European Patent Office

T 1220/21 (Avoiding double images in Head-Up Display/Saint-Gobain) of 14.11.2023

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T122021.20231114
Date of decision
14 November 2023
Case number
T 1220/21
Petition for review of
-
Application number
08784861.0
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
Distributed to board chairmen (C)
OJ versions
No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
Abstract on Art 12(3) RPBA 2020
Application title
CURVED VEHICLE WINDSHIELD MADE FROM LAMINATED GLASS
Applicant name
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS FRANCE
Opponent name
Pilkington Group Limited
Board
3.3.06
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 56Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(5)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)
Keywords
Inventive step - (no)
Statement of grounds of appeal - party's complete appeal case
Discretion not to admit submission - requirements of Art. 12(3) RPBA 2020 met (no)
Discretion not to admit submission - submission admitted (no)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)
Catchword
1. According to Article 12(3) and (5) RPBA 2020, a lack of or an insufficient substantiation of an amended request may lead to the non-admittance of this request. This does however not imply that the request has not been validly filed (reasons 4.2).
2. The admittance of an amended request which is not expressly substantiated pursuant to Article 12(3) RPBA 2020 is at the discretion of the Board under Article 12(5) RPBA, even if the amendments are self-explanatory (reasons 4.3.2).
3. The substantiation of an amended request under Article 12(3) RPBA 2020 includes the primary duty of the proprietor to indicate the basis for the amendments in the application as originally filed, even if no objection under Article 123(2) EPC has been previously raised (reasons 4.3.3 (a) and 4.4.5 (c)).
4. Information that can only be found in attached documents, without an explicit reference and explanation by the party, cannot be regarded as sufficient substantiation pursuant to Article 12(3) RPBA 2020 (reasons 4.4.6.(c)).
5. The discretion not to admit a request under Article 12(5) RPBA 2020 may be exercised by taking into account the extent to which a lack of or an insufficient substantiation prevents the Board and/or the other party(ies) from recognising the proprietor's intentions (reasons 4.5.1).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.