III. GEMEINSAME VORSCHRIFTEN FÜR DIE VERFAHREN VOR DEM EPA

In T 1262/22, the respondents (patent proprietors) alleged that the appeal was inadmissible because the notice of appeal was filed by a professional representative (K) who was not authorised at the time of filing.

Under Art. 1(1) of the Decision of the President of the EPO dated 12 July 2007 on the filing of authorisations, in the version as applicable at the time the notice of appeal in question was filed, a professional representative was required to file a signed authorisation only in the circumstances set out in Art. 1(2) and (3) of said decision. This was the case if a change of professional representatives had occurred without the EPO being notified that the previous representative's authorisation has ended.

In the case in hand, while representation during the opposition proceedings had been undertaken by professional representative B, the notice of appeal was signed by new professional representative K. Since B had not informed the EPO of the termination of its authorisation, it was still deemed authorised before the EPO, as provided for by R. 152(8) EPC. Hence, the board found there was nothing unusual in the fact that the EPO continued to communicate with B, nor could it be concluded on this basis that K was not authorised, as submitted by the respondents. From the legal framework, pursuant to R. 152(1) EPC and the said Decision of the President of 2007, the new representative K had to file an authorisation granted by the opponent/appellant; it did so of its own motion on 5 April 2022, the authorisation having been granted by the opponent on 25 March 2022..

In accordance with R. 152(2) EPC, filing the authorisation on 5 April 2022 remedied the deficiency concerning the representation of the opponent/appellant before the relevant period for filing an appeal under Art. 108 EPC expired, i.e. 12 April 2022. Therefore, the consequence indicated in R. 152(6) EPC, according to which if the required authorisation is not filed in due time any procedural step taken by the representative is deemed not to have been taken, did not materialise. The notice of appeal was thus validly filed.

This conclusion was not affected by the fact that at the time the notice of appeal was filed, B was also acting as the professional representative for this case, since the system of representation before the EPO permits representation by several representatives, as long as the applicable rules mentioned are respected. Nor was this conclusion affected by the fact that K's authorisation bore a signature which was dated 25 March 2022, i.e. after the filing of the notice of appeal. Contrary to the respondents' submissions, the EPC does not express a requirement that the authorisation be signed before the filing of the notice of appeal; this would even be inconsistent with R. 152(2) EPC, which allows for a deficiency to be remedied. An authorisation is an internal legal relationship between the representative and the party. Accordingly, the question of whether an authorisation was in existence at the time the notice of appeal was filed is irrelevant for the EPO, as long as any deficiency concerning the party's representation is remedied within the time limit under Art. 108 EPC.

The respondents further submitted that the EPO's letter dated 11 April 2022, with which K was asked to confirm whether they intended to take over representation of the opponent, showed that there were doubts about the effectiveness of the authorisation filed on 5 April 2022. The respondents concluded that K did not actually take over representation until the reply of 3 May 2022, meaning that they clearly were not authorised when filing the notice of appeal. The board did not agree. The EPO's letter was aimed merely at clarifying if B was still a representative in addition to K, or whether K had taken over as the sole representative. K’s reply of 3 May 2022 could also not be understood as an actual taking over of representation for the first time. Such a conclusion would disregard the fact that K had already filed an authorisation granted by the opponent/appellant on 5 April 2022. Nothing more was actually required.

According to the board, the decisions cited by the respondents were not applicable.

The notice of appeal was therefore validly filed.

In R 11/23 the petition was based on Art. 112a(2)(c) EPC, i.e. the fundamental violation of Art. 113(1) EPC. It was alleged that the clarity objection against auxiliary request 8, which had led to the board's finding that said request had been unallowable, had never been discussed, neither in the written nor in the oral proceedings, but had been brought forward only in the board's written decision..

Specifically, the petitioner argued that there had been two distinct clarity objections against claim 1 of auxiliary request 8: the alleged lack of clarity regarding what "maintaining currents in an allowable range" meant (the "allowable current range objection") and the alleged lack of information on which components were to be protected by the protective circuit (the "unspecified components objection"). The petitioner acknowledged that it had been heard in the context of the "allowable current range objection" but it asserted that it had been confronted with the "unspecified components objection" only when reading the written decision.

The Enlarged Board held that it did not see any clear indication that the "unspecified components objection" had been raised implicitly, for example as an aspect of an overarching clarity objection..

The Enlarged Board agreed with the petitioner in that it was not sufficient for a relevant specific aspect such as the "unspecified components" to be covered or encompassed by a broader clarity objection that had been discussed if the parties had not been aware of the specific aspect during the discussion. In this context, opponent 2 had referred to paragraph [0018] of the patent which had been mentioned in point 7.4 of the decision under review. The Enlarged Board could not see that such a reference implied that the "unspecified components objection" had been discussed. Furthermore, it did not regard the wording of point 7.5 of said decision as evidence that the "unspecified components objection" had been discussed, because it was not clear whether the phrase "as the appellants and the infringer [sic] correctly argue" was linked to the "unspecified components objection".

According to the Enlarged Board, since it had no power or ability to investigate further whether other facts or indications might suggest that the petitioner could be aware that the board had had doubts about the specific aspect of clarity (namely, the "unspecified component" issue), it had to rely on the parties' submissions in this respect. In the absence of any such indication, it was not for the party alleging a breach of its right to be heard to prove that there had been no such facts or indications (see R 15/11). Any doubts remaining on whether a decision under review was based upon facts and considerations on which the parties had had an opportunity to comment must be solved to the affected party's benefit (see R 2/14).

For these reasons, the Enlarged Board concluded that the "unspecified components objection" had not been discussed during appeal proceedings and its use in the written decision had therefore come as a surprise to the petitioner.

As in the appeal case underlying R 2/14, a broader objection had been discussed during appeal proceedings in the present case but not the specific aspect encompassed by the broader objection that turned out to be decisive for the case. In such cases, the "grounds" as referred to in Art. 113(1) EPC may have a more specific meaning than a broader objection like "lack of clarity" or "insufficiency of disclosure". In the present case, it was irrelevant that the broader clarity objection had been discussed. The critical aspect, namely the question of which components needed to be protected, had not been discussed during the appeal proceedings and the board's conclusion on this aspect had come as a surprise to the petitioner.

The "unspecified components objection" which had not been discussed during the appeal proceedings eventually was the reason for the board's finding that the patent was invalid. The Enlarged Board concluded that a fundamental violation of Art. 113(1) EPC had occurred. The decision under review was thus set aside and the proceedings before a board reopened..

On the latter, the Enlarged Board, referring to Art. 112a(5) and R. 108(3) EPC, explained that the board responsible for the reopened proceedings was not automatically the board which had issued the decision underlying the review proceedings. Rather, the allocation of the reopened proceedings had to be determined in accordance with the business distribution scheme as applicable when the proceedings were reopened.

In T 412/24 the appellant (patent proprietor) had contested the admissibility of the (first) opposition relying on the following points concerning the (first) opponent: (i) the opponent's professional representative could not represent the company since he was simultaneously managing the legal entity he represented; (ii) the identity of the opponent could not be unequivocally determined; (iii) the opponent could not act as such because carrying out activities reserved to professional representatives without the necessary qualifications circumvented the principles of representation; and (iv) the opponent's change of name affected the admissibility of the opposition.

Concerning the representation, Mr N, the representative of the (first) opponent, a French company in the form initially of a société simplifiée unipersonnelle (SASU) then of a société à responsabilité limitée (SARL), was the president of the SASU and also a professional representative.

The board stated that – contrary to the proprietor’s allegations – Art. 133 and 134 EPC together with R. 152 EPC and the Decision of the President of the EPO of 12 July 2007 on the filing of authorisations (OJ SE 3/2007, 128) constituted a complete and self-contained set of rules on representation in proceedings established by the EPC. A legal person having its seat in an EPC contracting state is not obliged to be represented by a professional representative (Art. 133(1) EPC). Furthermore, persons whose names appear on the list of professional representatives are entitled to act in all proceedings established by the EPC (Art. 134 EPC). A legal person having its seat in an EPC contracting state can act in proceedings before the EPO through its legal representatives. At the time the opposition was filed, Mr N in his capacity as president of the SASU was entitled to represent the SASU since under French law (Art. L. 227 Commercial Code) he was entitled to act on behalf of the legal person in all circumstances. As a professional representative, Mr N would have been entitled to act not only as the president of the SASU, but also as a professional representative appointed by that legal person.

For the sake of completeness, the board explained why neither the references to French and German law, nor the reference to general principles under Art. 125 EPC could lead to the conclusion that the company was prevented from appointing Mr N as its professional representative before the EPO. At the oral proceedings before the board, the appellant referred to the order of UPC_CoA_563/2024. The board noted that the conclusion in that case rested on the specific provisions of the UPCA, in particular Art. 48(1) UPCA (mirroring Art. 19 of the Statute of the CJEU) and R. 8(1) UPCA, which require that both natural and legal persons be represented. The CJEU had identified as one of the objectives of mandatory representation in CJEU proceedings ensuring that the representative of a legal person is sufficiently distant from the party represented (C-515/17 P and C-561/17 P). According to the board, however, even if this were regarded as a general principle of the EPC contracting states, it could not be transposed to the EPC framework. Principles of procedural law under Art. 125 EPC may be invoked to fill gaps, but not to modify the EPC framework. Introducing a corollary of the prohibition of self-representation into a system that expressly allows it would however amount to such a modification.

On the identity of the opponent, the board held that the opposition was clearly filed on behalf of SARL Cabinet NÜ. The only uncertainty, based on the submissions of the proprietor itself, concerned whether Mr N was representing the opponent as a European patent attorney or in his capacity as the president of that company. Nonetheless, this alleged ambiguity could not raise any doubt about the identity of the opponent. As regards the change of the opponent’s name, the board observed that there had been no change of the identity of the opponent.

The alleged circumvention of the law was also rejected. The board noted that this would occur if a person not entitled to act as a professional representative performed all the activities typically carried out by professional representatives while assuming the role of a party, in order to circumvent the prohibition on unqualified representation, but Mr N was a qualified professional representative.

In line with T 1893/22, which related to the earlier application, the board concluded that the (first) opposition was admissible. The appeal was dismissed.

In G 2/24 the Enlarged Board ("EBA") answered the referred questions as follows: "After withdrawal of all appeals, appeal proceedings may not be continued with a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings in accordance with Article 105 EPC.

The intervening third party does not acquire an appellant status corresponding to the status of a person entitled to appeal within the meaning of Article 107, first sentence, EPC..

The EBA found the referral admissible. It held that the referral concerned an aspect of fundamental importance and the final decision on the appeal hinged on the answer to the referred questions. It explained that while Art. 21 RPBA allows for the further development of the case law and grants boards ample discretion for referral, in view of the legislative intent of Art. 112 EPC to ensure a uniform application of the law, a board was expected to substantiate why it considers an earlier ruling to have been superseded by a subsequent change in the law, there to be potential gaps in its reasoning or the existence of a new factual or procedural situation. The EBA took note of the referring board’s criticism of G 3/04.

The EBA concluded that the findings of G 3/04 continue to apply. None of the provisions relevant to the referral (i.e. Art. 99(1), 105 and 107 EPC) had been amended in a substantive manner after G 3/04 had been issued.

The EBA reaffirmed that appeal proceedings are of a judicial nature and the appeal is designed as a remedy on facts and law for parties to proceedings before the administrative departments of the EPO with the aim of eliminating an "adverse effect" of the impugned decision. The scope of the appeal proceedings is primarily determined by the decision under appeal, the appellant’s requests submitted with the notice of appeal and the statement of grounds of appeal, and, in inter partes proceedings, the submissions of the other party or parties in reply to the appellant’s statement of grounds of appeal. The appeal is not an ex officio procedure but depends on the appellant to initiate, determine the scope of, and conclude it within that party’s power of disposal, in accordance with the principle of party disposition.

The EBA further held that a party entitled to appeal within the meaning of Art. 107, first sentence, EPC is only the person who formally participated in the proceedings before the administrative department that issued the impugned decision, unless a third party’s entitlement to participate in those proceedings had been ignored due to procedural error or incorrect application of law. An adverse effect within the meaning of this provision only exists if a decision falls short of the request of a party to the proceedings or deviates from it without their consent. Any other "negative " or "disadvantageous " impact or effect on a third party does not fulfil the legal threshold.

On interventions by third parties, the EBA stated that the exceptional nature of this legal remedy inherently precludes an extensive interpretation and application thereof. An intervener at appeal cannot procedurally benefit from any status in the preceding administrative proceedings and becomes a party as of right. Intervention at appeal needs to fit into the legal and procedural framework of the boards of appeal as the first and final judicial instance in proceedings under the EPC. The principle of party disposition, the binding nature of the parties’ requests and the prohibitions of ruling ultra petita and reformatio in peius limit the option for procedural action of all involved in appeal proceedings, including interveners. Parties to appeal proceedings as of right do not have a legal status independent of the appeal. Awarding an intervener such status would require an explicit legal provision in the EPC.

Therefore, if the sole or all appeals are withdrawn, the proceedings end with regard to all substantive issues for all parties involved and cannot be continued with an intervener at the appeal stage or any other non-appealing party.

In T 1127/23 the respondent (patent proprietor) argued that the appeal of appellant 1 (company Y GmbH) was inadmissible because the transfer of the opposition from company X OG (original opponent 1) to company Y GmbH (its universal successor) was invalid. Appellant 1 admitted that it had been acting as a straw man on behalf of a third party. Since that third party had paid for the opposition, the opposition had been a business asset in the third party's books according to the general principles of bookkeeping. Therefore, the opposition had not been an asset of company X OG which could be transferred to Y GmbH as part of the universal succession. Moreover, only the third party who paid for the opposition could have instructed X OG to withdraw the opposition and take other procedural steps regarding the opposition proceedings..

The board did not agree with the respondent. The status of opponent cannot be freely transferred (G 2/04). In G 4/88 the Enlarged Board distinguished between two cases in which the status of opponent may however be transferred: (i) in the case of universal succession of the opponent or (ii) when a relevant part of the opponent's business has been transferred, in which case the transfer or assignment of the opposition to a third party must be made as part of the transfer or assignment of the opponent's business assets together with the assets in the interests of which the opposition was filed. The board explained that in view of G 4/88 the status of opponent is validly transferred in the case of universal succession without further requirements having to be fulfilled. This implied that, in the case of universal succession, there was no need to make any further distinction between the opponent acting as a straw man or in its own interests, nor was it necessary to examine whether the opposition that had been filed could have been considered as an asset of the opponent, to determine whether the status of opponent had been validly transferred. Such a distinction would add an additional condition to those provided for in point 4 of the Reasons in G 4/88, which was not foreseen therein. Only when part of the opponent's assets had been transferred, was it necessary to examine whether the opposition related to the opponent’s business assets and could therefore have been transferred at the same time as those assets. In the present case, since a universal succession had taken place, the opposition had been validly and automatically transferred to the universal successor in law of company X OG from the date of the effective succession, regardless of whether X OG had acted as a straw man.

According to the board, the payment of the opposition costs by a third party and the general principles of bookkeeping were not relevant in the context of a universal succession since it was not necessary to examine whether a particular asset, and the opposition relating to it, had been transferred. Furthermore, accounting rules could not have any bearing on a party's status. The status of opponent was purely procedural, and the basis on which it was obtained was a matter of procedural law governed by the EPC. For the same reasons, the question of who had control over opposition proceedings and could decide, among other things, to withdraw the opposition, was not relevant for determining who could act as opponent. A person who fulfils the requirements of the EPC for filing an opposition becomes a party to the opposition proceedings (Art. 99(3) EPC), and in these proceedings, only the procedural acts performed by this party are relevant, regardless of the instructions they may receive from a third party.

Finally, the board pointed out that the respondent acknowledged that there was no abuse of procedure in the present case. The board did not see how the possibility of such an abuse occurring in other situations could be a valid ground for deciding that, in this case, appellant 1 did not have the status of opponent and appellant, and for declaring its appeal inadmissible.

The board concluded that company Y GmbH was entitled to act as opponent and appellant in the present case and that its appeal was admissible.

In case T 0745/23 the board had summoned the parties to oral proceedings on the EPO premises. The respondent had requested that the oral proceedings be held by videoconference. The appellant had requested, in response, that the oral proceedings be held in person, or, alternatively, that the board refer to the Enlarged Board the following questions:.

"1. Is the conduct of oral proceedings as a videoconference in appeal proceedings outside a general emergency situation without the consent of the parties in accordance with the provisions of the EPC.

2. If yes, on which criteria should the discretion be exercised if a Board of Appeal decides on its own motion to hold oral proceedings as a videoconference pursuant to Art. 15a(1) RPBA against the request of a party?.

In the communication under Art. 15(1) RPBA, the board had found the case in hand suitable for being heard by videoconference. The appellant had not responded to this communication, and hence, according to the board, had not objected to the board’s intention to grant the respondent’s request for a videoconference. Therefore, the board had changed the venue of the oral proceedings to videoconference.

At the oral proceedings, the appellant argued that Art. 15a RPBA did not define the criteria for exercising the board’s discretion. This gave rise to different practices and legal uncertainty. Since, according to G 1/21, oral proceedings in person were the gold standard, there could be doubt as to whether Art. 15a RPBA was actually in line with the EPC.

The board disagreed. Art. 15a RPBA provided the board with the discretion to decide to hold oral proceedings pursuant to Art. 116 EPC by videoconference if the board considered it appropriate to do so, either upon a party's request or of its own motion. Its scope was general and not limited to a pandemic situation. In G 1/21, the Enlarged Board had expressly acknowledged that oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference were oral proceedings within the meaning of Art. 116 EPC. The board failed to see how Art. 15a RPBA as such violated any EPC provisions governing the fair conduct of proceedings and the right to be heard.

Furthermore, the board stated that it interpreted the discretionary power set out in Art. 15a RPBA within the framework of decision G 1/21. This decision had not excluded videoconference oral proceedings a priori, but had set certain limitations and restrictions, especially when a party did not give its consent. The board exercised its discretion in view of the particular circumstances of the case and of the reasons provided by each party in support of their opposing requests as to the format. Thus, also the party not consenting to a videoconference should provide some reasons as to why it considered that videoconference, in the case in hand, was not suitable or why the party was otherwise disadvantaged. In the case in hand, the appellant, however, had not submitted any objective or subjective reason why the case in hand should not be heard by videoconference. In the absence of any further submissions by the appellant regarding the format of the oral proceedings, the board had had no reason to (again) change the format of the oral proceedings.

