EPO's Boards of Appeal to Move Back to Munich
December 14, 2021
The President of the Boards of Appeal and the President of the Office jointly propose to the Administrative Council to re-locate the Boards of Appeal from Haar to the building Pschorr-Höfe 7 in Munich, owned by the EPO, as of 2025/2026.
While this pretty spectacular U-turn still has to be confirmed by the Administrative Council in 2022, I have little doubts that the AC will do so (the tail is usually wagging the dog in Eponia). And in this case, it would clearly be the right decision for many reasons, even though we have not yet seen the price tag associated with this planned measure. But it makes little sense at least to me to rent expensive office space outside Munich while leaving EPO-owned facilities empty. It is still amazing and puzzling to me that this simple insight came so late.
Apparently, it takes years to undo the workings of a President who had obviously forgotten everything he had or should have learned about Montesquieu and the great tradition of French enlightenment.
Meanwhile I hope that the public will soon learn more about the EPO's "New Ways of working" (CA 77/21), and whether these "New Ways" will bring a lively office back to the EPO's premises, which are currently pretty deserted. Stay tuned!
Become a contributor!
Interested in contributing? Submit your proposal for a blog post now and become a part of our legal community!
Contact Editorial Guidelines
You may also like
June 24, 2025
Concerned observer
Thorsten, looking at the CSC's comments upon CA 77/21, it seems that the "New ways of working" are all teleworking, including the possibility of mandatory teleworking. It is not clear to me why CA 77/21 is mentioned in the Joint Declaration. However, I rather suspect that it has a lot to do with a likely reduction in size of the office space allocated to the Boards. I would also not be surprised if CA 77/21 has led the President of the Boards of Appeal to make assumptions regarding the proportion of appeal oral proceedings that will be held by VICO (with possible "remote" participation of members of the Boards). If my suspicions are correct, then the planned move might only be feasible if, contrary to all reasonable expectations (in the light of G 1/21), Article 15a RPBA remains in force in unamended form. This raises the prospect that the promise of a move back to (central) Munich could, in the wrong hands, effectively be used as an "inducement" for members of Boards of Appeal to uphold Article 15a RPBA in its current form. Of course, I am not saying that there is any such skulduggery going on. However, such a possibility cannot be ruled out entirely unless and until the EPO publishes all of the relevant documents (namely, CA 77/21, the MoU between the two Presidents and, most importantly, the relative size of the office space that will be allocated to the Boards in the building Pschorr-Höfe 7). Given the vast number of important documents that the EPO does not make publicly available, I will not hold my breath waiting for anything on this point.
Extraneous Attorney
Taxpayers' and consumers' money will therefore have been wasted on an epic scale, likely numbering in the millions of euros. Yet nothing will happen to the careers of anyone involved in making this decision. That's the unaccountability of international organizations for you. @Concerned observer is right to mention that there may be a link with Article 15a RPBA. I'm inclined to believe that, in view of the reasoning set forth in G1/21, Article 15a RPBA is plainly ultra vires and therefore good as dead. But that's assuming that the EBA sitting in another composition will not find another "dynamic interpretation" of the EPC...