T 1946/21 vom 05.05.2023

Novelty - main request (yes)
Inventive step - ex post facto analysis
Inventive step - main request (yes)
Inventive step - formulation of the technical problem
Priority - transfer of priority right
Priority - partial priority (yes)
Priority - validity of priority date (yes)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)

1. For the question of whether the applicant is "successor in title" within the meaning of Article 87(1) EPC, it is sufficient for the applicant or patent proprietor to demonstrate that the assignment of the priority right was effective before the subsequent application was filed. The law does not set forth any other condition. In particular, the assignment need not be effective before the filing date of the subsequent application. (see point 2.3).
2. In the context of in-person oral proceedings, a request of a party for a hybrid format to allow the representatives to attend the hearing in person and other attendees to attend remotely should normally be granted only if the participation of the person for whom the access by means of videoconferencing technology has been requested is related to a person whose participation in the oral proceedings is relevant to the case, in particular to the decision to be taken at the oral proceedings (see point 1.).