The board rejected the appellant’s request for referral. The first question proposed for referral had already been answered by the Enlarged Board in section C.5 of G 1/21. This section undoubtedly had a general character, despite the judgement essentially being limited to the pandemic (as also acknowledged in T 2432/19). The board held that in the case in hand, it failed to identify a departure from the teaching of G 1/21, and thus a need to (again) refer the first question in order to decide the present case. The posed question thus did not warrant a referral, which would otherwise be of theoretical interest only.

With regard to the second question proposed for referral, the board found that any answer to it depended on the specific case and providing anything more than general instructions would risk compromising the principle of judicial discretion. The board held that, for this reason alone, it could not be regarded as a point of law suitable for being referred to the Enlarged Board.

In case T 0387/25 the patent proprietors had appealed the examining division's decision to grant a patent because the drawings had been omitted in the supporting documents indicated in the communication pursuant to R. 71(3) EPC.

The board noted that in the present case the drawings clearly formed part of the application as originally filed, and also of the application documents on which the European regional phase was to be based. The appellants explicitly maintained the "drawings as presently on file" in their submissions during examination proceedings when filing amended claims. They never agreed to the omission of the drawings, and in particular did not expressly agree to the text intended for grant in the communication pursuant to R. 71(3) EPC. This distinguishes the present case from the situations underlying T 2277/19 and T 2864/18.

Following decisions T 2081/16, T 1003/19, T 408/21, T 1823/23 and T 1224/24, the board held that the legal consequence outlined in R. 71(5) EPC (the deemed approval of the notified text) did not apply in the present case. According to the board, it is not sufficient that an applicant, having received a communication formally referring to R. 71(3) EPC, pays the required fee and files the required translations. The legal consequence of R. 71(5) EPC only arises if the communication sent also complies with the substantive requirements of R. 71(3) EPC, i.e. it actually contains the text in which the examining division intends to grant the patent, on the basis of the documents filed by the applicant, possibly supplemented by individual marked amendments..

The present board noted that the strict approach to the mechanism of R. 71 EPC advocated in T 265/20, in which the competent board did not follow the approach taken in T 1003/19 and T 2081/16, was not applied in the later decisions T 408/21, T 1823/23 and T 1224/24. In addition, the circumstances of the case at hand differed even more from the situation underlying T 265/20. In the present case, the appellants had in fact brought the relevant error, i.e. the omission of all the drawing sheets by the EPO – over which they had no influence – to the EPO's attention when it first occurred. In this case, the formalities officer's reply led them to understand that the drawing sheets would be taken into account in the event of a B1 publication. It followed that the decision to grant was based on an application in a text which was neither submitted nor agreed by the applicants, so the requirements of Art. 113(2) EPC had not been complied with. Hence, the board decided that the appeal was admissible and the decision under appeal was to be set aside.

According to the board, it has been established case law since T 1003/19 that an examining division's error in compiling the documents intended for grant in a communication under R. 71(3) EPC that makes a clearly unintentional omission of part of the documents proposed by the applicant for grant as indicated in the applicant's last request can still be corrected if the applicant files an appeal against the subsequent grant of the patent within the time limit under Art. 108 EPC, at least if the applicant did not explicitly consent to the incorrect compilation. T 265/20 did not support that case law; but this remained a single decision and was not followed by other boards..

The board held that the present decision did not deviate from G 1/10. It found that a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal was not required either to ensure uniform application of the law or to align the case law and Guidelines (see points 3.1 to 3.9.5 of the Reasons).

The board noted that the Guidelines, e.g. in H-VI, do not properly distinguish between cases where a mistake was already contained in an applicant's request or was explicitly approved by an applicant, and cases like the one at hand: where an examining division, by mistake and unintentionally, deviated from the appellant's latest request when listing the documents intended for grant in a communication under R. 71(3) EPC and this was neither pointed out to the applicant nor explicitly acknowledged by it. However, a divergence between the Guidelines and the case law of the boards is not necessarily a reason for a referral to the Enlarged Board. Rather, Art. 20(2) RPBA assumes that under normal circumstances it is enough to state sufficient grounds to enable the decision to be readily understood, such that the Guidelines may be adapted where necessary.

Before focusing on the parties' procedural requests, the board in T 417/22 dealt with the patent proprietor's objection of suspected partiality of the legal member of the board.

The board recalled that according to Art. 24(3), second sentence, EPC, an objection shall not be admissible if, while being aware of a reason for objection, the party has taken a procedural step. In this regard the question arose as to what exactly constituted in this case the reasons for objection within the meaning of Art. 24(3), second sentence, EPC and when the patent proprietor had become aware of these reasons.

In the board's understanding, the patent proprietor's reasons for the objection against the legal member were stated to be based on two facts: the allegedly biased opinion formulated in the board's preliminary opinion dated 22 May 2025 and the fact that the legal member had also sat on the board that issued referral decision T 1286/23 and inevitably must have played a decisive role, given the point of law that had been and was at the heart of the matter.

Concerning the point in time when the party had become aware of the reasons for the objection, the patent proprietor submitted that they had only become aware of the fact that the legal member in the present case had also acted as legal member in T 1286/23 on 4 July 2025. The patent proprietor also indicated that the reasons for the bias in the board's communication had become clear only once the patent proprietor had realised that the same legal member had been involved. Furthermore, general procedural fairness dictated that the board ought to have called the parties' attention to the fact that the legal member had been the same in both cases.

The board observed that, first of all, it had no obligation to point out to the parties that its members may have participated in decisions dealing with similar or even the same issues. Such facts alone cannot establish any suspicion of partiality (G 3/08).

Furthermore, the board held that if the alleged bias in the board's communication had become apparent only once the patent proprietor had realised the involvement of the same legal member in the referral decision T 1286/23, the objection should still have been made before undertaking a procedural step on 27 June 2025. The board observed that from an objective point of view, the patent proprietor must be presumed to have been aware of the board's composition in the case T 1286/23 at this point of time. The board recognised that the wording of Art. 24(3), second sentence, EPC suggested that factual, i.e. subjective knowledge of the reason for exclusion was required. However, subjective knowledge of a party was effectively impossible to verify for either the board or other parties. Thus, accepting subjective awareness of a party as the admissibility condition for the application of Art. 24(3), second sentence, EPC would lead to the result that a party could effectively raise an objection anytime in the proceedings, simply by stating that even if the necessary facts had been at their disposal, they subjectively had not recognised a relevant relationship between them. This would effectively make Art. 24(3), second sentence, EPC a provision without effect, which could not have been the legislative intention.

Thus, the board accepted the intervener's argument that the patent proprietor had dealt with T 1286/23 in great detail and, therefore, must be presumed to have known the decision in its entirety, including the composition of the deciding board, before they undertook a procedural step on 27 June 2025. In this regard, the board pointed out that the names of the board members form part of the decision pursuant to R. 102(c) EPC. That the name of the legal member in the present case must have been known to the patent proprietor since the beginning of the proceedings, at least since the issuance of the board's communication, had been undisputed. Accordingly, the patent proprietor had to be presumed to have been aware of the fact that the same legal member had been involved in both cases by the time they filed their submissions dated 27 June 2025. The board concluded that an objection under Art. 24(3), first sentence, EPC against the legal member on this basis was inadmissible, even if the board were to accept, for the benefit of the patent proprietor, that the alleged bias had not had to be apparent until they had realised the involvement of the same legal member.

Consequently, the board refused the request for replacement of the legal member.

In ex parte Fall T 535/21 Im ex parte Fall T 535/21, richtet sich die Beschwerde gegen die Entscheidung der Prüfungsabteilung, die Anmeldung mangels erfinderischer Tätigkeit zurückzuweisen. Die Kammer teilte der Beschwerdeführerin mit der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung ihre vorläufige Meinung mit, dass die Entscheidung zu bestätigen sein würde. In Reaktion darauf legte die Beschwerdeführerin in der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Beschwerdekammer einen Auszug aus einem Dialog der Beschwerdeführerin mit dem "Microsoft Copilot" vor (Auszug als A1 bezeichnet).

Die Beschwerdeführerin und die Prüfungsabteilung waren sich darüber einig, dass sich Anspruch 1 durch drei Merkmalsgruppen von D3 unterschied. Die Beschwerdeführerin vertrat aber die Ansicht, dass die Unterscheidungsmerkmale mit D3 die synergetische Wirkung hätten, die Gerätesicherheit zu erhöhen.

Was den ersten Unterschied betrifft, hatte die Beschwerdeführerin offengelassen, in welchem Sinne ein Mikrocontroller zur Sicherheit beiträgt.

Zu dieser Frage führte die Beschwerdeführerin aus, dass Mikrocontroller als sichere Steuerung für industrielle Prozesse fungierten, und dass sie echtzeitfähig und aufgrund ihrer geringen Komplexität zuverlässig seien. Die Beschwerdeführerin bezog sich in dieser Hinsicht auf A1. In der dort dargestellten Antwort des Microsoft Copilot auf die Frage "Bewirkt ein Mikrokontroller eine höhere Sicherheit als ein Mikroprozessor oder sind sie gleich bezüglich Sicherheit", wies die Beschwerdeführerin selbst allerdings auf den Warnhinweis in A1 hin, dass "KI-generierte Inhalte [...] falsch sein" könnten.

Die Kammer bemerkte zunächst, dass die in A1 enthaltenen Aussagen per se richtig sein mochten, dass aber A1 kein geeignetes Beweismittel für diese Aussagen war. Zum einen, weil, wie A1 selbst warnte, "KI-generierte Aussagen [...] falsch sein" können. Die Aussagen hätten daher noch durch unabhängige Quellen überprüft werden müssen. Ob sich die in A1 angegebenen Quellen dafür eigneten, falls sie denn überhaupt existierten, hätte ebenfalls geprüft werden müssen. Die Kammer ließ diese Fragen offen, da der Vortrag der Beschwerdeführerin sogar dann nicht überzeugt hätte, wenn der Inhalt der A1 nicht bestritten worden wäre.

Selbst unterstellt, dass Mikrocontroller gegenüber Mikroprozessoren Sicherheitsvorteile hätten, bliebe offen, in genau welchem Sinne die Steuerung des beanspruchten Umrichters durch den verwendeten Mikrocontroller "sicherer" werde. So blieb undefiniert, welches Signal für einen Umrichter sicherheitsrelevant sei oder was im Einzelnen der Benutzer prüfen könnte oder sollte. Die behauptete Synergie war schon deshalb nicht erkennbar.

Das Vorbringen der Beschwerdeführerin reichte nicht aus, um eine Synergie der Unterschiedsmerkmale nachzuweisen. Die Kammer war weiter der Ansicht, dass die Unterschiedsmerkmale für den Fachmann ausgehend von D3 nahe lagen.

Der Antrag auf Überprüfung in R 7/22 wurde darauf gestützt, dass die zu überprüfende Entscheidung in mehrfacher Hinsicht mit einem schwerwiegenden Verfahrensmangel behaftet sei, und – ebenfalls in mehrfacher Hinsicht – ein schwerwiegender Verstoß gegen Art. 113 EPÜ vorliege.

Bei der Prüfung der Begründetheit des Überprüfungsantrags bezüglich der geltend gemachten Verfahrensmängel gemäß Art. 112a (2) d) EPÜ erinnerte die Große Beschwerdekammer (GBK) daran, dass die in R. 104 EPÜ nicht genannten Verfahrensmängel nicht als schwerwiegende Verfahrensmängel im Sinne des Art. 112a (2) d) EPÜ gelten. Die Antragstellerin hatte sich aber weder auf das Übergehen eines Antrags auf mündliche Verhandlung (R. 104 a) EPÜ) noch eines sonstigen relevanten Antrags im Verfahren (R. 104 b) EPÜ) berufen. Dementsprechend betrachtete die GBK den Überprüfungsantrag bezüglich dieser geltend gemachten Verfahrensmängel als offensichtlich unbegründet.

Im Rahmen der Prüfung der Begründetheit des Überprüfungsantrags im Hinblick auf die geltend gemachten Verfahrensmängel nach Art. 112a (2) c) EPÜ befasste sich die GBK mit den beanstandeten Verstößen gegen Art. 113 (1) EPÜ im Zusammenhang mit der angekündigten mündlichen Verhandlung in Präsenz und derer tatsächlicher Durchführung als Videokonferenz. Dabei betonte die GBK unter anderem Folgendes:

In G 1/21 hat die GBK entschieden, dass die Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung als Videokonferenz grundsätzlich mit dem Recht auf rechtliches Gehör vereinbar ist, und in R 12/22 hat die GBK das ausführlich dargestellt. Im vorliegenden Fall hatte die Antragstellerin sich darauf beschränkt zu rügen, die im Fall G 1/21 gesetzten, sehr engen Voraussetzungen für die Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung als Videokonferenz hätten nicht vorgelegen. Sie hatte keine konkreten Umstände behauptet, wodurch ihr die Ausübung ihres Rechts auf rechtliches Gehör im Beschwerdeverfahren verweigert wurde. Für die GBK waren auch keine derartigen Umstände ersichtlich. Eine allgemeine Beanstandung zu Beginn der Verhandlung, die Voraussetzungen für die Durchführung der mündlichen Verhandlung als Videokonferenz seien nicht gegeben, genügt aus den vorgenannten Gründen (wonach eine mündliche Verhandlung in Form einer Videokonferenz grundsätzlich mit dem Recht auf rechtliches Gehör vereinbar ist) nicht. Damit liegt in der Durchführung der mündlichen Verhandlung als Videokonferenz offensichtlich kein Gehörsverstoß.

Darüber hinaus befand die GBK, dass anders als im Falle der Ermessensausübung beim Thema Zulassung, eine unzutreffende Ermessensausübung zugunsten der Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung als Videokonferenz mangels Einfluss auf das Recht auf rechtliches Gehör keinen Verstoß gegen dieses Recht begründen kann, wenn – wie hier – ein konkreter Mangel der Videokonferenz während derselben nicht behauptet worden war. Die Beteiligten waren im Übrigen zur Frage der Durchführung der mündlichen Verhandlung als Videokonferenz gehört worden, so dass auch insofern kein Gehörsverstoß vorlag.

In Bezug auf die durch die Antragstellerin geltend gemachten Mängel in der Begründung der zu überprüfenden Entscheidung verwies die GBK auf die in R 3/15, R 8/15, R 8/19, R 10/20 und R 12/22 formulierten relevanten Grundprinzipien. Sie erinnerte unter anderem daran, dass eine widersprüchliche Begründung nur dann beanstandet werden kann, wenn die Widersprüche gleichbedeutend damit sind, dass die Kammer das Vorbringen in den Entscheidungsgründen nicht behandelt und dieses objektiv betrachtet entscheidend für den Ausgang des Falles war. Ebenso wie die objektiv entscheidende Bedeutung für den Ausgang des Falles sich aufdrängen muss, muss sich auch aufdrängen, dass die widersprüchliche Begründung gleichbedeutend ist mit einer Nicht-Begründung, indem sie beispielsweise völlig konfus ist (R 12/22).

Zum Argument der Antragstellerin, die Begründungsmängel seien für den Fachmann augenfällig, befand die GBK, dass es sich bei der relevanten Person, der eklatante Begründungsmängel ins Auge springen müssen, um den Durchschnittsleser und nicht den Fachmann handelt.

Der Antrag auf Überprüfung wurde teilweise als offensichtlich unzulässig und im Übrigen als offensichtlich unbegründet verworfen.

In T 2328/22 bestätigte die Kammer die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung, dass sich der Umfang des Beitritts der Einsprechenden 2 (Beschwerdeführerin) auf Einwände gegen die Anpassung der Beschreibung beschränkt (res judicata, Art. 111 (2) EPÜ). Mit der Entscheidung T 2538/16 vom 18. Februar 2020 hatte die Beschwerdekammer die Angelegenheit an die Einspruchsabteilung mit der Anordnung zurückverwiesen, das Patent in geänderter Fassung gemäß Hauptantrag und einer noch anzupassenden Beschreibung aufrechtzuerhalten. Während der Fortsetzung des Einspruchsverfahrens zur Anpassung der Beschreibung ist am 21. Dezember 2020 die Einsprechende 2 als vermeintliche Patentverletzerin beigetreten.

Punkt 50 der angefochtenen Entscheidung betonte zu Recht, dass ein Beitritt kein Rechtsmittel sei, mit dem sich eine im Einspruchsbeschwerdeverfahren ergangene Entscheidung anfechten ließe. Ein Betritt eröffnet auch keinen neuen Verfahrensabschnitt, der die verbindlichen Ergebnisse des bisherigen Verfahrens außer Kraft setzen könnte. Ein Beitritt zu einem laufenden Verfahren kann nur in den Grenzen möglich sein, in denen das Verfahren noch zur Entscheidung offen ist. Der Beitretende muss das Verfahren so übernehmen, wie es steht. Etwaige ergangene Entscheidungen binden ihn daher nicht etwa wegen einer direkt ihm gegenüber eingetretenen res judicata Wirkung, sondern wegen der Akzessorietät des Beitritts zu einem Verfahren mit nur noch beschränktem Streitgegenstand.

Die Beschwerdeführerin berief sich auf die G 1/94 (Nr. 13 der Gründe), und die T 167/93. Die Kammer war davon nicht überzeugt, und befand, dass diese Entscheidungen im vorliegenden Fall nicht anwendbar sind. Stattdessen folgte die Kammer der T 694/01, in der es um eine ähnliche Situation ging wie im vorliegenden Fall.

Die Entscheidung T 694/01 legt überzeugend dar, dass nicht davon ausgegangen werden kann, dass der Entscheidungsgrund 13 der G 1/94 ausdrücklich auch Konstellationen wie die vorliegende regeln wollte, in der bereits eine abschließende Entscheidung über die Patentfähigkeit eines bestimmten Anspruchswortlauts getroffen worden war bzw. dass die Große Beschwerdekammer mit ihrer Erwägung so fundamentale Verfahrensgrundsätze wie die formelle und materielle Rechtskraft einer Entscheidung außer Kraft setzen wollte, ohne dass dies im EPÜ ausdrücklich vorgesehen wäre. Art. 105 (1) EPÜ schließt aus, dass mit dem Beitritt ein gänzlich neues Verfahren oder ein eigenständiger Verfahrensabschnitt in Gang gesetzt werden kann, und erlaubt nicht mehr als den Beitritt zu einem anhängigen Einspruchsverfahren. Diese Auslegung von Art. 105 EPÜ entspricht auch der in G 4/91 (Nr. 7 der Gründe) getroffenen Feststellung, dass ein Beitritt gegenstandslos ist, wenn er nach Erlass der Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung erfolgt und die zuvor Beteiligten keine zulässige Beschwerde einlegen.

