Talk:Appeal procedure before the European Patent Office

Citing sources[edit]

I have removed the following sentences which do not cite sources (WP:RS):

The members of the EPO Boards of Appeal presently can not be considered to be independent judges, as they are only appointed for a five year term, with the possibility of being re-elected (Art. 23 EPC). A Board of Appeal member not making 'desired' decisions may loose his job. So the EPO Boards of Appeal do not qualify as an 'independent court' in the sense of e.g. Art. 6(1) of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights ('Fair Trial'). So theoretically, appeal against a BoA decision before a regular, independent court is possible.

The assertion that the members of the EPO Boards of Appeal are not independent judges despite the title of Art. 23 EPC: "Independence of the members of the Boards" cannot be inserted in the article unless a proper reliable source is added ("When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources"). The assertion that "a Board of Appeal member not making 'desired' decisions may loose his job" is unverifable. And the two last sentences are original research. --Edcolins 10:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Appeal procedure before the European Patent Office. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not NPOV[edit]

The article appears to be written by the EPO itself, in that it "sells" the alleged independence of the Boards of Appeal. However, the members of the boards of appeal must be reappointed after 5 years by the EPO Administrative Council, a body that in practice represents the patent offices of the member states. In addition, EPO Board of Appeal members originate from the EPO, so they are unlikely to have an innovative new opinion. Rbakels (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rbakels (talk · contribs), thanks for the note. If you can provide additional, reliable sources, I would be happy to improve this section based on those. The intention was certainly not to "sell" the independence of the Boards of Appeal (I must have written most of it). Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that complicated. The article says "institutionally independent within the EPO". The European Patent Convention, the treaty that governs the EPO, gives rules for the members of the boards of appeal in art. 11 and 23. They are appointed for a limited term, and may be reappointed. The EPO President and the "Administrative Council" have a strong influence. The latter is a board with members from memebr states, typically the head of the national patent office, and/or an employee from the Ministry of Economic Affairs.So it is not nearkly independent! Rbakels (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]