专业服务
欧洲专利局异议
施利希在向欧洲专利局（EPO）提出异议方面拥有丰富的经验。我们既擅长攻击竞争对手的专利， 也擅长保护我们客户的专利免受第三方撤销。我们的团队擅于处理高价值并且复杂的诉讼案件。例如，施利希目前正在对一系列高价值、尖端的生命科学专利进行攻击。
我们可以借鉴大量的团队专利异议经验取胜，同时我们也一直在寻找创新的方式来提供全面而明确的战略建议。我们在为客户赢得异议和上诉案例有着丰富的经验，已经处理了大量诉讼案件并取得了成功。无论是异议层面或是在上诉委员会面前，我们的专利律师团队拥有数十年代表客户参加欧洲专利局口头程序的宝贵经验。更需要重点提出的是，我们的施利希团队充满凝聚力。
我们定期代表客户出席欧洲专利局的听证会，并能够就欧洲专利局异议部门和上诉委员会的最新动态和实践变化提供建议。我们的律师也有参加通过视频会议进行口头诉讼的经验。
欧洲专利局专利异议或上诉的成功结果至关重要，可以使我们的客户获得相对于竞争对手的商业优势，或在竞争环境中占有一席之地。使施利希胜诉的，不仅仅凭借了我们在不同诉讼阶段中不断更新的实战经验，也得益于我们渊博的科学专业知识背景。
与起草和起诉相比，欧洲专利局（EPO）的异议工作需要具备专业技能的律师。这就要求律师们具备法律和技术知识、决心和专注力。他们需要有战略思维和有说服力的专业陈述技巧。
我们拥有一个多学科知识的律师团队，他们在处理和赢得复杂的专利异议和异议上诉方面具有专业的技能，施利希团队不仅仅有在欧洲专利局的诉讼经验，也有在其他司法管辖区的诉讼经验。
欧洲专利局的大多数异议都遵循相同的程序
欧洲专利局异议时间表
0
个月
欧洲专利授权
9
个月
提出异议
10
个月
欧洲专利局邀请专利权人作出回应
14
个月
专利权人提交答复
17
个月
欧洲专利局发布传票和初步意见
19-25
个月
提交最终书面材料的截止日期
20-27
个月
口头诉讼和口头裁决
24-33
个月
作出书面裁决
专业服务
欧洲专利局上诉
有时，欧洲专利局的审查部可能会驳回您的一项欧洲专利申请，或者欧洲专利局的异议部可能会做出对您不利的裁决。幸运的是，这些不利的裁决可以上诉到欧洲专利局的上诉委员会，在那里您有机会推翻该裁决。说服上诉委员会推翻审查部和异议部的裁决并非易事，但凭借我们团队的技术和法律知识以及多年在此类诉讼中代表客户的经验，我们已经处理了大量的欧洲专利局上诉案件，并取得了成功的结果。
要对欧洲专利局的裁决提出上诉，上诉人必须在裁决发布后2个月内提交上诉通知。在裁决发布后4个月内，上诉人必须列出其上诉所依据的理由。对于异议程序引起的上诉，欧洲专利局将通知对方已提出上诉，给对方大约4个月的时间提交答辩材料。通常情况下，欧洲专利局会就所提交的论据发表不具约束力的初步意见，并召集各方参加口头听证会，进一步陈述这些论据。在口头听证会上将就该事项作出裁决，然后上诉委员会将在接下来的几个月内发布该裁决的书面理由。
我们经常代表客户对欧洲专利局的裁决提出上诉。凭借我们团队在各种不同技术方面的专业知识，施利希律师事务所完全有能力帮助您挑战对您不利的裁决。
近期案例解析
阅读施利希团队报告最近的案例解析和欧洲专利局的最新动态。
Acceleration of EPO Oppositions – note the recent change in practice!
Oppositions (and then appeals of the opposition decisions) are a mainstay of the work of the EPO, allowing third party scrutiny of granted patents prior, and often in place of, litigation. The process can also be a safe means of testing the litigation water as, with only a few exceptions, no estoppel is generated through these EPO proceedings.
Description amendments at the EPO – Possible EBA referral in T56/21
The requirement to amend the description of a European patent application so that its scope of disclosure matches that of the claims is a particular requirement of EPO practice and there is debate within the EPO as to whether such description amendments should be required before allowance. As part of this ongoing debate, the Board of Appeal in T56/21 has proposed a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal on this issue.
Can a Decision on Re-establishment be Challenged during Opposition?
A recent Decision, T1482/21, from the Board of Appeal of the EPO considered whether a decision to re-establish a patent application can be challenged during Opposition proceedings at the EPO.
Applying G 2/21 – Referring Board Suggests the Route Forward is Unclear
Following the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 2/21 (“plausibility”) earlier this year, the referring Board has issued its preliminary opinion on how to take EPO appeal no. T 116/18 forwards. It is clear the Board is uncertain how G 2/21 is to be applied, noting several interpretations of that decision seem feasible. Thus, new case law appears to be needed to help those using the European patent system understand the circumstances under which post-filed data can be relied upon by a patent proprietor in the assessment of inventive step.
Recent Boards of Appeal Decision Reveals In-Person Proceedings Are Still The “Gold Standard”
This recent decision from the Boards of Appeal follows clear guidance from G1/21 that in-person proceedings should remain the default over ViCo proceedings, contradicting both the EPO’s digital first strategy and previous Boards of Appeal decisions implementing G1/21.
EPO to End “10-Day Rule”
The EPO “10-day rule” has for a long time effectively acted as a grace period during which certain responses can be timely filed after the deadline calculated from the face of an official communication only. However, the EPO are abolishing the 10-day rule and for deadlines set after 1 November 2023 this effective extension will not apply. Therefore, it is important that applicants and their representatives, who commonly rely on the grace period offered by the 10-day rule, recognise and remember that this option will not be available to them after 1 November 2023.
Gold Standard for Novelty of Subranges
A recent EPO Board of Appeal decision has dismissed the common test for novelty of a subrange and has instead proposed that the so-called “gold standard” test should be used. Under the gold standard novelty test, a claimed subrange is considered novel simply if there is no direct and unambiguous disclosure of the claimed subrange – regardless of whether the subrange is “sufficiently far removed” from any range in the prior art.
Enlarged Board of Appeal grants 10th Petition for Review
Any party to appeal proceedings adversely affected by the decision of the Board of Appeal can file a Petition for Review of the decision by the Enlarged Board of Appeal. However, such petitions may only be filed on the grounds that: (i) the composition of the board was not correct, (ii) a fundamental violation of the right to be heard occurred (iii) a fundamental procedural defect occurred (iv) a criminal act had an impact on the decision. Historically, the success rate of Petitions for Review at the EPO has not been high, falling at around 5%. That said, November saw the granting of the 10th Petition for Review. Read on to get a flavour of what it takes to succeed.
联系我们
我们的英国和欧洲专利律师和特许商标律师团队具有丰富的知识和经验，能够协助客户满足其知识产权各个方面的法律需求。
立即联系我们，了解我们如何帮助您和您的企业的更多信息。
