V. VERFAHREN VOR DEN BESCHWERDEKAMMERN

In T 1296/23 the board pointed out that requests filed during the first-instance proceedings on which the department of first instance had taken no decision were not automatically part of the appeal proceedings. The board had an obligation to review the decision under appeal (Art. 12(2) RPBA; see also T 1309/16 and T 1943/16). This obligation, however, did not extend to auxiliary requests, which were not amongst the requests on which the decision under appeal was based (Art. 12(2) RPBA). That some of these requests might have been "admissibly raised" within the meaning of Art. 12(4) RPBA was immaterial in this regard, unless they had also been expressly maintained on appeal.

In the case in hand, the decision under review was the interlocutory decision of the opposition division to maintain the patent on the basis of auxiliary request 2. Auxiliary requests 3 to 9 filed before the opposition division were only mentioned in the facts and submissions of the decision under appeal. The respondent (proprietor) made no specific requests. Since it countered the appellant's arguments why auxiliary request 2 did not comply with the EPC, the board understood the respondent's (sole) request to be that the appeal be dismissed. This was also noted in the communication under Art. 15(1) RPBA. The board's assessment of the respondent's request(s) remained uncontested until the oral proceedings. In the board's view, the absence of such an objection could be considered as a silent acknowledgment that, when filing its response to the appeal (and in fact at any time before the oral proceedings took place), the respondent only requested maintenance of the patent on the basis of auxiliary request 2. As noted by the board, auxiliary requests 3 to 9 were at the very least not expressly part of the reply to the statement of grounds of appeal and therefore not amongst the requests defining the respondent's case according to Art. 12(3) RPBA.

Only at the oral proceedings did the respondent submit that they had considered auxiliary requests 3 to 9 to be part of the appeal proceedings given that they were mentioned in the decision under appeal and in the appellant's rejoinder. The board did not agree. It pointed out that it was apparent from the summary of facts and submissions and the absence of reasons given in the decision under appeal in respect of those requests that they did not form part of the basis for that decision within the meaning of Art. 12(1)(a) and 12(2) RPBA. The board also noted that nothing in the appellant's rejoinder indicated that the appellant would have understood that said requests were also part of the appeal proceedings.

The board concluded that auxiliary requests 3 to 9 were made for the first time in the oral proceedings before the board. They therefore constituted an amendment under Art. 13(2) RPBA. The board did not consider the explanation given by the respondent for filing these requests only at the oral proceedings to identify exceptional circumstances. It further explained that the re-introduction of said requests and any reasons relating to such requests at such a late stage of the appeal proceedings would contravene the principle of procedural economy, if only because their admittance would have required either a postponement of the oral proceedings or a remittal to the department of first instance. The board decided, therefore, not to take into account auxiliary requests 3 to 9 in the appeal proceedings.

In T 644/24 hatte die Kammer zu prüfen, ob die von der Beschwerdeführerin erstmals im Beschwerdeverfahren erhobenen Einwände unzureichender Offenbarung und unzulässiger Erweiterung als neue Einspruchsgründe im Sinne von G 10/91, Nr. 3 des Tenors anzusehen waren.

Die Kammer erinnerte eingangs daran, dass im Beschwerdeverfahren neue Einspruchsgründe nur mit dem Einverständnis des Patentinhabers geprüft werden dürfen (G 10/91, Nr. 3 des Tenors). Zugleich sind Änderungen der Ansprüche oder anderer Teile eines Patents, die im Einspruchs- oder Beschwerdeverfahren vorgenommen werden, im Beschwerdeverfahren in vollem Umfang auf die Erfüllung der Erfordernisse des EPÜ wie z. B. des Art. 123 (2) EPÜ überprüfbar (G 10/91, Nr. 19 der Gründe). Die Kammer schlussfolgerte, dass Art. 100 c) EPÜ im Beschwerdeverfahren daher nicht angewendet und das Patent wie erteilt nicht auf eine unzulässige Erweiterung geprüft werden darf, wenn der Einspruchsgrund nach Art. 100 c) EPÜ im Einspruchsverfahren nicht erhoben wurde und der Patentinhaber der Prüfung nicht zustimmt. Änderungen des Patents im Einspruchs- und Beschwerdeverfahren können im Beschwerdeverfahren unter Anwendung von Art. 123 (2) EPÜ hingegen auch ohne Zustimmung des Patentinhabers bezüglich des Vorliegens einer unzulässigen Erweiterung geprüft werden.

Des Weiteren stellte die Kammer fest, dass in G 10/91 nicht erörtert wird, ob ein geänderter Patentanspruch im Einspruchs- oder Beschwerdeverfahren nach Art. 123 (2) EPÜ zur Gänze bezüglich einer unzulässigen Erweiterung geprüft werden darf oder nur bezüglich unzulässiger Erweiterungen, die von der Änderung herbeigeführt wurden. Nach Ansicht der Kammer ist Letzteres der Fall. Zum Einen spricht G 10/91, Nr. 19 der Gründe, nicht von "geänderten Ansprüchen", sondern von "Änderungen der Ansprüche", die auf die Erfüllung des Erfordernisses von Art. 123 (2) EPÜ zu prüfen sind. Zum Anderen greift das in G 10/91, Nr. 18 der Gründe genannte Verbot der Einführung neuer Einspruchsgründe im Beschwerdeverfahren ohne Zustimmung des Patentinhabers.

Ähnliche Überlegungen gelten für den Einspruchsgrund nach Art. 100 b) EPÜ, der nach Ansicht der Kammer als eigenständige materiellrechtliche Norm für das Erfordernis der ausreichenden Offenbarung bzw. der Ausführbarkeit bezüglich des Patents wie erteilt anzusehen ist. Unter Berücksichtigung des für das gesamte Patentsystem grundlegenden Zwecks von Art. 83 EPÜ muss in teleologischer Hinsicht davon ausgegangen werden, dass das Erfordernis der ausreichenden Offenbarung auch für das geänderte Patent gelten muss. Die Große Beschwerdekammer stellte dies im Rahmen von G 3/14, Nr. 77 fest, wo Art. 83 EPÜ unter den Erfordernissen des EPÜ genannt wird, "die eindeutig unter Art. 101 (3) EPÜ fallen". In Nr. 76 der Gründe stellte sie unter Verweis auf G 10/91 zudem klar, dass ein Einwand nicht ausreichender Offenbarung im Beschwerdeverfahren ohne Einverständnis des Patentinhabers nur im Hinblick auf die Änderung im engeren Sinn, nicht aber im Hinblick auf "das gesamte Patent [...] oder [...] den [gesamten] geänderten Anspruch" geprüft werden darf. Der Kammer zufolge entspricht diese Überlegung auch der Kernaussage zur Auslegung von Art. 101 (3) EPÜ und Art. 84 EPÜ in G 3/14. Die Zusammenschau von Tenor und Nr. 76 der Gründe zeige auf, dass die Große Beschwerdekammer den Umstand, dass Art. 84 EPÜ kein Einspruchsgrund ist und den Umstand, dass ein zuvor nicht erhobener Einspruchsgrund nach Art. 100 b) EPÜ gemäß G 10/91 im Beschwerdeverfahren ohne Einverständnis des Patentinhabers nicht geprüft werden darf, für das Beschwerdeverfahren im Ergebnis gleichgesetzt hat. Die Kammer befand daher, dass das Ausmaß der Prüfungsbefugnis bezüglich unzureichender Offenbarung beim geänderten Patent dem Ausmaß bezüglich unzulässiger Erweiterung entspricht. Wurden die Einspruchsgründe nach Art. 100 b) und c) EPÜ im Einspruchsverfahren nicht erhoben und erteilt der Patentinhaber nicht sein Einverständnis zu deren Prüfung, darf der Kammer zufolge im Beschwerdeverfahren das Patent im Fall einer Änderung im Einspruchs- oder Beschwerdeverfahren daher nicht in seiner Gesamtheit, sondern nur insoweit auf unzureichende Offenbarung und unzulässige Erweiterung geprüft werden, als die Änderung diese herbeiführt.

Im Übrigen hob die Kammer hervor, dass im Einspruchsverfahren zu berücksichtigen ist, dass die Einspruchsabteilung die Möglichkeit hat, ausnahmsweise auch neue Einspruchsgründe in das Einspruchsverfahren einzuführen. Da dies bereits für das Patent wie erteilt gilt, ist die Einspruchsabteilung in Anwendung des Art. 114 (1) EPÜ nicht darin gehindert, das geänderte Patent in seiner Gesamtheit zu prüfen.

The petition in R 16/23 concerned decision J 6/22 with which the Legal Board of Appeal (the "Legal Board") rejected the petitioner's request for re-establishment of rights and rejected the appeal as inadmissible. The petitioner argued that the Legal Board had failed, contrary to Art. 116 EPC, to arrange for the holding of oral proceedings requested by the petitioner, which represented a fundamental procedural defect within the meaning of Art. 112a(2)(d) EPC and R. 104(a) EPC. Furthermore, the decision was based on grounds or evidence on which the petitioner had not had any opportunity to comment, representing a fundamental violation of Art. 113(1) EPC within the meaning of Art. 112a(2)(c) EPC. The petitioner submitted, inter alia, that the conclusions in the decision under review that procedural economy had been a justification for denying the petitioner's right to an oral hearing were contrary to the established case law of the Boards of Appeal.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (the "EBA") as composed under R. 109(2)(b) EPC held that, according to the wording of Art. 116 EPC, the aspect of expediency referred only to the first alternative, where oral proceedings take place at the EPO's own initiative. Thus, the department concerned with a request for oral proceedings made by a party to the proceedings had no discretion over whether oral proceedings take place.

The EBA also recalled that the right to request oral proceedings included the right for the party requesting them merely to present orally what it had already submitted in writing (see R 3/10). It held that Art. 116(1) EPC, taking into account the purpose of this provision, was thus intended to ensure that a party was entitled, upon request, to make oral submissions prior to a decision which adversely affected that party.

The EBA agreed with the decision under review in that the case law of the Boards of Appeal had established that, in specific situations which may be considered as covered by the wording of Art. 116(1) EPC, a decision taken without prior oral proceedings despite a request for oral proceeding having been made could be considered as not being in conflict with that provision. It found, however, that the situation underlying the decision under review did not fall under any of the categories established in the case law.

Furthermore, the EBA saw no indication that a dynamic interpretation could lead to the conclusion that Art. 116(1) EPC left room for weighing up, on the one hand, the petitioner's right to present the case orally before the adverse decision had been taken and, on the other hand, aspects relating to the expeditious conduct of the appeal proceedings, legal certainty or the prospects of success of the petitioner's appeal, or to a conclusion that the Legal Board had not been obliged to arrange for the holding of oral proceedings requested by the petitioner. The EBA was not persuaded that the considerations relied upon in the decision under review could lead to the result that the requested oral proceedings had not been mandatory under Art. 116(1) EPC, nor that the petitioner's right to oral proceedings could be balanced against considerations relating to the requirement of timely legal certainty or procedural economy.

