T 1776/18 of 05.10.2022

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T177618.20221005
Date of decision: 5 October 2022
Case number: T 1776/18
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 12769275.4
IPC class: A23J 3/16 A23L 33/185 A23J 3/14 A23L 33/00 A23L 2/66
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: No distribution (D)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case: -
Abstracts for this decision: Abstract on EPC2000 Art 114(2)
Application title: POWDERED NUTRITIONAL FORMULATIONS INCLUDING SPRAY-DRIED PLANT PROTEIN
Applicant name: ABBOTT LABORATORIES
Opponent name: Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH
Cosucra-Groupe Warcoing SA
N.V. Nutricia
Spreepatent Schutzrechtsverwertung und
Innovationstransfer GmbH
Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.
Board: 3.3.09
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 6(1)European Patent Convention Art 113(2)European Patent Convention Art 114(1)European Patent Convention Art 114(2)European Patent Convention Art 123(1)European Patent Convention Art 56 European Patent Convention R 116(1)European Patent Convention R 116(2)European Patent Convention R 79(1)European Patent Convention R 81(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
Keywords: Inventive step - (no)
Late-filed request - request identical to request not admitted in first instance proceedings
Legal basis for not admitting late-filed requests
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)
Catchword: 1.) Article 114(2) EPC provides a legal basis for disregarding claim requests which are not submitted in due time (Reasons 4.5.1-4.5.11).
2.) A claim request which is filed in opposition proceedings after the date set under Rule 116(1) EPC is not submitted in due time within the meaning of Article 114(2) EPC (Reasons 4.6.1-4.6.10).
3.) Rule 116(2) EPC does not limit the Opposition Division's discretionary power under Article 114(2) EPC and Rule 116(1) EPC. As a rule, this discretionary power does not depend on the contents of the Opposition Division's communication under Rule 116(1) EPC. However, if the Opposition Division invites the patent proprietor to file an amended claim request to address a specific objection and the patent proprietor complies with this invitation by filing the required amendments by the date set under Rule 116(1) EPC, the Opposition Division's discretion not to admit that claim request may effectively be reduced to zero (Reasons 4.7.1-4.7.8).
Cited cases: G 0002/88 G 0010/91 G 0004/92 G 0007/93 G 0003/14 R 0006/19 J 0014/19 T 0912/91 T 0133/92 T 0202/92 T 0771/92 T 0502/98 T 0706/00 T 0171/03 T 0235/08 T 0811/08 T 1734/08 T 1100/10 T 1732/10 T 1914/12 T 1933/12 T 2288/12 T 2385/12 T 2536/12 T 0487/13 T 1855/13 T 0066/14 T 0108/14 T 1784/14 T 0525/15 T 1758/15 T 0688/16 T 0754/16 T 0044/17 T 0966/17 T 1042/18 T 1078/18 T 1270/18 T 1558/18 T 0085/19 T 0256/19
Citing cases: T 1473/19 T 0364/20 T 0543/20 T 1171/20 T 0321/21 T 1863/21 T 2169/21 T 2172/21 T 0571/22 T 0719/22 T 1773/22 T 0183/23 T 0209/23 T 0823/23 T 1324/23 T 1639/23

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.