T 0439/22 (Gathered sheet) du 24.06.2024

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence: ECLI:EP:BA:2024:T043922.20240624
Date de la décision: 24 juin 2024
Numéro de l'affaire: T 0439/22
Requête en révision de: -
Numéro de la demande: 14806330.8
Classe de la CIB: A24F 47/00 A24D 1/00
Langue de la procédure: Anglais
Distribution: Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
Téléchargement: Décision en anglais
Versions JO: Allemand
Anglais
Français
Autres décisions pour cet affaire: -
Résumés pour cette décision: Résumé de EPC2000 Art 112(1)(a)
Titre de la demande: HEATED AEROSOL GENERATING ARTICLE WITH THERMAL SPREADING WRAP
Nom du demandeur: Philip Morris Products S.A.
Nom de l'opposant: Yunnan Tobacco International Co., Ltd.
Chambre: 3.2.01
Sommaire: -
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes: BGH Urt. v. 29.06.2010 - X ZR 193/03 - BGHZ 18690 - Crimpwerkzeug IIIBGH, Urt. v. 02.03.1999 - X ZR 85/96 - SpannschraubeBGH, Urt. v. 07.07.2015 - X ZR 64/13 - BitratenreduktionBGH, Urt. v. 12.05.2015 - X ZR 43/13 - RotorelementeBundesgerichtshof (BGH)Cour d'appel (CA) de ParisCourt of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (CoA UPC)England and Wales Court of Appeal (EWCA)England and Wales High Court (EWHC)European Central Bank v DSS [2008] EWCA Civ 192, 19 March 2008European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 52(1)European Patent Convention Art 54 European Patent Convention Art 56 European Patent Convention Art 69(1)FranceGermanyHouse of Lords (UKHL)Kirin Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46 [2005] RPC 9, 21 October 2004, 21 October 2004McGhan Medical UK Ltd v Nagor Ltd and Biosil Ltd [2001] EWHC Patents 452, 28 February 2001Nanostring v 10x Genomics, UPC CoA 335/2023, App 576355/2023 of 26 February 2024Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 467 (Pat), 7 March 2013Tribunal de grande instance (TGI) de ParisTribunal judiciaire (TJ) de ParisUnified Patent CourtUnited KingdomVirgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 106222 October 2009VusionGroup v Hanshow(APL 8/2024ORD 17447/2024) of 13 May 2024
Mots-clés: Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal
Claims interpretation
Exergue: The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, both to ensure the uniform application of the law [see point 3] and because a point of law of fundamental importance arises [see point 4]:
1. Is Article 69 (1), second sentence EPC and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC to be applied to the interpretation of patent claims when assessing the patentability of an invention under Articles 52 to 57 EPC? [see points 3.2, 4.2 and 6.1]
2. May the description and figures be consulted when interpreting the claims to assess patentability and, if so, may this be done generally or only if the person skilled in the art finds a claim to be unclear or ambiguous when read in isolation? [see points 3.3, 4.3 and 6.2]
3. May a definition or similar information on a term used in the claims which is explicitly given in the description be disregarded when interpreting the claims to assess patentability and, if so, under what conditions? [see points 3.4, 4.4 and 6.3]
Affaires citées: G 0002/88 G 0006/88 G 0002/98 G 0001/03 G 0002/10 J 0016/96 T 0016/87 T 0416/87 T 0969/92 T 0311/93 T 0312/94 T 0190/99 T 0523/00 T 0500/01 T 0556/02 T 1279/04 T 1321/04 T 0843/06 T 1374/06 T 1736/06 T 0964/07 T 0374/08 T 0620/08 T 0768/08 T 0299/09 T 0467/09 T 0478/09 T 0494/09 T 0522/09 T 1593/09 T 1671/09 T 1871/09 T 0197/10 T 0275/10 T 2097/10 T 0295/11 T 2589/11 T 0552/12 T 1597/12 T 1646/12 T 0058/13 T 0580/13 T 1267/13 T 0145/14 T 1385/14 T 1391/15 T 2196/15 T 2344/15 T 0978/16 T 1116/16 T 1127/16 T 1169/16 T 1283/16 T 2601/16 T 0030/17 T 1292/17 T 1705/17 T 2600/17 T 2684/17 T 0353/18 T 0911/18 T 1648/18 T 2319/18 T 2773/18 T 0073/19 T 1266/19 T 1300/19 T 1473/19 T 1695/19 T 1735/19 T 1844/19 T 2548/19 T 2764/19 T 0169/20 T 0278/20 T 0367/20 T 0427/20 T 0450/20 T 0503/20 T 0694/20 T 0821/20 T 1171/20 T 1382/20 T 1924/20 T 0470/21 T 0918/21 T 1260/21 T 1266/21 T 1335/21 T 1494/21 T 1527/21 T 1628/21 T 1632/21 T 0042/22 T 0111/22 T 0177/22 T 0447/22 T 0675/22 T 0953/22
Affaires citantes: G 0001/24 T 0738/20 T 0056/21 T 1032/22 T 1757/22 T 2063/22 T 2116/22 T 2263/22 T 0188/23 T 0367/23 T 1021/23 T 1467/23

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision.

1. Is Article 69 (1), second sentence EPC and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC to be applied on the interpretation of patent claims when assessing the patentability of an invention under Articles 52 to 57 EPC?

2. May the description and figures be consulted when interpreting the claims to assess patentability and, if so, may this be done generally or only if the person skilled in the art finds a claim to be unclear or ambiguous when read in isolation?

3. May a definition or similar information on a term used in the claims which is explicitly given in the description be disregarded when interpreting the claims to assess patentability and, if so, under what conditions?