直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

European IP Blog

Earlier Certainty from Oppositions - Appeals Not So Much

31 May 2018

Authored and Edited by Leythem A. Wall; Hazel Ford, Ph.D.

Earlier this year, the European Patent Office (EPO) released their annual statistics report for 2017 which made for very interesting reading in a number of areas. In particular, this covers the first full year passed since the EPO initiated their Early Certainty from Opposition scheme in July 2016 aiming to bring the length of opposition proceedings down to an average of 15 months from the end of the nine month opposition window.

The quality indicators section of the report shows that that the average (median) duration of oppositions has now dipped below two years from 24.8 months in 2016 to 22.4 months in 2017, around a ten percent change. The average duration was 26.1 months in 2015, hence a five percent shift in 2016.

Last month, the EPO Boards of Appeal issued their annual report for 2017 which shows, unlike oppositions, the average duration of opposition appeal proceedings has increased, albeit slightly, from 34 months in 2016 to 35 months in 2017. In 2015 the average length was also 34 months.

While oppositions at the EPO appear to be picking up the pace, there does not appear to be any knock on effect regarding opposition appeal proceedings, and it remains to be seen whether the outcome of the recent consultation on the Rules of the EPO Boards of Appeal might impact this.

For further information on the EPO opposition and appeal procedures and associated strategies, including coordinating with corresponding US proceedings, please go to our webinar here on the strategic use of post grant challenges.

Tags

Aqua Products v. Matal, European Patent Office (EPO), opposition

Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

Patent Litigation Europe 2027

January 18-20, 2027

Amsterdam

Conference

IAM Live: Trade Secret Strategy USA

November 10, 2026

San Jose

Conference

2026 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference

November 2-4, 2026

Huntington Beach

Conference

2026 TIPA International Symposium

October 30, 2026

Taipei City

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Lecture

2026 Donald R. Dunner Endowed Lecture

October 27, 2026

Washington, DC

Hybrid Seminar

Annual Intellectual Property Law Section Fall Seminar

October 16, 2026

Alexandria

Conference

2nd Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation USA & Canada

October 14-16, 2026

New York

Webinar

2026 Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

October 14, 2026

Webinar

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP