Zusammenfassung von Article 13(2) RPBA für die Entscheidung T0691/24 vom 21.10.2025

In T 691/24, the board had to address the issue of the late filing of claim requests in opposition proceedings and whether the first instance had exercised its discretion correctly in not admitting them. The main request and the first auxiliary request were filed during the oral proceedings before the opposition division (as auxiliary request 9a1 and 9b, respectively) and were not admitted into the opposition proceedings for being late-filed and non-convergent (main request) and for having been filed "without prior authorisation" (first auxiliary request). In the appeal proceedings, the patent proprietor contested the finding that the requests had been late-filed, arguing that they had been submitted in response to an objection under Art. 123(2) EPC that had been newly raised during the second oral proceedings before the opposition division, after it had departed from its previous preliminary opinion. The patent proprietor further argued that the opposition division should have applied the criterion of "prima facie allowability" instead of the "convergence criterion". The board held that the requests had indeed been filed late, as they had not been submitted within the time limit set by the invitation under R. 79(1) EPC issued following opponent 2’s notice of intervention. The board stated that the opposition division had the discretion pursuant to Art. 123(1) EPC in conjunction with R. 81(3), 79(1) and/or 116(2) EPC not to admit them (R 6/19, T 256/19). This discretion existed independently of the provisions of R. 116 EPC and of whether the opposition division deviated from its provisional opinion (T 966/17). Nor could such a deviation as such justify an automatic admittance of a claim request (T 868/20, T 847/20). A positive preliminary opinion on auxiliary request 9a – already admitted into the proceedings at the opposition division's discretion – could not guarantee per se the admittance of a further filing of claim requests. Nor did such a positive opinion "reset" the application of the "convergence criterion". As regards the use of the "convergence criterion" by the opposition division, the board noted that it is a well-established criterion that may legitimately be used by a first-instance department when exercising its discretion on the admittance of late-filed claim requests. The board agreed that the present main request was not convergent with auxiliary requests 5 and 6 and that the opposition division had indeed the discretion to use this criterion to not admit "auxiliary request 9a1", i.e. the present main request, into the opposition proceedings. The patent proprietor had noted that the criterion of "prima facie allowability" was used when considering admittance of other claim requests during the first-instance proceedings instead of the "convergence criterion". The board stated that the question of consistency in the application of criteria selected from the opposition division’s legal toolbox when assessing admittance had little bearing on whether, in the present case, the opposition division rightly relied upon a particular criterion in relation to a particular claim request. The board accepted that the "convergence criterion" represents only an "indicator" that procedural economy may be affected and that whether this is actually the case depends on the circumstances of a particular case. However, in the present case, the opposition division indicated precisely in view of which higher-ranking claim request the then "auxiliary request 9a1" did not converge and why this claim request went in a different direction, i.e. which features were in fact replaced. Hence, the implications for procedural economy were therefore considered and balanced. As a consequence, the opposition division did not use the "convergence criterion" in an unreasonable or erroneous way when disregarding the present main request. With respect to the first auxiliary request, and the opposition division’s decision not to allow it, the board found that there is no legal basis in the EPC for making a party’s submissions subject to prior approval by the deciding body and that the limitation to one further request – ex ante and without any consideration as to their substance – was arbitrary. The board therefore acknowledged that this constituted a procedural, though not substantial, violation, since the auxiliary request, being a continuation of the main request, must likewise be "non-convergent". Consequently, the board did not admit the main request and the first auxiliary request into the appeal proceedings (Art. 12(6), first sentence, RPBA).