". a general definition probably would be difficult to provide, but it would be more visible to define what is clearly technical or define a set of viewpoints for assessment what is "technical".
Thanks for the (thus far) 4 replies, Readers. I understand the first as a reference to a case in Australia on an NRDC pat appln, but why is is the Daddy precedent, and why everybody now "lacks" it, I can't see. The other 3 gentle responses look as if they are coming from outside Europe, from an English law jurisdiction, from a person with no knowledge of proceedings at the EPO, one who hopes this thread will educate him about them. I wouldn't know where to begin. Come on, other Readers. You can do better than that
The quoted passage from the guidelines "The application of the guidelines to individual European patent applications ... " is found in the general part which precedes part A , at page 5. The paragraph which follows it reads:"It should be noted also that the Guidelines do not constitute legal provisions. For the ultimate authority on practice in the EPO, it is necessary to refer firstly to the European Patent Convention itself including the Implementing Regulations, the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC, the Protocol on Centralisation, the Protocol on Recognition, the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities and the Rules relating to Fees, and secondly to the interpretation put upon the EPC by the Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal. ".I had understood that this was the basis for precedents not being binding.
Excellent post.I don't think it is useless to cite decisions of national courts of member states. Probably won't help to overturn "established case law", but where the EPO case law is less clear it should imho be given consideration.I note that T 452/91, point 5.4.1 continues as follows:it could be that the law in most or all other Contracting States was different. The reasoning that led the national instance to its conclusion might well lead an EPO instance to a similar conclusion under the EPC, but this would first need a careful assessment of the EPC, and of relevant EPO Board of Appeal case law, a comparison with the legislation and jurisprudence on which the national instance reached its conclusion, and a study of the position in other Contracting States, a task on which the first instance of the EPO should not lightly embark.So:- the reasoning found in a decision of a national court may well be persuasive;- unsurprisingly, such decisions are not binding on the EPO;- the criticism in point 5.4.1 is directed mainly at the opposition division in that case.@Anonymous:If people do not have access to law then that undermines the common respect people have for the law.EPCCase Law bookSeach BoA decisionsDo you have any particular problem accessing these sources?
RE: Ron "It should be noted also that the Guidelines do not constitute legal provisions. For the ultimate authority on practice in the EPO, it is necessary to refer firstly to the European Patent Convention itself including the Implementing Regulations, the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC, the Protocol on Centralisation, the Protocol on Recognition, the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities and the Rules relating to Fees, and secondly to the interpretation put upon the EPC by the Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal. ". From reading, only the priority of legal sources is established, nothing on binding.In other words, the EPC and etc. prevail over BoA's decisions. Nothing more.
RE: Anonymus 23:46law and law source are two different terms. therefore, the final part of your comment is incorrect.
@Anonymous:please correct me if i'm wrong, a decision is usually binding for the same court and lower courts. it has to do with a legal certainly.If it is only "usually", then "binding" is not the correct word. Binding precedent means a court has no choice but to follow the decision (unless the cases can be distinguished on the facts). There is no such binding precedent in the EPC legal system (nor in the that of other continental legal systems).
I would beg to differ on the interpretation of the guidelines.As provided for in A. 10(2)(a), the President has the power to ensure the adoption of instructions. The Guidelines are indicated to "give instructions about the practice and procedure to be followed" and accordingly are binding on the examination and opposition divisions.
MaxDrei, you have a point there. For example, in French legal tradition, the whole concept of binding precedent is almost taboo. The reason for this goes back to the Ancien Régime, where magistrates (including, but not only, the highest magistrate, the King) took great liberties with the statutory texts, "legislating from the bench" in an often aberrant manner.Consequently, the French Revolution comprehensively took that power away from judges, implementing a strict separation of the legislative and judiciary powers. French judges are supposed to base their decision only on statutory texts, as passed by the legislator, and never on judicial precedent. Of course, there is a big difference between theory and practice, and a French judge who ignored previous decissions of the "Cour de cassation" would be very reckless indeed, but the notoriously concise decissions of French judges still remain very coy on their sources other than statute. While few other civil law jurisdictions are as extreme as the French in this respect, the big difference between common law and civil law systems is and remains the binding character of judicial precedent in common law.
