5.1.7 Principles for the exercise of discretion by the opposition division

In T 691/24, the board had to address the issue of the late filing of claim requests in opposition proceedings and whether the first instance had exercised its discretion correctly in not admitting them. The main request and the first auxiliary request were filed during the oral proceedings before the opposition division (as auxiliary request 9a1 and 9b, respectively) and were not admitted into the opposition proceedings for being late-filed and non-convergent (main request) and for having been filed "without prior authorisation" (first auxiliary request).

In the appeal proceedings, the patent proprietor contested the finding that the requests had been late-filed, arguing that they had been submitted in response to an objection under Art. 123(2) EPC that had been newly raised during the second oral proceedings before the opposition division, after it had departed from its previous preliminary opinion. The patent proprietor further argued that the opposition division should have applied the criterion of "prima facie allowability" instead of the "convergence criterion".

The board held that the requests had indeed been filed late, as they had not been submitted within the time limit set by the invitation under R. 79(1) EPC issued following opponent 2’s notice of intervention. The board stated that the opposition division had the discretion pursuant to Art. 123(1) EPC in conjunction with R. 81(3), 79(1) and/or 116(2) EPC not to admit them (R 6/19, T 256/19). This discretion existed independently of the provisions of R. 116 EPC and of whether the opposition division deviated from its provisional opinion (T 966/17). Nor could such a deviation as such justify an automatic admittance of a claim request (T 868/20, T 847/20). A positive preliminary opinion on auxiliary request 9a – already admitted into the proceedings at the opposition division's discretion – could not guarantee per se the admittance of a further filing of claim requests. Nor did such a positive opinion "reset" the application of the "convergence criterion".

As regards the use of the "convergence criterion" by the opposition division, the board noted that it is a well-established criterion that may legitimately be used by a first-instance department when exercising its discretion on the admittance of late-filed claim requests. The board agreed that the present main request was not convergent with auxiliary requests 5 and 6 and that the opposition division had indeed the discretion to use this criterion to not admit "auxiliary request 9a1", i.e. the present main request, into the opposition proceedings. The patent proprietor had noted that the criterion of "prima facie allowability" was used when considering admittance of other claim requests during the first-instance proceedings instead of the "convergence criterion". The board stated that the question of consistency in the application of criteria selected from the opposition division’s legal toolbox when assessing admittance had little bearing on whether, in the present case, the opposition division rightly relied upon a particular criterion in relation to a particular claim request.

The board accepted that the "convergence criterion" represents only an "indicator" that procedural economy may be affected and that whether this is actually the case depends on the circumstances of a particular case. However, in the present case, the opposition division indicated precisely in view of which higher-ranking claim request the then "auxiliary request 9a1" did not converge and why this claim request went in a different direction, i.e. which features were in fact replaced. Hence, the implications for procedural economy were therefore considered and balanced. As a consequence, the opposition division did not use the "convergence criterion" in an unreasonable or erroneous way when disregarding the present main request..

With respect to the first auxiliary request, and the opposition division’s decision not to allow it, the board found that there is no legal basis in the EPC for making a party’s submissions subject to prior approval by the deciding body and that the limitation to one further request – ex ante and without any consideration as to their substance – was arbitrary. The board therefore acknowledged that this constituted a procedural, though not substantial, violation, since the auxiliary request, being a continuation of the main request, must likewise be "non-convergent".

Consequently, the board did not admit the main request and the first auxiliary request into the appeal proceedings (Art. 12(6), first sentence, RPBA).

In T 1398/23 entschied die Kammer, dass die Nichtzulassung des Hilfsantrags 2 durch die Einspruchsabteilung fehlerhaft war..

