4. Gründe für einen Überprüfungsantrag

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 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 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 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.