Zusammenfassend war aus Sicht der Kammer daher kein Grund ersichtlich von den überzeugenden Ausführungen in der T 694/01 abzuweichen, dass ein Beitretender einem fremden Verfahren beitritt und infolgedessen das Verfahren in der Lage annehmen muss, in der es sich zum Zeitpunkt des Beitritts befindet.

Der Beitritt der Einsprechenden 2 hängt vom rechtlichen Umfang der Anhängigkeit des Einspruchsverfahrens ab. Da im vorliegenden Fall das Einspruchsverfahren nur noch bezüglich der Anpassung der Beschreibung anhängig ist, kann die Beitretende nicht mehr dem verfahrensrechtlich abgeschlossenen Teil des Einspruchsverfahrens beitreten, der die Gültigkeit des Wortlauts der Patentansprüche betraf. Da darüber abschließend entschieden wurde, ist die Frage, ob die Einsprechende 2 ihre Einwände auf einen bekannten oder einen neuen Sachverhalt stützt, irrelevant.

Zu den Vorlagefragen nach Art. 112 (1) EPÜ stellte die Kammer fest, dass in T 694/01, einem weitgehend ähnlichen Fall, eine klare und überzeugende Entscheidung getroffen wurde, der sich die Kammer anschloss. Eine Vorlage an die Große Beschwerdekammer war daher nicht erforderlich.

In the course of the written proceedings before the board in T 744/23, the respondent (opponent) had requested, inter alia, that the oral proceedings be conducted in person. In its communication pursuant to Art. 15(1) RPBA the board had taken note thereof and had added that it would, however, be appropriate to hold the oral proceedings by videoconference pursuant to Art. 15a RPBA, as this would be the most sustainable format, and no particular reasons had been put forward nor had any been apparent, as to why this would not be appropriate in the present case.

Oral proceedings had been held by videoconference. Four weeks later, the respondent had submitted a request for correction of the minutes of the oral proceedings. The respondent had asked for text passages to be inserted dealing with its request to hold the oral proceedings in person. Referring to R. 124(1) EPC, the respondent argued that the requests of the parties without doubt represented "essentials of the oral proceedings" in the sense of this provision. It was therefore indispensable that the minutes summarise each of the requests brought forward by a party in the course of the procedure and elaborated on during the oral proceedings. Furthermore, it noted that the technical issues, which had affected the access of the board to the internet and, thus, the videoconference facility and required an interruption of the oral proceedings, underlined why a hearing in person had been mentioned as the optimum format and the "gold standard" in G 1/21.

The board rejected the respondent's request for correction of the minutes of the oral proceedings. It recalled that minutes of oral proceedings must contain, inter alia, the essentials of the oral proceedings and the relevant statements of the parties (R. 124(1) EPC). According to the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, these essentials of the oral proceedings or the relevant statements of the parties were to be determined with a view to what the board may have to decide on (e.g. T 966/99, T 263/05, T 262/17, T 1891/20). This also applied to statements disposing of the subject-matter of the appeal proceedings or parts thereof. However, the minutes did not have to contain the complete arguments of the parties (e.g. T 118/20 and T 1891/20). All the more so, the minutes may not contain arguments or statements of the parties which they considered to be (only) of use in subsequent proceedings before national courts or the Unified Patent Court and which had no bearing on the decision of the board (T 966/99, T 263/05, T 262/17).

The board stated that the format of the oral proceedings was an ancillary question which was regularly not to be dealt with in the order of a (substantive) decision. The choice of format was a discretionary procedural decision (G 1/21, R 12/22) which had to be made ex officio in advance, in accordance with the criteria of Art. 15a(1) RPBA ("appropriateness"). It therefore did not concern, in itself, the essentials of the oral proceedings, nor were the statements made in the oral proceedings, which related to their format as such, relevant statements within the meaning of R. 124(1) EPC.

The board noted that the oral proceedings in this case had been affected by a general network failure on the EPO premises and that this was already reflected in the minutes. However, the discussions which the respondent also wished to have included in the minutes related solely to the format of the oral proceedings, and to its request for in-person oral proceedings, which it had made in writing before, and which had already been addressed in the board's communication. The board concluded that, contrary to the respondent's contention, not all "requests of the parties without doubt represent 'essentials of the oral proceedings'" to be included in the minutes by default, but only under the requirements as also outlined above (e.g. T 1891/20). In particular, the request concerning the format of the oral proceedings and the related discussions, which the respondent wished to have reflected in the minutes, did not fulfil these requirements. There was no connection between the technical issues caused by the network failure during the oral proceedings and these discussions. Likewise, these technical issues had not, in retrospect, made the respondent's request and the discussions on the format of the oral proceedings essential.

In T 483/23 wies die Patentinhaberin (Beschwerdegegnerin) zu Beginn der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Kammer darauf hin, dass die mündliche Verhandlung nicht im öffentlichen Online-Kalender der mündlichen Verhandlungen der Beschwerdekammern eingetragen war. Die Öffentlichkeit habe sich daher nicht darüber informieren können, dass in der vorliegenden Sache am 19. März 2025 eine mündliche Verhandlung stattfinden würde. Zur Öffentlichkeit gehöre nicht nur die "interessierte Öffentlichkeit", die sich ohnehin für den vorliegenden Fall interessiere und daher möglicherweise durch die Online-Akte über den Termin der mündlichen Verhandlung informiert worden sei, sondern "jedermann".

Der Patentinhaberin zufolge hat die "allgemeine Öffentlichkeit" mangels der erforderlichen Information nicht an der mündlichen Verhandlung teilnehmen können, da die mündliche Verhandlung auch nicht gesondert am Eingang des Gebäudes in Haar angekündigt worden war (sondern nur gemeinsam mit vier weiteren mündlichen Verhandlungen der Patentinhaberin) und nicht einmal am Eingang zum Verhandlungssaal ausgeschildert gewesen war. Dies stelle einen Verstoß gegen den Öffentlichkeitsgrundsatz dar, der Teil des Rechts auf rechtliches Gehör nach Art. 113 (1) EPÜ sei, wonach das Verfahren unter der Kontrolle der Öffentlichkeit stattfinden müsse. Dieses wichtige rechtliche Erfordernis sei nicht dadurch erfüllt, dass der Termin der mündlichen Verhandlung in der öffentlichen Online-Akte zu finden gewesen sei. Der Öffentlichkeit könne nicht zugemutet werden, sich durch alle anhängigen Akten "durchzuklicken", um festzustellen, dass am 19. März 2025 eine mündliche Verhandlung in der vorliegenden Sache stattfinde.

Die Kammer teilte die Ansicht der Patentinhaberin nicht. Sie betonte, dass der Verhandlungstermin für die Öffentlichkeit problemlos in der Online-Akte einsehbar gewesen sei. Der Kammer zufolge wurde man am Empfang im Gebäude der Verhandlungssäle auf den Saal verwiesen, in dem diese Verhandlung stattfand. Durch die Einstellung des Verhandlungstermins in die Online-Akte habe die Öffentlichkeit ausreichend die Möglichkeit gehabt, sich über die Durchführung der Verhandlung zu informieren, insbesondere darüber, dass die Verhandlung am 19. März 2025 stattfindet. Dies allein genüge nach Einschätzung der Kammer dem Grundsatz der Öffentlichkeit. Nach Auffassung der Kammer sei die Aufnahme eines entsprechenden Hinweises in den Online-Kalender der mündlichen Verhandlungen der Beschwerdekammern keine Voraussetzung für die Wahrung des Grundsatzes der Öffentlichkeit der mündlichen Verhandlungen gewesen.

Dementsprechend wies die Kammer den Einwand der Verletzung des Öffentlichkeitsgrundsatzes der Patentinhaberin zurück. Mit Verweis auf dieselbe Begründung wies die Kammer auch den Einwand der Patentinhaberin zurück, mit dem diese einen Verfahrensmangel nach R. 106 EPÜ wegen eines schwerwiegenden Verstoßes gegen Art. 113 EPÜ aufgrund einer Verletzung des Öffentlichkeitsgrundsatzes beanstandete.

In T 553/25 the applicant had, on 31 January 2025, filed a notice of appeal and paid the appeal fee for persons referred to in R. 7a(2)(a) to (d) EPC as provided for in Art. 2(1), item 11 RFees. By communication of the Examining Division dated 6 February 2025 (the "Communication"), the applicant was informed that the initial formal check of the appeal revealed that the reduced fee had been paid but a declaration that the appellant was a natural person or an entity according to R. 7b EPC had not been filed. Failure to file such declaration within the time limit under Art. 108 EPC would result in the appellant not being eligible for the reduced fee.

The board noted that the Communication relied, inter alia, on the notice from the EPO dated 18 December 2017 (the "Notice") concerning the reduced fee for appeal for an appeal filed by a natural person or an entity referred to in R. 6(4) EPC, now R. 7a and 7b EPC. The Notice introduced a formal requirement for the valid payment of the fee for appeal and thereby also an additional requirement for lodging an appeal. However, there was no legal basis in the EPC for such a requirement, nor was the board aware of any provision empowering the EPO to adopt such regulations, even less so at the level of a notice. Art. 2(1), item 11 RFees referred to R. 7a(2)(a) to (d) EPC, to define the persons and entities eligible to pay the reduced fee for appeal. This had no legal implications beyond giving a definition of who is eligible for the reduced fee for appeal.

