5.2. Grounds for objection under Article 24(3) EPC
5.2.5 Article 24(3) EPC objection under Article 112a(2)(a) EPC
|
You are viewing the 9th edition (2019) of this publication; for the 10th edition (2022) see here |
In T 49/15 respondent 4 argued that the reasons for an objection referred to in Art. 24(3) EPC, and so the suspected partiality too, were relevant for the purposes of Art. 112a(2)(a) EPC, asserting in support of its position that the Enlarged Board had cited them in R 17/09. The board found that it had overlooked that the Enlarged Board had rejected the petition for review under Art. 112a(2)(a) EPC in that case as clearly unallowable. That, in doing so, it had chosen to look at the merits of the objection under Art. 24(3) EPC did not mean that the reference in Art. 112a(2)(a) EPC to Art. 24(1) EPC could be interpreted as including Art. 24(3) EPC too.
In the decision under review in R 3/16, the petitioner argued that once an objection based on Art. 24(3) EPC had been raised, the member(s) objected to could not take part in the decision, whatsoever, be it on the admissibility or on the merits of the objection. The Enlarged Board noted that Art. 112a(2)(a) EPC foresaw the situation where a member of the board had taken part in the decision despite being excluded pursuant to a decision under Art. 24(4) EPC or in breach of Art. 24(1) EPC. The case in hand was not concerned with those two grounds since the members had not been excluded and no personal interest had been alleged. Therefore, by a mere application of the principles developed by the established case law of the Enlarged Board under Art. 112a EPC, the Enlarged Board held that if the alleged unlawfulness of the composition was not the consequence of a violation of the right to be heard or an omission of a request, this ground (an objection based on Art. 24(3) EPC) appeared to fall outside the scope of a review, since inter alia it was not on the list of grounds under Art. 112a EPC.
- Case law 2019
-
In the decision under review in R 3/16, the petitioner argued that once an objection based on Art. 24(3) EPC had been raised, the member(s) objected to could not take part in the decision whatsoever, be it on the admissibility or on the merits of the objection. The Enlarged Board noted that Art. 112a(2)(a) EPC foresaw the situation where a member of the board had taken part in the decision despite being excluded pursuant to a decision under Art. 24(4) EPC or in breach of Art. 24(1) EPC. The case in hand was not concerned with those two grounds since the members had not been excluded and no personal interest had been alleged. Therefore, by a mere application of the principles developed by the established case law of the Enlarged Board under Art. 112a EPC, the Enlarged Board held that if the alleged unlawfulness of the composition was not the consequence of a violation of the right to be heard or an omission of a request, this ground (an objection based on Art. 24(3) EPC) appeared to fall outside the scope of a review, since inter alia it was not on the list of grounds under Art. 112a EPC. The petitioner had further contended that it was an established principle that a party had no obligation to appear before an unlawful court; that, on the contrary, it could be prejudicial to do so since the right to be heard could not be properly guaranteed before such a court, thus leading to the question as to whether appeal proceedings held by a board unlawfully composed may amount per se to a breach of the right to be heard. This question, however, remained open because the Enlarged Board did not come to the conclusion that the board had actually ignored the procedure of Art. 24(4) EPC. Regarding the petitioner's misunderstanding of the first communication, the Enlarged Board held that the petitioner was itself responsible for not having attended the oral proceedings where the alleged ambiguity of a communication could have been dispelled. A petitioner is free not to attend the oral proceedings but this choice is at its own risk since a board is never obliged to postpone oral proceedings only because a party does not appear, provided that it bases its decision on the facts and arguments on file (R. 115 EPC and Art. 15(3) RPBA 2007).