T 0094/24 (Indentation in a hearing aid/GN HEARING) of 19.01.2026

Oral proceedings by videoconference (no): in-person hearing more appropriate in view of substantive amount of submissions
Inventive step - main request (no): no technical effect credibly achieved over the whole scope claimed
Admittance - auxiliary requests 1 to 3 (no): no "exceptional circumstances" and detrimental to procedural economy
Referral of questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no): no "unique application" of the problem-solution approach by Board 3.5.05
Objections under Rule 106 EPC - dismissed: no violation of proprietor's right to be heard
Federal Court of Justice (BGH)X ZR 51/21decision of 13 June 2023 - Schlossgehäuse
UK High CourtSandvik IP AB v Kennametal[2011] EWHC 3311
UPC_CoA_464/2024of 25 November 2025

1. Where a distinguishing feature does not credibly contribute to the solution of a technical problem, it normally constitutes an "arbitrary modification" of the prior art which cannot support an inventive step. This principle applies independently of whether the feature is technical or non-technical in nature (see Reasons 3.4).
2. There is no "customary practice" in appeal proceedings that grants a party the right to have written submissions filed one month prior to oral proceedings automatically admitted into the appeal proceedings. Consequently, reliance on such an alleged "practice" cannot justify a derogation from the explicit provisions of Article 13(2) RPBA (see Reasons 4 and 5).