There was no reference in Art. 2(1), item 11 RFees to R. 7b(1) EPC, which establishes a requirement to declare eligibility to a reduction in fees, in a different context. According to R. 7b(1) EPC, such a declaration is required if persons or entities according to R. 7a(2)(a) to (d) EPC wish to avail themselves of a reduced fee according to R. 7a(1) or (3) EPC. These provisions concern fees to be paid for patent applications up to the grant of a patent. R. 7b EPC does not apply to the payment of the reduced fee for appeal, be it directly or by way of reference. Even less can R. 7b EPC apply to the fee for appeal by way of a mere analogy.

According to the board, it followed that there was no legal basis for a prior declaration of eligibility as a prerequisite for a valid payment of the reduced fee. A declaration of eligibility might be seen as a form of evidence supporting a payment of the reduced fee for appeal. Indeed, when examining the admissibility of an appeal, a board may require appellants who pay a reduced fee to provide evidence that they fall into one of the categories of persons and entities listed in R. 7a(2)(a) to (d) EPC. However, the EPO has no power to define what is to be accepted by the boards as evidence, and even less to limit such evidence to a declaration as set out in the Notice.

The board also failed to see any reason why evidence as to an appellant's status with respect to R. 7a(2)(a) to (c) EPC could not be filed after expiry of the time limit for filing the notice of appeal under Art. 108, first sentence, EPC. An appeal was only deemed to be filed if the fee for appeal had been paid within said time limit. The time limit for payment was, in turn, deemed to have been observed only if the (applicable) full amount of the fee had been paid in due time. Moreover, the difference in amount between the regular and the reduced fee for appeal was more than 30%, which could not reasonably be considered a minor underpayment that could be overlooked within the meaning of Art. 8, fourth sentence, RFees. However, this did not preclude an assessment of whether the time limit for payment of the appeal fee had been observed on the basis of evidence provided after its expiry. While it was true that it was the facts as they stood at the end of the period that were relevant, evidence for those facts may be submitted at a later stage, in particular in response to a communication by the competent board under R. 112(1) EPC, before a decision was taken on whether the appeal was deemed to have been filed. Indeed, this view was reflected in Art. 7(3) RFees.

In the present case, the application was filed by one of the inventors, who undoubtedly was a natural person within the meaning of R. 7a(2)(c) EPC. The fact that the applicant was a natural person was not questioned by the Examining Division during examination and there was no apparent reason to doubt this. The applicant was thus entitled to pay the reduced fee for appeal provided for in Art. 2(1), item 11 RFees. The applicable amount for the reduced fee for appeal was paid on 31 January 2025, i.e. within the time limit for filing the notice of appeal pursuant to Art. 108, first sentence, EPC.

In T 617/20 the board summoned the parties to oral proceedings in person for 10 October 2024. With a letter dated 1 October 2024 the patent proprietor (sole appellant) withdrew its appeal, which was communicated to the respondent opponents on 2 October 2024. The board cancelled the oral proceedings on 4 October 2024 and informed the parties about the termination of the appeal proceedings on 10 October 2024. Opponent 3 submitted a request for apportionment of costs together with the supporting evidence on 12 November 2024, i.e. about one month later.

The patent proprietor argued that according to the relevant case law such a request was only admissible as long as the proceedings were not closed. Only exceptionally may a request be admissible after the termination of the proceedings (T 1556/14). However, in the present case opponent 3 was timely informed and therefore was not prevented from submitting the request before the closure of the proceedings.

The board held that the wording of Art. 16 RPBA, Art. 104(1) or R. 88(1) EPC did not support the proposition that requesting cost apportionment after the closure of the proceedings should be normally excluded as a question of principle, contrary to the findings of T 1556/14 (seemingly also approved by T 1484/19). At least since R 3/22 it had become clear that proceedings before a board of appeal may well come into existence also after the formal closure of the appeal proceedings. Decision T 695/18 found that the Enlarged Board's decision implied that such ancillary proceedings, though not re-opening the original appeal proceedings in substance, did in fact come into existence through a request submitted after the closure of the appeal proceedings (there a request for correction under R. 139 EPC). The same approach was confirmed in T 433/21.

In the board's opinion, there was no apparent reason why the same findings would not be transferable to the present issue. Thus, a request for apportionment submitted after the closure of the appeal proceedings would open ancillary proceedings, and there was no apparent reason why such ancillary proceedings would not be suitable to resolve also the issue on the merits, i.e. to decide whether a cost apportionment was equitable in the circumstances. Hence, the board concluded that the request was not inadmissible for the sole reason that it had been filed after the closure of the appeal proceedings.

Moreover, the board found that the request for apportionment of costs had been filed within a reasonable time. In this respect the board noted that it seemed sufficient to orient the expected reasonable time limit for filing a request for apportionment along the usual time limits applicable to proceedings before the EPO, namely the standard two months of R. 132(1) EPC. Questions should be asked only if the request is submitted after a reasonable period of time.

According to the board, beyond the general obligation to inform the other parties as soon as possible, a party had no formal obligation to take more active steps merely to avoid such costs which were already foreseen by the other parties. At most, in procedural situations such as the present case, the parties must endeavour to avoid additional costs, typically by informing the other parties as soon as the firm decision to withdraw the appeal has been taken. To recognise such a formal obligation (i.e. to take active steps already before the decision to withdraw has been taken, in order to avoid costs for the other party) seemed to place an unrealistic burden on parties to proceedings before the EPO.

For these reasons, the board concluded that the parties were to bear their own costs (Art. 104(1), first half-sentence, EPC). The request for a different apportionment of costs was not belated but there were no apparent reasons of equity that would justify a different apportionment.

In T 449/23, regarding claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 (claims 1 and 2 being identical to claims 2 and 3 of the main request, after claim 1 of the main request was deleted following a finding of lack of inventive step over D5), the board came to the conclusion that the alleged effects of the distinguishing features were not credible, contrary to the arguments of the patent proprietor. Hence, any alleged effects arising from this comparison could not be taken into account in the formulation of the objective technical problem. The patent proprietor also argued that the burden of proof lay with the opponent to demonstrate that the alleged technical effects were not present. The board disagreed, stating:

(a) that the legal burden of proof was the duty of a party to persuade the deciding body of allegations of facts on which the party’s case rested. In principle, a party must prove alleged facts (assertions) from which it infers a legal consequence, i.e. which establish the basis for the party's legal claims. Thus, the allocation of the burden of proof depends on a party’s substantive case.

(b) that to discharge its legal duty of persuasion, a party must prove the alleged facts by appropriate evidence to the required standard of proof. The party with whom the legal burden of proof lies therefore bears the risk that the alleged facts remain unproven, and thus that the deciding body will decide against that party and reject its legal claims. Thus, the legal burden of proof requires the production of appropriate evidence to persuade the deciding body to the required standard.

(c) that in principle the legal burden of proof does not shift. References in the case law to a shift of burden of proof relate to the so-called evidentiary/evidential burden of proof (see for this distinction T 741/91), the notion of which relates to the state of the evidence produced in the course of proceedings. Once the party bearing the legal burden of proof has adduced sufficient evidence to support its allegations of facts to the required standard of proof, the onus is on the adverse party to rebut the asserted facts with appropriate evidence. Otherwise, the adverse party risks that the deciding body is persuaded of the existence of the facts and allows the claims. Thus, if the party having the legal burden of proof has made a "strong case" by filing convincing evidence, the onus of producing counter-evidence shifts to the adverse party. However, this does not mean that the legal burden of proof is on the adverse party to prove the non-existence or the contrary of asserted factual allegations. It is sufficient that the adverse party raises substantiated doubts that prevent the deciding body from being persuaded of the existence of the alleged facts.

(d) that in opposition and opposition-appeal proceedings, each of the parties carries the legal burden of proof for the asserted allegations of facts on which their respective substantive case rests. As regards an alleged lack of inventive step, the burden is on the opponent to adduce appropriate prior art which – when following the established substantive test, i.e. the problem-solution approach – persuades the opposition division or the board of the obviousness of the solution provided by the subject-matter claimed. On the other hand, if the patent proprietor asserts that, in comparison to the prior art, there is an advantage or effect giving rise to a more ambitious formulation of the objective technical problem than that presented by the opponent and hence to an inventive step, the burden of proving this advantage or effect to the required standard of proof is on the patent proprietor. The mere assertion in the patent specification of an advantage or effect cannot be regarded as evidence of such an assertion.

The board listed a number of decisions (T 97/00, T 355/97, T 1097/09, T 1392/04), in which the underlying circumstances were comparable, confirming these principles. The board also observed that T 1797/09 submitted by the patent proprietor remained a singular decision not followed. The subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 lacked inventive step.

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.

In T 2463/22 the opposition division had held that the prior uses had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (up to the hilt), in particular with regard to whether the products of the prior uses had actually been delivered. The parties before the board focused on which standard of proof had to be applied in view of G 2/21 and T 1138/20 and whether the applicable standard had been met. In the respondent-proprietor’s view, T 1138/20 was an isolated decision, not compatible with G 2/21.

On the required standard of proof, the present board observed that G 2/21 recognised that different concepts as to the standard of proof had been developed in the case law. According to T 1138/20 only one standard should be applied, namely "the deciding body must be convinced, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the relevant evidence before it, that the alleged fact occurred".

