3.2.1 Veröffentlichungen und andere Druckschriften
In T 37/96 hatte die Kammer darüber zu entscheiden, ob Entgegenhaltungen öffentlich zugänglich waren. Bei zwei dieser Entgegenhaltungen handelte es sich um eine typische von einer Firma herausgegebene Dokumentation. Die Kammer entschied, anders als bei wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften oder Fachzeitschriften könne bei solchen Firmenunterlagen wie Prospekten oder Produktbeschreibungen nicht ohne Weiteres davon ausgegangen werden, dass sie an die Öffentlichkeit gelangt seien. Es hänge vielmehr von den besonderen Umständen und den vorgelegten Beweismitteln ab, ob die Annahme, dass derartige Firmenunterlagen der Öffentlichkeit zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt tatsächlich zugänglich waren, gerechtfertigt sei (s. auch T 77/94, T 1017/01). In T 19/05 befand die Kammer, dass es sich bei dem fraglichen Dokument um eine von einer Firma herausgegebene technische Dokumentation handelte und somit nicht ohne Weiteres davon ausgegangen werden konnte, dass es an die Öffentlichkeit gelangt ist.
In T 278/09 stellte die Kammer zu der öffentlichen Zugänglichkeit eines Produktdatenblatts fest, dass ein Produktdatenblatt nur die Zusammensetzung und Eigenschaften von neu entwickelten oder verbesserten Produkten darstellt, aber es als solches nichts über seine Vermarktung und mögliche öffentliche Zugänglichkeit aussagt. Die Entscheidung über die Vermarktung und über den Zeitpunkt der Vermarktung kann auf anderen Umständen, wie der Wirtschaftslage und der Vermarktungspolitik der jeweiligen Firma, beruhen. Außerdem wird ein Datenblatt durch eine positive Entscheidung über die Vermarktung des beschriebenen Produkts nicht zwingend zu einer für die Öffentlichkeit bestimmten Information, da es auch unter einer Geheimhaltungspflicht an die Kunden verteilt werden kann. Daher ist in einem solchen Fall die bloße Abwägung der Wahrscheinlichkeit der öffentlichen Zugänglichkeit eines vermeintlich neuheitsschädlichen Produktdatenblatts, dessen öffentliche Zugänglichkeit sich nur auf Vermutungen stützt, unzureichend (s. auch T 738/04). Ein Produktdatenblatt hat damit einen anderen Informationsgehalt als ein Werbeprospekt (T 184/11, s. unten).
- T 0733/23
In T 733/23 the opposition division had concluded that there had been insufficient evidence to prove that the data sheets D2, D4, and D7 to D9 had been made available to the public before the filing date. Rather than concluding that, as a result of the data sheets not being considered state of the art under Art. 54 EPC, the subject-matter of the claims was novel, the opposition division decided not to admit them into the opposition proceedings. The board concluded that not admitting these data sheets, filed in due time, constituted a substantial procedural violation (see details as from point 4 of the Reasons including discussion on D19, an affidavit).
The board, in support of its decision, presented some key considerations on public availability of advertising brochures and data sheets, as well as the standard of proof to be applied. The board stated that when a document was clearly intended to be publicly distributed, as was the case with advertising or commercial brochures, the absence of a specific publication or distribution date, a situation quite common in this type of document, was not in itself sufficient to conclude that the document did not constitute prior art. As with any other type of evidence, the key question was not whether the exact date of publication could be determined, but whether it could be established that the relevant subject-matter was made available to the public before the priority or filing date.
Data sheets often represent an intermediate case between internal documents and advertising brochures. Where no publication date is present, the board held it should first be assessed whether the document was intended for public distribution. If so, additional sources must be examined to establish whether the relevant subject-matter was publicly accessible before the patent’s filing or priority date. Here, the opposition division had failed to provide a reasoned decision on public availability, giving no weight to the dates printed on their front pages.
As to the standard of proof, the present board concurred with the position in T 1138/20 that there is only one standard of proof: the deciding body must be convinced, based on the underlying circumstances.
According to the present board, this did not imply that all cases were to be treated identically, as in practice the degree of proof required to establish credibility (i.e. to persuade the board) might vary depending on the specific circumstances. In other words, it was not the standard of proof that adjusted with the circumstances, but rather the credibility of the arguments made by the different parties. For example, when the evidence was exclusively controlled by one party, any gaps in the relevant information might significantly undermine that party's credibility. Conversely, when the information was equally accessible to both parties but only one party submitted evidence, merely raising doubts might not be sufficient to challenge the credibility.
In the present case, the conclusions of the opposition division suggested that the standard of proof "up-to-the-hilt" was applied to determine the public availability of the data sheets. Even if the board agreed that different standards should be applied, this would not be justified in the case in hand, as the relevant information to prove the public availability of the data sheets was not within the exclusive sphere of the appellant (opponent). In this instance, the relevant information would more likely be within the sphere of the patentee. Therefore, there was no basis for applying the strict standard of "up-to-the-hilt" or for questioning the credibility of the appellant (opponent) solely on the grounds that some information was missing.
The patentee argued that, when in doubt, the patent should be upheld. The board disagreed. Fact-finding boiled down to a binary exercise: either something had been proven, or it had not. In addition, there was no presumption of patent validity in proceedings meant to re-assess the validity of this very patent.