The EBA concluded that the Legal Board's failure to arrange for the holding of the oral proceedings had been contrary to Art. 116 EPC and, in view of this, a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 112a(2)(d) EPC had occurred.

According to the EBA, in the case underlying the petition for review, the issues in relation to which oral proceedings had been requested and the final decision had been linked. Hence, the procedural defect of not arranging for the holding of oral proceedings, contrary to Art. 116 EPC, had been a fundamental one within the meaning of Art. 112a(2)(d) EPC in conjunction with R. 104(a) EPC. To arrive at this conclusion, the EBA, in particular, did not have to additionally assess whether the outcome of the decision under review could or would have been different if the procedural defect of not arranging for the holding of oral proceedings had not occurred. According to the EBA, this approach was in line with the case law of the Boards of Appeal, including the EBA (R 3/10).

As a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 112a(2)(d) EPC in conjunction with R. 104(a) EPC had been established, the petition for review was considered allowable. According to the EBA the further ground for the petition (fundamental violation of Art. 113(1) EPC) did not need to be addressed. The decision under review was set aside and the proceedings before the board re-opened.

In T 246/23 of 11 March 2026 the board rejected the objection under Art. 24(3) EPC and refused the opponent's request for cost apportionment.

During the oral proceedings in T 246/23 of 7 August 2025, when the debate on auxiliary request 5 was opened, the board in its original composition (the "original board") had informed the parties of its preliminary view that the request contravened the principle of no reformatio in peius. The patent proprietor (respondent) had then raised an objection of suspected partiality against all board members, arguing that an objection based on this principle could only be raised by another party, not by the board. It submitted that, since the board had raised the objection ex officio, it was "on the side" of the opponent (appellant) and thus suspected to be partial. The original board had found the objection admissible and the composition of the board was changed for the purposes of a decision on the objection under Art. 24(3) EPC (the board in its new composition in the following referred to as "the board").

The board noted that, on the substance of the objection, the respondent relied on two core arguments, neither of which was convincing: (1) that the specific nature of the prohibition of reformatio in peius prevented the board from raising it ex officio, and (2) that established case law supported this view.

On (1), the board stated that the prohibition of reformatio in peius is not so exceptional as to completely escape the board's powers under Art. 114 EPC. It noted that any objection raised by the board ex officio in an inter-partes procedure can be perceived as being in a certain contradiction with the board's obligation to remain neutral towards the parties. However, if the parties were free to raise the objection of suspicion of partiality in all cases where a board exercises its powers under Art. 114 EPC, such powers would be effectively eliminated. The board also rejected the argument that raising the prohibition ex officio contradicts the principle of party disposition. This principle concerned the substantive outcome of proceedings, i.e. the scope of the legal effects sought, and did not extend to the legal arguments raised by either the parties or the court for achieving the requested legal effects. In the present case, the opponent requested the revocation of the patent, and the original board's finding that auxiliary request 5 was not allowable, for whatever reason, was clearly within the scope of the appellant's appeal request for revocation.

On (2), the board pointed out that there was no settled case law forbidding the board from raising the objection ex officio. It added that this could not even be derived from cited decision T 1544/07. In its view, T 1544/07 only found that the deciding board had no obligation to raise the objection under the special circumstances of that case, where the opponent itself had explicitly waived the right to raise it. The decision did not state that a board is prevented from raising the objection ex officio as a question of principle. Rather, it appeared to suggest that a board may, but need not, raise it where the affected party renounces this defence. A far stricter position was taken in T 882/17, cited by the opponent, where the deciding board disagreed with T 1544/07 and unambiguously stated that the board not just may, but must take the prohibition into account, and also ex officio. This decision was followed by other decisions (T 1773/22, T 1472/21).

The board explained that, to decide the issue before it (i.e. the objection of suspected partiality) it was sufficient to establish that, contrary to the proprietor's argument, case law was far from settled. The mere existence of another line of case law, T 882/17, recognising the board's entitlement to raise the prohibition objection, was sufficient to establish that the original board could not be considered partial solely for raising the objection. According to the board, a board of appeal is always entitled and in fact obliged to examine the boundaries of its own powers to raise an ex officio objection. If necessary, it is also entitled to question findings of previous decisions on the same issue. The original board was under no obligation to seek the proprietor's permission or to maintain the objection only contingent on the opponent's intention to pursue it.

The board concluded that the objection under Art. 24(3) EPC was unsubstantiated. It also refused the opponent's request for cost apportionment, noting that it could not qualify the procedural conduct of the proprietor as an abuse of procedure.

Dans l’affaire T 1857/23, la veille de la procédure orale devant la chambre de recours, la titulaire a déposé un courrier dans lequel elle demandait que des questions – concernant les conséquences de la perte d'une requête présentée devant la division d'opposition et les responsabilités pour la conservation d’une requête déposée – soient soumises à la Grande Chambre de recours au titre de l’art. 112(1)a) CBE. Ces questions de saisine s'inscrivaient dans le contexte suivant : selon l'avis de la chambre dans une première procédure de recours, la division d'opposition avait commis un vice substantiel de procédure en ne consignant pas au dossier une requête subsidiaire non admise. Dans la procédure d'opposition réouverte et le recours suivant, l'opposante avait déposé une requête en répartition différente des frais pour abus de procédure de la part de la titulaire qui n'était pas en mesure de produire un exemplaire de la requête non admise. Cependant la titulaire avait fait valoir que l'opposante avait également une part de responsabilité.

Sur la question de savoir si cette requête en saisine constituait une "modification des moyens" au sens de l'art. 13(2) RPCR, la chambre a considéré qu’une requête en saisine de la Grande Chambre de recours au titre de l'art. 112(1)a) CBE contient non seulement des observations purement juridiques, mais aussi, toujours, des éléments de fait selon lesquels une application uniforme du droit doit être assurée ou selon lesquels une question de droit d'importance fondamentale se pose. Une requête tardive en saisine de la Grande Chambre de recours devait donc toujours être considérée comme une "modification des moyens".

La chambre a ensuite rappelé que l'art. 13(2) RPCR impose à la partie non seulement l'obligation d'expliquer la raison pour laquelle l'affaire comporte des circonstances exceptionnelles, mais également la raison pour laquelle sa modification, aussi bien par son contenu que par la date à laquelle elle a été déposée, constitue une réponse justifiée à ces circonstances. En particulier, lorsqu'une partie tente de modifier ses moyens à un stade très avancé de la procédure, les raisons convaincantes visées par l'art. 13(2) RPCR doivent justifier de l'impossibilité de déposer la modification antérieurement (cf. T 1707/17, T 2795/19).

La chambre a relevé qu’en l’espèce, la question de la répartition différente des frais avait déjà été soulevée dans la réponse de l'opposante au mémoire exposant les motifs du recours, de sorte que la titulaire aurait pu, en temps utile, prendre position à ce sujet et renvoyer à la jurisprudence qu'elle jugeait pertinente. La titulaire n'avait pas indiqué de raisons pour lesquelles elle n'avait déposé sa requête en saisine que la veille de la procédure orale. Dans ces conditions, selon la chambre, ni l'opposante ni la chambre n'ont pu examiner cette requête de manière adéquate. Vu ces circonstances, la chambre a exercé son pouvoir d'appréciation en vertu de l'art. 13(2) RPCR en ne prenant pas en compte la requête en saisine présentée par la titulaire.

In T 1319/23 the appeal lay from the decision of the opposition division revoking the European patent concerned. According to the appealed decision neither the main request nor auxiliary request 1 met the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure. One of the main points of dispute between the parties during the opposition proceedings related to the impossibility to perform TREF measurements with a particular solvent in a certain temperature range.

In its statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant (proprietor) submitted two lines of argument regarding sufficiency of disclosure. In section C.1, it argued that the arguments retained by the opposition division to reach their decision on this point were related to a potential clarity issue rather than sufficiency of disclosure. In section C.4, it submitted that even if the issue identified in the appealed decision related to sufficiency of disclosure, these concerns were irrelevant for most polymers and at most would affect the extreme boundaries of the claim. The board observed that undisputedly the appellant had not put forward these arguments during the opposition proceedings and concluded that they constituted an amendment to the appellant’s case (Art. 12(2) and (4) RPBA). Their admittance was therefore at the board’s discretion pursuant to Art. 12(4) and (6) RPBA.

Considering that the main request is the patent as granted, the board agreed with the respondent that these arguments could have been submitted earlier.

However, in the board’s view, the appellant was not using the arguments in section C.4 to build a fresh case in appeal. Rather they were strictly linked to a central point of the decision under appeal and merely represented a further development of an existing line of argument, which remained within the same framework of the line of defence adopted in opposition proceedings. In certain aspects, they were also a response to specific concerns expressed by the opposition division in the impugned decision.

Moreover, the board considered that whether an objection relates to clarity or sufficiency of disclosure was a purely legal issue. Contrary to the respondent's view, it could not be disregarded since it was the board's duty to ensure that the parties address the correct legal basis during the proceedings and that this legal basis is the one eventually considered when reaching a decision on the disputed issue. In this regard, the board agreed with the appellant that these arguments concerned the correct application of the law to the underlying facts and were not directed to the presentation of new facts. The board also noted that Art. 12(4) RPBA, which states that the board should, when exercising its discretion, take into account the complexity of the amendment, could not be interpreted as meaning that such additional arguments should be disregarded automatically because of this inherent increased complexity.

In view of the above, the board decided to exercise its discretion pursuant to Art. 12(4) RPBA to admit into the proceedings the arguments put forward by the appellant in sections C.1 and C.4 of the statement of grounds of appeal. Based on these arguments, the board concluded that the issue related to the impossibility to perform TREF measurements in a certain (marginal) temperature range, did not amount to a lack of sufficiency of disclosure pursuant to Art. 100(b) EPC and remitted the case for further prosecution.

In T 837/24 the board dealt with two issues of admittance, the first being the admittance of an objection under Art. 123(2) EPC against the main request on appeal (identical to the "first auxiliary request" maintained by the opposition division). In the proceedings before the opposition division the opponent had raised this objection for the first time in response to the communication under R. 115(1) EPC against features of claim 1 of the then main request (patent as granted). These features were partly present also in "auxiliary request 1", the later main request. This new objection was not admitted by the opposition division based on a prima facie assessment. With regard to the first auxiliary request (main request on appeal) the decision under appeal merely indicated that the opposition division considered the subject-matter of claims 1 and 7 to be "compliant with the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC [...] for the same reasons as already provided in the context of the claims 1 and 7 of the patent", thus suggesting that the opposition division had conducted an assessment on added-matter in full, without however providing a different reasoning on that issue.

