直 Japanese PDF Font
  • 我们的专业人员
  • 服务
  • 我们的见解
  • 办公室
  • 事务所
  • 人才招聘
Finnegan
    • AI + Finnegan
    • Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
    • Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions
    • Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
    • Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
    • Prosecution and Portfolio Management
    • Trademark and Brand Management
    • AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
    • Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
    • Communications
    • Consumer Goods and Services
    • Energy
    • Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
    • 生命科学
    • Transportation and Logistics
  • 经验

欧洲专利异议和上诉

About

欧洲专利局(EPO)的异议程序让第三方有机会在一项欧洲专利获授权后的一定期限内,集中在欧洲专利局对其发起攻击。相比较在欧洲专利国有化之后才通过当地程序逐国攻击,选择在授权后集中攻击不失为一种更具吸引力的替代方法。逐国攻击专利可能会更加耗时,成本也更加高昂,结果也可能会随着司法管辖区的不同而有所不同。

欧洲专利局每年大约接到3,000项专利异议(约占授权专利总数的5%)。这项程序之所以如此受欢迎,在某种程度上得益于较高的成功率。回顾历史,约三分之一的案件导致专利的完全撤销,约三分之一导致权利要求范围有所缩小。近期,越来越多的案件正涉及权利要求的修改,以避免专利被撤销。即使挑战者初审落败,按照统计数据,通过上诉进一步提出异议取得成功的可能性也很大。针对异议部的裁定提起的上诉有一半左右都在上诉委员会取胜。

异议程序还有一个吸引人的地方,它设立了多种异议理由,包括可专利性,例如新颖性和创造性(基于任何可得到的现有技术,包括先前公开使用)、不受保护的客体和工业应用;披露/教示不充分;以及审查期间新增客体。与诉讼相比,异议在成本上也颇具吸引力,异议程序本质上属于文件记录,通常会以一天的口头审理告终。然而,由于从欧洲专利获授到提交异议之间仅有九个月的有效时限,可能的异议人必须密切关注专利态势。因此,任何有效的异议方案或实务还必须同时有效映射和监督竞争对手的专利活动。

飞翰的欧洲专利律师对于复杂、高价值的异议的各个方面都具有丰富经验。我们保护客户的专利权,包括对抗多个异议人,同时我们还通过在欧洲专利局异议部和上诉委员会挑战欧洲专利,帮助客户确定自由实施权。我们代理的客户涉及各行各业,我们的律师具有广泛的技术专长,让我们的异议团队能够借鉴他们在各个技术领域的经验。经过多年来协助客户处理异议程序,飞翰律师深知如何应对欧洲专利局规定的复杂程序,如何最充分地利用法律法规给每一位面临不同问题的客户带来利益。

凭借广泛的专利诉讼经验,结合对美国专利和商标局(USPTO)授权后程序的了解,我们对于如何在全球大环境下最好地协调异议,形成了深刻、独特的视角。凭借在跨司法区协调方面的经验,我们不仅能够最大限度地提高效率,而且还能够巧妙地利用程序和方法的优化组合,为每个客户争取最优结果。

Everyone in this practice

经验

Innovacell AG v. University of Pittsburgh*
Represented Innovacell in opposition related to muscle derived cells.

T 0527/17, EPO

Innovacell Biotechnologie AG v. University of Pittsburgh*
Represented Innovacell in opposition related to the use of myoblasts for treating the urinary sphincter muscle.

T 1031/16, EPO

Innovacell Biotechnologie AG v. University of Pittsburgh*
Represented Innovacell in opposition related to the use of myoblasts for treating stress urinary incontinence.

T 1050/12, EPO

Finnegan client BTG prevails in EPO opposition proceedings in the field of vein sclerotherapy
Finnegan represented BTG in defending its granted European patent in an appeal by Kreussler against the decision of the EPO to reject its opposition. The patent relates to BTG’s Varithena sclerotherapy foam product for treatment of varicose veins that has recently received regulatory approval in the U.S. During the opposition, we argued that the experimental evidence produced by Kreussler was deliberately misleading. We presented our own evidence showing why the experiments performed by Kreussler failed and how merely following the explicit teaching of the patent would avoid such failure. At appeal, Kreussler was limited to a single prior art document and only a subset of the granted claims was considered to be challenged. At the appeal hearing in surprisingly quick fashion, the EPO denied Kreussler’s grounds of appeal and maintained the patent in its granted form.

Appeal No. T1996/12-3.3.05, EPO

Defended patents of a provider of cinema technology in opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office*
Defended three patents of a world-leading provider of cinema technology in opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office, including two appeals. Enforced the same three patents against a competitor and its German distributor in infringement lawsuits and related appeals.

EPO

Represented a medical devices company before German Civil Courts and the European Patent Office (EPO)*
Advised and represented a medical devices company as the plaintiff in infringement proceedings and together with a patent attorney in the defense in opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO).

German Civil Patent Courts
EPO

More

专业见解

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Reverses Eligibility of Software Claims Where Technical Improvements Were Not Reflected in Claims

April 15, 2026

Articles

Different from U.S. Concepts of POSITA/PHOSITA, Proving “Common General Knowledge” Under German and the EPC Law: Why Proving Common General Knowledge Matters—and Why It’s Harder Than It Looks

December 1, 2025

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Broad Functional Language Render Brita’s Patent Invalid Under §112(a)

October 29, 2025

Articles

Pre-Grant Description Amendments in Europe—No Enlarged Board of Appeal Referral

January 13, 2025

European IP Blog

When Is a Party Not a Party?

7 January 2025

European IP Blog

Opposition Proceedings Before the EPO – an Overview

20 February 2024

More

新闻

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Named Law Firm of the Year for Patent Law in the 2026 Best Law Firms Rankings

November 6, 2025

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Remains a Top Tier Firm in the 2025 Managing Intellectual Property IP Stars Rankings

May 30, 2025

Award/Ranking

Finnegan’s Munich Office Ranks in The Legal 500 Deutschland for Third Consecutive Year

February 13, 2025

Award/Ranking

Seven Finnegan Attorneys Recognized in the 2025 IAM Global Leaders Guide

October 23, 2024

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Ranked Top Tier in The Legal 500 2024 Rankings

June 13, 2024

Award/Ranking

46 Finnegan Attorneys Ranked in 2024 IAM Patent 1000

June 6, 2024

More

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

  • 隐私
  • 免责申明
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

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