G 0002/21 (Reliance on a purported technical effect for inventive step (plausibility)) vom 23.03.2023

Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator

ECLI:EP:BA:2023:G000221.20230323

Datum der Entscheidung

23. März 2023

Aktenzeichen

G 0002/21

Antrag auf Überprüfung von

Anmeldenummer

12002626.5

IPC-Klasse

A01N 43/56 A01N 51/00

Verfahrenssprache

Englisch

Verteilung

Im Amtsblatt des EPA veröffentlicht (A)

Download

Entscheidung auf Englisch

Amtsblattfassungen

Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte

Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung

Zusammenfassung von EPC2000 Art 056

Bezeichnung der Anmeldung

Insecticide compositions

Name des Antragstellers

Sumitomo Chemical Company, Limited

Name des Einsprechenden

Syngenta Limited

Kammer

Leitsatz

I. Evidence submitted by a patent applicant or proprietor to prove a technical effect relied upon for acknowledgement of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence, on which the effect rests, had not been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and was filed after that date.

II. A patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention.

Relevante Rechtsnormen

Schlagwörter

admissibility of referral - (yes)
re-phrasing of the referred questions - no
extending the scope of the referred questions - no
principle of free evaluation of evidence - exception to the principle required - no
inventive step - reliance on technical effect - yes, based on the application as originally filed

Orientierungssatz

Zitierte Akten

G 0003/97 G 0004/97 G 0002/08 G 0002/10 G 0001/12 G 0001/13 G 0003/14 G 0001/19 G 0003/19 G 0001/21 T 0390/88 T 0482/89 T 0838/92 T 0939/92 T 0798/93 T 0543/95 T 0558/95 T 0142/97 T 0592/98 T 0278/00 T 0329/02 T 0609/02 T 0893/02 T 0972/02 T 1110/03 T 0474/04 T 1329/04 T 0578/06 T 1599/06 T 0536/07 T 1437/07 T 1642/07 T 0545/08 T 1545/08 T 0108/09 T 1797/09 T 0266/10 T 0415/11 T 0754/11 T 1677/11 T 1791/11 T 0125/12 T 0419/12 T 0760/12 T 0863/12 T 2294/12 T 0235/13 T 0895/13 T 1045/13 T 1285/13 T 2059/13 T 2348/13 T 2371/13 T 0787/14 T 0887/14 T 1363/14 T 0321/15 T 0919/15 T 2097/15 T 2238/15 T 0179/16 T 0184/16 T 0488/16 T 0517/16 T 0578/16 T 0978/16 T 1499/16 T 2730/16 T 0229/17 T 1322/17 T 1680/17 T 2200/17 T 0031/18 T 0116/18 T 0122/18 T 0334/18 T 0377/18 T 0391/18 T 1306/18 T 1442/18 T 2923/18 T 1099/19 T 1343/19 T 1571/19 T 2029/19 T 2963/19 T 3109/19 T 2015/20

Zitierende Akten

R 0004/24 R 0002/25 T 1499/16 T 2790/17 T 0116/18 T 0687/19 T 1203/19 T 1525/19 T 1989/19 T 2465/19 T 2716/19 T 2735/19 T 0025/20 T 0294/20 T 0314/20 T 0852/20 T 1023/20 T 1138/20 T 1210/20 T 1435/20 T 1515/20 T 0258/21 T 0569/21 T 0681/21 T 0728/21 T 0873/21 T 0885/21 T 0887/21 T 0990/21 T 1045/21 T 1255/21 T 1329/21 T 1394/21 T 1445/21 T 1446/21 T 1602/21 T 1616/21 T 1638/21 T 1698/21 T 1732/21 T 1779/21 T 1825/21 T 1879/21 T 1891/21 T 2036/21 T 2046/21 T 2086/21 T 2168/21 T 0023/22 T 0166/22 T 0170/22 T 0197/22 T 0318/22 T 0364/22 T 0509/22 T 0518/22 T 0529/22 T 0552/22 T 0589/22 T 0601/22 T 0687/22 T 0832/22 T 0840/22 T 0843/22 T 0853/22 T 0936/22 T 0996/22 T 1057/22 T 1125/22 T 1249/22 T 1283/22 T 1551/22 T 1796/22 T 1865/22 T 1958/22 T 1994/22 T 2010/22 T 2037/22 T 2219/22 T 2363/22 T 2424/22 T 2463/22 T 2499/22 T 0228/23 T 0259/23 T 0287/23 T 0372/23 T 0560/23 T 0593/23 T 0709/23 T 0827/23 T 0867/23 T 0979/23 T 1027/23 T 1207/23 T 1232/23 T 1253/23 T 1269/23 T 1272/23 T 1354/23 T 1385/23 T 1456/23 T 1465/23 T 1580/23 T 1677/23 T 1692/23 T 1739/23 T 1822/23 T 1844/23 T 1847/23 T 1915/23 T 1934/23 T 1950/23 T 0072/24 T 0331/24 T 0722/24 T 0729/24

Order

For these reasons it is decided that the questions of law referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:

1. Evidence submitted by a patent applicant or proprietor to prove a technical effect relied upon for acknowledgement of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence, on which the effect rests, had not been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and was filed after that date.

2. A patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention.