3.2.3 Décisions rendues en l'absence d'un texte soumis ou accepté par le demandeur (article 113(2) CBE)

In T 712/25 la demande initiale de brevet contenait une page 1/1 de dessin comprenant un unique dessin dénommé figure 1. La division d'examen avait soulevé des objections d'activité inventive et de clarté à l'encontre des revendications de la demande telle que déposée, sans soulever aucune objection concernant le dessin. En réponse à ces objections, le requérant a déposé le 2 février 2022 des revendications modifiées. Dans sa notification au titre de la règle 71(3) CBE, la division d'examen a fait référence à la description et aux revendications, mais pas au dessin. Il ressortait par ailleurs de cette notification que seule la page 53 de la description avait été supprimée et il n'était pas mentionné que le dessin aurait également été supprimé. Le requérant a indiqué dans son courrier du 23 décembre 2024 que son accord à la délivrance du brevet était conditionné à l'inclusion dans le texte de la page de dessin telle que déposée lors de l'entrée en phase régionale..

La chambre a rappelé que, conformément à la règle 71(5) CBE, le requérant est réputé avoir approuvé le texte qui lui a été communiqué en vertu de la règle 71(3) CBE s'il acquitte les taxes requises et produit les traductions dans le délai fixé dans ladite règle. Selon la jurisprudence issue de la décision T 1003/19 (voir aussi T 1823/23, T 1224/24 et T 387/25), cette conséquence juridique de la règle 71(5) CBE ne s'applique que lorsque le texte communiqué au requérant est identique au texte sur la base duquel la division d'examen a l'intention de délivrer le brevet, comme le prévoit la règle 71(3) CBE, et reflète la "volonté réelle" de la division d'examen. Le texte auquel il est fait référence dans une notification au titre de la règle 71(3) CBE correspond en principe à la requête du requérant et à l'intention de la division d'examen. Toutefois, quand tel n'est pas le cas, la division d'examen ne pouvant statuer sur une demande de brevet européen que sur la base du texte présenté ou accepté par le requérant (art. 113(2) CBE), celle-ci n'est autorisée à suggérer de sa propre initiative que des modifications mineures qu'elle peut raisonnablement attendre du requérant, et il est d'usage de les indiquer non seulement dans le "Druckexemplar" annexé à la notification au titre de la règle 71(3) CBE, mais également dans cette notification. Plus précisément, dans l'affaire T 1003/19, il a été estimé que le retrait de toutes les pages de dessin représentant un mode de réalisation de l'invention ne pouvait être accepté par le requérant, d'autant plus que la description faisait toujours référence aux dessins et que leur suppression n'avait pas été indiquée comme modification dans la notification au titre de la règle 71(3) CBE dans le champ prévu à cet effet. Il a également été statué dans ce sens dans les affaires T 1823/23 et T 387/25, qui concernaient également un cas où les dessins avaient été omis de la notification au titre de la règle 71(3) CBE, ainsi que dans l'affaire T 1224/24 concernant l'omission de 48 des 52 pages de dessin.

La chambre a souligné que la page de dessin 1/1 faisait partie de la demande WO 2020/128200 A1 et était encore présente dans la demande lors de l'entrée en phase régionale. Elle était cependant absente du "Druckexemplar" et de la notification au titre de la règle 71(3) CBE. Si le requérant avait été informé de la suppression de la page 53 de la description, il ne l'avait pas été de celle de la page de dessin. L'absence de la page de dessin n'était par ailleurs pas cohérente avec les références faites à la figure 1 dans les pages de la description destinées à la délivrance du brevet. Selon la chambre, la division d'examen n'avait certainement pas l'intention d'omettre la page de dessin sans raison, en l'absence d'objections soulevées à son encontre, sans en informer le requérant et sans supprimer les références correspondantes dans la description, ce d'autant plus que le requérant avait déjà signalé cette absence et n'avait donné son accord au texte destiné à la délivrance du brevet que sous réserve que la page de dessin soit incluse. Par conséquent, la division d'examen n'a pas communiqué le texte sur la base duquel elle avait l'intention de délivrer le brevet..

La chambre a considéré que, conformément aux décisions T 1003/19, T 1823/23, T 1224/24 et T 387/25, la conséquence juridique prévue à la règle 71(5) CBE ne s'appliquait pas en l'espèce, la notification envoyée ne satisfaisant pas aux exigences de la règle 71(3) CBE. Le texte sur la base duquel le brevet a été délivré n'étant pas conforme à la requête du requérant, il n'a pas été fait droit aux prétentions du requérant au sens de l'art. 107 CBE. Toutes les autres conditions prévues à la règle 101(1) CBE étant remplies, le recours était recevable..

La chambre a estimé que la division d’examen a commis un vice substantiel de procédure et, dans les circonstances de l’espèce, qu’il était équitable de rembourser la taxe de recours.

In case T 0387/25 the patent proprietors had appealed the examining division's decision to grant a patent because the drawings had been omitted in the supporting documents indicated in the communication pursuant to R. 71(3) EPC.

The board noted that in the present case the drawings clearly formed part of the application as originally filed, and also of the application documents on which the European regional phase was to be based. The appellants explicitly maintained the "drawings as presently on file" in their submissions during examination proceedings when filing amended claims. They never agreed to the omission of the drawings, and in particular did not expressly agree to the text intended for grant in the communication pursuant to R. 71(3) EPC. This distinguishes the present case from the situations underlying T 2277/19 and T 2864/18.

Following decisions T 2081/16, T 1003/19, T 408/21, T 1823/23 and T 1224/24, the board held that the legal consequence outlined in R. 71(5) EPC (the deemed approval of the notified text) did not apply in the present case. According to the board, it is not sufficient that an applicant, having received a communication formally referring to R. 71(3) EPC, pays the required fee and files the required translations. The legal consequence of R. 71(5) EPC only arises if the communication sent also complies with the substantive requirements of R. 71(3) EPC, i.e. it actually contains the text in which the examining division intends to grant the patent, on the basis of the documents filed by the applicant, possibly supplemented by individual marked amendments..

The present board noted that the strict approach to the mechanism of R. 71 EPC advocated in T 265/20, in which the competent board did not follow the approach taken in T 1003/19 and T 2081/16, was not applied in the later decisions T 408/21, T 1823/23 and T 1224/24. In addition, the circumstances of the case at hand differed even more from the situation underlying T 265/20. In the present case, the appellants had in fact brought the relevant error, i.e. the omission of all the drawing sheets by the EPO – over which they had no influence – to the EPO's attention when it first occurred. In this case, the formalities officer's reply led them to understand that the drawing sheets would be taken into account in the event of a B1 publication. It followed that the decision to grant was based on an application in a text which was neither submitted nor agreed by the applicants, so the requirements of Art. 113(2) EPC had not been complied with. Hence, the board decided that the appeal was admissible and the decision under appeal was to be set aside.

According to the board, it has been established case law since T 1003/19 that an examining division's error in compiling the documents intended for grant in a communication under R. 71(3) EPC that makes a clearly unintentional omission of part of the documents proposed by the applicant for grant as indicated in the applicant's last request can still be corrected if the applicant files an appeal against the subsequent grant of the patent within the time limit under Art. 108 EPC, at least if the applicant did not explicitly consent to the incorrect compilation. T 265/20 did not support that case law; but this remained a single decision and was not followed by other boards..

The board held that the present decision did not deviate from G 1/10. It found that a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal was not required either to ensure uniform application of the law or to align the case law and Guidelines (see points 3.1 to 3.9.5 of the Reasons).

