6.3. Priorités multiples ou priorité partielle pour une seule revendication
6.3.3 Application de la décision G 1/15 dans la jurisprudence des chambres
Dans l'affaire T 260/14, la division d'opposition avait refusé la priorité et conclu que la revendication 1 n'était pas nouvelle en vertu de l'art. 54(3) CBE eu égard à un exemple de réalisation divulgué dans le document de priorité (D5) lui-même, exemple également divulgué dans la description du brevet litigieux (D5 avait été traité comme une "priorité toxique"). Conformément à l'avis G 1/15 (JO 2017, A82), la chambre a tout d'abord reconnu l'exemple de réalisation comme étant un objet pertinent divulgué dans le document de priorité (cf. G 2/98, JO 2001, 413). Elle a ensuite examiné si la revendication 1 englobait l'exemple de réalisation et si cet exemple constituait un objet alternatif du fait d'une revendication générique du type "OU". À cette fin, elle a effectué une comparaison entre la portée de la revendication et le contenu du document de priorité. La revendication en cause portait sur un matériau d'empreinte dentaire comprenant une pâte de base et une pâte catalytique. Ces deux pâtes étaient décrites au moyen de caractéristiques génériques telles que "polyéthers" et "copolyéther d'oxyde d'éthylène". L'exemple correspondait à un mode de réalisation spécifique de la revendication. Il pouvait y avoir plusieurs exemples alternatifs, couvrant différentes variantes englobées par les caractéristiques génériques de la revendication. Par conséquent, l'exemple constituait un objet alternatif du fait d'une revendication générique du type "OU", qui entrait dans le champ de la revendication 1. La partie de la revendication 1 qui portait sur cet exemple pouvait donc bénéficier de la priorité partielle.
L'approche adoptée dans la décision G 1/15 a également été appliquée dans les affaires suivantes : T 1526/12 (composition pour les soins capillaires), T 557/13 du 28 juillet 2017 date: 2017-07-28 (utilisation d'agents améliorant l'écoulement à froid), T 2466/13 (panneau d'isolation), T 1399/13 (procédé de polymérisation), T 88/14 (produit de confiserie à faible teneur en matière grasse), T 1519/15 (circuit de détection comprenant des condensateurs-capteurs), T 1728/16 (forme posologique pharmaceutique solide, T 933/18 (méthode de préparation d'un biocapteur), T 401/19 (procédé de purification chromatographique), T 335/20 (progranuline destinée à traiter la démence), T 1946/21 (piscine gonflable) et T 307/22 (lave-vaisselle).
Dans la décision T 282/12, la chambre a estimé que, pour des raisons de cohérence, le raisonnement suivi dans la décision G 1/15 (JO 2017, A82) doit également s'appliquer lorsqu'il s'agit de décider si une demande dont la priorité est revendiquée est la première demande au sens de l'art. 87(1) CBE (voir le résumé plus détaillé de cet aspect de la décision au présent chapitre, II.D.5.1. ci-dessus). Dans ce contexte, la chambre a également mis en garde contre une appréciation de la priorité qui serait fondée sur un test au titre de l'art. 123(2) CBE, une telle approche ayant conduit la division d'opposition à la conclusion que D1 était la première demande. L'appréciation de la priorité et de l'exigence énoncée à l'art. 123(2) CBE renvoient toutes deux à la notion de divulgation. Cependant, appliquer un test au titre de l'art. 123(2) CBE pourrait mener à des conclusions erronées dans certaines circonstances, puisque la notion de validité "partielle" d'une modification n'existe pas, tandis que la priorité partielle existe bel et bien. Rapportant ces observations aux circonstances de l'espèce (largeur d'intervalle d'un comprimé enrobé), la chambre a admis que le remplacement d'une plage de 5 % à 33 % (mentionnée dans la revendication 1 et le document de priorité D1) par une plage de 3 % à 33 % (mentionnée dans la demande antérieure D22 du titulaire du brevet) reviendrait à ajouter des éléments. Néanmoins, ces deux plages comprenaient une partie identique, à savoir la sous-plage de 5 % à 33 %, qui définissait des formes pharmaceutiques alternatives dont l'identité ne variait pas, qu'elles soient revendiquées en tant que telles ou au sein d'un groupe de compositions plus large incluant d'autres compositions dans lesquelles la largeur de l'intervalle n'était pas comprise entre 5 % et 33 %. C'est pourquoi, dans la présente espèce, l'application pure et simple des critères de l'art. 123(2) CBE afin d'apprécier la validité de la priorité revendiquée ne permettait pas de conclure que D1 et D22 se rapportaient partiellement à la même invention, et que la priorité n'était donc pas valable pour toute l'étendue de la revendication 1.
La décision T 437/14 date: 2019-03-12 du 12 mars 2019 a constitué la décision finale de la chambre donnant suite à la saisine G 1/16, dans laquelle elle avait soumis des questions sur les disclaimers non divulgués à la Grande Chambre de recours (JO 2018, A70 ; les conclusions de la chambre concernant la recevabilité des disclaimers non divulgués sont résumés au chapitre II.E.1.7.2.). Compte tenu des disclaimers introduits, l'opposant 3 avait fait valoir que la revendication 1 ne revendiquait pas valablement la priorité et que son objet était dépourvu de nouveauté par rapport à D57 et D58, deux demandes divisionnaires issues de la demande sur la base de laquelle le brevet avait été délivré. Selon la chambre, tel ne pouvait être le cas que si les deux conditions suivantes étaient remplies : la revendication 1 couvre au moins un mode de réalisation de la/des demande(s) divisionnaire(s) et la revendication 1 ne bénéficie d'aucune priorité (même partielle) pour la/les partie(s) liée(s) à ce(s) mode(s) de réalisation. Citant la décision G 1/03 (JO 2004, 413), la chambre s'est dite convaincue que ces deux disclaimers n'apportaient aucune contribution technique et satisfaisaient aux exigences de l'art. 123(2) CBE. Par conséquent, l'objet de la revendication 1 bénéficiait de la priorité de la demande antérieure. Les documents D57 et D58 divulguaient effectivement des composés spécifiques couverts par la revendication 1 et revendiquaient valablement la priorité de la demande antérieure, la revendication 1 revendiquait elle aussi une priorité partielle valable découlant de cette demande pour ces composés. La revendication 1 était une revendication générique du type "OU" couvrant des objets alternatifs divulgués directement et sans ambiguïté dans le document de priorité et, à ce titre, elle pouvait bénéficier de la priorité partielle pour l'objet alternatif concerné conformément à la décision G 1/15 (JO 2017, A82). Par conséquent, les documents D57 et D58 n'étaient pas compris dans l'état de la technique au sens de l'art. 54(3) CBE aux fins de l'appréciation de la nouveauté.
Dans l'affaire T 88/21, la demande litigieuse et la demande D1 ont toutes deux été déposées par le requérant. La demande litigieuse revendiquait la priorité de D0. La demande D1 revendiquait la priorité de la demande non publiée D1a, qui avait été déposée avant D0. Il n'avait pas été contesté que D0 et D1 appartenaient au requérant. La revendication 1 avait été modifiée pour inclure un disclaimer non divulgué basé sur les exemples 4A-D et 5A de D1. Selon la chambre, l'objet de la revendication 1 de la demande litigieuse avant l'ajout du disclaimer non divulgué était antériorisé par les exemples 4AD et 5A de D1. La date effective de ces exemples dans D1 était la date de dépôt de D1a, qui était antérieure à la date de dépôt de D0. Par conséquent, concernant l'objet des exemples 4A-D et 5A de D1/D1a, D1a – et non D0 – était la première demande au sens de l'art. 87(1) CBE. La demande litigieuse ne pouvait donc pas valablement revendiquer la priorité de D0 pour l'objet de ces exemples. Comme D1 avait été publié avant la date de dépôt de la demande litigieuse, D1 constituait l'état de la technique au sens de l'art. 54(2) CBE pour cet objet. Voir également T 1222/11 et T 282/12 au point II.D.5.1. Voir également le chapitre II.E.1.7.3.
- T 2565/22
In T 2565/22 the patent concerned a system for replacing a deficient native heart valve. The proprietor submitted in the written procedure that for each feature of claim 1 a basis could be found in the priority application D34. In its communication the board expressed the preliminary view that only a partial priority was validly claimed. At the oral proceedings, the proprietor did not provide any further argument but merely referred to its written submission in this respect.
