r) Translation filed later 

In T 1554/16 the appellant (opponent) had attached a translation of a Japanese patent specification to its grounds of appeal. Later, after receiving the summons to oral proceedings, it also filed a translation of the related patent application. For the board, the later translation was not an amendment to the appeal case within the meaning of Art. 13(1) RPBA, because a Japanese patent specification usually did not contain any teaching going beyond the original disclosure in the application and so the opponent's line of argument had already been clear from the translation of the specification.

In T 1795/19, the board held that presenting a different machine translation of a citation constituted an amendment to the opponent's case. If the translation were admitted, the patent proprietor and the board would have to deal with altered and potentially entirely new facts for which they could not prepare before the oral proceedings.