In the present board's view, under the principle of free evaluation of evidence, it was always decisive in the evaluation of evidence that the members of the deciding body were personally "convinced". Moreover, they had to always be convinced of whether, as stated in T 1138/20, "the alleged fact has occurred". The board stated this was true regardless of which standard of proof was applied. The standard of proof refers to the nature or degree of conviction that the members of the deciding body must have to be satisfied that an alleged fact occurred (see T 832/22).

According to the board, and with reference to a UK House of Lords decision, two important aspects had to be stressed. Firstly, that the standard of proof is related to the required degree of conviction of the members of the deciding body. Secondly, that it is not related to what is evaluated by the deciding body. Hence, also when a lower standard of proof such as the balance of probabilities is applied, the deciding body must assess whether or not the alleged fact indeed occurred. In other words, also when such a standard of proof is applied, the question is not whether the alleged fact might have occurred with some probability. The board considered G 2/21 (points 31 and 45 of the Reasons) consistent with this understanding.

The more specific question as to whether there was only a single standard of proof or more than one could be left unanswered according to the board. The board held that if the deciding body was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that an alleged fact had occurred, there was no need to decide how many standards of proof there were and which one was applicable (see T 832/22).

The board then gave some consideration to the assessment of factual allegations using the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof. The European Patent Organisation being an independent international organisation, the board stated the standard had an autonomous meaning within this autonomous legal order. Secondly the board agreed with T 832/22 that it seemed expedient to focus on the term "reasonable".

The board then considered the prior uses, focusing especially on prior use relating to the sale of product 5 (sample of a powder mix from a specific lot number), the content of the sample and whether it was available to the public. In view of all the information (including invoices, affidavit, emails, test report, excerpt from database), which also involved evidence provided by a third party (the buyer), the board was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that product 5, with a specific lot number, was sold prior to the effective date of the patent. Since it had also been shown that product 5 disclosed all features of claim 1, lack of novelty prejudiced the maintenance of the patent as granted. Concerning the third auxiliary request, product 5 was suitable for use as closest prior art. The board referred to the reluctance sometimes in the case law to treat an object of a prior use as the closest prior art. Often, there was neither information on what the object did and what properties it had in the technical environment in which it was applied nor on how the process for its manufacture could be modified. These considerations indeed spoke against regarding a prior use as a suitable starting point for assessing inventive step. In the case in hand however, the skilled person was faced with a different situation. The board concluded that the third auxiliary request did not involve an inventive step. The decision of the opposition division was set aside and the patent revoked.

In T 1249/22 the application related to the development – including the training – of an analytical model (e.g. a machine learning model) and the deployment of the trained analytical model on a "compute engine" so as to process live incoming data. The examining division found that the independent claims of the main request lacked an inventive step in view of common general knowledge evidenced by D5.

D5 was a book comprising a collection of individual papers on grid computing, all from different groups of authors, referred to as "chapters" by the editors of the book. The appellant argued that D5 was not evidence of common general knowledge and that each of the chapters of D5 represented a separate piece of prior art; the examining division combined several distinct elements from these chapters without providing any reasoning. The board agreed with the appellant that each of the "chapters" represented a separate piece of prior art, as they appeared to be self-contained papers which did not build on each other, unlike chapters of a textbook. Definitions given in one of these papers did not necessarily apply to the others. D5 rather resembled a conference proceedings volume including a collection of separate papers on a common topic. The mere fact that the papers were published in the same book with a single ISBN did not imply that the whole content of the book formed a single piece of prior art.

As to whether D5, or its individual chapters, were generally suitable as evidence for common general knowledge, the board noted that an allegation that a teaching was common general knowledge might be supported by specific evidence. The deciding body evaluates such evidence by applying the principle of free evaluation of evidence on a case-by-case basis (G 2/21). The board explained that while it might be relevant that the cited evidence was a "book" or a "textbook", this could not, on its own, be decisive, as no firm rules dictate which types of evidence are convincing.

The board further observed that information often appears in a textbook because it was common general knowledge when the book was drafted. However, this did not mean that all textbook content necessarily was common general knowledge or became so upon publication. In the decision under appeal, the examining division referred to Part G, Chapter VII, 3.1 of the Guidelines, in which it was stated that "[i]nformation does not become common general knowledge because it has been published in a particular textbook, reference work, etc.; on the contrary, it appears in books of this kind because it is already common general knowledge (see T 766/91). This means that the information in such a publication must have already become part of common general knowledge some time before the date of publication". The board noted however, that the cited decision T 766/91 only described what is "normally" accepted and what is "usually" the case. In a statement according to Art. 20(2) RPBA, the board explained that the Guidelines had lost this nuance when saying "must" in the passage cited above.

Regarding the examining division's reliance on chapters of D5 as evidence of alleged common general knowledge, the board considered the examining division's reasoning to be insufficient regarding what alleged common general knowledge it was relying on (R. 111(2) EPC). For instance, the examining division referred merely to the "known paradigm of message-based grid computing" without indicating which features of this paradigm were considered to be common general knowledge, despite appearing to rely on more than the knowledge of the existence of that paradigm when considering that all the features relating to the processing pipeline "form part of the common general knowledge of the skilled person".

Thus, the board concluded that the first-instance decision was not sufficiently reasoned within the meaning of R. 111(2) EPC. The case was remitted to the examining division for further prosecution under Art. 111(1), second sentence, EPC and Art. 11 RPBA and the appeal fee was reimbursed under R. 103(1)(a) EPC.

In T 1841/23 the board had accelerated the appeal proceedings due to parallel infringement proceedings before the Unified Patent Court. The board summoned the parties to oral proceedings to be held on 11 December 2024. According to its preliminary opinion, the patent was most likely to be revoked on the ground of added subject-matter. A notice of intervention was filed ca. three weeks before the arranged oral proceedings and the patent proprietor quickly requested their postponement. By communication of 26 November 2024 the board invited the proprietor and opponent 1 to file observations on the notice of intervention by 4 December 2024. Oral proceedings were held on 11 December 2024 as originally scheduled.

According to the board, the proprietor's argument, in effect invoking the right to be heard, that two weeks was an insufficient period to fully respond to the notice of intervention, had no bearing on the question of the date for oral proceedings as governed by Art. 15(2) RPBA. The same applied to its complaint that new arguments were put forward in the notice of intervention, and that the discussion had developed into an intertwined tripartite debate. As the proprietor's core concern was the right to be heard, and since oral proceedings served to protect that very right by providing another opportunity for parties to present their comments, the continuation of the oral proceedings before the board did not adversely affect the parties to the appeal proceedings.

The board also disagreed with the proprietor's suggestion, invoking decision T 1961/09, that continuing the oral proceedings before the board could only be fair to the proprietor if the intervener did not make any submissions at all. The implications of an intervention filed shortly before the arranged oral proceedings had to be determined on a case-by-case basis. In the board’s view, there seemed to be no appreciable disagreement between the two boards in methodological terms. In the present case, unlike the one underlying T 1961/09, the notice of intervention did not raise any further objections or new issues, but only argued on old topics.

The board then moved on to the added subject-matter objections against the patent and concluded that all claim requests were unallowable under Art. 123(2) EPC. After the board reached this conclusion but before any decision was announced, the proprietor submitted a written objection under R. 106 EPC.

The board observed that the proprietor's right to be heard was at the heart of the R. 106 objection. At issue was the decision to revoke the patent because recurring feature F3 was not originally disclosed, thus contravening Art. 123(2) EPC. The board noted that this ground and evidence had been around since the beginning of the opposition proceedings, and the evidence was entirely by the proprietor's own hand. It could not agree with the proprietor's view, namely that any late-refining or further developing of the arguments on the same old ground and evidence would raise concerns with respect to the right to be heard. The board recalled that a first indication of what the board found particularly relevant in this case had already been given in the preliminary opinion, in which the added-matter objection was one of merely two substantive objections addressed. The notice of intervention was evidently never considered relevant as a basis for the decision on the appeal, since an objection being most likely prejudicial to the opposed patent's maintenance was already in the proceedings. The proprietor could not have been taken by surprise by the grounds and evidence forming the basis of the present decision. Moreover, the proprietor had an opportunity to present its comments on them.

While an admissible intervention was to be treated as an opposition (Art. 105(2) EPC), its filing shortly prior to the oral proceedings before a board did not generally excuse the proprietor, and in particular it did not hand them a voucher for more time. Its concrete implications for opposition appeal proceedings were rather to be determined on a case-by-case basis, under the provisions of the EPC and the RPBA. Nor were opposition appeal proceedings designed to serve as a placeholder for tactical considerations in parallel proceedings for infringement. They were rather an existential challenge to the title, on the basis of which enforcement was pursued in the infringement proceedings, and parameters such as legal certainty and procedural economy were also involved. Any difficulties for the proprietor in drafting auxiliary requests that also provided the best scope of protection, considering the ongoing infringement proceedings, were not a reason to delay the opposition appeal proceedings.

For these reasons, which also translated into a lack of "special reasons" under Art. 15(6) RPBA, the board did not refrain from deciding on the appeal on a ground for opposition that appeared also in the notice of intervention. As a result, the objection submitted by the proprietor under R. 106 EPC was dismissed.

In T 1874/23 the board refused the request for re-establishment of rights and, as a consequence, rejected the appeal as inadmissible. The appellant’s request for oral proceedings was found to be obsolete.