The board pointed out that, since compliance of auxiliary request 1 could not have been established without admitting the objection with respect to the then "main request", the decision under appeal was manifestly inconsistent. Moreover, the minutes of the oral proceedings before the opposition division stated the same facts. It could thus not be determined with certainty whether or not the opposition division had indeed admitted the opponent's late-filed objection into the proceedings. The board held that, to ensure the parties' right to be heard, at the oral proceedings before it, it first had to discuss and decide on the admittance of the late-filed objection under Art. 123(2) EPC.

The board found that, regardless of whether the opposition division committed an "error" when exercising its discretion within the meaning of Art. 12(6), first sentence, RPBA and irrespective of whether the added-matter objection was indeed admitted by the opposition division into the opposition proceedings, at least the "circumstances of the appeal case" justified admitting the late-filed objection into the appeal proceedings, inter alia for the following reasons. The claim construction argued by the opponent was technically meaningful and when the claim was so construed there was indeed no basis in the application as filed. In consequence, the late-filed objection was indeed prima facie highly relevant to the appeal case. Moreover, both parties had already discussed that issue in full in their first submissions on appeal and were thus in a position to present their full case on this issue. Regarding the proprietor’s argument that the opponent had not requested, during the appeal proceedings, admittance of this objection, the board considered that the opponent could have reasonably assumed that the objection was part of the proceedings. With regard to the proprietor’s argument that the opposition division had based its prima facie assessment on an interpretation of claim 1 initially also accepted by the opponent, the board pointed out that claim interpretation as such was a matter of law and could change as the proceedings evolve (see R 25/22, R 14/23). Moreover, a technically meaningful claim interpretation should not be ignored by a deciding body.

The second admittance issue dealt with by the board concerned auxiliary requests M-A and M-B filed in reaction to the board's preliminary opinion issued under Art. 15(1) RPBA. The board first recalled that a party prevailing in opposition proceedings is not relieved from its duty to timely prepare its case for the event of subsequent appeal proceedings. Indeed, each party should take into account that a board may depart from the preliminary view or decision issued by the first-instance department (e.g. T 614/21 and T 764/16), in particular when it comes to claim construction. However, the board concurred with the proprietor that it could not be objectively taken from the appealed decision whether the added-matter objection had been admitted into the opposition proceedings. It held that a self-contradicting or inconsistent decision of an opposition division may in itself constitute "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of Art. 13(2) RPBA. Furthermore, there was also a causal link between the filing of auxiliary requests M-A and M-B, i.e. the amendment of the proprietor's appeal case, and the contradictory information as contained in the decision under appeal. The board thus decided to admit auxiliary requests M-A and M-B into the appeal proceedings in view of these exceptional circumstances.

In T 1223/23 the opposition division had come to the conclusion that claim 1 of the patent as granted was not new in view of document D2. During the oral proceedings before the board, the appellant (proprietor) submitted for the first time in appeal proceedings that D2 based on a new interpretation could not be relevant to the novelty assessment of the subject-matter of claim 1. The respondent (opponent) requested that this fresh argument not be admitted into the appeal proceedings, because it was raised at a very late stage and should have been submitted earlier.

The board first pointed out that, while the appellant's submission did not introduce any new facts or evidence, Art. 12(3) RPBA made clear that arguments also formed part of a party's case, and that a late-filed argument could therefore qualify as an "amendment" under Art. 13(2) RPBA, the admission of which being at the board's discretion. The board then mentioned the case law denying discretion to disregard (certain) late arguments in view of the wording of Art. 114(2) EPC (T 1914/12 and the decisions cited therein as well as T 1617/23 concurring with this line with certain reservations) but could leave open whether this case law was persuasive..

The board held that even on the assumption that the board had discretion not to admit a late-filed argument, there would be no justification to exercise it here. Once the parties had submitted the relevant claim requests and documents and presented their arguments on them, the board had to resolve a number of legal issues falling under its judicial responsibility. These included the interpretation of the claims, the construction of the relevant (prior-art) documents and the proper assessment of their disclosure from the perspective of a skilled person in the respective field. If the board became aware, even at a late stage, that its previous interpretation of a (prior-art) document or a claim from the perspective of the skilled person, or its understanding of a prior-art technical teaching, was wrong, in the present board's view, it had a duty to correct that error. This applied irrespective of whether the new understanding arose from the board's own analysis or from a party's new submission.

As explained by the board, in the present case, to disregard the appellant's argument and keep its original understanding of the disclosure in D2 would have forced the board to base its decision on an interpretation which it considered erroneous. The procedural framework of the appeal proceedings aimed to secure efficient and fair proceedings, but also to guarantee that the decisions, based on the facts and evidence adduced, were substantively correct. In other words, a (technically) correct interpretation of a prior-art document took precedence over formal or procedural considerations here. For this reason, once convinced by the appellant's submission, the board adopted it in its assessment of the present case. In view of the above, the new argument was admitted into the appeal proceedings and the respondent's request in that regard rejected. The case is remitted to the opposition division for further prosecution.

In T 396/23 the patent proprietor requested at the oral proceedings that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained on the basis of the main request or on the basis of one of the auxiliary requests 1 to 16 as filed with its statement of grounds of appeal, or auxiliary requests 17 to 20 as filed with its reply to the opponent's appeal, or auxiliary requests 21 to 40 as filed in reply to the opponent’s rejoinder, or auxiliary request 41 or 42 as filed in reply to the communication under Art. 15(1) RPBA.

At the oral proceedings the board came to the conclusion that claims 1, 2 and 3 of the main request did not meet the requirements of Art. 83 EPC. Neither did auxiliary requests 1 to 40 which contained the features at issue. The subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request was also found to lack novelty over D1.

With regard to admittance of auxiliary request 41, the board observed that, when exercising its discretion under Art. 13(2) RPBA, it may also rely on the criteria set out in Art. 13(1) RPBA.

Auxiliary request 41 corresponded to auxiliary request 18 filed with the proprietor’s reply to the opponent’s statement of grounds of appeal, but with claims 1 and 2 removed. The remaining claim of auxiliary request 18, claim 3, was based on independent claim 16 as originally filed, i.e. it had been in the proceedings as an independent claim throughout (although it comprised all of the features of another independent claim). The board underlined that, by drafting claim 3 as one of three independent claims and by presenting arguments in respect of its patentability, the proprietor had clearly indicated its intention to defend this embodiment. Hence, the filing of auxiliary request 41 did not result in a situation for which the opponent or the board were unprepared.

The board pointed out that the admittance of auxiliary request 41 did not change the legal or factual framework of the case and did not require any new substantive discussion. A claim including the restriction contained in the sole claim of auxiliary request 41 had been included in the independent claims ever since the reply to the notice of opposition. A claim including two further features at issue of the sole claim had likewise been on file since the reply to the notice of opposition and had been discussed in the written proceedings. Indeed, the submission of auxiliary request 41 merely served to remove some of the points of dispute, without introducing any new aspect to be discussed, thus improving procedural economy.

The board concluded that the admittance of auxiliary request 41 was compatible with the principles of both procedural economy and procedural fairness and did not change or add anything to the subject of the appeal proceedings. In other cases where new requests were filed that satisfied these conditions, a considerable amount of case law had concluded that there were exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Art. 13(2) RPBA justifying the admittance of the new requests (see e.g. T 2022/22 and the decisions cited therein). The board therefore decided, in view of the circumstances above, to admit auxiliary request 41 into the appeal proceedings.

Since auxiliary request 41 was found to be novel and inventive, the case was remitted to the opposition division with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of auxiliary request 41 and a description to be adapted thereto.

Im Verfahren T 1865/23 hatte die Kammer die Frage zu prüfen, ob der erstmals mit der Beschwerdeerwiderung der Patentinhaberin eingereichte Hilfsantrag 10, der somit als Änderung im Sinne von Art. 12 (4) VOBK angesehen wurde, schon im Einspruchsverfahren hätte eingereicht werden müssen. Die Einsprechenden argumentierten, dies sei der Fall, da die getätigten Änderungen Einwände beträfen, welche schon in der Einspruchsschrift erhoben worden seien. Sie verwiesen in diesem Zusammenhang auf T 1188/16.

Die Kammer teilte die Auffassung der Einsprechenden jedoch nicht. Sie hob hervor, dass die zuständige Kammer in T 1188/16 befand, dass der Hauptantrag schon im Einspruchsverfahren hätte eingereicht werden müssen, da die Einspruchsabteilung in der mündlichen Verhandlung eine unzulässige Änderung bemängelt hatte. Im vorliegenden Fall sei der Sachverhalt jedoch anders..

Die Kammer erläuterte, dass die Einsprechende 1 innerhalb der Einspruchsfrist zwar u.a. bemängelt hatte, dass eine unzulässige Zwischenverallgemeinerung vorliege. In ihrer Erwiderung darauf hatte die Patentinhaberin dies aber bestritten und die Einspruchsabteilung hatte ihr in ihrer vorläufigen Meinung zugestimmt und diese Ansicht auch in der angefochtenen Entscheidung vertreten. Nach Ansicht der Kammer gab es daher keinen Grund, den Hilfsantrag 10 schon im Einspruchsverfahren einzureichen. Da die Ansprüche 1 und 3 des Hilfsantrags 10 die gemäß Art. 123 (2) EPÜ gegen den Hauptantrag erhobenen Einwände beheben konnten, ließ die Kammer den Hilfsantrag 10 zum Beschwerdeverfahren gemäß Art. 12 (4) VOBK zu.

Im Verfahren T 1125/23 wurde der Hauptantrag der Beschwerdeführerin (Patentinhaberin) unstrittig erstmals mit der Beschwerdebegründung vorgelegt. Er unterschied sich von den Ansprüchen des erteilten Patents lediglich in der Streichung des abhängigen Anspruchs 4. Die Beschwerdegegnerin beantragte, den Hauptantrag nach Art. 12 (6) VOBK nicht im Beschwerdeverfahren zuzulassen..

