4.3.10 Consideration of the parties' arguments in the written decision
The right to be heard under Art. 113(1) EPC requires that those involved be given an opportunity not only to present comments (on the facts and considerations pertinent to the decision) but also to have those comments considered, that is reviewed, with respect to their relevance for the decision in the matter (R 23/10; see also R 13/12, R 12/14). In R 8/11 the Enlarged Board held that Art. 113(1) EPC obliged the decision-making body to allow the parties to present the necessary arguments on all essential aspects of the case, to take note of these arguments and to acknowledge them in its decision (see also R 19/12 of 12 April 2016 date: 2016-04-12). In R 8/15 the Enlarged Board stated that a party must be able to examine whether the board has afforded it the right to be heard in order to decide whether or not to file a petition for review.
In R 4/12 the Enlarged Board held that oral remarks made by a chairman directly before a decision is pronounced do not form part of the reasons that must reflect, within certain limits, a party's arguments.
In R 8/15 the Enlarged Board held that Art. 113(1) EPC must be interpreted more narrowly than R. 102(g) EPC. The latter requires a board to give reasons for its decision, but infringement thereof is not as such a ground for review. Reasons may be incomplete, but as long as they permit the conclusion that the board, in the course of the appeal proceedings, substantively assessed a certain point that it found it to be relevant, there is no violation of Art. 113(1) EPC (see also R 2/18). Confirming the approach taken in R 8/15, the Enlarged Board held in R 10/18 that a board is presumed to have taken into account a party's submissions that it did not address in the reasons for its decision. An exception may apply if there are indications to the contrary, e.g. if a board does not address in the reasons for its decision submissions by a party that, on an objective basis, are decisive for the outcome of the case, or dismisses such submissions without first assessing them as to their correctness.
Decisions of boards of appeal are open only to review but not to appeal, and thus not covered by R. 111(2) EPC which requires that decisions which are open to appeal be reasoned (R 6/11; see, however, also R 12/10; see also in this chapter V.B.3.4.2).
- R 10/20
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)
- R 6/20
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.)
- 2023 compilation “Abstracts of decisions”