The Board, exercising its power under Article 12(4) RPBA, decided not to admit the patent proprietor’s (appellant) main request in appeal, because he did not at all respond in substance to the opposition in first instance, but had merely stated to be interested in maintaining the patent as granted and that it would not reply to the notice of opposition (e.g. by filing arguments or amended claims). The Board ruled that if a patent proprietor chooses to not at all substantively respond to the opposition, he will need to face the prospect of being held accountable for such conduct.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on


To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.

Kluwer IP Law
This page as PDF