Cette page n'est disponible qu'en Anglais.
The list of “Selected decisions” alerts users to all newly published decisions for which a headnote or a catchword has been provided by the board. Usually, a board will add a headnote or catchword if it wishes to provide a brief summary of a particular point of law or to draw attention to an important part of the reasons for the decision. The list contains all decisions with a headnote or catchword published in the last three years and can be viewed by year by selecting the year from the menu on the left.
The list below contains all decisions with a headnote or catchword that have been released for publication in the last six months (newest first).
1. Novelty in the case of purpose-limited product claims pursuant to Article 54(5) EPC relying on a dosage regimen defined by a numerical range, see point 2.6 of the reasons.
2. Limits to the application of the concept of bonus effect, see point 3.4.3 of the reasons.
Late-filed evidence - admitted (no)
Novelty - selection invention (yes)
Inventive step - bonus effect (no)
LONG - ACTING FORMULATIONS OF INSULINS
According to established case law, the principle of the free evaluation of evidence applies universally in proceedings before the EPO when assessing any means of evidence. There is no reason for diverging from this principle when deciding whether a compound or composition induces a therapeutic effect. The EPO deciding body decides on this issue in the light of its conviction, taking into account the evidence available in the proceedings and on the footing that one set of facts is more likely to be true than the other.
This approach does not correspond to that applied in other contexts, where conclusions are only drawn if there is a high grade of statistical confidence. In proceedings before the EPO it is not a prerequisite to perform a statistical analysis of the results and to determine a specific confidence interval, as it is most often required in biomedical research and by health authorities granting marketing authorisations for medicinal products.
(See reasons, points No. 3.25 to 3.29)
Late-filed document - admitted (yes)
Auxiliary requst 4: inventive step - (yes)
Convincing evidence that the claimed therapeutic effect is achieved - (yes)
Application of the principle of free evaluation of the evidence - (yes)
Binding effect of earlier decision of the Board when the facts are not the same - (no)
FOOD COMPOSITION FOR PRODROMAL DEMENTIA PATIENTS
MICROCONTROLLER WITH DIGITAL CLOCK SOURCE
Inventive step - unexpected optimization
Sufficiency of disclosure - enabling disclosure (yes)
Tablet formulation of N-[2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-5-hydroxyphenyl]-1,4-dihydro-4-oxoquinoline-3-carboxamide for use in the treatment of cystic fibrosis
Inventive step - (yes)
Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (yes)
RECOMMENDER CONTROL SYSTEM, APPARATUS, METHOD AND RELATED ASPECTS
To judge whether a claim request was admissibly raised in opposition proceedings within the meaning of Article 12(4) RPBA 2020, a board has to decide whether the opposition division should have admitted the claim request, had a decision on admittance been required. If so, the claim request was admissibly raised (reasons, point 7).
As a rule, claim requests filed in reply to the notice of opposition within the time limit set under Rule 79(1) EPC should have been admitted by the opposition division and were thus admissibly raised. Not admitting these claim requests and thus considering them not to have been admissibly raised must be limited to truly exceptional situations (reasons, points 7.1.2 and 7.1.3).
Whether or not a claim request filed after the expiry of the time limit set under Rule 79(1) EPC and before the expiry of the time limit set under Rule 116(1) EPC is to be considered filed in due time depends on whether this request was submitted in direct and timely response to a change to the subject of the proceedings introduced by the opponent or the opposition division. Opposition divisions have the discretion to not admit any late-filed claim request and therefore the board has the discretion to consider a late-filed claim request not to have been admissibly raised (reasons, points 7.2.4 and 7.2.6).
The criteria generally used by the boards of appeal when exercising their discretion to admit or not a party's submission in appeal under the Rules of Procedure 2020 may also be considered when deciding whether or not a late-filed claim request submitted after the expiry of the time limit set under Rule 79(1) EPC and before the expiry of the time limit set under Rule 116(1) EPC should have been admitted by the opposition division and was thus admissibly raised. However, when taking this decision, in view of the administrative character of opposition proceedings, these criteria should be used by the boards in a more lenient way than for a party's submission filed during appeal proceedings. In fact, to properly defend its patent, a patent proprietor must in principle be permitted to redefine its fallback positions in terms of auxiliary claim requests also at a late stage of opposition proceedings (reasons, points 7.2.7 and 7.2.10).
Appeal case directed to requests on which decision was based (no)
Auxiliary requests - admissibly raised and maintained (yes)
Deviation from the Guidelines for Examination, Sections E-VI-2.1 and E-VI-2.2.2 (yes)
Master's thesis - availability to the public before priority date (yes)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no)
Special reasons for remittal (no)
Inventive step - all claim requests (no)
COMPOSITION COMPRISING PARAFFIN FRACTIONS OBTAINED FORM BIOLOGICAL RAW MATERIALS AND METHOD OF PRODUCING SAME
- Binding effect of a referring decision (see Reasons, points 9 to 9.4.5)
- Interpretation of order no. 2 of G 2/21 (see Reasons, points 10 to 11.14, in particular points 11.10 and 11.14)
- Submissions based on earlier decisions of the boards of appeal - admittance into the appeal proceedings (see Reasons, points 32 to 32.4, in particular point 32.3)
Interpretation of G 2/21
Inventive step - (yes)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
Priorität - dieselbe Erfindung (nein)
Priorität - Teilpriorität (ja)
Verspätet geltend gemachte Veröffentlichung im Prioritätsintervall - Zulassung (nein)
Claim interpretation in the context of the description (yes)
Grounds for opposition - added subject-matter (no)
Remittal - (yes)
Remittal - special reasons for remittal
Cold/hot water supply apparatus
Any reasons as to why an amendment to a party's appeal case overcomes an objection which is not part of the decision under appeal or of the appeal proceedings do not constitute valid reasons for admitting the amendment in view of Article
12(4) RPBA, second paragraph.
Statement of grounds of appeal - reasons set out clearly and concisely (yes)
Inventive step - (no)
Amendment to case - amendment admitted (no)
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR REMOTELY MONITORING RAILROAD EQUIPMENT USING NETWORK PROTOCOLS