G 0002/21 (Reliance on a purported technical effect for inventive step (plausibility)) of 23.03.2023

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2023:G000221.20230323

Date of decision

23 March 2023

Case number

G 0002/21

Petition for review of

Application number

12002626.5

IPC class

A01N 43/56 A01N 51/00

Language of proceedings

English

Distribution

Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)

Download

Decision in English

OJ versions

Other decisions for this case

Abstracts for this decision

Abstract on EPC2000 Art 056

Application title

Insecticide compositions

Applicant name

Sumitomo Chemical Company, Limited

Opponent name

Syngenta Limited

Board

Headnote

I. Evidence submitted by a patent applicant or proprietor to prove a technical effect relied upon for acknowledgement of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence, on which the effect rests, had not been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and was filed after that date.

II. A patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention.

Relevant legal provisions

Keywords

admissibility of referral - (yes)
re-phrasing of the referred questions - no
extending the scope of the referred questions - no
principle of free evaluation of evidence - exception to the principle required - no
inventive step - reliance on technical effect - yes, based on the application as originally filed

Catchword

Cited cases

G 0003/97 G 0004/97 G 0002/08 G 0002/10 G 0001/12 G 0001/13 G 0003/14 G 0001/19 G 0003/19 G 0001/21 T 0390/88 T 0482/89 T 0838/92 T 0939/92 T 0798/93 T 0543/95 T 0558/95 T 0142/97 T 0592/98 T 0278/00 T 0329/02 T 0609/02 T 0893/02 T 0972/02 T 1110/03 T 0474/04 T 1329/04 T 0578/06 T 1599/06 T 0536/07 T 1437/07 T 1642/07 T 0545/08 T 1545/08 T 0108/09 T 1797/09 T 0266/10 T 0415/11 T 0754/11 T 1677/11 T 1791/11 T 0125/12 T 0419/12 T 0760/12 T 0863/12 T 2294/12 T 0235/13 T 0895/13 T 1045/13 T 1285/13 T 2059/13 T 2348/13 T 2371/13 T 0787/14 T 0887/14 T 1363/14 T 0321/15 T 0919/15 T 2097/15 T 2238/15 T 0179/16 T 0184/16 T 0488/16 T 0517/16 T 0578/16 T 0978/16 T 1499/16 T 2730/16 T 0229/17 T 1322/17 T 1680/17 T 2200/17 T 0031/18 T 0116/18 T 0122/18 T 0334/18 T 0377/18 T 0391/18 T 1306/18 T 1442/18 T 2923/18 T 1099/19 T 1343/19 T 1571/19 T 2029/19 T 2963/19 T 3109/19 T 2015/20

Citing cases

R 0004/24 R 0002/25 T 1499/16 T 2790/17 T 0116/18 T 0687/19 T 1203/19 T 1525/19 T 1989/19 T 2465/19 T 2716/19 T 2735/19 T 0025/20 T 0294/20 T 0314/20 T 0852/20 T 1023/20 T 1138/20 T 1210/20 T 1435/20 T 1515/20 T 0258/21 T 0569/21 T 0681/21 T 0728/21 T 0873/21 T 0885/21 T 0887/21 T 0990/21 T 1045/21 T 1255/21 T 1329/21 T 1394/21 T 1445/21 T 1446/21 T 1602/21 T 1616/21 T 1638/21 T 1698/21 T 1732/21 T 1779/21 T 1825/21 T 1879/21 T 1891/21 T 2036/21 T 2046/21 T 2086/21 T 2168/21 T 0023/22 T 0166/22 T 0170/22 T 0197/22 T 0318/22 T 0364/22 T 0509/22 T 0518/22 T 0529/22 T 0552/22 T 0589/22 T 0601/22 T 0687/22 T 0832/22 T 0840/22 T 0843/22 T 0853/22 T 0936/22 T 0996/22 T 1057/22 T 1125/22 T 1249/22 T 1283/22 T 1551/22 T 1796/22 T 1865/22 T 1958/22 T 1994/22 T 2010/22 T 2037/22 T 2219/22 T 2363/22 T 2424/22 T 2463/22 T 2499/22 T 0228/23 T 0259/23 T 0287/23 T 0372/23 T 0560/23 T 0593/23 T 0709/23 T 0827/23 T 0867/23 T 0979/23 T 1027/23 T 1207/23 T 1232/23 T 1253/23 T 1269/23 T 1272/23 T 1354/23 T 1385/23 T 1456/23 T 1465/23 T 1580/23 T 1677/23 T 1692/23 T 1739/23 T 1822/23 T 1844/23 T 1847/23 T 1915/23 T 1934/23 T 1950/23 T 0072/24 T 0331/24 T 0722/24 T 0729/24

Order

For these reasons it is decided that the questions of law referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:

1. Evidence submitted by a patent applicant or proprietor to prove a technical effect relied upon for acknowledgement of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence, on which the effect rests, had not been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and was filed after that date.

2. A patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention.