This petition for review deals with one of those cases where emotions run high during the oral proceedings (OPs). The professional representative of the patent proprietor, whose patent had been revoked by Board 3.5.03 (case T 2198/10), had the very bad idea of using very strong language in the petition.
In the course of the proceedings, the patent proprietor dissociated itself from the “inappropriate or defamatory comments” made in the petition.
The representative then apologised in a letter and confirmed the apology in the OPs before the Enlarged Board (EBA).
The petition was found to be clearly unallowable. The decision contains an interesting paragraph dealing with the emotional style of the petition, and possible consequences as to its admissibility.
 It appears to the EBA that the petition was filed within two months of notification of the decision in question, that the petitioner was adversely affected thereby, that the prescribed fee has been paid in time, and that the petition complies with R 107(1)(b).
 As regards R 106, the EBA notes that the petitioner argued, as regards the alleged fundamental procedural violations to which it ultimately confined its case, that it could not make an objection under R 106 because it only knew of the violations on reading the written decision. That argument is called into question by the petitioner's own letter of 15 April 2013 […] in which Dr. V. makes allegations about the reasons for the decision (and the partiality of the Board of Appeal) even before the written decision was issued. However, since the petition is in any event clearly unallowable, this matter need not be decided.
 The petition was written in a highly emotive style and included a large volume of derogatory language, much of which (for example, “fabricating the decision”, “partiality”, “stolen patent”, “jealousy and outright bad faith”, “aggressive and corrupt”, and “fraud”) was excessive and without apparent basis in the petition. The EBA considered accordingly whether the petition was “in a reasoned statement” as required by A 112a(4). However, in view of Dr. V’s apology (in his representative’s letter of 18 September 2013) for his use of such language and the actual withdrawal of the offensive allegations at the commencement of the OPs, the EBA did not pursue this further.
 Accordingly, the EBA does not find that the petition is clearly inadmissible.
When you have to let off steam, don’t do it in a petition. Buy a punching ball, the use of which will not leave traces in the patent register and in the minds of the judges. And you will not have to apologise afterwards.
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.
The file wrapper can be found here.