RE: There is no such binding precedent in the EPC legal system (nor in the that of other continental legal systems).Indeed, you won't find in a civil process book a provision to a binding affect of a decision. However, this is what will happen in practice. A lower court will follow an earlier decision of a appeal court otherwise the lower court risks to have its decision reverted by the appeal court.On the other hand, the appeal court usually follows its own decisions because these decisions are law sources. Making a different decision means creating new/different law. Must be a reason for that.Besides, what is usually stated in the civil process provisions is motivation obligation for a court to motivate a decision. For the similar case, a motivation to a different (from earlier) decision might provide a ground for an appeal. @ MaxDrei, if you point to any particular misunderstanding, we can discuss it. General statements to "no knowledge" can't be addressed. MaxDrei, please not that the EPO practice has a certain specifics, namely, it is more difficult to establish similar cases, due to a nature of a patent application. That might explain, in some respect, a low rate of stable decisions. It is the only difference I've noticed with a legal process outside the EPO. Wednesday, 16 July 2014 at 11:04:00 BST
Anonymous, at 16/7 11:04 hr:Particular misunderstandings? Yes, two, and both very particular. No more than this, and no less. First one. The concept of a "precedent". What's that then?Second one. What does "binding" mean (in the context of a legal "precedent")?In reply to the anonymous who thinks that Binding Precedent is the only significant difference between civil law and English law I say that fact-finding under English law is very different from that under civil law. On the European mainland, nobody has the foggiest idea how effectively discovery and cross-examination keeps witnesses honest. In patent validity trials, civil law deals with the absence of X-exam by having the judge as the "Person skilled in the art". This is the real explanation of the need for "technical judges" at the UPC (and at the EPO). Wednesday, 16 July 2014 at 11:20:00 BST
RE: MaxDrei, First one. The concept of a "precedent". What's that then?Second one. What does "binding" mean (in the context of a legal "precedent")?Definitions see above at Darren's post. There is no difference in definition of "binding" between systems. It seems that MaxDrei overestimates a difference between a common law system and a civil law system in practice. Here, I need to repeat myself for MaxDrei, in civil law, an earlier decision of an appeal board is usually followed unless there is a new understanding of the subject of an appeal. In my previous comment, I explained the reasons for that. You might call it "quasi binding" or "binding in practice". By the way, this is exactly the same effect what Rules of Procedure before BoA and Art 111 EPC cited by Darren have. The only thing, I can't see why Darren wrote "suggests a very narrow binding nature". (1) BoA can't deviate from ABoA. (2) BoA needs motivation why an earlier decision of BoA, for the similar case, is not followed. This is exactly where it becomes difficult to make a deviating decision, because BoA creates 2 different decisions for the same case and some problem with a legal certainty. What then? The later decision goes for the earlier?
MaxDrei at 11:20,Your two listed misunderstandings swallow whole the topic under consideration.I must apologize as I am not helped by saying that such misunderstanding is the problem.Perchance you can set us all at ease and inform us what these words mean and eliminate the misunderstandings.From this vantage point, it looks as if the slippery slope of common law is fully engaged, and if nothing is truly bound, then, well, nothing is bound and anything goes. Hints of "but practically" which indicate a rather loose social pressure lose their footing on the slope, and are as equally unhelpful in resolving what the terms mean.After much travel, we arrive at our starting point. Going in circles is a sign of being lost, n'cest ces pa?
Readers, we are not getting on very well, are we?Darren's advice is best: The Guidelines is holy writ for DG1 but beneath the consideration of DG3. DG3 has its own Bible, namely the White Book. Try shifting the beggars from their respective "established law" No chance! Basta!Citing to a TBA a lone DG3 Decision, a "precedent" that happens to help you, don't impress them, at all. Why? Because for every one you cite, they say, the other side can cite one that says the opposite.But look at succeeding Editions of the White Book, and successive annual update Special Caselaw Editions of OJEPO. On the substantive provisions of patentability, there is less and less to add. With each succeeding Edition, the content shifts remorselessly towards matters of procedure. Plenty of mileage there still, to sharpen up legal certainty at the EPO.One more thing. Each time one of the many "anonymous" writers tells me to look at "their" earlier post, I sigh. Which one then? And when?
RE: Citing to a TBA a lone DG3 Decision, a "precedent" that happens to help you, don't impress them, at all. Why? Because for every one you cite, they say, the other side can cite one that says the opposite.You can always request to refer to EBoA based on a case law + Rules before BoA, Article 20.
"One more thing. Each time one of the many "anonymous" writers tells me to look at "their" earlier post, I sigh. Which one then? And when?"Because it is too much bother to understand the context of what each "Anonymous" is talking about....?The thread is not so long as to make that task such an arduous one, MaxDrei.Besides which, 21 posts above.15 by Anonymous – NONE request MaxDrei to look at “their” earlier posts. Kibitz for the sake of kibitz?
@ MaxDrei Come on, other Readers. You can do better than that It seems that your words finally have been heard by Anonymous at Wednesday, 16 July 2014 15:13:00 BST.
"(3)The decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be binding on the Board of Appeal in respect of the appeal in question."To say it is 'only' binding is not an accurate statement of the law.
Anon @ 12:59,You quite miss the cheekiness.Re-read the Lewis Carroll novel and understand that the text of the law means whatever the "beholder" wants the text to mean - you cannot separate out interpretation from determining accuracy.
