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. Neither the omission of a procedural act nor an error caused by miscommunication between the applicant and the representative or by an incorrect recollection of the applicant's instructions can be regarded as an error under Rule 139 EPC, provided that the document filed with the EPO is deemed to express the representative's intention at the time of filing.
2. A request for correction of a declaration of withdrawal of an appeal under Rule 139 EPC does not reopen the appeal proceedings, but only starts ancillary proceedings to decide whether the appeal proceedings should be reopened.
Correction of error - (no)
Correction of error - immediately evident that nothing else could have been intended (no)
Error of representative
Retraction of a declaration to withdraw appeal
Conditions for retracting a declaration
Ancillary proceedings after closure of appeal proceedings
Exercise of discretion to make a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal
Slurry for Treatment of Oxyanion Contamination in Water
Main request, Auxiliary request 4 - Novelty - (no)
Auxiliary requests 1, 2, 3 and 5 - taken into account (no)
Auxiliary requests 6 to 10 - pending (no)
IMPROVEMENTS IN SECURITY SUBSTRATES FOR SECURITY DOCUMENTS
On the admissibility of an opposition in case the publication data of a piece of evidence is erroneous in the notice of opposition (Reasons, point 2)
Rule 76(2)(c) EPC merely requires an indication of the facts and evidence presented in support of the argued grounds for opposition, but not necessarily every piece of evidence need already be presented along with the notice of opposition. For an admissible opposition it is normally sufficient that the indications given in the notice of opposition permit the substantive content of the offered evidence to be established only at a later stage, provided that this substantive content can be established without undue effort and still within a reasonable time. (Reasons, point 2.5.1)
Admissibility of appeal - (yes)
Admissibility of appeal - admission of the line of attack forming the basis of the appeal is not a legal requirement for the admissibility of appeal
Late-filed facts - no reason not to admit new line of attack
Admissibility of opposition - (yes)
Admissibility of opposition - corrigible erroneous reference
Inventive step - (yes)
Arrangement and method for the contrast improvement in a charged particle beam device for inspecting a specimen
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances
Amendment after summons - main request (yes)
Amended claims filed with the statement of grounds of appeal - first and second auxiliary requests - admitted
Inventive step - all requests (no)
Method for characterization of standard cells with adaptive body biasing
1. The Enlarged Board of Appeal affirms its previous decisions R 8/15 and R 10/18.
2. Catchword 1, second paragraph, of R 10/18 reading: "Article 113(1) EPC is infringed if the board does not address submissions that, in its view, are relevant for the decision in a manner adequate to show that the parties were heard on them, i.e. that the board substantively considered those submissions..." is complemented as follows:
the requirement that "the Board substantively considered those submissions" should be given the meaning that "the Board considered the contents of those submissions", with this consideration comprising matters
- pertaining to admittance of facts, evidence and requests, and/or
- relating to substantive law, i.e. the merits of a case.
(See Reasons, point 2).
3. Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 is in line with Articles 114(1) and 113(1) EPC. (See Reasons, point 3.2.2(a) in fine.)
Compliance of Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007 with Art. 114(1) and 113(1) EPC (yes)
Petition allowable (no) no violation of petitioner's right to be heard
Assignment of a European patent application - signature requirement
Registration of transfers - evidence
Notice from the EPO - legal nature
TIP ASSEMBLIES FOR REAL-TIME SAMPLING SYSTEM
Patentansprüche - Klarheit
Patentansprüche - Hauptantrag (nein)
Patentansprüche - Klarheit
Patentansprüche - Hilfsantrag (ja)
Neuheit - Hauptantrag (nein)
Neuheit - Hilfsantrag (ja)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - nach Änderung
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hilfsantrag (ja)
Änderung nach Ladung - außergewöhnliche Umstände (ja)
Änderung nach Ladung - berücksichtigt (ja)
Initialisierung eines Bordgeräts
The burden of proof regarding the facts, arguments and evidence on the substance (which initially lies with the opponent) does not shift to the proprietor just because the patent has been revoked due to an alleged insufficient disclosure.
It is down to the patent proprietor to substantiate on appeal why that decision is wrong. The burden of proof on the substance (and in consequence the benefit of the doubt), however, is only shifted when the opposition division's assessment that the presented facts, arguments and evidence were sufficient to discharge the opponent's burden of proof turns out to be correct.
(See item 1. of the grounds)
Grounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosure (no)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (yes)
primary object of appeal proceedings to review decision
GRAIN ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET HAVING EXCELLENT MAGNETIC CHARACTERISTICS AND COATING ADHESION
Spät eingereichter Einwand - Umstände der Beschwerdesache rechtfertigen Zulassung (ja)
Patentansprüche - Klarheit (nein)
Novelty - novelty of use
Novelty - second (or further) medical use
Novelty - main request (no)
Novelty - auxiliary request (yes)
Method steps as limiting features of the claim (yes)
Inventive step - auxiliary request (yes)
Inventive step - non-obvious solution
COMPOSITION COMPRISING CALCIUM PHOSPHATE, SULFATE POWDERS OR DMB USED IN THE TREATMENT OF DEGENERATIVE BONE CONDITIONS