4.4.3 Third-party observations not admitted

In T 637/09 the board took into account that, when exercising its discretion, it should not accord the third party within the meaning of Art. 115 EPC more favourable treatment than would be given to an actual party seeking to introduce such submissions shortly before the oral proceedings. The board explained that the third-party observations contained inter alia new submissions which would, if admitted at that late stage, have compromised the fairness of the proceedings. Hence, the third-party observations were not admitted into the proceedings (see also T 1348/11, T 346/15 and T 1876/18).

In T 953/02 the respondent had challenged the submission under Art. 115 EPC 1973 because of a signature which was deficient, i.e. not that of a natural person. The submission by the third party was filed substantially less than one month before the oral proceedings. The board did not admit it into the proceedings.

In T 1528/13 not only had the third-party observations been presented well after the notice of appeal had been filed but neither they nor the evidence produced in support of them appeared prima facie any more relevant than the submissions already on file. See also T 771/13.