T 0842/24 of 21.05.2026

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2026:T084224.20260521
Date of decision: 21 May 2026
Case number: T 0842/24
Online on: 22 May 2026
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 19751764.2
IPC class: A61K 8/02 A61K 8/73 C08L 1/12 A61Q 1/02 C08J 3/12
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: Distributed to board chairmen (C)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case: -
Abstracts for this decision: -
Application title: CELLULOSE ACETATE PARTICLES, COSMETIC COMPOSITION, AND METHOD OF PRODUCING CELLULOSE ACETATE PARTICLES
Applicant name: Daicel Corporation
Opponent name: Cerdia International GmbH
Board: 3.3.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 114(2)European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)European Patent Convention R 103(4)(c)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 011Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(6)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013
Keywords: Sufficiency of disclosure objection submitted in writing and not taken into account by the opposition division while maintaining the patent in amended form -
susbtantial procedural violation (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - equitable by reason of a substantial procedural violation
Evidence and new objection admitted into the proceedings forming the basis for the contested decision are part of the appeal proceedings (yes)
New document submitted on appeal in reply to evidence submitted shortly before the oral proceeding before the opposition division on the basis of which novelty was denied
admitted (yes) - fresh case on novelty
Remittal to the opposition division
Catchword: There is no legal basis for reversing in appeal a decision by the opposition division to admit new evidence into the opposition proceedings and thus to retroactively reject in appeal specific facts which had been admitted into the appeal proceedings if that evidence formed the basis of the decision taken on substantive grounds. It cannot be derived from G 7/93 that the criteria stated therein for overruling the way in which a department of first instance has exercised its discretion also apply to the case where evidence was admitted and the decision taken on substantive grounds was based thereon. (see Reasons 4.1 to 4.6)
Cited cases: G 0007/93 G 0004/95 G 0001/21 R 0017/11 T 0640/91 T 1209/05 T 1549/07 T 0467/08 T 1485/08 T 1652/08 T 1253/09 T 1852/11 T 2513/11 T 1568/12 T 1883/12 T 1271/13 T 1690/15 T 1711/16 T 2730/16 T 0776/17 T 0879/18 T 0526/21 T 0989/23
Citing cases: -

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the opposition division for further prosecution.

3. The appeal fee of the opponent is to be reimbursed. The appeal fee of the patent proprietor is to be reimbursed at 25% in accordance with Rule 103(4)(c) EPC.