The board noted that the Guidelines, e.g. in H-VI, do not properly distinguish between cases where a mistake was already contained in an applicant's request or was explicitly approved by an applicant, and cases like the one at hand: where an examining division, by mistake and unintentionally, deviated from the appellant's latest request when listing the documents intended for grant in a communication under R. 71(3) EPC and this was neither pointed out to the applicant nor explicitly acknowledged by it. However, a divergence between the Guidelines and the case law of the boards is not necessarily a reason for a referral to the Enlarged Board. Rather, Art. 20(2) RPBA assumes that under normal circumstances it is enough to state sufficient grounds to enable the decision to be readily understood, such that the Guidelines may be adapted where necessary.

In T 1224/24 the appeal was directed against the decision of the examining division to grant a European patent on the basis of the application documents indicated in the communication under R. 71(3) EPC dated 13 December 2023.

This communication had not indicated that the text intended for grant differed from the applicant's request regarding the drawings. Furthermore, no prior communication from the examining division had proposed amendments to the drawings filed by the applicant, or contained any comments on them. All communications had stated that, for the figures, the examination was carried out on the amended drawing sheets 1/4-4/4 as filed upon entry into the regional phase before the EPO. However, the file contained no explicit approval from the applicant for the removal of the remaining 48 originally filed drawings. It appeared that neither the members of the examining division nor the appellant had realised that several of the original drawing sheets were omitted and only the amended drawing sheets 3/52, 28/52, 37/52 – renumbered 1/4-4/4 – were considered by the examining division.

In accordance with T 1003/19, T 1823/23 and T 2081/16, the board held that the legal consequence set out in R. 71(5) EPC could only apply if the communication under R. 71(3) EPC reflected the examining division's intention regarding the application documents on which the patent was to be granted. This conclusion was drawn from the unambiguous wording of R. 71(3) EPC, which uses the verb "intends", clearly indicating the intention of the examining division. Deemed approval under R. 71(5) EPC could only occur after a text compliant with R. 71(3) EPC had been communicated to the applicant. R. 71(5) EPC is not a stand-alone provision. Simply paying the fee and filing translations does not trigger deemed approval regardless of the communicated text's content. The text must conform to R. 71(3) EPC, to which R. 71(5) EPC refers, and align with the examining division's intention regarding the application documents that form the basis for granting the patent. Otherwise, the subsequent fee payment and translation filing remain ineffective.

The board further stated that R. 71(6) EPC allows the applicant to request reasoned amendments or corrections to the communicated text. However, this provision applies only to texts communicated in accordance with R. 71(3) EPC, which reflect the examining division's intention regarding the application documents that form the basis for granting the patent. This specifically addresses situations where the communication refers to the correct documents intended for grant, but these documents contain clerical mistakes or inaccuracies that the applicant wishes to rectify, or the applicant is not satisfied with the amendments explicitly proposed by the examining division to the text they submitted. However, if the communicated text does not reflect the examining division's intention for granting the patent, neither the absence of a correction or amendment request under R. 71(6) EPC, nor the payment of the fee and filing of translations under R. 71(5) EPC will have any legal consequence. The board found that this conclusion did not only align with the clear wording of R. 71(3) EPC, but also safeguarded the applicant from being seriously prejudiced by the impossibility to request corrections under R. 140 EPC (see G 1/10).

The decision under appeal was based on a text that had neither been submitted nor had been agreed upon by the applicant. Therefore, the decision did not comply with Art. 113(2) EPC and the board set it aside.

The board was aware of T 265/20, where the board in charge did not follow the approach taken in T 1003/19 and T 2081/16 and ultimately dismissed the appeal. However, according to the present board, T 265/20 did not represent diverging case law, as the circumstances in that case were different.

The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee had been withdrawn by the appellant. The board on its own did not consider reimbursement equitable, despite the substantial procedural violation affecting the decision under appeal (R. 103(1)(a) EPC). The board pointed out that the applicant had had several opportunities during the examination proceedings to identify the error regarding the drawing sheets.