B. Proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal

Catchword: 

Decision G 1/21 cannot be read as restricting the possibility of summoning for oral proceedings by videoconference contrary to the will of one of the parties only in the case of a general emergency. G 1/21 does not exclude that there are other circumstances specific to a case that justify the decision not to hold the oral proceedings in person.

Catchword: 

1. "Proceedings" to be re-opened under Article 112a(5) EPC following an allowable petition are limited to rectifying the defect found according to the review decision. The present proceedings as re-opened by the Enlarged Board in R 3/22 are thus not the appeal proceedings, but "ancillary proceedings" with the limited purpose to decide on the request for correction of the withdrawal of the appeal (see point 2 of the Reasons).  2. Rule 139 EPC is applicable only if proceedings before the EPO for some other purpose are pending when the request for correction is received by the EPO. The request for correction is inadmissible if received when no such proceedings are pending (see point 3 of the Reasons).  3. A patent application subject to the examining division's refusal, which is in turn subject to an appeal that has been withdrawn, is not "pending" within the meaning of Rule 36(1) EPC (see point 4 of the Reasons).

Catchword: 

- Binding effect of a referring decision (see Reasons, points 9 to 9.4.5)
- Interpretation of order no. 2 of G 2/21 (see Reasons, points 10 to 11.14, in particular points 11.10 and 11.14)
- Submissions based on earlier decisions of the boards of appeal
- admittance into the appeal proceedings (see Reasons, points 32 to 32.4, in particular point 32.3)

Catchword:

In a situation such as the present case - where the board does not react in a recognisable and explicit manner to an intended objection under Rule 106 EPC - a diligent party should normally insist on a discernible response from the board. Failure to do so will leave the party with an indication that weighs against its case (Reasons 16).

Catchword:

Artikel 113(1) EPÜ verlangt, dass die Kammer Vorbringen eines Beteiligten in der Sache berücksichtigt hat, d.h. - erstens, dass sie das Vorbringen eines Beteiligten zur Kenntnis genommen und - zweitens dieses Vorbringen erwogen hat, d.h. geprüft hat, ob es relevant und ggf. richtig ist. Es wird vermutet, dass eine Kammer das Vorbringen eines Beteiligten in der Sache berücksichtigt hat, welches sie in den Entscheidungsgründen nicht behandelt hat. Denn dann ist anzunehmen, dass es aus ihrer Sicht nicht relevant war. Diese Vermutung kann widerlegt sein, wenn Anzeichen für eine Nicht-Berücksichtigung vorliegen, z.B. wenn eine Kammer in den Entscheidungsgründen das Vorbringen eines Beteiligten nicht behandelt, welches objektiv betrachtet entscheidend für den Ausgang des Falles ist, oder derartiges Vorbringen von der Hand weist, ohne es zuvor auf seine Richtigkeit zu überprüfen. (Siehe Nr. 3.2.1.1; Weiterführung von R 8/15, R 10/18 und R 6/20) Der Charakter eines Vorbringens als objektiv betrachtet entscheidend für den Ausgang des Falles muss sich aufdrängen. Das folgt daraus, dass das Überprüfungsverfahren nach Artikel 112a EPÜ grundsätzlich nicht der Überprüfung des materiellen Rechts dient, weswegen Ausnahmen von diesem Grundsatz nur unter strengen Voraussetzungen zuzulassen sind. (Siehe Nr. 3.2.1.2)

Catchword:

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.)