Die Beschwerdeführerin trug vor, durch die Streichung des Anspruchs 4 werde der einzige Einwand, auf dem die angefochtene Entscheidung hinsichtlich des Patents in der erteilten Fassung beruhe, ausgeräumt. Wie von der Kammer festgestellt, war allerdings unstreitig, dass der Einwand der mangelnden Ausführbarkeit gegen den Anspruch 4 des erteilten Patents, auf dem die angefochtene Entscheidung hinsichtlich des Patents in der erteilten Fassung beruhte, bereits in der Einspruchsschrift erhoben worden. Die Einspruchsabteilung befand diesen Einwand in ihrer der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung beigefügten Mitteilung vorläufig für überzeugend. Die dort angeführten Gründe übernahm die Einspruchsabteilung auch in der angefochtenen Entscheidung als tragende Gründe. Sie ging lediglich ergänzend auf Gegenargumente der Beschwerdeführerin ein, ohne dass dies aber nach Ansicht der Kammer zu einer Änderung der Argumentation der Einspruchsabteilung in ihrer Mitteilung geführt hätte. Daher bestand nach Auffassung der Kammer bereits im Hinblick auf diese Mitteilung Veranlassung, den vorliegenden Hauptantrag einzureichen. Dies werde auch durch die Tatsache unterstrichen, dass die Patentinhaberin zu diesem Zeitpunkt Hilfsanträge einreichte, die sich von vorherigen Hilfsanträgen nur dadurch unterschieden, dass Anspruch 4 gestrichen war. Der vorliegende Hauptantrag wäre daher bereits im Einspruchsverfahren vorzubringen gewesen.

Zudem befand die Kammer, dass die Streichung zu einer völligen Neugewichtung des Verfahrensgegenstandes führen, den faktischen und rechtlichen Rahmen ändern und eine neue Diskussion hinsichtlich Neuheit und erfinderischer Tätigkeit erforderlich machen würde. Die Kriterien der Komplexität und der Verfahrensökonomie (Art. 12 (4) VOBK) sprachen daher nach Ansicht der Kammer gegen eine Zulassung des Hauptantrags im Beschwerdeverfahren. Die Kammer entschied daher, den Hauptantrag der Beschwerdeführerin gemäß Art. 12 (6) VOBK nicht im Beschwerdeverfahren zuzulassen.

Der Überprüfungsantrag in R 16/22 war gegen die Entscheidung T 2175/15 vom 1. April 2022 gerichtet, mit der die Beschwerdekammer (in der Besetzung nach Art. 24 (4) EPÜ) den Antrag auf Vorlage von Fragen an die Große Beschwerdekammer abgelehnt, und den Ablehnungsantrag betreffend die Mitglieder der Kammer in ihrer ursprünglichen Besetzung vom 24. Dezember 2021 als unbegründet zurückgewiesen hatte.

Zwei Wochen vor der mündlichen Verhandlung erklärte die Antragstellerin in einem Schreiben, dass sie nach nochmaliger Überprüfung der Rechtslage der Auffassung sei, dass die Große Beschwerdekammer im Verfahren nach Art. 112a EPÜ die Möglichkeit habe, "zur Sicherung einer einheitlichen Rechtsprechung den vorliegenden Fall an die Große Beschwerdekammer gemäß Art. 112 EPÜ vorzulegen". Zu Beginn der mündlichen Verhandlung stellte die Antragstellerin auch den formellen Antrag, der Großen Beschwerdekammer in der Besetzung gemäß Art. 112 EPÜ die Rechtsfrage vorzulegen, ob der Anwendungsbereich von Art. 112a EPÜ auf solche rechtskräftigen Entscheidungen einer Beschwerdekammer beschränkt ist, die ein Beschwerdeverfahren abschließen, oder ob dieser Anwendungsbereich sämtliche rechtskräftigen Entscheidungen einer Beschwerdekammer umfasst..

Im Zusammenhang mit diesem Antrag merkte die Große Beschwerdekammer an, dass gegen die Möglichkeit einer solchen Vorlage allerdings bereits der Wortlaut des EPÜ, der nicht nur in Art. 112 EPÜ klar zwischen "Beschwerdekammer" und "Große Beschwerdekammer" unterscheidet, spricht. Sie fügte hinzu, dass die Große Beschwerdekammer entsprechend in Verfahren gemäß Art. 112a EPÜ auch schon entschieden hat, dass sie der Großen Beschwerdekammer keine Rechtsfragen in einem Verfahren nach Art. 112 EPÜ vorlegen kann (R 7/08, bestätigt z. B. in R 8/12). Was das diesbezügliche Vorbringen der Antragstellerin angeht, konnte die Große Beschwerdekammer keine besonderen Gründe im Sinne von Art. 12 VOGBK erkennen, welche eine Berücksichtigung des verspätet vorgebrachten Antrags auf Vorlage an die Große Beschwerdekammer unter Art. 112 EPÜ rechtfertigen würden. Der Antrag wurde daher als verspätet zurückgewiesen.

In Bezug auf die Zulässigkeit von Überprüfungsanträgen gegen Zwischenentscheidungen befand die Große Beschwerdekammer, dass im Hinblick auf R 5/23 und R 2/15 eine uneinheitliche Rechtsprechung vorliegt. Allerdings habe die Große Beschwerdekammer in einem Verfahren nach Art. 112a EPÜ keine Möglichkeit, eine entsprechende Rechtsfrage zur Sicherung einer einheitlichen Rechtsanwendung nach Art. 112 EPÜ der Großen Beschwerdekammer vorzulegen.

Zum Begriff der "Entscheidung" in Art. 112a EPÜ erklärte die Große Beschwerdekammer, dass sich unterschiedliche Verfahrenshandlungen des EPA durchaus bezüglich ihrer Anfechtbarkeit unterscheiden können, auch wenn sie in gleicher Weise als "Entscheidungen" bezeichnet werden. Sie teilte die in den Entscheidungen R 2/15 und R 5/23 vertretene Auffassung, dass die Bestimmungen von Art. 106 (2) EPÜ im Rahmen des Überprüfungsverfahrens nicht anwendbar sind. Die grundsätzlichen Überlegungen hinter Art. 106 EPÜ, die einer selbständigen Beschwerde gegen Zwischenentscheidungen entgegenstehen (z. B. Vermeidung von Verfahrensverzögerungen), seien dagegen durchaus auf das Überprüfungsverfahren unter Art. 112a EPÜ anwendbar. Diese Überlegungen sprechen gegen eine Möglichkeit der Überprüfung von Zwischenentscheidungen unter Art. 112a EPÜ..

Der Großen Beschwerdekammer zufolge sind auch der Sinn und Zweck des Überprüfungsverfahrens, insbesondere die Ausgestaltung als außerordentlicher Rechtsbehelf, Aspekte, die nicht für eine Gleichsetzung von Überprüfungsanträgen mit Beschwerden im Hinblick auf die Anfechtungsmöglichkeiten oder gar für eine großzügigere Praxis sprechen, sondern eher für eine strengere Beurteilung der Zulässigkeit bei Überprüfungsanträgen. Darüber hinaus impliziert der Wortlaut von Art. 112a (5) EPÜ, der auf die Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens "vor den Beschwerdekammern" Bezug nimmt, dass vor den Beschwerdekammern eben kein Verfahren mehr anhängig ist. Diese Regelung stützt jedenfalls nach Auffassung der Großen Beschwerdekammer die Auslegung, nach der Zwischenentscheidungen nicht selbständig bzw. gesondert unter Art. 112a EPÜ überprüft werden können.

Der Antrag auf Überprüfung wurde folglich als unzulässig verworfen.

In T 883/23 the board had to consider the admittance of document A35 – a poster describing the protocol of the clinical trial of example 3 of the patent – which was for the first time filed by the appellant opponent 1 with the statement of grounds of appeal and thus represented an amendment to the appellant’s case. Its admittance was therefore at the board's discretion under Art. 12(4) and (6), second sentence, RPBA.

A35 had been published between the filing of the priority applications P4 and P5 and was presented by the opponents as an alternative starting point for the inventive step assessment, because it presented more information than the previously filed document D6 relating to the same clinical trial.

The board held that, in view of the primary object of the appeal proceedings to review the decision under appeal in a judicial manner (Art. 12(2) RPBA), it was the responsibility of the opponents to file the evidence regarding the prior art on which they intended to rely for their arguments against the maintenance of the patent as granted or as amended according to any of the requests filed by the patent proprietor during the first-instance proceedings.

The board did not accept the opponent’s argument that A35 had been particularly hard to retrieve. A35 had been obtainable from the USPTO following the filing of the Information Disclosure Statements for a US patent application of the patentee in 2019. The patent proprietor had filed its main request with the reply to the notices of opposition of 7 December 2021. The oral proceedings before the opposition division had been held on 24 January 2023. After the filing of the patent proprietor's main request, the opponents had thus more than a year to file A35 during the first-instance proceedings. In the board’s view, document A35 could and should therefore have been filed during the first-instance proceedings.

The board was also not persuaded by the opponent’s argument that, in line with the considerations in T 1472/22, the theoretical possibility of the retrieval and filing of A35 at an earlier stage of the proceedings did not justify the rejection of its admittance under Art. 12(4) and (6) RPBA. The board pointed out that, in the case of T 1472/22, the decision was based on an auxiliary request filed by the patent proprietor during the oral proceedings before the opposition division. Thus, the opponent had no cause prior to these oral proceedings to file its evidence of a public prior use directed against the subject-matter of this auxiliary request. The board’s conclusion in that decision referred to the theoretical possibility to anticipate amendments in auxiliary requests that had not yet been filed by the patent proprietor, whereas, in the case in hand, the main request had already been filed with the reply to the notices of opposition.

The board then assessed whether the circumstances of the appeal case justified the admittance of A35 into the appeal proceedings (Art. 12(6), second sentence, RPBA). Replying to an argument of the opponents, the board did not see how its conclusion (different from the opposition division), that claim 1 of the main request did not enjoy the claimed priorities, could in any way justify the late filing of A35, given the fact that the opponents had challenged the priority claim during the first-instance proceedings. The board also explained that in view of its considerations in points 2.2. to 2.3 of the Reasons (which are based on the primary object of the appeal procedure), neither the explanation provided for the late filing of A35 (difficulties to retrieve the document) nor the assertion that the patent proprietor was already aware of its publication justified the admittance of A35. Likewise, the asserted prima facie relevance of A35 claimed by the opponents did not suffice as a justification for its admittance in the appeal proceedings. The board also noted in this regard that the opponents' argument appeared inconsistent with their claim that A35 did not dramatically alter the assessment of inventive step..

The board did therefore not admit A35 into the appeal proceedings under Art. 12(6), second sentence, RPBA.

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 1285/23 the proceedings initially started with the Receiving Section's refusal to add GB as a designated state. In J 13/18 the Legal Board dismissed an appeal against that decision. It interpreted Art. 76(2) EPC and concluded that adding GB as a designated contracting state would contravene it, because GB had been withdrawn as a designated contracting state in the parent application at the time of filing the application at issue. The Legal Board also decided to admit neither the submissions under R. 139 EPC filed with the statement setting out the grounds of appeal nor the new submissions (made during the oral proceedings before it) based on the principle of good faith..

Before the examining division, the appellant then requested that the application be updated such that GB be included as a designated state, basing this on the principle of good faith, arguing that this reasoning had not been admitted by the Legal Board in J 13/18 and requesting that it now be admitted. In a communication the examining division not only gave a preliminary opinion on the request to add GB as a designated state under the principle of good faith, but also on a request for correction. The examining division explained that: "For the sake of completeness, and taking duly account of the decision of the Legal Board of Appeal not to admit the request under Rule 139 EPC (see point 2 of J 13/18), the Examining Division will also examine whether the requirements for a correction under Rule 139 EPC are met." In its subsequent submissions before the examining division the appellant based its request both on the principle of good faith and on the correction of an error. In the decision under appeal the examining division decided that neither the principle of good faith could be applied nor could the request for correction under R. 139 EPC be granted. The request to include GB as a validly designated state for the present application was thus refused..

In the present appeal, the board explained that by dismissing the appeal the Legal Board in J 13/18 had issued a conclusive decision on the request of the appellant to include GB as a validly designated state in the application, rather than admitting the late-filed lines of argument (including that of the principle of good faith) and remitting the case to the department of first instance for further prosecution.

The appellant argued that res judicata applied to the reasoning of a decision, rather than to its order. Given that its request was based on the principle of good faith and the Legal Board had not considered this line of argument in substance, it argued that decision J 13/18 had no effect of res judicata on its current request. As long as the proceedings were still pending, any new line of argument in support of the same request could be brought and be considered by the competent department provided it did not contradict the earlier decision.

The board disagreed and held that the effect of "res judicata" emanating from J 13/18 could not be limited by the board's reasoning on which the decision was based. If a party were allowed to pursue the request decided upon in that decision again, this time on the basis of new facts, it would open the possibility to render the legal effect of that decision null and void, a legal consequence specifically not foreseen for decision J 13/18, which cannot be appealed.

During the oral proceedings, the appellant relied on numerous passages of decision T 2194/22. The board distinguished T 2194/22 from the case in hand in two respects. First, T 2194/22 was not concerned with a case where the board had finally settled a request. The discussion in T 2194/22 concerned the binding effect, under Art. 111(2) EPC, of the first board of appeal decision T 2371/18 on the opposition division, and in particular whether a claim request, which had not been admitted by the competent board, could be considered in substance by the opposition division in subsequent proceedings. Secondly, the facts underlying the competent board's decision in T 2371/18 (the first appeal in the proceedings leading up to T 2194/22) for not admitting the claim request in question were not the same as the facts before the opposition division after remittal, because a new objection had been introduced in the post-remittal proceedings. In the case in hand, no such change in the factual situation had occurred.

In conclusion, the board held that the examining division was not competent to decide in substance on the appellant's request to add GB as a validly designated state in the application. The decision was void and formally to be set aside. By issuing a decision on a matter in respect of which it was not competent, the examining division had committed a substantial procedural violation.

In T 989/23 auxiliary request 17, filed with the statement of grounds of appeal, had first been filed in the opposition proceedings on the final date set under R. 116 EPC. The opposition division had decided that this auxiliary request was not open for examination as to its admissibility since it had been filed within the set time limit. Auxiliary request 17 was not considered by the opposition division since a higher-ranking auxiliary request was found allowable. The appellant-opponent requested that auxiliary request 17 not be admitted into the appeal proceedings, arguing that the division had misunderstood its discretionary powers.

In view of the line of case law holding that submissions admitted by the opposition division could not be excluded from consideration on appeal (e.g. T 487/16, T 1768/17, T 617/16, T 26/13, T 989/23, T 1568/12, T 2603/18, T 3201/19) the board first addressed the extent of its power of review. It explained that like an opposition division's decision to disregard late-filed submissions, a decision to admit such submissions into the opposition proceedings was a discretionary procedural decision which formed part of the opposition division's final decision on the merits of an opposition. A decision to admit late-filed submissions adversely affected the party contesting their admittance (in view of a possible adverse decision on appeal based on the admitted submissions, T 1549/07). Therefore, a board had the power to review an opposition division's procedural decision to take into consideration submissions filed late in opposition proceedings. Otherwise, the parties' right to a judicial review of an essential part of the opposition division's decision would be denied. Moreover, on appeal, a board would be compelled to accept a legal and factual framework, even if it is based on an erroneous exercise of discretion. As a consequence, requests, facts or evidence that had been admitted into opposition proceedings could be disregarded on appeal if the opposition division's decision suffered from an error in the use of discretion (T 1209/05, T 1652/08, T 1852/11, T 2197/11, T 572/14, T 341/15, T 326/22, T 776/17). The board thus had the power and duty to review the opposition division's decision to admit auxiliary request 17 into the opposition proceedings.

The board held that the filing of requests for amendment of the patent was governed by Art. 123(1) EPC, which gave the opposition division the discretionary power not to admit new requests for amendment (e.g. T 755/96, OJ 2000, 174; T 980/08, T 1178/08, T 966/17, R 6/19, T 256/19, R 11/20). The exercise of this discretion had to take account of the following: In inter-partes proceedings, each party had to be given equal opportunity to present their case and a fair chance to respond to new matter raised by the other party or parties or by the opposition division. Both the opposition division and the parties had to observe the principle of good faith (T 669/90, OJ 1992, 739; T 201/92). To expedite the proceedings and implement the principle of fairness towards the other party or parties, each party had to submit all facts, evidence, arguments and requests for amendments relevant to their case as early and completely as possible (T 326/87, OJ 1992, 522; T 430/89; T 951/91, OJ 1995, 202). This case law had been developed mainly in the context of Art. 114(2) EPC, pertaining to facts and evidence. Nevertheless, in view of the principles set out above, the rationale of this case law also applied to a patent proprietor's requests for amendment of the patent (e.g. T 582/08). Whether amended sets of claims should be considered in opposition proceedings or not did not merely depend on their filing within the time limit under R. 116 EPC, but also on the specific circumstances of the case (see also T 364/20). Consequently, the opposition division erred in denying that it had discretionary power to disregard auxiliary request 17. As a consequence, this procedural decision did not establish that auxiliary request 17 was "admissibly raised" in opposition proceedings.

The board agreed with the opponent that the filing of additional sets of amended claims (including auxiliary request 17) on 23 January 2023 was not a diligent and appropriate reaction to the opponent's submissions filed on 14 April 2022 and reiterated on 2 September 2022, or to the opposition division's communication of 30 May 2022. Since part of the defences submitted by the proprietor was not able to overcome the board’s conclusions on lack of inventive step and a later filed part raised new issues, the board did not admit auxiliary request 17 into the appeal proceedings.

Dans l'affaire T 2271/22 la division d’opposition a rejeté l'opposition conformément aux dispositions de l'art. 101(2) CBE. La requérante a demandé l'annulation de la décision de rejet de l'opposition et la révocation du brevet dans son ensemble.

Dans sa réponse au mémoire exposant les motifs du recours, l’intimée a déclaré qu'elle maintenait "toutes les requêtes déposées en 1ere [sic] instance". Ce n’était qu’en réponse à la notification selon l’art. 15(1) RPCR que l’intimée a précisé qu’il s’agissait bien de la première requête subsidiaire déposée le 2 juin 2021 et de la deuxième requête subsidiaire déposée le 28 mars 2022.

La chambre a relevé que, dans sa réponse aux motifs du recours, l'intimée n'avait donné aucun argument pour soutenir la recevabilité et le fondement de ces requêtes subsidiaires au cas où la chambre partagerait le point de vue de la requérante en ce qui concerne les revendications telles que délivrées. En particulier, l'intimée était restée silencieuse sur la question d'une activité inventive basée sur les caractéristiques techniques ajoutées. La chambre a aussi noté que la requérante avait attaqué ces requêtes subsidiaires dans son mémoire de recours..

La chambre n’a pas accepté l’argument de l’intimée que, la décision attaquée ayant maintenu le brevet conformément à la requête principale, l’art. 12(3) RPCR, selon lequel le mémoire et la réponse doivent présenter de façon claire et concise les motifs pour lesquels il est demandé d'annuler, de modifier ou de confirmer la décision attaquée, ne s’appliquerait pas aux requêtes subsidiaires dans l’espèce. La chambre a clarifié que, si l'intimée demande de manière subsidiaire le maintien du brevet conformément à une requête subsidiaire, elle doit présenter dans sa réponse au mémoire de recours les motifs pour lesquels il est demandé de modifier ou de confirmer la décision attaquée et d'exposer expressément et de façon précise l'ensemble des requêtes, faits, arguments et preuves invoqués, même si cette requête subsidiaire avait déjà été déposée pendant la procédure d'opposition et jamais traitée par la division d'opposition. Par conséquent, les exigences de l'art. 12(3) RPCR n’étaient clairement pas remplies en ce qui concerne ces requêtes subsidiaires.

La présentation d’arguments quelques jours avant la procédure orale prévue ne pouvait, en l’absence de circonstances exceptionnelles, remplacer l’exposé exigé par l’art. 12(3) RPCR.

En conclusion, la chambre a considéré que les deux requêtes subsidiaires n'étaient pas motivées et, par conséquent, n'étaient pas recevables dans la procédure de recours (art. 12(3) et (5) RPCR).

In R 19/23 beantragte der Antragsteller unter anderem wörtlich, die zu überprüfende Entscheidung der Beschwerdekammer in Disziplinarangelegenheiten aufzuheben und die Wiedereröffnung des Verfahrens vor der zuständigen Beschwerdekammer anzuordnen.

Die Große Beschwerdekammer (nachfolgend "GBK") erklärte, dass sie die Auffassung des Antragstellers, wonach die GBK gemäß Art. 112a EPÜ für die Überprüfung von Entscheidungen der Beschwerdekammer in Disziplinarangelegenheiten (nachfolgend "BKD") zuständig sei, nicht teilt. Vielmehr folgte sie der in der Entscheidung D 3/20 zum Ausdruck gebrachten Auffassung, dass ein Beschwerdeführer, der sich gegen eine Entscheidung des Sekretariats oder der Prüfungskommission wendet, keine Möglichkeit hat, eine "Große Beschwerdekammer in Disziplinarangelegenheiten" anzurufen und der dahingehende Antrag des Beschwerdeführers daher als unzulässig zu verwerfen ist.

Der GBK zufolge teilte sich das Vorbringen des Antragstellers in der schriftlichen Antwort in Vorbereitung auf die mündliche Verhandlung und während der mündlichen Verhandlung in zwei Argumentationslinien.

- Vom Verwaltungsrat gesetztes "Sekundärrecht" könne das von den Vertragsstaaten des EPÜ erlassene Primärrecht nicht "verdrängen, aufheben oder umgehen".