Die Einspruchsabteilung hatte den Antrag als verspätet angesehen, da er nach Ablauf der Frist nach R. 116 (1) EPÜ eingereicht worden war. "Um die Fairness des Verfahrens zu garantieren", prüfte sie daher, ob die Patentinhaberin den Antrag früher hätte einreichen können. Die Einspruchsabteilung stellte ferner fest, dass Hilfsantrag 14 rechtzeitig vor der Frist gemäß R. 116 (1) EPÜ eingereicht worden war, und dass der neu eingereichte Hilfsantrag 2 fast identisch zu Hilfsantrag 14 war, mit dem Unterschied, dass die Ansprüche 6 bis 10 aufrechterhalten wurden..

Aufgrund dieser Konstellation, kam die Einspruchsabteilung zu dem Schluss, dass die Patentinhaberin keinen Grund gehabt hatte, einen neuen Antrag mit zusätzlichen Ansprüchen einzureichen. Eine Änderung der Strategie einer Partei, die unabhängig vom Verfahrensverlauf ist, sei keine gültige Begründung für ein spätes Vorbringen. Der Hilfsantrag 2 hätte spätestens kurz vor Ablauf der Frist gemäß R. 116 (1) EPÜ eingereicht werden müssen und wurde daher von der Einspruchsabteilung gemäß Art. 114 (2) EPÜ nicht ins Verfahren zugelassen.

Die Kammer kam jedoch zu dem Schluss, dass die Einspruchsabteilung die Ausgangslage unzutreffend ermittelt hatte. Maßgeblich war der Kammer zufolge, dass die Einsprechende am letzten Tag der Frist gemäß R. 116 (1) EPÜ erstmals einen Einwand unter Art. 54 (1) EPÜ in Bezug auf das Dokument D2 erhoben hatte und die Einspruchsabteilung in der mündlichen Verhandlung von ihrem Ermessen Gebrauch machte, diesen neuen Einwand zum Verfahren zuzulassen, auf dessen Basis der beanspruchte Gegenstand des Hauptantrags und des Hilfsantrags 1 dann als nicht neu angesehen wurden. Hilfsantrag 14 war hingegen eingereicht worden, bevor der Einspruchsabteilung der Einwand fehlender Neuheit im Hinblick auf D2 überhaupt bekannt war. Hilfsantrag 14 war ersichtlich ein Versuch, die davor erhobenen Einwände der Einsprechenden zu beheben bzw. der vorläufigen Meinung der Einspruchsabteilung Rechnung zu tragen. Dies bedeutet, dass Hilfsantrag 14 nicht als Reaktion auf den neuen Einwand unter Art. 54 (1) EPÜ im Hinblick auf D2 angesehen werden durfte. Entgegen der Auffassung der Einspruchsabteilung war Hilfsantrag 14 daher nicht Teil der Ausgangslage, die bei der Bestimmung der durch die Einreichung von Hilfsantrag 2 bewirkten Änderung zu berücksichtigen war.

Ausgehend davon, dass ein neuer Einwand unter Art. 54 (1) EPÜ erst am letzten Tag der Frist nach R. 116 (1) EPÜ erhoben worden war, dieser erst in der mündlichen Verhandlung durch die Einspruchsabteilung zum Verfahren zugelassen worden war und dann zur Ablehnung der Neuheit des beanspruchten Gegenstands führte, war die Einreichung eines neuen Hilfsantrags in der mündlichen Verhandlung als rechtzeitige und angemessene Reaktion zu bewerten. In diesem Falle lag die Zulassung des neuen Hilfsantrags 2 nicht im Ermessen der Einspruchsabteilung, sondern der Hilfsantrag 2 musste zugelassen werden.

Auch wenn Hilfsantrag 2 im Vergleich zu Hilfsantrag 14 nur zusätzliche Ansprüche aufweist, kann das Recht der Patentinhaberin, auf einen neuen Einwand mit einem neuen Anspruchssatz (Hilfsantrag 2) zu reagieren, nicht durch einen Anspruchssatz (Hilfsantrag 14) erschöpft werden, der sich bereits vor Einreichung des Einwands im Verfahren befand.

