Interlocutory Decision in G3/08

In his amicus curiae brief of 26 April 2009, Mr. M. Schulz contested the impartiallity of the Board because one of its members had officially and publicly given his opinion on matters concerning the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. According to the Enlarged Board in its interlocutory decision, it is established case law of the Boards of Appeal, the Enlarged Board and the national courts of the member states, that a board member expressing his view on legal issues in a previous occasion can not lead to the conclusion of doubts as to impartiallity. As, once a judge has been lawfully appointed, he is deemed to act in good faith and is presumed impartial until proven otherwise, the Enlarged Board has decided in the interlocutory decision to leave the composition of the Enlarged Board unchanged.

The text of the interlocutory decision has been attached below.