- Die Anwendbarkeit von Art. 112a EPÜ auf Entscheidungen der BKD sei auch im Hinblick auf die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (nachfolgend "EGMR") zu Art. 6 (1) der Europäische Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten (nachfolgend "EMRK") geboten.

Die GBK merkte an, dass die Nennung der Beschwerdekammern ohne Beschränkung auf ganz bestimmte, im EPÜ vorgesehene Beschwerdekammern in Art. 112a EPÜ und ohne ausdrücklichen Ausschluss der BKD nicht als Hinweis auf eine Geltung dieser Vorschrift für alle Kammern, einschließlich der BKD, angesehen werden könne. Die GBK erinnerte ferner daran, dass der Gesetzgeber des EPÜ 2000 die BKD nicht in den mit "Beschwerdekammern" überschriebenen Art. 21 EPÜ aufgenommen hat. Zur Zuständigkeit der GBK verweise Art. 22 (1) a) im Hinblick auf Art. 112 und Art. 22 (1) c) bezüglich Art. 112a EPÜ aber auf die "Beschwerdekammern" und damit auf die in Art. 21 genannten Kammern und folglich nicht auf die BKD..

In Bezug auf die erste Argumentationslinie des Antragstellers kam die GBK zu dem Schluss, dass die Prüfungsvorschriften (d.h. Vorschriften über die europäische Eignungsprüfung für zugelassene Vertreter, Ausführungsbestimmungen hierzu, Ergänzende Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammer in Disziplinarangelegenheiten und Teil IV der Vorschriften in Disziplinarangelegenheiten von zugelassenen Vertretern) als autonomes Recht kein Sekundärrecht im Verhältnis zum EPÜ als Primärrecht in dem Sinne darstellen, dass sie dazu dienen würden, die Ziele des EPÜ unmittelbar zu verwirklichen. Damit verbleibe es bei der mangelnden Anwendbarkeit von Art. 112a (und 112) EPÜ auf – und damit der mangelnden Zuständigkeit der GBK für – Verfahren vor der BKD.

Betreffend die zweite Argumentationslinie des Antragstellers befand die GBK, dass die BKD zwar Art. 113 (1) EPÜ anwenden muss, deren zutreffende Anwendung aber nicht der Überprüfung durch die GBK nach Art. 112a EPÜ unterliegt. Nach der Rechtsprechung des EGMR zu Art. 6 (1) EMRK müsse in Streitigkeiten betreffend zivilrechtliche Rechte und Pflichten eine einzige gerichtliche Instanz vorgesehen werden. Diese sei mit der BKD gegeben. Mit der Schaffung von Art. 112a EPÜ sei der Gesetzgeber also über das von Art. 6 (1) EMRK geforderte Maß sogar hinausgegangen, sodass die Nichtanwendung von Art. 112a EPÜ bezüglich Art. 113 (1) EPÜ keinen rechtlichen Bedenken begegne (s. R 10/20).

Im Gesamtergebnis verwarf die GBK den auf Art. 112a (2) c) EPÜ wegen Verletzung des Rechts auf rechtliches Gehör gestützten Überprüfungsantrag als offensichtlich unzulässig.

In R 12/23 the Enlarged Board of Appeal (hereinafter referred to as "EBA") summarised the petitioner’s assertions concerning procedural deficiencies regarding the ground for petition mentioned in Art. 112a(2)(c) in conjunction with Art. 113(1) EPC as follows.

(i) the petitioner had had no opportunity during the oral proceedings to argue on the standard applied by the board in the written decision.

(ii) the board had neglected the "gold standard" as one of two alternative approache.

- in the decision, the board had applied only the "essentiality test" and not also the "gold standard" thereby contravening R 2/14 an.

- the board had provided no opportunity to discuss the "gold standard", during the oral proceedings; an.

(iii) the decision was not sufficiently reasoned on the "gold standard" or on the "essentiality test".

The EBA found that the first alleged procedural deficiency was obviously unfounded, because it was in direct contradiction with the petitioner’s own conclusion which made it clear that the discussion in the oral proceedings had been "identically" mirrored in the written decision.

On the second alleged procedural deficiency, the EBA stated that it could not find that the board had obviously not applied the "gold standard" due to the fact that it may also have examined the criteria of the "essentiality test". The EBA had to rely on the board’s declaration that it had applied the "gold standard", given that the EBA was prevented from scrutiny of the application of the law, i.e. whether the board had applied the "gold standard" in an incorrect manner.

The EBA considered whether the R 2/14 rationale would at all apply to the case in hand and concluded that in R 2/14 it had been held that the board would have needed to address (three) alternative factual approaches to assessing sufficiency of disclosure. In the case in hand, however, the (two) approaches in question were legal approaches. Having opted for one of them and thus having determined the law, the board was under no obligation to apply the facts of the case to an alternative legal approach..

In this regard, the EBA noted that a board deciding on a case must establish the facts and apply the law to them. If a party puts forward several alternative sets of facts in order to support a specific finding of law, then the board must assess whether any of these sets support that finding and may only reject the suggested finding once it has concluded that none of the sets of facts justifies it. The EBA emphasised that there is no need to discuss alternative legal approaches, as distinguished from factual approaches, in the decision, because the board determines the law, in particular the correct legal approach. However, even though this had not been necessary, the board in the case in hand had still applied both approaches, i.e. the "gold standard" and the "essentiality test"..

The finding that the requirement to discuss alternative approaches set out in R 2/14 did not apply in this case presupposed that the board had given the party an opportunity to provide its comments on the correct legal approach. The petitioner itself stated that this had been the case. If, during the oral proceedings, the petitioner had considered that the board should not apply the "essentiality test" under the guise of the "gold standard", then it should have alerted the board to its view. The EBA concluded that there had been no violation of the petitioner’s right to be heard with respect to the second asserted procedural deficiency.

Concerning the third asserted procedural deficiency, the EBA recalled the criteria laid down in R 8/15 and R 10/18. It held that in line with point 1 of the Catchword of R 8/15, the board had addressed submissions it had identified as being relevant, in the reasons for the decision. The question was whether the board had also substantively considered those submissions as also required in point 1 of that Catchword. The EBA held that this had been the case and thus considered the third asserted procedural deficiency clearly unfounded.

The EBA concluded that the petition for review was clearly unallowable, since none of the three asserted fundamental deficiencies constituted a violation of the right to be heard.

In T 2194/22 the main request was identical to auxiliary request 1 filed on 11 February 2022, which was admitted and found to be allowable by the opposition division, and was in substance identical to auxiliary request II "new" filed during oral proceedings before the board on 28 April 2021 and not admitted in the board's earlier decision T 2371/18, even though auxiliary request 1 filed on 11 February 2022 contained minor formal amendments. In view of auxiliary request 1 and auxiliary request II "new" being substantively identical, it was necessary to assess whether the findings in the board's earlier decision T 2371/18 on auxiliary request II "new" were binding for the examination of the admissibility of auxiliary request 1.

The board did not share the appellant's view that a board's decision not to admit a request is in any case absolutely binding in post-remittal proceedings as res judicata even if the facts underlying the decision are not the same. The board noted that in the case law of the Boards, the binding effect following from the principle of res judicata is not always clearly distinguished from the binding effect of the ratio decidendi pursuant to Art. 111(2) EPC and the decisions are sometimes not consistent as to which principle applies in specific circumstances (see, for example, T 1545/08, points 11 and 12 of the Reasons compared to T 308/14, points 1.2 and 1.3 of the Reasons). The principle of res judicata implies that the conclusive decision on a specific request is an absolute bar for reconsideration. The binding effect of the ratio decidendi is on the one hand narrower as it is limited to proceedings on the same application or patent following a remittal of the case and as it only applies insofar as the facts are the same. However, on the other hand, it is broader insofar as it is related to matters not covered by the res judicata but encompassed by the underlying reasoning (ratio decidendi) in the remittal decision.

Against this background, the strict application of the principle of res judicata was not adequate for decisions on the non-admittance of the parties' submissions, such as a late-filed claim request, insofar as such decisions are intermediate conclusions based on a specific procedural situation. The board's "decision" not to admit auxiliary request II "new" filed on 28 April 2021 in the earlier appeal proceedings which was only based on procedural reasons was not an absolute bar for reconsideration of an identical or equivalent request in proceedings subsequent to remittal. The binding effect of the ratio decidendi as set out in Art. 111(2) EPC did apply to the board's earlier decision in T 2371/18 not to admit auxiliary request 1 filed on 11 February 2022 but only insofar as the relevant facts remained the same.

The reasoning (ratio decidendi) in the board's earlier decision T 2371/18 for not admitting auxiliary request II "new" merely related to the procedural situation at that stage of the proceedings. In the board's earlier decision, it was held that the proprietor had been made aware of the particular objection under Art. 123(2) EPC at an early stage, and therefore could and should have filed the new request already with its reply, whereas filing the request only in the oral proceedings before the board was detrimental to procedural economy.

However, in the opposition proceedings subsequent to remittal, the procedural and factual circumstances within the meaning of Art. 111(2) EPC indeed changed insofar as the opposition division issued a preliminary opinion in which it presented a new objection under Art. 123(2) EPC against the then pending auxiliary request III. This request had previously been filed on 28 November 2018 with the proprietor's statement of grounds of appeal in T 2371/18. Auxiliary request III filed on 28 November 2018 was not assessed in the board's decision T 2371/18 but formed the basis for the remittal. In pursuing this request when re-entering opposition proceedings, the proprietor did indeed follow on from the situation that existed at the end of the first appeal proceedings. The objections raised in the communication of the opposition division were not identical to the objections referred to in the board's earlier decision T 2371/18. Thus, in the case in hand, the facts with respect to admittance of auxiliary request 1 within the meaning of Art. 111(2) EPC were not the same in the post-remittal proceedings. Hence, the binding effect of Art. 111(2) EPC did not apply. Re-filed auxiliary request 1 was therefore not inadmissible for procedural reasons (Art. 111(2) EPC) such that its admittance was subject to the discretion of the opposition division.

In R 12/21 prüfte die Große Beschwerdekammer (GBK), ob die Kammer entsprechend dem seitens der Antragstellerin geltend gemachten sechsten bis achten Verfahrensmangel gegen das Recht auf rechtliches Gehör verstoßen hatte (Art. 112a (2) c) i.V.m. Art. 113 (1) EPÜ). Diese Mängel betrafen die Nichtzulassung des Hilfsantrags. Die Nichtzulassung des Hilfsantrags wurde in der angefochtenen Entscheidung auf zwei Gründe kumulativ gestützt: Fehlen der Voraussetzungen von Art. 12 (2) VOBK 2007 und eine prima facie fehlende Neuheit des Gegenstands von Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags.

