Zusammenfassung von Article 12(4) RPBA für die Entscheidung T1178/23 vom 16.12.2024

In T 1178/23 auxiliary request 4 filed with the reply to the statement of grounds of appeal had the same wording as auxiliary request 2 in opposition proceedings, filed as auxiliary request 1 on the final date set by the opposition division under R. 116 EPC and renamed when a new auxiliary request 1 was filed at the oral proceedings. The decision under appeal was not based on auxiliary request 2, as the opposition division had held auxiliary request 1 to be allowable. The board held that for the assessment of the condition under Art. 12(4), first sentence, RPBA ("admissibly raised"), the decisive question is whether the first-instance department would have admitted the request had a discretionary decision on admittance been required (T 364/20; see also T 2395/22 and T 246/22). In the board's view, the explicit use of the past tense ("was admissibly raised") and the reference to the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal implied that the perspective of the first-instance department was addressed. In other words, it needed to be determined how the first-instance department would have proceeded in reliance on the provisions and practice that applied at the time. This view was supported by the consideration that, without the first-instance perspective, a decision on the "admissibly raised" condition might lead to a different assessment of the admittance of a request that was filed but not decided on in first-instance proceedings compared to another, higher-ranking request that was filed under the same circumstances but was admitted and held allowable by the first-instance department. Setting minimum requirements post factum in appeal for determining whether a request was admissibly raised before the opposition division (T 364/20, T 1800/20, T 309/21, T 246/22, T 1749/22) was tantamount to applying different admittance criteria for auxiliary requests filed at the same time and under the same circumstances in first-instance proceedings. Arguably, such an approach would compromise legal certainty. Moreover, replacing the first-instance perspective with what essentially was an exercise of discretion on the part of the board would render the discretionary decision of Art. 12(4), second sentence, RPBA redundant. The board explained that, to assess whether the first-instance department would have admitted a request, it had to be established whether this department had discretion not to admit the request and, if so, which practice applied at the time when the decision on admittance would have been taken. As a general rule, parties could expect first-instance departments of the EPO to act in accordance with the Guidelines in the version valid at the relevant time (T 446/22, T 731/22, T 823/23). The board addressed the "moving target" argument in T 246/22 by pointing out that the amendments to the Guidelines often reflected developments in the case law of the boards of appeal. They therefore could not constitute an impediment for the board in considering the Guidelines when determining how the opposition division would have proceeded at the relevant time. In the case in hand, the board concurred with the respondent (patent proprietor) that, at the time of the oral proceedings on 14 March 2023, the opposition division would have considered the March 2023 version of the Guidelines had a discretionary decision on the admittance of that auxiliary request been required. The relevant section E-VI, 2.2.2 of the March 2023 version of the Guidelines included the provision that "amendments submitted before the date set under R.116(1) EPC cannot, as a rule, be considered as being late-filed". In view thereof, the board was satisfied that the respondent had demonstrated that auxiliary request 4 at issue was admissibly raised in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal. The fact that, according to the minutes of the oral proceedings held before the opposition division, the respondent had renumbered the auxiliary request 1 filed on the final date set under R. 116 EPC at the end of the oral proceedings, implied that this claim request was not withdrawn but maintained in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal. The board concluded that auxiliary request 4 was not an amendment of the respondent's appeal case but was part of the appeal proceedings (Art. 12(4), first sentence RPBA).