G 0002/21 (Reliance on a purported technical effect for inventive step (plausibility)) du 23.03.2023

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence

ECLI:EP:BA:2023:G000221.20230323

Date de la décision

23 mars 2023

Numéro de l'affaire

G 0002/21

Requête en révision de

Numéro de la demande

12002626.5

Classe de la CIB

A01N 43/56 A01N 51/00

Langue de la procédure

Anglais

Distribution

Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)

Téléchargement

Décision en anglais

Versions JO

Autres décisions pour cet affaire

Résumés pour cette décision

Résumé de EPC2000 Art 056

Titre de la demande

Insecticide compositions

Nom du demandeur

Sumitomo Chemical Company, Limited

Nom de l'opposant

Syngenta Limited

Chambre

Sommaire

I. Evidence submitted by a patent applicant or proprietor to prove a technical effect relied upon for acknowledgement of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence, on which the effect rests, had not been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and was filed after that date.

II. A patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention.

Dispositions juridiques pertinentes

Mots-clés

admissibility of referral - (yes)
re-phrasing of the referred questions - no
extending the scope of the referred questions - no
principle of free evaluation of evidence - exception to the principle required - no
inventive step - reliance on technical effect - yes, based on the application as originally filed

Exergue

Affaires citées

G 0003/97 G 0004/97 G 0002/08 G 0002/10 G 0001/12 G 0001/13 G 0003/14 G 0001/19 G 0003/19 G 0001/21 T 0390/88 T 0482/89 T 0838/92 T 0939/92 T 0798/93 T 0543/95 T 0558/95 T 0142/97 T 0592/98 T 0278/00 T 0329/02 T 0609/02 T 0893/02 T 0972/02 T 1110/03 T 0474/04 T 1329/04 T 0578/06 T 1599/06 T 0536/07 T 1437/07 T 1642/07 T 0545/08 T 1545/08 T 0108/09 T 1797/09 T 0266/10 T 0415/11 T 0754/11 T 1677/11 T 1791/11 T 0125/12 T 0419/12 T 0760/12 T 0863/12 T 2294/12 T 0235/13 T 0895/13 T 1045/13 T 1285/13 T 2059/13 T 2348/13 T 2371/13 T 0787/14 T 0887/14 T 1363/14 T 0321/15 T 0919/15 T 2097/15 T 2238/15 T 0179/16 T 0184/16 T 0488/16 T 0517/16 T 0578/16 T 0978/16 T 1499/16 T 2730/16 T 0229/17 T 1322/17 T 1680/17 T 2200/17 T 0031/18 T 0116/18 T 0122/18 T 0334/18 T 0377/18 T 0391/18 T 1306/18 T 1442/18 T 2923/18 T 1099/19 T 1343/19 T 1571/19 T 2029/19 T 2963/19 T 3109/19 T 2015/20

Affaires citantes

R 0004/24 R 0002/25 T 1499/16 T 2790/17 T 0116/18 T 0687/19 T 1203/19 T 1525/19 T 1989/19 T 2465/19 T 2716/19 T 2735/19 T 0025/20 T 0294/20 T 0314/20 T 0852/20 T 1023/20 T 1138/20 T 1210/20 T 1435/20 T 1515/20 T 0258/21 T 0569/21 T 0681/21 T 0728/21 T 0873/21 T 0885/21 T 0887/21 T 0990/21 T 1045/21 T 1255/21 T 1329/21 T 1394/21 T 1445/21 T 1446/21 T 1602/21 T 1616/21 T 1638/21 T 1698/21 T 1732/21 T 1779/21 T 1825/21 T 1879/21 T 1891/21 T 2036/21 T 2046/21 T 2086/21 T 2168/21 T 0023/22 T 0166/22 T 0170/22 T 0197/22 T 0318/22 T 0364/22 T 0509/22 T 0518/22 T 0529/22 T 0552/22 T 0589/22 T 0601/22 T 0687/22 T 0832/22 T 0840/22 T 0843/22 T 0853/22 T 0936/22 T 0996/22 T 1057/22 T 1125/22 T 1249/22 T 1283/22 T 1551/22 T 1796/22 T 1865/22 T 1958/22 T 1994/22 T 2010/22 T 2037/22 T 2219/22 T 2363/22 T 2424/22 T 2463/22 T 2499/22 T 0228/23 T 0259/23 T 0287/23 T 0372/23 T 0560/23 T 0593/23 T 0709/23 T 0827/23 T 0867/23 T 0979/23 T 1027/23 T 1207/23 T 1232/23 T 1253/23 T 1269/23 T 1272/23 T 1354/23 T 1385/23 T 1456/23 T 1465/23 T 1580/23 T 1677/23 T 1692/23 T 1739/23 T 1822/23 T 1844/23 T 1847/23 T 1915/23 T 1934/23 T 1950/23 T 0072/24 T 0331/24 T 0722/24 T 0729/24

Order

For these reasons it is decided that the questions of law referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:

1. Evidence submitted by a patent applicant or proprietor to prove a technical effect relied upon for acknowledgement of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence, on which the effect rests, had not been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and was filed after that date.

2. A patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention.