1(a): An opposition is not inadmissible purely because the
person named as opponent according to Rule 55(a) EPC is acting
on behalf of a third party.
1(b): Such an opposition is, however, inadmissible if the
involvement of the opponent is to be regarded as circumventing
the law by abuse of process.
1(c): Such a circumvention of the law arises, in particular, if:
- the opponent is acting on behalf of the patent proprietor;
- the opponent is acting on behalf of a client in the context of
activities which, taken as a whole, are typically associated
with professional representatives, without possessing the
relevant qualifications required by Article 134 EPC.
1(d): However, a circumvention of the law by abuse of process
does not arise purely because:
- a professional representative is acting in his own name on
behalf of a client;
- an opponent with either a residence or principal place of
business in one of the EPC contracting states is acting on
behalf of a third party who does not meet this requirement.
2: In determining whether the law has been circumvented by abuse
of process, the principle of the free evaluation of evidence is
to be applied. The burden of proof is to be borne by the person
alleging that the opposition is inadmissible. The deciding body
has to be satisfied on the basis of clear and convincing
evidence that the law has been circumvented by abuse of process.
3: The admissibility of an opposition on grounds relating to the
identity of an opponent may be challenged during the course of
the appeal, even if no such challenge had been raised before the
opposition division.
