T 0837/24 (User-related presence message/GN HEARING) of 08.12.2025

Admittance of late-filed objection - objection under Art. 123(2) EPC (yes): contradiction in the opposition division's written decision
Added subject-matter - main request and 1st to 5th auxiliary requests (yes): in view of an alternative, technically meaningful claim interpretation
Admittance of claim requests filed after Art. 15(1) communication - auxiliary requests M-A and M-B (yes): opposition division's contradictory reasoning of its admittance decision constitutes "exceptional circumstances"
Extension of scope of protection - auxiliary requests M-A and M-B (yes): "inescapable trap"

1. A claim construction omitting a technically meaningful claim feature does not constitute a good-faith interpretation of a claim. Rather, the skilled reader with a "mind willing to understand" the subject-matter of a claim in an objective manner gives a technical meaning to each claim feature (see point 2.4.2 of the Reasons).
2. A self-contradicting or inconsistent appealed decision may in itself constitute "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA, if there is a causal link between the amendment of the appeal case and that self-contradiction or inconsistency (see point 3.2.3 of the Reasons).
3. If a granted claim allows for several technically meaningful interpretations, it has to be ensured that according to neither of these interpretations the protection conferred by it is extended within the meaning of Article 123(3) EPC (see point 3.3.3 of the Reasons).