Selected decisions 

1. The Enlarged Board of Appeal affirms its previous decisions R 8/15 and R 10/18.

2. Catchword 1, second paragraph, of R 10/18 reading: "Article 113(1) EPC is infringed if the board does not address submissions that, in its view, are relevant for the decision in a manner adequate to show that the parties were heard on them, i.e. that the board substantively considered those submissions..." is complemented as follows:

the requirement that "the Board substantively considered those submissions" should be given the meaning that "the Board considered the contents of those submissions", with this consideration comprising matters

- pertaining to admittance of facts, evidence and requests, and/or

- relating to substantive law, i.e. the merits of a case.

(See Reasons, point 2).

3. Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 is in line with Articles 114(1) and 113(1) EPC. (See Reasons, point 3.2.2(a) in fine.)

1. The requirement for immediate and complete substantiation of a request for re-establishment corresponds to the principle of "Eventualmaxime/Häufungsgrundsatz/le principe de la concentration des moyens", according to which the request must state all grounds for re-establishment and means of evidence without the possibility of submitting these at a later stage.

2. Dynamic interpretation of the EPC, as derived from Articles 31(1) and 31(3) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, must take account of developments in national and inter­natio­nal procedural law, notably as regards the guarantees of fair trial before a tribunal of law (Article 6(1) ECHR).

3. There is no "absolute" right to oral proceedings upon a party's request, but it is subject to inherent restrictions by the EPC and procedural principles generally recognised in the Contracting States of the EPO.

4. If oral proceedings do not serve any legitimate purpose, the requirement of legal certainty in due time prevents the Board from appointing them.

5. It is not the purpose of oral proceedings in the context of proceedings for re-establishment to give the appellant a further chance to substantiate their factual assertions or to provide evidence despite the absence of factual assertions in the request for re-establishment.

1. Mere inconsistencies among the indications in the request for grant of a European patent (EPO Form 1001), and between some of them and the originally filed application documents, are not sufficient to prove an alleged obvious error or the obviousness of a correction offered under Rule 139 EPC.

2. The ban on corrections under Rule 139 EPC by replacement of at least the complete description is categorical.