T 0610/24 (Checking the chemical compatibility of pumps and chemicals/ECOLAB) du 16.12.2025
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T061024.20251216
- Date de la décision
- 16 décembre 2025
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0610/24
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 19710517.4
- Classe de la CIB
- G06Q 10/10
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Distribuées aux présidents des chambres de recours (C)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- PUMP CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
- Nom du demandeur
- Ecolab USA, Inc.
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.5.01
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1)European Patent Convention Art 56Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 011
- Mots-clés
- Inventive step - closest prior art (no Inventive step - different purpose) - ex post facto analysis
Remittal to the department of first instance - (yes - remittal for a search) - Exergue
- While it is not mandatory to start from the strictly closest prior art when arguing a lack of inventive step (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 11th edition, I.D.3.3), it is nevertheless recommended to start from prior art having a similar purpose and overall technical effect. Starting from a more remote document often leads to an ex post facto analysis, in particular to the formulation of a "hindsight problem" - a problem that the skilled person would not have realistically conceived. (See point 4.4 of the reasons)
- Affaires citées
- G 0010/93
- Affaires citantes
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the examining division for further prosecution, including a search.