You assume I have already read said Lewis Carroll novel!Again, however it is the simple text not its interpretation, or in your means what it means'.Be therefore as cheekish as you wish, but my comment refers to the photographic, machine-readable, identical text copy reproduced without alteration or spin and without passing through any wormholes or other imaginary passageways reminiscent of the works of Lewis C.
ANon @ 21:41,I suggest that you read the novel then, as even your "simple text" falls to be meant by what the holder will mean it to mean, nothing more and nothing less - and most assuredly, nothing within your control to impart any meaning whatsoever.It matters not how pristine the text is, the text will at some point be picked up by the holder and thus render your version inconsequential.
If I understand correctly, the anonymous of 16 July 19:04 is bothered by the absence of "only" in Art. 112(3) EPC.It is of course true that this provision does not say "only", but that does not mean that it would not be a correct statement of law that G-decisions are only binding on the referring board.From T 724/99:4.3. Second, the Respondents' argument would suggest case-law is binding unless otherwise stated which is contrary to the accepted practice. In the legal system established under the EPC there is no principle of absolute or binding case-law. Earlier decisions are authoritative and often followed, but the absence of any general obligation to treat earlier decisions as binding is highlighted not just by the specific saving the Enlarged Board considered necessary in G 9/93 (see paragraph 4.4 below) but also, and more importantly, by the presence in the EPC and its subsidiary legislation of provisions to deal with the inevitable differences of opinion non-binding case-law may produce (Article 112(1)(b) EPC; Articles 16 and 17 RPBA) and of provisions as to when, exceptionally, decisions do have a binding effect (Articles 111(2) and 112(3) EPC). Those exceptions, it should be noted, only relate to further proceedings in the particular cases in question and not to all subsequent decisions with the same issues.
RE: It is of course true that this provision does not say "only", but that does not mean that it would not be a correct statement of law that G-decisions are only binding on the referring board.(after three glasses of Prosecco), I see also another interpretation of Art. 112(3) EPC, i.e., an EBoA-decision is binding at least on the referring board.(if we apply a systematic interpretation of the EPC and related provisions, that is analysing Art. 112(3) EPC and related provisions), we will also look into Article 21 of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal:Should a Board consider it necessary to deviate from an interpretation or explanation of the Convention contained in an earlier opinion or decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the question shall be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.is it prosecco or a Board of Appeal can't deviate from an earlier decision of an Enlarged Board of Appeal without involving EBoA, what makes the earlier decision of EBoA de facto binding for BoA.
I'm a bit late jumping in, but here goes with both boots.Anonymous stated "I would beg to differ on the interpretation of the guidelines.As provided for in A. 10(2)(a), the President has the power to ensure the adoption of instructions. The Guidelines are indicated to "give instructions about the practice and procedure to be followed" and accordingly are binding on the examination and opposition divisions."Utter tosh. Article 10(2)(a) empowers the President to adopt "internal administrative instructions" for the purpose of ensuring the "functioning of the European Patent Office". This does not include the power to make substantive law, and the Guidelines themselves recognise this in stating in the general part "It should be noted also that the Guidelines do not constitute legal provisions".The Guidelines are not binding, never have been binding, but nevertheless represent established practice such that "as a general rule, parties can expect the EPO to act in accordance with the Guidelines until such time as they – or the relevant legal provisions – are amended".So, the guidelines are extremely useful, and their accuracy and revision is extremely important, but they are not binding.
Meldrew raises a super point, that, according to the EPO, parties can expect that the goalposts won't be moved even while the game is going on.Except that, just recently, DG3 is increasingly bold, in moving the goalposts.I refer of course to the increasing seductiveness to the TBA of the line "Why are you making this Request now? It is a Request you could have made below. Because you did not, we refuse it admission now". Only trouble is, the Decision of the Opposition Division was rendered back in the days, years and years ago, when DG3 admitted pretty much any Request, however late it was filed.As I say, these days the caselaw still developing at the EPO is much more procedural than substantive.
RE: So, the guidelines are extremely useful ...certainly, as well as BoA's decisions the guidelines originated from ...
The Guidelines certainly are instructions issued under Art. 10(2)(a) EPC. According to the General Part:In accordance with Art. 10(2)(a) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), the President of the European Patent Office (EPO) had adopted, effective as at 1 June 1978, the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office.I'd say in terms of Art. 10(2)(a) the Guidelines are both "internal administrative instructions" and "information to the public".The Guidelines are binding on examiners, but they allow deviation "in exceptional cases". The binding effect is however between examiners and the president, not between examiners or EPO and applicants. In appeal it won't help to argue that the first instance failed to follow the Guidelines on a substantive point if the first instance did not violate the EPC. On procedural points, in particular where the EPC leaves discretion to the first instance, the "legal force" of the Guidelines will be somewhat stronger.