Da die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung, den Hilfsantrag 2 nicht zuzulassen, fehlerhaft war, war die angefochtene Entscheidung aufzuheben. Die Kammer hob die angefochtene Entscheidung auf und verwies die Angelegenheit zur weiteren Entscheidung an die Einspruchsabteilung zurück (Art. 111 (1) EPC, Art. 11 VOBK).

In T 989/23 auxiliary request 17, filed with the statement of grounds of appeal, had first been filed in the opposition proceedings on the final date set under R. 116 EPC. The opposition division had decided that this auxiliary request was not open for examination as to its admissibility since it had been filed within the set time limit. Auxiliary request 17 was not considered by the opposition division since a higher-ranking auxiliary request was found allowable. The appellant-opponent requested that auxiliary request 17 not be admitted into the appeal proceedings, arguing that the division had misunderstood its discretionary powers.

In view of the line of case law holding that submissions admitted by the opposition division could not be excluded from consideration on appeal (e.g. T 487/16, T 1768/17, T 617/16, T 26/13, T 989/23, T 1568/12, T 2603/18, T 3201/19) the board first addressed the extent of its power of review. It explained that like an opposition division's decision to disregard late-filed submissions, a decision to admit such submissions into the opposition proceedings was a discretionary procedural decision which formed part of the opposition division's final decision on the merits of an opposition. A decision to admit late-filed submissions adversely affected the party contesting their admittance (in view of a possible adverse decision on appeal based on the admitted submissions, T 1549/07). Therefore, a board had the power to review an opposition division's procedural decision to take into consideration submissions filed late in opposition proceedings. Otherwise, the parties' right to a judicial review of an essential part of the opposition division's decision would be denied. Moreover, on appeal, a board would be compelled to accept a legal and factual framework, even if it is based on an erroneous exercise of discretion. As a consequence, requests, facts or evidence that had been admitted into opposition proceedings could be disregarded on appeal if the opposition division's decision suffered from an error in the use of discretion (T 1209/05, T 1652/08, T 1852/11, T 2197/11, T 572/14, T 341/15, T 326/22, T 776/17). The board thus had the power and duty to review the opposition division's decision to admit auxiliary request 17 into the opposition proceedings.

The board held that the filing of requests for amendment of the patent was governed by Art. 123(1) EPC, which gave the opposition division the discretionary power not to admit new requests for amendment (e.g. T 755/96, OJ 2000, 174; T 980/08, T 1178/08, T 966/17, R 6/19, T 256/19, R 11/20). The exercise of this discretion had to take account of the following: In inter-partes proceedings, each party had to be given equal opportunity to present their case and a fair chance to respond to new matter raised by the other party or parties or by the opposition division. Both the opposition division and the parties had to observe the principle of good faith (T 669/90, OJ 1992, 739; T 201/92). To expedite the proceedings and implement the principle of fairness towards the other party or parties, each party had to submit all facts, evidence, arguments and requests for amendments relevant to their case as early and completely as possible (T 326/87, OJ 1992, 522; T 430/89; T 951/91, OJ 1995, 202). This case law had been developed mainly in the context of Art. 114(2) EPC, pertaining to facts and evidence. Nevertheless, in view of the principles set out above, the rationale of this case law also applied to a patent proprietor's requests for amendment of the patent (e.g. T 582/08). Whether amended sets of claims should be considered in opposition proceedings or not did not merely depend on their filing within the time limit under R. 116 EPC, but also on the specific circumstances of the case (see also T 364/20). Consequently, the opposition division erred in denying that it had discretionary power to disregard auxiliary request 17. As a consequence, this procedural decision did not establish that auxiliary request 17 was "admissibly raised" in opposition proceedings.

The board agreed with the opponent that the filing of additional sets of amended claims (including auxiliary request 17) on 23 January 2023 was not a diligent and appropriate reaction to the opponent's submissions filed on 14 April 2022 and reiterated on 2 September 2022, or to the opposition division's communication of 30 May 2022. Since part of the defences submitted by the proprietor was not able to overcome the board’s conclusions on lack of inventive step and a later filed part raised new issues, the board did not admit auxiliary request 17 into the appeal proceedings.