< Zurück zu den aktuellen Neuigkeiten & Events

Neuigkeiten

Opposition case studies

Mai 2020

With an increasing number of European patents being granted year on year, freedom to operate for third parties has never been so important. When a patent application is filed at the European Patent Office (EPO), upon grant it becomes a bundle of national patents and subject to national patent laws. For third parties looking to clear the way, this can prove very complicated. Different countries may have differences in national laws and invalidation procedures which may lead to different outcomes.

The EPO offers an efficient and cost effective post grant opposition procedure, whereby within nine months of grant a third party can centrally challenge the European patent. If successful, the patent is then revoked (or amended) across all countries in which it is in force. Oppositions can therefore avoid the potential inconsistency of challenging patents nationally and at a fraction of the price. The official fee for filing an EPO opposition is currently 815 EUR, with attorney fees typically in the tens of thousands of EUR, as opposed to hundreds of thousands or even millions for national litigation.

The statistics on opposition outcomes at the EPO are also generally favourable to the challenger, with just over two thirds of patents opposed either being revoked or amended.

A further advantage of the system is that there is no litigation estoppel. Oppositions can also be filed in the name of a strawman, which is potentially commercially significant. For example the European patent attorney filing the opposition or even another company, to conceal the true identity of the opponent.

Early Certainty From EPO Oppositions

Oppositions at the EPO have a very well-established procedure.

  • Response – After the opposition nine-month filing window ends, a deadline is then set for the patentee to file a response to any oppositions filed.
  • Summons to Oral Proceedings – This includes a non-binding preliminary opinion of the Opposition Division (a panel of three EPO members). This sets a deadline for patentee and opponent(s) to file final written submissions. Typically this might include the patentee filing substitute claim sets (Auxiliary claim sets).
  • Hearing – The Summons also sets the date for an oral hearing for all parties to attend at the EPO in the Hague, Munich or Berlin. It is at this hearing all parties have a final opportunity to plead their case with a decision being announced by the Opposition Division at the end of the hearing. The outcome, which is effective the same day, is either:
    – the patent is revoked; or
    – the opposition is rejected; or
    – the patent is maintained in an amended form, for example on the basis of a substitute claim set.
  • Written Decision – This is then issued within a few months of the hearing, including minutes from the oral hearing.

Following feedback from users of the system, in July 2016 the EPO introduced a streamlined procedure aiming to cut the overall duration of ”straightforward” cases to 15 months from expiry of the opposition filing period (i.e. within two years of grant). This does not involve removing any of the above mentioned steps, but instead the EPO optimising its internal workflows. The mean average duration of opposition proceedings as recently reported for 2019 is just over 18 months.

Opposition timelines

Appeals and Rule Changes

Within two months of the opposition written decision being issued, any party adversely affected can appeal. Procedurally, an appeal follows a similar route to oppositions. It typically culminates in an oral hearing held at the EPO Board of Appeal premises in Haar, Germany. The statistics show that appeals are also relatively successful with half or even more opposition decisions being altered as a result.

Appeal proceedings, however, on average have a longer duration compared to oppositions – almost twice the length. In order to address this and provide more consistency, the Rules of the Boards of Appeal were updated effective 1 January 2020. As well as introducing a number of procedural efficiencies, the changes relate to restricting the appeal to the contents of the opposition. This makes it more difficult to introduce new arguments or documents which were not part of the opposition proceedings.

Conclusion

The EPO opposition procedure is undoubtedly a hugely valuable tool for third parties seeking freedom to operate within Europe. Cost-effective, consistent and time-efficient. In the light of oppositions speeding up and the recent change to the appeal rules, challengers should aim to put their best case forward from the outset.

This article was prepared by HGF Partners Leythem Wall and Mike Nelson. If you would like further advice on this or any other matter, please contact Leythem or Mike.  Alternatively, you can contact your usual HGF representative or visit our Contact page to get in touch with your nearest HGF office.

Aktuelle Neuigkeiten

HGF ist die Nummer 1 in Großbritannien für Markenportfolios im Bericht „Trade Mark Filing Trends 2025“ von Clarivate

HGF hat im neu veröffentlichten Bericht „Trade Mark Filing Trends 2025“ von Clarivate den ersten Platz für Markenportfolios in Großbritannien erreicht. Damit wird die Kanzlei als führende Kraft bei der …

Weiterlesen

Die Beschwerdekammer des EPA äußert sich zum Umfang des Ausschlusses der Sittenwidrigkeit von der Patentierbarkeit

Die jüngste Entscheidung T1553/22 der Beschwerdekammer verpflichtete die Kammer, den Umfang der Ausschlüsse von der Patentierbarkeit gemäß Artikel 53(a) EPÜ zu prüfen. Die Erfindung in diesem Fall bezog sich auf …

Weiterlesen

IP Zutaten: Sommer-Rechtsprechungsbericht 2025

Während der Sommer mal mit Sonne, mal mit Wolken aufwartet, lohnt sich ein Blick zurück auf die IP-Entscheidungen der vergangenen Monate. In diesem Rückblick gehen wir auf einige der herausragenden …

Weiterlesen

Prüfungserfolg bei HGF!

Wir freuen uns einmal mehr, Ihnen mitteilen zu können, dass unsere Kolleginnen und Kollegen bei ihren jüngsten Prüfungen erfolgreich waren! Ihr Engagement, ihre Ausdauer und ihr Einsatz für die berufliche …

Weiterlesen

Ist die Ablehnung des Obersten Gerichtshofs im Fall Thatcher ein schwerer Schlag für Doppelgänger?

Der Streit zwischen Thatcher’s Cider Company und Aldi Stores Limited dauert schon lange an und hat im Laufe der Zeit juristische Kontroversen ausgelöst. Am 4. Juni 2025 verweigerte der Oberste …

Weiterlesen

HGF wurde in den IP STARS Patent Rankings 2025 als eine der führenden Patentkanzleien Europas ausgezeichnet

HGF hat erneut einen deutlichen Eindruck in der aktuellen Kanzlei-Rangliste „Managing IP Stars 2025“ hinterlassen und wurde für seine Expertise im Bereich Patentrecht in mehreren Rechtsordnungen mit einer Spitzenplatzierung ausgezeichnet. …

Weiterlesen

Die Große Beschwerdekammer hat heute ihre Entscheidung in der wegweisenden Rechtssache G1/24 veröffentlicht

G1/24, der als einer der wichtigsten Fälle seit Jahrzehnten bezeichnet wird, betrifft die Frage, wie Patentansprüche von den Beschwerdekammern und damit von allen Organen des Europäischen Patentamts auszulegen sind. Die …

Weiterlesen