Examen des arguments, requêtes, preuves et autres moyens présentés par les parties
Principes généraux
Le droit d'être entendu au sens de l'art. 113(1) CBE implique non seulement de permettre aux parties de prendre position (sur les faits et raisonnements pertinents pour la décision), mais aussi de tenir compte de ces observations, c'est-à-dire de les examiner sous l'angle de leur pertinence pour la décision (voir, eu égard à l'art. 112bis CBE, le chapitre V.B.4.3.11 "Examen des arguments des parties dans la décision écrite" et, eu égard à la règle 111(2) CBE, le chapitre III.K.3.4. "Motifs d'une décision"). Il n'est pas toutefois nécessaire d'examiner en détail dans une décision chacun des arguments présentés par les parties. Les chambres peuvent aussi réfuter implicitement des arguments et ne pas tenir compte d'arguments non pertinents (R 5/15). En outre, la Grande Chambre de recours a estimé dans la décision R 10/18 qu'une chambre est présumée avoir pris en considération les moyens soumis par une partie mais qu'elle n'a pas retenu dans les motifs de sa décision. Une exception peut s'appliquer en cas d'indications contraires par exemple si une chambre ne traite pas, dans les motifs de sa décision, les moyens soumis par une partie qui, sur une base objective, sont décisifs pour l'issue de l'affaire, ou si elle rejette ces moyens sans évaluer leur exactitude. Voir aussi la décision T 1550/18 dans laquelle la chambre a appliqué ces principes par analogie à la première instance, ainsi que le chapitre III.K.3.4.2 "Droit d'être entendu – Droit à ce que les moyens soient pris en considération".
Dans la décision R 6/20 date: 2023-07-10, la Grande Chambre de recours a précisé que l'exigence selon laquelle "la chambre a examiné ces moyens sur le fond" (point 1, deuxième paragraphe, de l'exergue de la décision R 10/18) doit être interprétée en ce sens que "la chambre a examiné la teneur de ces moyens", cet examen comprenant des questions liées à l'admission de faits, preuves et requêtes, et/ou relatives au droit matériel, c.-à-d. au fond de l'affaire. Voir aussi chapitre III.K.3.4.2 "Droit d'être entendu – Droit à ce que les moyens soient pris en considération" et chapitre V.B.4.3.11 "Examen des arguments des parties dans la décision écrite".
- T 0842/24
In T 842/24 the opponent submitted that the plasticizer insufficiency objection ("the Objection") had not been taken into account by the opposition division. In the opponent's view, this constituted a violation of its right to be heard justifying a remittal to the opposition division and the reimbursement of the appeal fee. The patent proprietor, however, argued that no procedural violation had occurred in this respect, since the Objection had not been actively maintained in the oral proceedings.
The board indicated that the Objection had been raised by letter of 13 July 2023 and addressed again by letter of 16 February 2024. Although the Objection had not been specifically addressed in the opponent's subsequent letter of 28 March 2024, that letter stated at the end that all the arguments put forward in the written submissions of 16 February 2024 were highly relevant and therefore had to be taken into account by the opposition division. The board acknowledged that the minutes of the oral proceedings did not indicate that the Objection had been discussed. In the board's view, however, not addressing during the oral proceedings an objection submitted in writing did not necessarily imply that the objection had been withdrawn. This was because written submissions formed the basis of EPO proceedings and were complemented, where necessary, by an opportunity for a party to present and argue its case orally (G 4/95, G 1/21). Parties had the opportunity to repeat or expand upon some of the written submissions they considered necessary for defending their case, but were under no obligation to address all written submissions orally..
The patent proprietor was of the opinion that decision R 17/11 was relevant. The board held that, in that case, the Enlarged Board had not concluded that the absence of a petitioner's argument about the status as prior art of a document during the oral proceedings necessarily implied that this point was no longer maintained by the petitioner, but only that the technical board may have gathered from the discussion on that document that this point was no longer maintained..
The board found that whether an objection had been withdrawn or abandoned depended on the particular context underlying the contested decision. Decision T 526/21, cited by the patent proprietor, concerned a situation where the discussion during the oral proceedings about the choice of the closest prior art had not concerned two further documents on the basis of which additional inventive step attacks had been submitted in writing. In that situation, it had been considered that those attacks had not been maintained, as those two further documents had no longer been argued to represent a possible starting point for the assessment of inventive step.
According to the board, however, nothing in the debate during the oral proceedings in the present case implied that the opponent had not maintained the Objection. On that basis, the opposition division's failure to give due consideration to the Objection which, according to the opponent's submissions was an essential aspect of the alleged insufficiency of disclosure of the subject-matter of claim 1, constituted a substantial violation of the opponent's right to be heard in contravention of Art. 113(1) EPC.