Selected decisions 

Under Article 112(1)(a) EPC and Article 21 RPBA the following points of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:

After withdrawal of all appeals, may the proceedings be continued with a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings? In particular, may the third party acquire an appellant status corresponding to the status of a person entitled to appeal within the meaning of Article 107, first sentence, EPC?

The appellant considered that ... when [G 1/19] , e.g. at reasons, point 51, states that any technical effect going beyond the implementation of the process on a computer may be considered for inventive step, it means anything beyond a 1:1 mapping between the implementation and a step of the business method being implemented. In other words, any subject-matter that does not "map" to a step in the business method is technical.

The Board agrees that the "implementation" of a business method implies some sort of mapping between non-technical steps of the business method and their technical realisation. Decision G 1/19 has something to say about this mapping, at least in the forward direction, at point 51, when it rephrases the requirement for technical effect as "technical effect going beyond the simulation's straightforward or unspecified implementation on a standard computer system". Thus, even a 1:1 mapping might be inventive if it is not "straight-forward" (e.g. not standard programming or routine modification of the technical means used), or "unspecified" (e.g. not simply as "means for [carrying out the step]").

But, looking for a mapping from "implementation" to the step of a business method in the reverse direction does not make sense as the steps of the non-technical activity do not have to be specified explicitly. They would include any steps that the business person would come up with in a non-technical workflow. The way this is handled is by considering the mapping of the implementation to the effect of the step and to examine whether the effect has any technical character, or whether it would be covered by what the business person would consider as part of the non-technical process. This is, in other words, the standard COMVIK approach where one looks at the effect of a feature in order to pose a technical problem, which might simply be the implementation of the feature, for which the above-mentioned mapping in the forward direction meant in G 1/19 applies. (See Reasons 2.18)

1. Parties are free to formulate requests conditional on the board's findings on questions to be decided. The condition may also relate to the board's underlying reasons. (Reasons 4.4)

2. A party cannot, through such conditional requests, oblige the board to provide its full reasons for its decision before the final decision is issued. (Reasons 4.6)

3. Conditional requests that are conditional on the board's reasons can also contribute to procedural efficiency and can help the board to reach a decision without having to discuss issues that may turn out not to be decisive for the final outcome of the appeal. However, such requests do not bind a board in the sense that a party can oblige the board to conduct the proceedings only in a particular order or only restricted to particular issues as a party wishes, thereby possibly avoiding undesirable outcomes for that party. In proceedings involving several parties other parties are also free to argue why the board should not allow such a conditional request. In principle, the board is free to conduct the proceedings in any appropriate order and to discuss any issue, as long as the relevant substantive and procedural requests of the parties are properly considered and decided. (Reasons 4.7 and 4.8)

1. Where the opponent appeals against the maintenance of the patent in unamended form and auxiliary requests filed before the opposition division are not discussed in the impugned decision, such auxiliary requests need to be substantiated when re-submitted in appeal, even in the absence of previous arguments against such requests in the file.

2. Should the main request fall, the respondent proprietor must normally request that the decision be set aside and argue why the patent should be maintained in an amended form, i.e. why the decision under appeal should be amended within the meaning of Article 12(3) RPBA (Reasons 3.1.3).

3. Given that there are no tangible arguments in the impugned decision why these requests should or should not be held allowable, the board cannot proceed in the usual manner to review the decision under appeal. On the other hand, the board also cannot allow these requests without examining them on their merits. Under these circumstances it is first and foremost the duty of the proprietor to give reasons how the auxiliary requests would overcome the objections against the main request (Reasons 3.1.4).

4. Given that an auxiliary request becomes relevant where a higher ranking request is not allowable, arguments provided for the higher ranking request cannot be sufficient for allowing the lower ranking request. Something additional is required (Reason 3.1.6).

Savoirs traditionnels - L'article 53a) CBE (point 2 des raisons)

Nouveauté des substances d'origine naturelle (point 3 des raisons)

Eine Ermessensausübung durch eine Beschwerdekammer bezüglich der Zulässigkeit neuen Vorbringens kann nur überprüft werden, wenn sie willkürlich oder offensichtlich rechtswidrig ist und damit eine schwerwiegende Verletzung des Anspruchs auf rechtlichen Gehörs vorliegt (Entscheidungsgründe 2.1).

Die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) gibt keine Anhaltspunkte dafür, einschränkende Regelungen wie die des Konvergenzansatzes grundsätzlich in Frage zu stellen oder ihrer Anwendung generell die Vereinbarkeit mit Artikel 6 EMRK abzusprechen. Nach der einschlägigen Rechtsprechung sei im Gegenteil "die Einhaltung formalisierter Zivilprozessregeln, durch die die Parteien die Entscheidung eines Zivilstreits sicherstellen, wertvoll und wichtig, ... da sie in der Lage" ist, "den Ermessensspielraum zu begrenzen, die Waffengleichheit zu gewährleisten, Willkür zu verhindern, die wirksame Entscheidung einer Streitigkeit und die Entscheidung innerhalb einer angemessenen Frist zu gewährleisten und Rechtssicherheit und Achtung des Gerichts zu gewährleisten" (Entscheidungsgründe 2.10).

Das Nemo-Tenetur-Prinzip (das Recht sich nicht selbst belasten zu müssen) gilt nur im Strafverfahren (Entscheidungsgründe 2.11).

Eine bewusste Zurückhaltung der Rückzugposition gemäß Hilfsantrag aus prozesstaktischen Gründen bis zur mündlichen Verhandlung scheint gerade dem Grundsatz der Waffengleichheit zu widersprechen, nachdem die Gegenseite die vermeintliche Schwachstelle des Patents ja bereits frühzeitig offengelegt hat, und damit ihrer Pflicht zur Verfahrensbeförderung nachgekommen ist (Entscheidungsgründe 2.12).

Die Rechtsprechung des EKMR zur Nichtzulassung eines Antrags oder Beweismittels bezieht sich insbesondere auf die Prüfung, ob ein legitimes Ziel in verhältnismäßiger Weise verfolgt wurde oder ob ein ,,übertriebener Formalismus" vorliegt (keine derartigen Umstände in diesem Fall) (Entscheidungsgründe 2.12).

Die Regelungen nach VOBK 2007 bzw. VOBK 2020 galten für beiden Parteien gleich. Die Ausgestaltung der Übergangsbestimmungen in Artikel 25 VOBK 2020 liegt dabei im Ermessensspielraum des Gesetzgebers (Entscheidungsgründe 2.13).

1. Where the opposition division decides at the same time on several objections of added subject-matter, resulting in the filing of a single amended request overcoming all objections during the first-instance proceedings, Article 12(6) RPBA does not prevent the board from admitting a new request overcoming only some of the objections raised during first-instance proceedings (see reasons 2.1.2).

2. The two standards of proof appearing in the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal - "balance of probabilities" and "beyond reasonable doubt" - may well be used as a yardstick in straightforward cases. However, this binary approach to proof standards can turn out to be overly formalistic and simplistic. If the evidence whose public availability prior to the priority date of the patent is at issue is neither within the sphere of control of the opponent nor within a neutral sphere of control to which both parties have access, neither standard of proof is exclusively applicable; rather, what matters

is the deciding body's conviction on the occurrence of an alleged fact

, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case and the relevant evidence before it (see Reasons 3.2.1).