Die GBK merkte an, dass zur Frage der Zulassung neuen Vorbringens in einem Teil der Rechtsprechung der GBK zu Art. 112a EPÜ verlangt wird, dass der Beteiligte zu dessen Zulassung (lediglich) ausreichend zu hören ist, nach einem anderen Teil der Rechtsprechung ist darüber hinaus die Ausübung des Ermessens im Rahmen der Zulassung nicht nur auf Willkür, sondern auch auf offensichtliche Unrichtigkeit zu überprüfen (R 6/20). Der GBK zufolge stellte sich vorliegend bereits die Frage, ob die Antragstellerin ausreichend gehört worden war, und darüber hinaus ggf., ob die zutreffenden Rechtsgrundlagen für die Ausübung des Ermessens zu Grunde gelegt und das Ermessen damit nicht offensichtlich unrichtig angewandt worden war. Nur bei positiver Beantwortung beider Fragen könne der Überprüfungsantrag unbegründet sein.

Da die GBK die erste Frage negativ beantwortete und der Überprüfungsantrag aus diesem Grund bereits Erfolg hatte, kam es auf die zweite Frage nicht an. In der Entscheidung der GBK wurde daher lediglich die Frage des ausreichenden Gehörs der Antragstellerin im Hinblick auf die Nichtzulassung des Hilfsantrags vor dem Hintergrund der geltend gemachten fehlenden Möglichkeit, zur prima facie-Neuheit Stellung zu nehmen, erörtert. Den Vortrag der Antragstellerin verstand die GBK dahingehend, dass diese sich bei der Erörterung der Zulassung des Hilfsantrags 1 während der mündlichen Verhandlung nicht zum Aspekt, auf den sich die Kammer in der Entscheidungsbegründung stützte, hatte äußern dürfen, nämlich dazu ob der "hinzugefügte Schritt […] prima facie die Neuheit gegenüber D2 herstellt und damit dem Anspruch zu einer prima facie Gewährbarkeit als Zulassungskriterium unter Art. 13 (1) VOBK 2007 verhilft".

Wenn die Kammer, so die GBK, der Auffassung gewesen wäre, die technische Debatte zum hinzugefügten Merkmal in Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags sei bereits im Rahmen des Hauptantrags vollumfänglich geführt worden und eine weitere Debatte im Rahmen des Hilfsantrags überflüssig, hätte die Kammer die Patentinhaberin auf eben diese Auffassung hinweisen und ihr Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme geben müssen. Dies folge bereits aus dem Wortlaut von Art. 113 (1) EPÜ, wonach Entscheidungen des EPA nur auf Gründe gestützt werden dürfen, zu denen die Beteiligten sich äußern konnten.

Die GBK kam zu dem Schluss, dass in Ermangelung des vorgenannten ausdrücklichen Ansprechens die Antragstellerin erst der schriftlichen Entscheidung entnehmen konnte, dass die Kammer die Nichtzulassung auch auf eine fehlende prima facie-Neuheit des Gegenstands von Anspruch 1 gestützt hatte. Daher sei der Patentinhaberin auch eine diesbezügliche Rüge nach R. 106 EPÜ nicht möglich gewesen. Sie sei damit daran gehindert gewesen, ihrer grundsätzlich bestehenden Pflicht nachzukommen, von sich aus im Verfahren ihre Interessen aktiv wahrzunehmen.

Im Umstand, dass die Kammer die prima facie-Neuheit des Gegenstands von Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags bei der Debatte über die Ausübung des Zulassungs-Ermessens im Rahmen von Art. 13 (1) VOBK 2007 nicht ausdrücklich angesprochen hatte und dazu nicht hatte vortragen lassen, sah die GBK einen schwerwiegenden Verstoß gegen das Recht auf rechtliches Gehör der Patentinhaberin (Art. 113 (1) EPÜ). Es könne nämlich nicht von vornherein ausgeschlossen werden, dass die Ermessensentscheidung im Falle eines Ansprechens und damit einhergehend der Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme zur prima facie-Neuheit des Gegenstands von Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags anders ausgefallen gewesen wäre.

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 T 449/23, the board rejected the patent proprietor's argument that auxiliary requests 2 to 8 were part of the appeal proceedings from the outset within the meaning of Art. 12 RPBA. These requests had not even been mentioned in their statement of grounds of appeal or their reply (to the opponent's statement of grounds of appeal).

Regarding the interpretation of "any amendment to a party's appeal case" in Art. 13(2) RPBA, the board pointed out that the reference point for determining an "amendment" under Art. 13(2) RPBA was not the same as under Art. 12(4) RPBA.

Art. 12(4) RPBA defined an "amendment", by way of reference to Art. 12(2) RPBA, as any matter departing from the framework of the decision under appeal (i.e. the requests, facts, objections, arguments and evidence underlying the contested decision), unless this matter had been admissibly raised and maintained in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal. The reference point in Art. 13(1) and (2) RPBA, on the other hand, was the party's complete case as determined by Art. 12(1) to (6) RPBA.

Hence, the amendment referred to in Art. 12(4) RPBA was an amendment of the party's case relative to its requests, facts, evidence, arguments and objections on which the decision under appeal was based. This was distinct from "amendments to a party's appeal case" in Art. 13(2) RPBA, carried out at a later stage of the appeal proceedings relative to earlier submissions in appeal. The admissibly raised criterion of Art. 12(4) RPBA was not relevant to the question whether a claim request represented an amendment to a party's appeal case under Art. 13(2) RPBA.

Consequently, the board rejected the argument of the patent proprietor according to which auxiliary requests 2 to 8 were "carry-over" requests and therefore merely the criteria set out in Art. 12(4) RPBA had to be applied to determine whether these requests represented an amendment to the appeal case within the meaning of Art. 13(2) RPBA. The board distinguished the case in hand, where the relevant requests were submitted one day before oral proceedings before the board, from the procedural situation underlying T 246/22, where the relevant requests had been submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal.

Regarding auxiliary request 6, which differed from the claims of the main request (claims as granted) solely by the deletion of independent claims 1 and 2, the board agreed with the reasoning set out in T 2091/18 and J 14/19 and held that any new and amended claim request was to be considered as an amendment to the party's appeal case. In the board's view, the filing of a new claim request always had to have a substantive purpose related to the potential outcome of the patent proprietor's appeal case. The board concluded that if there was such a substantive reason for filing the new set of claims, there was an amendment to the party's case. The board also observed that even when following the line of case law that considered a deletion of (an alternative in) an independent claim to be an amendment in the sense of Art. 13(2) RPBA only if it altered the factual and legal framework of the proceedings, it came to the same conclusion. In fact, even if the remaining subject-matter was encompassed by the claims of previously pending claim requests, the deletion created a new object which shifted the discussion in that the amendment "moved the target" out of the focus of the objections that had been debated on appeal so far.

Since no justification for the late filing of these requests had been submitted by the patent proprietor, nor did the board see any, the board found that there were no exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Art. 13(2) RPBA. Based on a systematic interpretation of Art. 13(1) and (2) RPBA, the board did not agree with the approach taken e.g. in T 2295/19, according to which exceptional circumstances were present if allowing the amendment was not detrimental to procedural economy.

In T 1178/23 auxiliary request 4 filed with the reply to the statement of grounds of appeal had the same wording as auxiliary request 2 in opposition proceedings, filed as auxiliary request 1 on the final date set by the opposition division under R. 116 EPC and renamed when a new auxiliary request 1 was filed at the oral proceedings. The decision under appeal was not based on auxiliary request 2, as the opposition division had held auxiliary request 1 to be allowable.

The board held that for the assessment of the condition under Art. 12(4), first sentence, RPBA ("admissibly raised"), the decisive question is whether the first-instance department would have admitted the request had a discretionary decision on admittance been required (T 364/20; see also T 2395/22 and T 246/22). In the board's view, the explicit use of the past tense ("was admissibly raised") and the reference to the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal implied that the perspective of the first-instance department was addressed. In other words, it needed to be determined how the first-instance department would have proceeded in reliance on the provisions and practice that applied at the time. This view was supported by the consideration that, without the first-instance perspective, a decision on the "admissibly raised" condition might lead to a different assessment of the admittance of a request that was filed but not decided on in first-instance proceedings compared to another, higher-ranking request that was filed under the same circumstances but was admitted and held allowable by the first-instance department. Setting minimum requirements post factum in appeal for determining whether a request was admissibly raised before the opposition division (T 364/20, T 1800/20, T 309/21, T 246/22, T 1749/22) was tantamount to applying different admittance criteria for auxiliary requests filed at the same time and under the same circumstances in first-instance proceedings. Arguably, such an approach would compromise legal certainty. Moreover, replacing the first-instance perspective with what essentially was an exercise of discretion on the part of the board would render the discretionary decision of Art. 12(4), second sentence, RPBA redundant.

The board explained that, to assess whether the first-instance department would have admitted a request, it had to be established whether this department had discretion not to admit the request and, if so, which practice applied at the time when the decision on admittance would have been taken. As a general rule, parties could expect first-instance departments of the EPO to act in accordance with the Guidelines in the version valid at the relevant time (T 446/22, T 731/22, T 823/23). The board addressed the "moving target" argument in T 246/22 by pointing out that the amendments to the Guidelines often reflected developments in the case law of the boards of appeal. They therefore could not constitute an impediment for the board in considering the Guidelines when determining how the opposition division would have proceeded at the relevant time.

In the case in hand, the board concurred with the respondent (patent proprietor) that, at the time of the oral proceedings on 14 March 2023, the opposition division would have considered the March 2023 version of the Guidelines had a discretionary decision on the admittance of that auxiliary request been required. The relevant section E-VI, 2.2.2 of the March 2023 version of the Guidelines included the provision that "amendments submitted before the date set under Rule 116(1) EPC cannot, as a rule, be considered as being late-filed". In view thereof, the board was satisfied that the respondent had demonstrated that auxiliary request 4 at issue was admissibly raised in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal.

The fact that, according to the minutes of the oral proceedings held before the opposition division, the respondent had renumbered the auxiliary request 1 filed on the final date set under R. 116 EPC at the end of the oral proceedings, implied that this claim request was not withdrawn but maintained in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal. The board concluded that auxiliary request 4 was not an amendment of the respondent's appeal case but was part of the appeal proceedings (Art. 12(4), first sentence RPBA).

In T 823/23 the board decided on the admittance of a "carry-over objection", i.e. – as explained by the board – an objection which was raised and maintained in the opposition proceedings but which was not decided upon in those proceedings, neither with regard to its admittance nor in substance, due to the allowability of a claim request that ranked higher than the claim request against which the objection had been raised.

