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。
An Appellant is an appellant, and an intervener in an appeal is an intervener – G2/24
Following our earlier article, the Enlarged Board has now provided its Decision in this matter,
G 1/23 confirms that products placed on the market before the effective date of a European patent application constitute prior art, regardless of whether they can be reproduced
On 2 July 2025, the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) issued its decision in G 1/23. The referral stemmed from T 0438/19, an appeal against the decision of an opposition division to reject an opposition against a European patent directed to a material for encapsulating a solar cell which comprises an ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymer with certain defined properties, including a content of aluminium element of from 10 to 500ppm. D1 disclosed a commercially available copolymer, ENGAGE® 8400, which the opponent/appellant sought to rely on as the closest prior art for their inventive step challenge; however, the Patentee argued, with reference to G 1/92, that ENGAGE® 8400 cannot be reproduced (i.e., it is not enabled) and therefore it has not been made available to the public within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC and thus is not a suitable starting point for the assessment of inventive step. Grappling with how to interpret G 1/92, the Board in T 0438/19 referred three questions to the EBA focused on understanding whether a commercial product, put on the market before the filing date of a European patent application, can be excluded from the state of the art for the sole reason that it could not be reproduced. The EBA has now answered, and the short answer is no!
Going it Alone: The EPO Chooses a Different Path to Claim Interpretation to the Courts
Many of us thought G 1/24 would convince the EPO to change its approach to claim interpretation, however a few recent decisions of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal and at least one commentary regarding the EPO’s official guidance to its examiners suggest the EPO’s practice of interpreting the claims in isolation may be here to stay. The EPO thus appears to be taking a different approach to claim interpretation to the national courts and the UPC, despite the Enlarged Board of Appeal stating in G 1/24 that it considered such an idea “a most unattractive proposition”.
New Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal: The Description Amendment Saga Goes On!
The question of legal basis for the EPO’s description amendment requirement has been the subject of debate for a long time. However, a recent referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (G 1/25) has set the stage for finally settling this matter.
EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal Issues Much-Anticipated Decision in G 1/24
The question of whether and, if so, the extent to which the description and drawings should be used to interpret the claims of a European patent / European patent application has been a hotly contested topic in the world of IP for a considerable length of time. In its recent decision in G 1/24, the Enlarged Board of Appeal has finally settled the issue, holding that the description and drawings must always be used to interpret the claims. This decision thus brings EPO practice into line with the practice of the national courts of the EPC contracting states and the UPC.
Use Claims Can be Method Claims in Disguise, says the EPO
Strict rules of interpretation apply to the four categories of claim permitted by the EPO (product, method, apparatus, and use). It is usually clear from the claim wording which claim category is used to define an invention, however a recent decision from one Board of Appeal has confirmed that, in certain cases, claims initially appearing to be use claims are, in fact, to be interpreted as method claims.
When it comes to Post Filed Data, the Earlier the Better – A Brief Reminder Following G 2/21
This recent decision of the EPO Boards of Appeal, T 1865/22, reminds applicants to include clear details of the claimed technical effect in the application as filed and to file evidence in support of said technical effect as early as possible
Is an Intervener an Opponent or Appellant, or just an Intervener?
A new referral has been made to the Enlarged Board of Appeal relating to the question of whether an appeal can continue with an intervener only, if the appellant has withdrawn.
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。