The board recalled R. 136(1) EPC and noted that it corresponded to the principle of "Eventualmaxime" under which the request for re-establishment of rights must state all grounds for re-establishment and means of evidence without the possibility of submitting these at a later stage. Only if this requirement for immediate and complete substantiation within the time limit has been fulfilled, it might be permissible to complement the facts and evidence in later submissions, and provided that they do not extend beyond the framework of the previous submissions (e.g. J 19/05). According to the board, this was not the case for the request for re-establishment in the proceedings at hand. As a consequence, no further procedural steps were permissible, notably no further communication by the board and no appointment of oral proceedings. Neither would serve any legitimate purpose. It was not the purpose of oral proceedings in the context of proceedings for re-establishment to give the appellant a (further) chance to substantiate their factual assertions or to provide evidence despite the absence of factual assertions (e.g. J 11/09).

The board stated that it was undisputed that the right to oral proceedings as guaranteed by Art. 116(1) EPC was a cornerstone of proceedings before the EPO. The jurisprudence of the boards generally even followed the assumption of an "absolute" right to oral proceedings upon request as a rule, without room for discussion by the board, and without considering the speedy conduct of the proceedings, equity or procedural economy. However, even this "absolute" right to oral proceedings upon a party's request was subject to inherent restrictions by the EPC and procedural principles generally recognised in the contracting states of the EPO (Art. 125 EPC and J 6/22). Limits to the "absolute" right to oral proceedings had also been recognised in the jurisprudence of the boards (e.g. G 2/19, T 1573/20). Moreover, the boards' jurisprudence had repeatedly emphasised that the requirement of timely legal certainty, in particular in the context of intellectual property rights, was also recognised as a fundamental principle of the EPC. The parties' rights to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, in the context of the RPBA, had also been explicitly underlined by the boards' jurisprudence. In summary, where, as in the present case, oral proceedings served no legitimate purpose, the need for legal certainty in due time trumped and even prevented a board from appointing oral proceedings (J 6/22).

As to the interpretation of Art. 116(1) EPC, the board noted that the jurisprudence of the boards had reiterated the importance of a "dynamic" interpretation of the EPC in light of its object and purpose. In this context, the board referred, among others, to the development of the case law of the ECtHR on Art. 6(1) ECHR, where the ECtHR had also identified occasions where oral proceedings could or even should be dispensed with in pursuit of a party's right to a fair trial. In the board’s view, a literal interpretation of Art. 116(1) EPC conflicted with the legislature's aims when oral proceedings would serve no purpose and thus only prolong proceedings to no one's avail. A literal interpretation of Art. 116(1) EPC thus had to make way for a dynamic and evolutive understanding instead, in light of the provision's object and purpose. The very purpose of Art. 116(1) EPC could be summarised as providing for the essential right to be heard in oral proceedings only in so far as these served a legitimate purpose and thus did not run counter to the need for legal certainty in due time, as a further essential element of a fair trial for all parties.

The board concluded that, at least in the specific circumstances of the case in hand, legal certainty in due time, just as procedural economy, as further essential cornerstones of a fair trial, had to prevail (for essentially the same circumstances see J 6/22). In light of the principles of a fair trial and legal certainty in due time, there was no absolute right to oral proceedings under all circumstances (J 6/22). No oral proceedings had to be appointed in re-establishment proceedings where the "Eventualmaxime" principle would deprive oral proceedings of its very function as a further cornerstone of a fair trial and even run counter to it.

In T 1544/22 the patent proprietor (respondent) submitted a letter, relating inter alia to auxiliary request 2, only two working days before the oral proceedings. They argued that this letter was a direct response to the board's preliminary opinion, which deviated from the impugned decision. According to the patent proprietor, the arguments presented in the letter only elaborated in more detail arguments that had already been presented before. Its aim was to facilitate discussing these arguments during the oral proceedings. Even if the letter had not been filed, its content could have been presented and discussed orally during the oral proceedings. The appellant (opponent 2) took the view that the letter contained a completely new set of arguments, which constituted an amendment to the patent proprietor's appeal case. This amendment would have necessitated contacting a technical expert, which was not possible due to the extremely late submission of the letter.

The board concurred with the patent proprietor that the part of the letter referring to auxiliary request 2 related to arguments considered in the decision under appeal and submitted by the patent proprietor during the written phase of the appeal proceedings (with its reply to the grounds of appeal of opponent 2). In fact, the patent proprietor had already addressed the issues explained in the letter, namely the technical effect of a certain feature and how it was advantageous over the prior art. The late-filed letter merely elaborated these arguments in more detail, as submitted by the patent proprietor. The board held that such a refinement of previously submitted arguments which further illustrated a party's position had to be allowed, especially when, as in the case at hand, the refinement of arguments concerned points where the board's preliminary opinion differed from the impugned decision. Otherwise, the parties could only repeat their arguments put forward in the statement of grounds of appeal and the reply thereto. The board agreed with T 247/20 that oral proceedings, to which the parties had an absolute right under Art. 116 EPC, would serve no purpose if such refinements were not allowed.

The board concluded that the arguments discussed in the late-filed letter relating to auxiliary request 2 were not new arguments and did not represent a fresh case, contrary to opponent 2's submissions. Instead, they concerned further refinements of arguments already addressed in the impugned decision (Art. 12(2) RPBA) and previously presented during the appeal proceedings (Art. 12(3) RPBA). Thus, they did not constitute an amendment to the appeal case as referred to in Art. 12(4), 13(1) and (2) RPBA. Therefore these (very late) submissions had to be considered in the case at hand.

However, the board also stressed that the preliminary opinion of the board had been communicated to the parties more than four months prior to the oral proceedings. Given that the letter in question had been submitted/received in practical terms only two days before the oral proceedings (i.e. on Monday 3 February 2025), the board agreed with opponent 2 that it had been filed extremely late. In addition, the board was of the opinion that the patent proprietor could and should have presented the arguments contained in the late-filed letter earlier in the proceedings. By submitting late-filed arguments with such a high level of detail at such a short notice – two days before the oral proceedings – the patent proprietor had unfairly put opponent 2 in an unnecessarily unfavourable position.

In view of this particular situation, the board had given opponent 2 the opportunity to request an adjournment of the oral proceedings and indicated that it was favourably disposed towards such a request. After opponent 2 had not requested an adjournment of the oral proceedings but preferred to continue them, the board did not consider it necessary to discuss the original accusation of abuse of procedure submitted by this party.

In the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal in T 1588/22, the examining division had issued a communication on 27 July 2021. The last paragraph of the communication had read as follows: "The applicant may choose to amend the claim set as previously proposed by the examining division (see the text intended for grant dated 01.06.2021) and thereby lead to the grant of the present application. They may also choose to submit further arguments along with a new claim set satisfying the requirements of EPC. In the latter case the applicant is kindly reminded that the examination procedure would continue with oral proceedings for the sake of efficiency and better communication." On 6 November 2021 the applicant (appellant) had filed a reply to the communication and a new set of claims. On 24 November 2021, the applicant had filed a new set of claims identical to the set of claims filed on 6 November 2021. Upon an enquiry by the applicant as to when the EPO would deliver the next communication, the examining division had issued on 7 December 2021 a communication and stated that it would issue a communication within two months. On 5 January 2022, the examining division issued a decision refusing the application based on the claims filed on 24 November 2021.

The board recalled that in line with the established case law of the boards, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations applied in proceedings pursuant to the EPC. Its application to procedures before the EPO implied that measures taken by the EPO should not violate the reasonable expectations of parties to such proceedings (G 2/97). It required that communications addressed to applicants be clear and unambiguous, i.e. drafted in such a way as to rule out misunderstandings on the part of a reasonable addressee (J 3/24).

According to the board the examining division's announcement in its communication of 27 July 2021, that the appellant "may also choose to submit further arguments along with a new claim set satisfying the requirements of EPC. In the latter case the applicant is kindly reminded that the examination procedure would continue with oral proceedings for the sake of efficiency and better communication" appeared nonsensical or at least misleading in the given circumstances. The only way for the appellant to make sense of this statement was to assume that it referred to a situation where a new claim set was filed that would not meet the requirements of the EPC, in which case the proceedings would be continued with the holding of oral proceedings. This created the legitimate expectation on the appellant's part that, after having filed a new set of claims on 6 November 2021 (refiled on 24 November 2021), these would either be found allowable or oral proceedings would be held and that, in the latter case, the appellant would have the opportunity to provide, during the oral proceedings, submissions on the allowability of this set of claims. The appellant could not have expected as the next action of the examining division that a decision refusing the patent application would be issued. According to the board, this was exacerbated by the communication of 7 December 2021 informing that the examining division would "supply a communication within 2 months".

The board inferred from these events that instant issuance of the decision refusing the application had been a surprise for the appellant. Thus, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations had not been observed in the case at hand.

The board concluded that in view of the legitimate expectations created by the examining division, the appellant had had to assume that she would be given a further opportunity to provide counterarguments or submit amendments prior to any decision to refuse her application. The board held that the issuance of the decision refusing the patent application without holding oral proceedings or issuing a further communication as announced had thus had the effect of depriving the appellant of any such further possibility to provide comments. Consequently, the appellant's right to be heard had been violated (Art. 113(1) EPC). The examining division's decision to refuse the application thus constituted a substantial procedural violation.

The board decided to set aside the appealed decision and to remit the case to the examining division for further prosecution. Furthermore, it considered reimbursement of the appeal fee under R. 103(1)(a) EPC equitable.