IPKat reports on a letter of the Enlarged Board of Appeals (EBoA) to the delegations of the Administrative Council. This is unprecedented in the 40 year history of the EPOrg. The letter strongly argues that the recent suspension of member of DG3 was not validly imposed and that"The actions of the investigation unit on the orders of the President also appear to be a clear challenge to the judicial independence of the Boards of Appeal." A copy of the letter can be found here.

Two highly respected IP judges, Sir Christopher Floyd (Court of Appeal, England and Wales) and Robert van Peursem (Advocate General, Supreme Court of the Netherlands), took position against the house ban on a member of the Boards of Appeal (see IPKat).Their letter references the earlier letter from the Enlarged Board of Appeals (EBoA) members and expresses support for the position taken. They argue that the Board of Appeal members are judges and that interference by the President infringes basic principles of judicial independence, which the EPO cannot disregard.

Their position has then received the support of six additional national IP judges, all of whom also serve as external members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. IPKat provides a link to the email sent by the Registrar of the Enlarged Board of Appeal to the delegates of the Administrative Council. Attached to the email are facsimiles of the original letter from Sir Christopher and Robert, as well as the supporting letters from Per Carlson and Ari Wiren.A copy of the document can be found here.