The board noted that, in the case in hand, the applicability of G 10/91 to raising the objection at issue in the appeal proceedings could be left open. Restrictions on new submissions pursuant to G 10/91 and a board's discretionary power not to admit late-filed party submissions under Art. 114(2) EPC, Art. 12 and 13 RPBA had to be applied in a cumulative manner (T 1042/18). In the board's view, the objection at issue was not admissibly raised within the meaning of Art. 12(4) RPBA and the board decided not to admit the objection into the appeal proceedings.

The board pointed out that the purpose of the mechanism of Art. 12(4), first sentence, RPBA was to ensure that submissions on which the decision under appeal was not based were (i) neither automatically subject to the board's discretion regarding admittance, (ii) nor automatically part of the appeal proceedings simply because they were raised and maintained in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal (even though they might not have been admitted into those proceedings had it been necessary to decide on their admittance). Considering the provision's wording, context and purpose, the board held that a submission was admissibly raised in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal if it would have been admitted into those proceedings had a decision on its admittance been taken. A board first had to assess whether the first-instance department had discretion not to admit a submission. If this was the case, in a second step, the board had to assess how a department of first instance, assuming legally correct and reasonable conduct, would have exercised that discretion.

This required the board to take on the perspective of a department of first instance and use the criteria which this department would have had to apply. The case law of the boards on reviewing the exercise of discretion in examination proceedings (e.g. T 937/09, T 573/12) and opposition proceedings (e.g. T 1930/14, T 84/17) could provide guidance for assessing how a department of first instance would have exercised its discretion. A board could also take account of the Guidelines. In the board's view, this, in principle, was no different from a board taking account of the Guidelines when reviewing the actual exercise of discretion by a department of first instance in the context of Art. 12(6), first sentence, RPBA (see T 435/21, T 1088/20) or Art. 12(6), second sentence, RPBA (see T 1990/20). The board observed that the Guidelines were – as general instructions pursuant to Art. 10(2)(a) EPC – to be taken into account by the departments of first instance. However, as stated in the Guidelines, they did not constitute legal provisions and, for the ultimate authority on the practice in the EPO, it was necessary to refer to the EPC and to its interpretation by the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal. As only the circumstances of the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal mattered in the assessment of whether a submission was "admissibly raised", the version of the Guidelines in force at the relevant time in those proceedings was pertinent for this assessment (see T 446/22, T 731/22).

In the case in hand, the appellant (then opponent 2) did not raise the objection under Art. 100(b) EPC in the opposition proceedings until after the board had remitted the case to the opposition division, i.e. long after the end of the opposition period and therefore not in due time within the meaning of Art. 114(2) EPC (see T 1776/18). Accordingly, the opposition division had had discretion not to admit this objection. The Guidelines (March 2022 version) stated that in deciding whether to admit grounds for opposition not filed in due time, their relevance to the decision, the state of the procedure and the reasons for the belated submission were to be considered, with particular emphasis on prima facie relevance (see E-VI, 2). This was in line with what was stated in G 10/91 (point 16 of the Reasons). The board concluded that the objection was not admissibly raised in the opposition proceedings. Since the objection still suffered from a lack of prima facie relevance, exercising its discretion under Art. 12(4) RPBA, the board decided not to admit it into the appeal proceedings.

In T 1913/21 auxiliary requests 4 and 5 were filed during the proceedings before the opposition division, but not dealt with because a higher-ranking request was held allowable, and later re-filed with the statement of grounds of appeal. The respondent (patent proprietor) referred to different approaches outlined in the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal with regard to the interpretation of the requirement "admissibly raised and maintained" (inter alia T 364/20, T 1800/20 and T 246/22). The board considered that it was not necessary to go into the details of the different approaches because auxiliary requests 4 and 5 did not meet a common requirement in these decisions, namely that an explanation needed to be given as to why the amendments have been made and how they are intended to overcome the objections raised.

In the board's view, the wording of Art. 12(4) RPBA by reference to "the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal" should be construed in the present case with regard to the opposition proceedings and the criteria applicable to them. This required an assessment of whether the opposition division had discretion not to admit a request, and how that discretion should have been exercised in the circumstances if a decision on admittance had been required. This approach had also been adopted in other decisions (explicitly e.g. in T 364/20, T 2395/22, implicitly in T 446/22, T 731/22). The board considered it inappropriate to apply the criteria in Art. 12(4), third sentence, RPBA, as they were specific to the appeal proceedings and could not have been considered by the patent proprietor at the time of filing the auxiliary requests. For this reason, a reference to the relevant EPC provisions and the Guidelines applicable at the time when the auxiliary requests were filed was appropriate, since they contained the criteria that an opposition division would apply. In addition, the Guidelines reflected the consolidated jurisprudence of the boards of appeal on the criteria for admittance of requests to be applied in opposition proceedings.

The board observed that a principle consolidated in the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal (e.g. T 95/83), adopted in the first instance and consistently reflected in the Guidelines (H-II, 2.7 and E-III, 8.6 – March 2021 version) was that auxiliary requests were not inadmissibly filed simply because they were filed after a period or date specified, but only if in addition they were filed without proper justification. A proper justification was normally considered to be present when the subject of the proceedings had changed, e.g. because of a changed opinion of the opposition division (see also E-III, 8.6), or due to a new document or a new objection submitted/raised by the opponent(s)/the opposition division. Auxiliary requests filed after the period or date specified and absent a proper justification were considered "late" and their admittance was subject to the discretion of the opposition division (Guidelines H-II, 2.7.1 – March 2021 version). In the case in hand, auxiliary request 4 was timely filed (before the date specified under R. 116(2) EPC) and auxiliary request 5 was a legitimate reaction to a change in the subject of the proceedings.

The board then pointed out that the Guidelines contained a substantiation requirement similar to the one in Art. 12(3) and 12(4), fourth sentence, RPBA, namely that an explanation must be provided as to why the amendments have been made and how they are intended to overcome the objections raised (Guidelines H-II, 2.7.1 – March 2021 version). When filing auxiliary requests 4 and 5 in opposition proceedings, as auxiliary requests 14 and 15, the respondent merely submitted that the amendments further limited the scope of the granted claims and therefore further distinguished the claimed subject-matter from the prior art. No reason was submitted as to why the new features introduced in claim 1 would overcome the objections raised. In the board's view, this was sufficient to conclude that auxiliary requests 4 and 5 would not have been admitted in the opposition proceedings.

They were thus not admissibly raised in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal and did constitute an amendment within the meaning of Art. 12(4) RPBA, the admittance of which was subject to the board's discretion. The board decided not to admit the claim requests into the proceedings, due to the lack of any substantiation of these auxiliary requests in appeal and particularly the fact that it was not straightforward how the amendments could overcome the objections raised.

Dans l'affaire T 458/22, l'intimée a fait valoir pour la première fois après notification de la communication en vertu de l'art. 15(1) RPCR, que le recours était irrecevable.

La requérante a fait valoir que les faits contestés étaient présents dans la procédure depuis le début et qu'aucune circonstance exceptionnelle ne justifiait l'admission de cette nouvelle objection à ce stade de la procédure.

La chambre était consciente de l'existence d'une jurisprudence qui considère que la question de la recevabilité d'une opposition ou d'un recours peut et doit être soulevée d'office à tous les stades de la procédure, même au cours de la procédure orale dans le cadre d'un recours (Jurisprudence des Chambres de recours de l'Office européen de brevets, 10e édition, juillet 2022, V.A.2.7). Les chambres dans les affaires T 289/91, T 15/01, T 522/94, T 1668/07, T 2223/10 et T 198/15 ont interprété ce principe initialement formulé dans la décision T 289/91 en ce sens qu'elles n'ont pas le pouvoir d'appréciation de ne pas prendre en considération une objection tardive à la recevabilité, même si elle a été soulevée par une partie pour la première fois lors de la procédure orale devant la chambre.

La présente chambre a considéré qu'elle possède un pouvoir d'appréciation pour ne pas prendre en compte l'objection à la recevabilité du recours soulevée par l'intimée.

Une objection à la recevabilité d'un recours ou d'une opposition soulevée par une partie constitue un moyen invoqué au sens de l'art. 114(1) CBE. Le libellé de l'art. 114 CBE ne fait pas d'exception pour des faits tardifs relatifs à la question de la recevabilité d'une opposition ou d'un recours. La question de savoir si le mémoire de recours est conforme aux exigences de la règle 99(2) CBE peut comprendre des faits ainsi que des arguments, par exemple la question de savoir s'il contient ou non des motifs pour lesquels il y a lieu d'annuler la décision attaquée.

Le libellé des art. 101(1) et 110 CBE et des règles 77(1) et 101(2) CBE ne fait apparaître aucune nécessité d'une requête par une partie pour l'examen de la recevabilité, ni une quelconque restriction quant au moment où la chambre examine la recevabilité d'une opposition ou d'un recours. Il s'ensuit que la chambre de recours peut statuer sans requête, c'est-à-dire ex officio, sur la question de la recevabilité du recours ou l'opposition, et ce à tout moment de la procédure. En cela la chambre est en accord avec la ligne de jurisprudence précitée.

Toutefois, la chambre a considéré qu'il ne découle pas des dispositions précitées que les faits invoqués tardivement par une partie concernant la question de la recevabilité doivent toujours être pris en considération par une chambre de recours. Le libellé des art. 12 et 13 RPCR ne limite pas le pouvoir d'appréciation d'une chambre de recours de manière à en exclure la question de la recevabilité d'un recours ou d'une opposition.

La chambre ne partage pas le point de vue exprimé aux points 25 et 26 de la décision T 1006/21, selon lequel les dispositions des art. 12 et 13 du RPCR limitent uniquement les modifications des faits et du fond d'un recours, mais que les requêtes procédurales ne constituent pas des modifications au sens de ces dispositions.

Elle partage en revanche l'avis contraire exprimé au point 1.3.2 de la décision T 1774/21, selon lequel le libellé du RPCR a été délibérément choisi pour faire la distinction entre les "requêtes" générales (voir l'art. 12(2) et (3) RPCR) et les "modifications d'une demande de brevet ou d'un brevet" (voir l'art. 12(4), deuxième phrase, RPCR, l'art. 13(1), troisième phrase, RPCR). Ce point de vue est supporté également par le tableau présentant les modifications du RPCR avec remarques explicatives (publication supplémentaire 2, JO 2020, 17), selon lesquelles "Dans ce contexte [de l'art. 12(2) RPCR], le terme 'requêtes' n'est pas limité aux textes modifiés de demandes de brevet ou de brevets".

En l'espèce, l'objection à la recevabilité du recours par l'intimée n'est pas prise en compte en vertu de l'art. 13(2) RPCR, car il n'y a pas de circonstances exceptionnelles justifiant l'admission.