4.3.5 Incomplete case in grounds of appeal or reply – substantiation requirement – Article 12(3) and (5) RPBA
In accordance with the principles underlying the RPBA, the statement of grounds of appeal and any reply to it must contain the party's complete case (Art. 12(3) RPBA, essentially the same as Art. 12(2) RPBA 2007). The purpose of this provision – in both its revised and former versions – is to ensure fair proceedings for all parties and to enable the board to start working on the case on the basis of each party's complete submissions (T 2610/16, referring to CLB, 9th edn. 2019, V.A.4.12.5; see also T 1904/16, T 113/18 and T 319/18).
The requirement to present a complete case stipulated by Art. 12(3) RPBA is not merely a rule of administrative convenience, but the expression of a fundamental principle of court proceedings (T 2202/21, see also T 1776/18, referring to this requirement as a general procedural principle underlying the EPC). As underlined in T 321/21, the substantiation requirement is not limited to the statement of grounds of appeal and the reply but must also be complied with for claim requests and objections filed later in the appeal proceedings.
This provision plays a role in both, the admissibility of the appeal (see chapter V.A.2.6.3h)) and in the admittance in the appeal proceedings of incomplete or unsubstantiated requests, facts, objections, arguments or evidence (see the decisions summarised in this chapter V.A.4.3.5).
This requirement to provide substantiation also applies to submissions on which the contested decision is based (see e.g. T 559/20 and T 534/21 for requests and T 557/21 for objections). However, to cover the case law on Art. 12(3) and (5) RPBA in the context of other provisions in Art. 12 and 13 RPBA, decisions on this requirement are presented in this chapter V.A.4, even if they do not relate to "new submissions on appeal".
A sweeping reference by the appellant to its case in the first-instance proceedings is not sufficient to establish why the contested decision should be reversed. This approach is at odds with the appeal proceedings, in which, the appellant is obliged under Art. 108 EPC, R. 99(2) EPC and Art. 12(3) RPBA, to present a complete case with its statement of grounds of appeal, one that would allow the board and the other parties to understand why the contested decision should be reversed without having to make any further investigations of their own (T 706/17; also set out in T 2117/18 in relation to Art. 12(2) RPBA 2007, which was only amended slightly). See also T 2457/16 and T 1690/22 (the latter noting that this corresponds to long-standing and well-established case law of the boards of appeal; for details see chapter V.A.2.6.5 above).
The board in T 1041/21 also deemed sweeping references made by the respondent (patent proprietor; the successful party in the first-instance proceedings) to its case in said proceedings to be inconsistent with the requirement of Art. 12(3) RPBA. See also T 503/20. On the other hand, see also T 108/20. For further details, see chapter V.A.4.3.5b) (iii).
The requirement under Art. 12(3) RPBA to be concise does not exempt the parties from the obligation to specify expressly all the requests, facts, objections, arguments and evidence relied on (see T 2117/18, T 2872/19, T 1615/22).
Regarding the legal consequences of a failure to meet the complete case requirement, new Art. 12(5) RPBA provides that a board has discretion not to admit any part of a submission on appeal which does not meet the requirements in Art. 12(3) RPBA. In T 503/20, the board pointed out that it had discretion to admit passages of the reply to the opposition referred to using their specific margin references and that this depended on the specific circumstances of the case in hand. These included whether the impugned decision had been sufficiently discussed and, if the points at issue were irrelevant for this decision, whether it was clear enough from both parties' complete cases which points were being pursued and on what specific basis, and how these related to the opposing party's case.
Providing the required substantiation for a previously unsubstantiated objection or request does not qualify as a mere refinement. Fleshing out an incomplete case at a later stage was considered as an amendment within the meaning of Art. 13 RPBA in e.g. J 3/20, T 2227/15, T 326/16, T 1439/16, T 2796/17 (see also chapter V.A.4.2.3m) "Belated substantiation of objections"). In several decisions the boards have referred to Art. 12(3) RPBA when exercising their discretion under Art. 13(1) or (2) RPBA not to admit later submitted amendments of the appeal case (see e. g. T 1439/16 and T 1533/15). On whether unsubstantiated requests or objections have been validly submitted in the first place, see below chapter V.A.4.3.5b) (v) and V.A.4.3.5c) (vi).
- T 2271/22
Dans l'affaire T 2271/22 la division d’opposition a rejeté l'opposition conformément aux dispositions de l'art. 101(2) CBE. La requérante a demandé l'annulation de la décision de rejet de l'opposition et la révocation du brevet dans son ensemble.
Dans sa réponse au mémoire exposant les motifs du recours, l’intimée a déclaré qu'elle maintenait "toutes les requêtes déposées en 1ere [sic] instance". Ce n’était qu’en réponse à la notification selon l’art. 15(1) RPCR que l’intimée a précisé qu’il s’agissait bien de la première requête subsidiaire déposée le 2 juin 2021 et de la deuxième requête subsidiaire déposée le 28 mars 2022.
La chambre a relevé que, dans sa réponse aux motifs du recours, l'intimée n'avait donné aucun argument pour soutenir la recevabilité et le fondement de ces requêtes subsidiaires au cas où la chambre partagerait le point de vue de la requérante en ce qui concerne les revendications telles que délivrées. En particulier, l'intimée était restée silencieuse sur la question d'une activité inventive basée sur les caractéristiques techniques ajoutées. La chambre a aussi noté que la requérante avait attaqué ces requêtes subsidiaires dans son mémoire de recours..
La chambre n’a pas accepté l’argument de l’intimée que, la décision attaquée ayant maintenu le brevet conformément à la requête principale, l’art. 12(3) RPCR, selon lequel le mémoire et la réponse doivent présenter de façon claire et concise les motifs pour lesquels il est demandé d'annuler, de modifier ou de confirmer la décision attaquée, ne s’appliquerait pas aux requêtes subsidiaires dans l’espèce. La chambre a clarifié que, si l'intimée demande de manière subsidiaire le maintien du brevet conformément à une requête subsidiaire, elle doit présenter dans sa réponse au mémoire de recours les motifs pour lesquels il est demandé de modifier ou de confirmer la décision attaquée et d'exposer expressément et de façon précise l'ensemble des requêtes, faits, arguments et preuves invoqués, même si cette requête subsidiaire avait déjà été déposée pendant la procédure d'opposition et jamais traitée par la division d'opposition. Par conséquent, les exigences de l'art. 12(3) RPCR n’étaient clairement pas remplies en ce qui concerne ces requêtes subsidiaires.
La présentation d’arguments quelques jours avant la procédure orale prévue ne pouvait, en l’absence de circonstances exceptionnelles, remplacer l’exposé exigé par l’art. 12(3) RPCR.
En conclusion, la chambre a considéré que les deux requêtes subsidiaires n'étaient pas motivées et, par conséquent, n'étaient pas recevables dans la procédure de recours (art. 12(3) et (5) RPCR).