4.3.7 Submissions that should have been submitted or which were no longer maintained at first instance – Article 12(6), second sentence, RPBA
In T 205/22 the board stressed that since the opposition had been rejected, there was no need for the patentee to file auxiliary requests before the opposition division, and a request filed at the beginning of the appeal proceedings could not be rejected solely on the ground that it should have been submitted earlier (see T 141/20, T 1758/21 and T 2202/21). See also T 972/21.
In T 290/20 the appellant (patent proprietor) filed a new auxiliary request 5 in reply to the opponent’s grounds of appeal, as an attempt to overcome inventive step objections based on a document, which had not been admitted by the opposition division but for which admittance had been requested again in appeal. The board pointed out that there had been no reason for the proprietor to file a corresponding request before the opposition division or with its statement of grounds of appeal. Overcoming any objection based on this document only became necessary when it was re-filed by the opponent with its statement of grounds of appeal.
Similarly in T 3240/19 the board held that there was no requirement for the respondent (proprietor) to file, during the first instance oral proceedings, any requests overcoming the new objection under Art. 123(2) EPC, raised on the final date in accordance with R. 116 EPC, as the opposition division considered that this objection did not prejudice maintenance of the patent in amended form according to the main request. See also T 218/20 (summarised above).
In T 141/20, the board pointed out that it was insufficient under Art. 12(6) RPBA that the requests could have been filed in the opposition proceedings; that requests “should have been submitted” required that there were reasons for doing so. However, the board could not discern any such reason since the opposition division had made it clear during the proceedings that it did not agree with the opponent's objection. The board explained that the objection simply being part of the proceedings did not suffice as such a reason. In the opposition proceedings, the patent proprietor could not be expected to counter essentially any objection raised, and any permutation of an objection, by filing auxiliary requests. This would constitute an undue burden for both the opposition division and the other parties. The board's decision to admit had to take account of whether there was a need for the request to be filed in the opposition proceedings.
In T 938/20 the appellant's new main request, filed as auxiliary request 105 shortly before the notification of the summons to oral proceedings before the board, was considered a fair reaction to opponent 2's objection raised under Art. 83 EPC in its reply to the appeal. This objection had been raised already in its notice of opposition, but had apparently not been discussed during the oral proceedings before the opposition division (although it would have equally applied to a request then at issue). The board took into account the high number of objections raised by the opponents in opposition proceedings and that there was apparently no clear indication that such a request should have been filed in addition to the numerous requests filed before the opposition division, since the opposition division apparently had not considered this objection critical for the requirements of Art. 83 EPC. Therefore there was no reason not to admit it when considering Art. 12(6) RPBA.
- T 1865/23
Im Verfahren T 1865/23 hatte die Kammer die Frage zu prüfen, ob der erstmals mit der Beschwerdeerwiderung der Patentinhaberin eingereichte Hilfsantrag 10, der somit als Änderung im Sinne von Art. 12 (4) VOBK angesehen wurde, schon im Einspruchsverfahren hätte eingereicht werden müssen. Die Einsprechenden argumentierten, dies sei der Fall, da die getätigten Änderungen Einwände beträfen, welche schon in der Einspruchsschrift erhoben worden seien. Sie verwiesen in diesem Zusammenhang auf T 1188/16.
Die Kammer teilte die Auffassung der Einsprechenden jedoch nicht. Sie hob hervor, dass die zuständige Kammer in T 1188/16 befand, dass der Hauptantrag schon im Einspruchsverfahren hätte eingereicht werden müssen, da die Einspruchsabteilung in der mündlichen Verhandlung eine unzulässige Änderung bemängelt hatte. Im vorliegenden Fall sei der Sachverhalt jedoch anders..
Die Kammer erläuterte, dass die Einsprechende 1 innerhalb der Einspruchsfrist zwar u.a. bemängelt hatte, dass eine unzulässige Zwischenverallgemeinerung vorliege. In ihrer Erwiderung darauf hatte die Patentinhaberin dies aber bestritten und die Einspruchsabteilung hatte ihr in ihrer vorläufigen Meinung zugestimmt und diese Ansicht auch in der angefochtenen Entscheidung vertreten. Nach Ansicht der Kammer gab es daher keinen Grund, den Hilfsantrag 10 schon im Einspruchsverfahren einzureichen. Da die Ansprüche 1 und 3 des Hilfsantrags 10 die gemäß Art. 123 (2) EPÜ gegen den Hauptantrag erhobenen Einwände beheben konnten, ließ die Kammer den Hilfsantrag 10 zum Beschwerdeverfahren gemäß Art. 12 (4) VOBK zu.