Revenir au site

Remittal of Subsea Switchgear Patent Due to Procedural Violations and Opponent Status Transfer

T 2241/19

· EPO,opposition

Introduction

In decision T 2241/19, the European Patent Office (EPO) Board of Appeal remitted the case of the subsea switchgear apparatus patent to the Opposition Division, citing substantial procedural violations and issues surrounding the transfer of opponent status. The Board found that the original decision lacked sufficient reasoning under Rule 111(2) EPC, and acknowledged the procedural transfer of opponent status to Siemens Energy Global GmbH & Co. KG.

Summary of the Invention

The patent, European Patent No. 2052447, titled "A Subsea Switchgear Apparatus," pertains to a device designed for the efficient management of high-voltage electrical distribution in subsea environments. The main components of the invention include:

  1. Frame (10): The structural support for the apparatus.
  2. Electrical Power Inlet (11) and Outlet (12): Mounted to the frame for power input and output.
  3. Distribution Chamber (31): Houses electrical connections and interfaces with canisters.
  4. Canisters (20): Contain high voltage circuit breakers and are separated from the distribution chamber by a pressure barrier (23).
  5. Electrical Connections (32): Located within the distribution chamber to connect circuit breakers with power inlets and outlets.

This apparatus is notable for its robust design that includes pressure-sealed canisters filled with gas, ensuring reliable operation in underwater conditions.

Summary of the Board of Appeal Decision

Arguments by the Opponent (Siemens Energy Global GmbH & Co. KG)
  1. Substantial Procedural Violation (Rule 111(2) EPC): The opponent argued that the decision under appeal did not address an objection concerning the inventive step, which could potentially alter the outcome.
  2. Transfer of Opponent Status: The opponent sought recognition of the transfer of opponent status from Siemens AG to Siemens Energy Global GmbH & Co. KG.
Arguments by the Patentee (Vetco Gray Scandinavia AS)
  1. Maintaining the Patent: The patentee argued that the appeal should be dismissed and the patent maintained as amended.
  2. Procedural Requests: The patentee requested the remittal of the case to the Opposition Division due to the procedural violation.
Board’s Decision
  1. Admissibility of Appeal: The appeal was deemed admissible under Articles 106 to 108 EPC and Rule 99 EPC, meeting all necessary requirements.
  2. Transfer of Opponent Status: The Board acknowledged the transfer of opponent status, confirming that the business assets related to the patent were effectively transferred from Siemens AG to Siemens Energy Global GmbH & Co. KG.
  3. Substantial Procedural Violation: The Board found that the original decision lacked sufficient reasoning, particularly in addressing the objection regarding the inventive step based on document E8 in combination with E6. This omission constituted a substantial procedural violation.
  4. Remittal and Reimbursement: Due to the procedural violation, the Board remitted the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution under Article 111(1) EPC and Article 11 RPBA. The Board also ordered the reimbursement of the appeal fee under Rule 103(1)(a) EPC.

Conclusion

The decision underscores the importance of thorough reasoning in opposition proceedings, ensuring that all relevant objections are addressed. Additionally, the procedural handling of opponent status transfers must be meticulously documented and evidenced.

Lessons Learned

  1. Thorough Decision-Making: Ensure all objections that could influence the outcome are addressed in the decision to comply with Rule 111(2) EPC.
  2. Documenting Opponent Status Transfers: Provide clear and complete evidence when transferring opponent status to avoid procedural disputes.
  3. Timely Objection Handling: Address all objections during proceedings to prevent remittals and procedural delays.

 The information provided in this blog post is for generalinformational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary and analysis of the EPO case are based on publicly available information and are intended to offer insights into the decision and its implications. This content should not be used as a substitute for rofessional legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances. For advice related to any specific legal matters, you should consult a qualified attorney.

If you have any questions concerning intellectual property issuesor need assistance with patent applications, oppositions, or appeals, please do not hesitate to contact us at Novitech IP. Our team of experienced professionals is here to provide you with expert guidance and support. Reach out to us today to discuss how we can help protect your innovations and navigate the complexities of IP law.

To stay informed about the latest reviewsand updates in IP law, subscribe to our blog. Join our community and receive notifications whenever we publish new reviews and insights on important case law and developments in the field of intellectual property.