Intervention by alleged infringer and parallel UPC litigation no reason for postponement

Although a valid intervention by the alleged infringer is to be treated as an opposition under Article 105(2) EPC, the fact that it is filed shortly before the oral proceedings before a Board generally does not relieve the patent proprietor (or the other parties) of their obligations under the RPBA, nor does it confer a right to additional time. The concrete consequences for an opposition-appeal case must be determined on a case-by-case basis under the EPC and the RPBA. Opposition-appeal proceedings are not intended as a tactical fallback in relation to parallel infringement proceedings; rather, they are a fundamental challenge to the title being enforced, with legal certainty for third parties and procedural economy taking precedence. Any difficulty the proprietor may have in drafting auxiliary requests that, in view of ongoing infringement litigation, offer the best scope of protection is no reason to delay the opposition-appeal proceedings (EPO BoA 11 Dec 2024, T 1841/23, Intervention during parallel UPC proceedings/KPN).