The board explained that, compared with D34, granted claim 1 had been broadened by deleting the feature "adapted to be deployed by exerting substantially radial forces from within by means of a deployment device". Claim 1 could be regarded as a generic OR-claim in the sense of G 1/15. The two alternatives comprised by the claim were:.
(a) a device comprising a support frame "adapted to be deployed by exerting substantially radial forces from within by means of a deployment device to a deployed state", such as a balloon-expandable stent; and.
(b) a device comprising a support frame which is not adapted in this way, i.e. non-balloon-expandable or self-expandable.
Contrary to the proprietor's submission, D34 did not disclose the mechanism by which the frame expands in a generic way. Even though the expansion mechanism was not specified each time the frame was mentioned, D34 was directed to devices adapted to be deployed by exerting substantially radial forces from within by means of a deployment device. Unlike D35, D34 did not disclose any self-expandable frames or deployment methods that did not involve deployment means such as a balloon catheter. The fact that nitinol was disclosed as a material for the frame in D34 did not imply that its shape memory properties were used to provide a self-expandable frame, i.e. a stent made of nitinol was not necessarily self-expanding even though this material had been used for this purpose in several prior art documents. Therefore, D34 did not disclose the combination of features of granted claim 1 without the feature omitted by granted claim 1. The board was thus of the opinion that only part (a) above enjoyed priority. Accordingly, D1 was prior art under Art. 54(2) EPC for part (b) and could be considered in deciding whether there had been an inventive step.
- T 0493/23
In T 493/23 the invention related to a threaded pipe connection. The patent had been granted on the basis of an application (the "PCT application") filed on 15 September 2017 published under the PCT and claiming priority from application JP 2016-181176 (the "priority application"). The appellant (opponent) argued that neither claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary request nor claim 1 of the thirteenth auxiliary request validly claimed priority from the priority application.
(1) Twelfth auxiliary request
Compared to the priority application, claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary request had been amended by adding, inter alia, feature 1.3. This requirement limited the female thread in that it should include a varying-thread-width portion having a thread-ridge width gradually increasing and a thread-groove width gradually decreasing toward a centre of the box. The parties agreed that this additional feature was taken verbatim from the description of the priority application and, in this respect, mentioned paragraph [0049] of D10 (a marked-up version of the English translation of the PCT-application showing the changes made in relation to the priority application). The appellant's objection was directed against the fact that the additional constraint of paragraph [0049] of D10 that the thread-groove width of the female thread corresponds to the thread-ridge width of the male thread in the respective varying-thread-width portions was not incorporated in claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary request. The appellant argued that the verb "to correspond" implied that the widths were equal. Contrary to the view of the opposition division, the additional text in claim 1, did not require this.
According to the board, the expression "correspond to" in paragraph [0049] of D10 was not to be understood in a broad sense as encompassing variations that result in gaps between the thread flanks. The opposition division seemed to have inferred the additional constraint of paragraph [0049] from features 1.4 to 1.6 of claim 1 of the then auxiliary request 9. However, the board was unable to derive from the general wording of these features whether or not the widths of the individual female ridges and grooves corresponded to those of the male grooves and ridges, respectively, in the varying-thread-width portions. Also the additional features 1.7a and 1.8a of claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary request did not imply the constraint set by the last sentence of paragraph [0049] of D10. The board concluded that there was no direct and unambiguous disclosure in the priority application of a threaded connection having feature 1.3 of claim 1 without the additional constraint.
In a further line of argument and referring to G 1/15, the respondents (patent proprietors) submitted that claim 1 enjoyed partial priority for those threaded connections where the widths were the same in the varying-thread-width portions. The board was not persuaded. In the present case, claim 1 did not contain any generic expression that could be understood to encompass alternative subject-matter. Claim 1 was not a generic "OR"-claim in the sense of G 1/15. The board concluded that claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary did not validly claim priority. As a result, D5 was novelty destroying.
(2) Thirteenth auxiliary request
All three lines of argument raised by the appellant were rejected by the board. On the first, the board concluded that, compared to the priority application, the meaning of the expression "toward a centre of the box" in feature 1.3 of claim 1 did not change by adding it to a claim which did not specify the type of threaded connection. Also for embodiments of the integral-type connection there was basis in the priority application for the claimed changes of the female thread width towards the centre of the box. On the second line of argument (which built further on the objection raised in the context of the twelfth auxiliary request), the board concluded that the various restrictions of claim 1 were such that also the feature disclosed in the last-but-one sentence of paragraph [0049] of D10 was implicit. The third line of argument was directed against the omission from claim 1 of the physical location of the constant-thread-width portions and the varying-thread-width portions, despite it being disclosed in paragraphs [0054] and [0055] of D10 on which the amendments of features 1.5 and 1.6 were based. The board considered these positions to be implicit in claim 1. The board concluded that claim 1 of the thirteenth auxiliary request validly claimed the priority from the priority application. The effective date was thus 16 September 2016. As a consequence, D5 was not comprised in the state of the art under Art. 54(2) or (3) EPC.
- T 0518/22
In T 518/22 the board established that the "A3" mutant disclosed in D2 anticipated the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 at least under Art. 54(3) EPC.
Claims 1 and 9 of auxiliary request 2 differed from the respective claims in auxiliary request 1 in that an undisclosed disclaimer had been introduced to exclude the A3 mutant disclosed in D2 from the subject-matter claimed.
The board explained that, according to G 1/03, an amendment to a claim by the introduction of a disclaimer may not be refused under Art. 123(2) EPC for the sole reason that neither the disclaimer nor the subject-matter excluded by it from the scope of the claim have a basis in the application as filed. G 1/03 defines the criteria when such an undisclosed disclaimer is allowable, stipulating that it can be introduced into a claim inter alia to restore novelty by delimiting a claim against the state of the art under Art. 54(3) EPC but not under Art. 54(2) EPC (except for a so-called accidental disclosure).
In order to determine whether D2 was prior art under Art. 54(2) or (3) EPC for the claimed subject-matter, the board assessed whether the subject-matter of claim 1 as a whole was entitled to claim priority from P and whether D2 was entitled to claim priority from P1.
The board found that D2's priority based on P1 was valid. Appellant I had objected to D2's formal entitlement to priority because the applicants of P1 and those of the international patent application D2 were not the same. The board explained that G 1/22 and G 2/22 established that a presumption exists that a claim to priority is valid by way of an implicit agreement on the transfer of the right to claim priority in the absence of evidence that such an agreement (implicit or explicit) did not exist. This presumption applies to any case where the subsequent applicant is not identical with the priority applicant. On account of this general teaching, the board understood that the presumption applied also to patent applications cited as prior art, as in the present case (see also T 521/18).
This presumption could be rebutted to take into account "rare exceptional cases" where the subsequent applicant could not justifiably rely on the priority (G 1/22). This, however, involved the reversal of the burden of proof, i.e. the party challenging the subsequent applicant’s priority entitlement (here appellant I) had to prove that this entitlement was missing. Merely raising speculative doubts was not sufficient. Instead, evidence was required that specific facts supported serious doubts about the subsequent applicant's entitlement to priority (G 1/22). In the absence of evidence suitable to establish that the alleged real priority right holder did not allow the subsequent applicant to rely on the priority (see also T 1975/19), appellant I's objection against D2's formal entitlement to priority from P1 was not sufficient to rebut the presumption of validity, which always existed on the date on which priority was claimed (G 1/22). Hence, D2 validly claimed priority from P1.
As regards the validity of the patent's priority claim based on P, the board established that the relevant date for the subject-matter of claim 1 in several embodiments concerning SEQ ID NOs: 5 to 8 was the filing date of the patent application, whereas several embodiments of claim 1 in relation to SEQ ID NO: 4 were entitled to claim partial priority from P (G 1/15).
Therefore, D2 was prior art under Art. 54(2) EPC for the subject-matter of claim 1 not enjoying priority, i.e. in relation to several embodiments concerning SEQ ID NOs: 5 to 8, and prior art under Art. 54(3) EPC for the subject-matter of claim 1 enjoying priority, i.e. in relation to several embodiments concerning SEQ ID NO: 4.
Since the undisclosed disclaimer added to claim 1 in auxiliary request 2 removed embodiments of D2 which belonged to the state of the art pursuant to Art. 54(2) EPC and were not an accidental disclosure, such amendment was not allowable under Art. 123(2) EPC. Auxiliary request 2 comprised added subject-matter (G 1/03 and G 1/16) and did not fulfil the requirements of Art. 123(2) EPC.