Report of the Disciplinary Committee
The Disciplinary Committee (DC) is continuing its work without change. At Council 102 in Dubrovnik, the new members of the DC were elected and appointed and will shortly resume their work at the upcoming first meeting. The Chambers are, as far as possible, completing their pending cases, while at the same time the organisational preparations for the next in‑person meeting, as well as training for the future system, are being further planned.
The Vice‑Chair, Werner Fröhling, took part in the last Board meeting and the Committee Support Meeting and invited the members of the DC to stand again as candidates for the new Disciplinary Committee, in order to enable the Chambers to complete their pending work with as few changes as possible in their composition. The outgoing Chair, Paul Rosenich, took part in the last Council meeting and brought the DC’s experience into the discussions. He also submitted motions, which, however, were rejected by Council.
The core of one motion was that, in the new epi Disciplinary Board (DB epi), each member state should send one member so that experience, knowledge, and linguistic and cultural aspects from all member states can be brought into the DB and, in individual cases, the Board can be better informed and thus decide more fairly.
The core of the second motion was that the DC should be heard on the new proposal to amend the By‑Laws, so that the concrete experience of the DC can be taken into account when making those amendments.
According to the current timetable for the disciplinary reform, it is presently to be expected that the Disciplinary Committee will remain active until 2027. At the same time, it must be emphasised that this is tied to adherence to the intended reform schedule. In the event of changes, the newly elected DC can, under the currently applicable provisions, remain active until a maximum of 2029.
Overview of the current system
The current disciplinary system is based on a disciplinary framework involving epi, the Disciplinary Committee, the Disciplinary Board, and the institutional environment of the European Patent Office. The current Disciplinary Committee is structured such that every member state is represented; as a result, all EPC languages, as well as the legal and cultural particularities of all member states, are present within the body.
The current structure thus ensures not only professional breadth but also democratic legitimacy through election by, and supervision via, the epi Council. In the presentation given by Paul Rosenich, this is explicitly contrasted with the proposed future model, under which, according to the current proposal, not every state will be represented and the personal composition will be more centrally controlled.
Structural reform
Under the current system, members of the epi Council propose the members of the Disciplinary Committee; only one member per country is elected or appointed, without a designated substitute. According to the reform proposal presented – as far as the newly proposed system has been understood – candidates would instead be drawn from self‑nominations, from which the epi Presidium would present to the epi Council those persons it considers suitable for election or appointment. Moreover, the composition would no longer be bound to the “one member per country” principle, and additional external or EPO‑related lawyers (for example those currently sitting on the Disciplinary Board) could be included.
For the Chambers, the current situation is that three epi members and one substitute from a Chamber, with three members taking the decision. These Chambers are constituted as “fixed Chambers” after each new election of the DC, in order to determine the “lawful judge” from the outset. Where additional legal advice is needed, the epi Legal Advisor may be consulted. Under the reform proposal, small and large Chambers would be introduced, in each case with the involvement of a possibly external lawyer. In this respect as well, the outgoing DC Chair sees a risk to the independence and procedural speed of the new system, since such external lawyers may be financially dependent and – as in the past with the Disciplinary Board – could be responsible for delays in the proceedings, given that such lawyers typically perform many other tasks within the EPC framework which may, in certain cases, be given higher priority.
From the perspective of the Disciplinary Committee, this would have significant consequences. The presentation points out that the DC would thereby lose linguistic diversity, national practical experience, democratic legitimacy and part of its institutional independence; at the same time, the influence of the epi Council on the disciplinary system would also decrease – even if it may superficially appear otherwise. Despite these effects, Council 102 rejected the motions submitted by Paul Rosenich who accepted the power of epi Council to make such decisions but reminded in his speech that Council also bears the responsibility for the outcome.
Statistics on appeals
An analysis of the last ten appeals filed against decisions of the Disciplinary Committee shows a differentiated picture.
Outcome of the last 10 appeals
| Outcome | Number |
|---|---|
| Still pending | 2 |
| DC decision set aside | 2 |
| DB decision set aside | 1 |
| Partly rejected as inadmissible, partly DC decision set aside | 1 |
| Rejected as inadmissible or unfounded | 4 |
Overall statistical overview
The following table reproduces the statistical information contained in the presentation as at the end of 2025.
| Jahr | Anfragen | Fälle für Kammer | Abgeschlossen | Zurückgenommen | Entschieden | Abgewiesen | Verwarnung/Rüge | An DB verwiesen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 2 | ||
| 2013 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | |
| 2014 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | |||
| 2015 | 16 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | |||
| 2016 | 17 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 2017 | 11 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 2018 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | |||
| 2019 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 2020 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 2021 | 9 | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||||
| 2022 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||
| 2023 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | |||
| 2024 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 4 | ||
| 2025 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| 2026 | 2 | 2 | ||||||
| Gesamt | 121 | 77 | 73 | 3 | 3 | 32 | 13 | 22 |
The statistics show that the main focus of activity continues to be on the examination and processing of a relatively constant number of proceedings, while only a smaller proportion results in a formal sanction or a referral to the Disciplinary Board. At the same time, the figures illustrate that, over the years, the Disciplinary Committee has built up a solid body of experience which is of considerable importance for the pending reform debate.
Current cases and legal‑policy observations
From the current work of the Disciplinary Committee, a practical demarcation issue presently arises in relation to complaints filed against a “firm” or a “company” in which several epi members are active. In his presentation to Council 102, the DC Chair mentioned three conceivable approaches within the competence of the Registry or the Chamber:
- requesting the complainant to identify the specific respondent(s),
- treating all epi members concerned as respondents, or
- selecting, on the basis of the facts presented, an epi member who appears to be the presumptively responsible respondent.
This issue was used as a reminder to complainants to be as precise as possible in identifying which epi member is being complained about.
When reporting on current cases, the outgoing DC Chair also pointed out that a recent decision of the Disciplinary Board fully confirmed the position long taken by the Disciplinary Committee, namely that actions taken against a patent which one has oneself drafted or prepared are disciplinarily inadmissible. It was likewise emphasised that cumulative misconduct and lack of insight can, according to recent case law, lead to more severe sanctions.
Outlook and next meeting
The Disciplinary Committee remains available to epi members for questions and suggestions, via the multinational DC members or the Chairs yet to be elected (to date, Paul Rosenich (LI) and Werner Fröhling (DE)). The current composition continues to ensure broad representation of all member states and of the various languages and legal cultures within the EPC system.
The previous Secretaries of the DC, Tuna Yurtseven (TR) and Wolfgang Poth (AT), did not stand again as candidates for the Disciplinary Committee for scheduling reasons. Under the leadership of the working group headed by Tuna Yurtseven, they were, in addition to organising DC meetings over many years, among other things primarily responsible for drafting the Additional Rules of Procedure of the Disciplinary Committee and for putting forward proposals to improve the Regulation on Discipline, for which they deserve great thanks.
The next meeting of the Disciplinary Committee is expected to take place in Belgrade. This meeting is also intended to serve to coordinate the further work of the DC in the transition to the reform phase and to support preparation of the future system.
