G 4/95 Explained

G 4/95
Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office
Decision issued on 19 February 1996
Board composition
Chairman: P. Gori Members: C. Andries, G. Gall, W. Moser, G.D. Paterson, R. Schulte, P. van den Berg
Headword
Representation/BOGASKY

G 4/95 is a decision issued on 19 February 1996 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO). The decision deals with oral submissions by an accompanying person in opposition or opposition appeal proceedings, and more specifically the extent and the circumstances under which an accompanying person or similar may add to the authorized representative's submissions during oral proceedings. The Enlarged Board of Appeal held that an accompanying person may be allowed to make oral submissions in relation to either legal or technical issues provided that the authorized representative maintains overall control at all times and "under the overall discretionary control of the EPO".^{[1] [2]}

Questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

The referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal lies from an interlocutory decision T 803/93^[3] from Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.1. The referred questions are:

Answers to the referred questions

The Enlarged Board of Appeal answered these questions as follows:

Practical aspects

Parties are advised to request oral submissions by an accompanying person in good time. If such submissions are requested shortly before inter partes proceedings, the request will normally be refused.^[4] It should be stressed that an accompanying person like a third person who is not party to the proceedings does not have a right to be heard.^[5]

Further reading

"Right to be heard - introduction"

"Derogations from the language of the proceedings in written proceedings and in oral proceedings"

"Expert opinion submitted by a party"

"Large volume of evidence"

"The Vienna convention on the law of treaties - systematic interpretation"

"Authorisations for appointment of a representative - sub-authorisations"

"Oral submissions by an accompanying person - enlarged board's landmark decision G 4/95"

"Application of the case law established by the enlarged board - introduction"

"Application of the case law established by the enlarged board - trainee patent attorneys"

"Application of the case law established by the enlarged board - distinction between party to proceedings and accompanying person"

"Application of the case law established by the enlarged board - name, qualifications and subject-matter to be specified"

"Oral submissions by qualified patent lawyers of non-EPC contracting states"

"Right to be heard in opposition proceedings - opportunity to present comments"

"Grounds for petition for review - further examples of unsuccessful petitions"

External links

• G 0004/95 of 19 February 1996
• Decision G 4/95, Official Journal EPO 1996, 412
• Decision T 803/93 of 19 July 1995 (referring decision)

Notes and References

1. Book: A Guide to the EPC 2000 . Fox . Nicholas . CIPA . 164 . en . 2007. 9780903932264 .
2. https://new.epo.org/xx/legal/official-journal/1996/07/p412/1996-p412.pdf G 4/95
3. https://new.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t930803eu2.html Interlocutory decision T 803/93 of 19 July 1995
4. Kaisa Suominen, Peter de Lange, Andrew John Rudge, VISSER'S ANNOTATED EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION,, chapter 2.2, page 364, Wolters Kluwer, 2022.
5. Romuald Singer, Margarete Singer, Dieter Stauder, Europäisches Patentübereinkommen - Artikel 113, page 844, 5th edition, Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2010.