4.3.7 Submissions that should have been submitted or which were no longer maintained at first instance – Article 12(6), second sentence, RPBA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 several decisions, the boards decided not to admit submissions that addressed objections raised in the opposition proceedings, because the proprietor had had ample opportunities to address these objections (see T 825/20 and T 1326/21, summarised below, and T 847/20, summarised in chapter V.A.4.3.7d) above). However, in other decisions the boards have held that a proprietor confronted with numerous objections of added subject-matter was justified in not having filed auxiliary requests for all possible combinations of individual amendments already before the opposition division (T 1311/21, T 1928/22). See further the decisions in chapter V.A.4.3.7c) and in particular T 141/20, in which the board pointed out that there needed to be a reason to file auxiliary requests, not just the possibility of doing so.
In T 825/20 the four auxiliary requests filed for the first time with the statement of grounds of appeal aimed at overcoming the opposition division’s inventive step objection to the main request. However, in its preliminary opinion the opposition division had already drawn the parties’ attention to this issue. The appellant was given the opportunity to react and did so by filing several new auxiliary requests, however not those filed in appeal. The board concluded that the latter could and should have been filed during the first-instance opposition proceedings. Similarly T 1820/22.
A counter-example where the board took the view that the patent proprietor had not been obliged to respond immediately during the oral proceedings, is T 487/20. In this case the opposition division had indicated in its preliminary opinion that the opponent’s objections under Art. 100(c) EPC were not convincing and the arguments addressed by auxiliary request II filed with the statement of grounds of appeal had been only briefly discussed during the oral proceedings.
In T 1326/21 the appellant (patent proprietor) explained that the main request in appeal which addressed only two out of three objections under Art. 100(c) EPC discussed during the first instance oral proceedings, could not have been submitted at that moment. This was because the opposition division had come to the conclusion that all three objections were justified; such a request would not have been admitted. The board however pointed out that the relevant objections had been raised and substantiated already in the notice of opposition and that the opposition division had given a preliminary opinion on all of them in the annex to the summons. Thus, the appellant had had ample opportunities to file requests addressing any of the above-mentioned objections. Accordingly, the appellant had deliberately chosen not to file in opposition proceedings any amendments aimed at overcoming the objections under Art. 100(c) EPC, but to respond solely with arguments.
However, in T 1311/21 the board took the view that, where the opposition division had decided on several objections of added subject-matter at the same time, resulting in the filing of a single amended request overcoming all objections during the first-instance proceedings, Art. 12(6) RPBA did not prevent the board from admitting a new request overcoming only some of these objections. In the same vein T 1928/22 (dealing with a situation where numerous objections of added matter had been raised in opposition proceedings, which had been individually addressed but not in all possible combinations). See also T 849/22 (summarised in chapter V.A.4.3.7b), concerning an objection under R. 80 EPC and an incorrect novelty objection).
- T 1125/23
Im Verfahren T 1125/23 wurde der Hauptantrag der Beschwerdeführerin (Patentinhaberin) unstrittig erstmals mit der Beschwerdebegründung vorgelegt. Er unterschied sich von den Ansprüchen des erteilten Patents lediglich in der Streichung des abhängigen Anspruchs 4. Die Beschwerdegegnerin beantragte, den Hauptantrag nach Art. 12 (6) VOBK nicht im Beschwerdeverfahren zuzulassen..
Die Beschwerdeführerin trug vor, durch die Streichung des Anspruchs 4 werde der einzige Einwand, auf dem die angefochtene Entscheidung hinsichtlich des Patents in der erteilten Fassung beruhe, ausgeräumt. Wie von der Kammer festgestellt, war allerdings unstreitig, dass der Einwand der mangelnden Ausführbarkeit gegen den Anspruch 4 des erteilten Patents, auf dem die angefochtene Entscheidung hinsichtlich des Patents in der erteilten Fassung beruhte, bereits in der Einspruchsschrift erhoben worden. Die Einspruchsabteilung befand diesen Einwand in ihrer der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung beigefügten Mitteilung vorläufig für überzeugend. Die dort angeführten Gründe übernahm die Einspruchsabteilung auch in der angefochtenen Entscheidung als tragende Gründe. Sie ging lediglich ergänzend auf Gegenargumente der Beschwerdeführerin ein, ohne dass dies aber nach Ansicht der Kammer zu einer Änderung der Argumentation der Einspruchsabteilung in ihrer Mitteilung geführt hätte. Daher bestand nach Auffassung der Kammer bereits im Hinblick auf diese Mitteilung Veranlassung, den vorliegenden Hauptantrag einzureichen. Dies werde auch durch die Tatsache unterstrichen, dass die Patentinhaberin zu diesem Zeitpunkt Hilfsanträge einreichte, die sich von vorherigen Hilfsanträgen nur dadurch unterschieden, dass Anspruch 4 gestrichen war. Der vorliegende Hauptantrag wäre daher bereits im Einspruchsverfahren vorzubringen gewesen.
Zudem befand die Kammer, dass die Streichung zu einer völligen Neugewichtung des Verfahrensgegenstandes führen, den faktischen und rechtlichen Rahmen ändern und eine neue Diskussion hinsichtlich Neuheit und erfinderischer Tätigkeit erforderlich machen würde. Die Kriterien der Komplexität und der Verfahrensökonomie (Art. 12 (4) VOBK) sprachen daher nach Ansicht der Kammer gegen eine Zulassung des Hauptantrags im Beschwerdeverfahren. Die Kammer entschied daher, den Hauptantrag der Beschwerdeführerin gemäß Art. 12 (6) VOBK nicht im Beschwerdeverfahren zuzulassen.