Selected decisions of the Boards of Appeal

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 from 1 January 2020 on 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). 

November 2022

T 0574/17 () of 16.9.2022

Online on

25.11.2022

Board

3.2.03

Decision date

16.9.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

E04B 1/86
E04B 9/04
E04B 9/28
E04B 9/00
D04H 1/74

Application no.

05716494.9

Catchword

If there is an amendment to the patent in the appeal proceedings which has never been examined before, the Enlarged Board's obiter dictum in G 10/91, Reasons 19, is fully respected when only the prima facie relevance of an objection under Article 123(2) EPC is considered in the context of assessing whether there are exceptional circumstances under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (Reasons 2.3.1-2.3.14).

Keywords

Novelty - (no)
Novelty - public prior use (yes)
Claims - clarity after amendment (yes)
Grounds for opposition - extension of subject-matter (no)
Late-filed evidence - submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal
Late-filed evidence - admitted (no)
Amendment to appeal case - exercise of discretion
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)

Application title

Acoustic elements and their production

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T057417.20220916

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 683 KB)
T 2080/18 (Streichung von Ansprüchen - Zulassung in das Verfahren) of 21.7.2022

Online on

25.11.2022

Board

3.2.08

Decision date

21.7.2022

Proc. language

DE

IPC

F16D 51/18

Application no.

12799210.5

Catchword

siehe Punkt 5.1

Keywords

Hauptantrag - Neuheit (ja) - Erfinderische Tätigkeit (Nein)
Hilfsantrag 2 - Erfinderische Tätigkeit (nein)
Hilfsantrag 5 - Klarheit (nein)
Hilfsantrag 5A - Erfinderische Tätigkeit (nein)
Hilfsantrag 6A - Zulassung in der mündlichen Verhandlung (ja) - Erfinderische Tätigkeit (ja) - Ausreichende Offenbarung (ja)

Application title

BREMSSYSTEM EINER TROMMELBREMSE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T208018.20220721

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 633 KB)
T 1442/19 () of 5.7.2022

Online on

22.11.2022

Board

3.3.02

Decision date

5.7.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C07D 277/28
C07D 417/14
A61K 31/427
A61P 31/12

Application no.

12167589.6

Catchword

Extension of subject-matter: selection from an indication of equally preferred items (e.g. formed by several independent claims) disclosed in the application as filed (see point 2.4.1 of the Reasons)

Keywords

Divisional application - added subject-matter
Inventive step
Late-filed request - submitted with the reply to the statements of grounds of appeal

Application title

Modulators of pharmacokinetic properties of therapeutics

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T144219.20220705

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 672 KB)
T 2626/18 (Insurance risk prediction/SWISS RE) of 28.9.2022

Online on

18.11.2022

Board

3.5.01

Decision date

28.9.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06Q 40/00

Application no.

11190452.0

Catchword

The appellant argued that the claimed features relating to the abstract business concept neither could have been provided by the business person to the technical expert for programming, nor would the technical expert have corresponding knowledge starting from a networked standard computer system. The appellant thereby alleged that there was to be considered an imaginary third person who came up with the concept of the invention to be implemented on a computer system. The Board notes that when assessing inventive step in the field of computer implemented business related inventions following the COMVIK approach and the corresponding case law, there is no room for such a third expert. When analysing the features of a claim and answering the question of whether they provide a technical contribution, each such feature has to be judged to be either a contribution of the technical expert or of the non-technical business person in order to conclude whether there is an inventive technical contribution. (See point 4.13 of the reasons)

Keywords

Inventive step - all requests (no)
Inventive step - insurance risk predicition and loss frequency (not technical)

Application title

System and method for forecasting frequencies associated to future loss and for related automated operation of loss resolving units

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T262618.20220928

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 392 KB)
T 3097/19 (Key word detection/OMRON) of 16.11.2022

Online on

17.11.2022

Board

3.5.06

Decision date

16.11.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06K 9/32
G06F 17/30

Application no.

12871077.9

Catchword

1. If a request is not admitted because earlier objections are not overcome, Rule 111(2) EPC requires that these earlier objections be made explicit in the decision (see reasons 3).
2. Non-convergence of requests is, on its own, not a sufficient reason for non-admittance. It must be reasoned that and why non-convergent requests affect procedural economy in view of the particular circumstances of the case (see reasons 4).
3. The purpose of the claims to define the matter for which protection is sought (Article 84 EPC) imparts requirements on the application as a whole, in addition to the express requirements that the claims be clear, concise and supported by the description. The Board deems it to be an elementary requirement of a patent as a legal title that its extent of protection can be determined precisely. Whether this is the case for a specific patent application (or an amended patent) can only be decided with due consideration of the description. Claims and description do not precisely define the matter for which protection is sought if they contradict each other (see reasons 27 to 34).
|

Keywords

Decision not to admit new main request insufficiently reasoned
Non-admittance decision, therefore, not confirmed
Inventive step - main request, first and second auxiliary requests (no)
Inventive step - third and fourth auxiliary requests (yes, claims on their own)
Consistency between claims and description of third and fourth auxiliary requests - no
Scope of protection sought defined precisely - no

Application title

KEY WORD DETECTION DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD AND CONTROL PROGRAM FOR SAME, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T309719.20221116

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 481 KB)
T 1553/19 () of 28.10.2022

Online on

14.11.2022

Board

3.3.03

Decision date

28.10.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C08G 18/08
C08G 18/16
C08G 18/32
C08G 18/75
G02B 1/04

Application no.

09748027.1

Catchword

The normal rule of claim construction of reading a feature specified in a claim in its broadest technically meaningful sense corresponds to determining the broadest scope encompassed by the subject-matter being claimed according to a technically sensible reading. In the case of a feature defined in a positive manner, which imposes the presence of a specific element, this is effectively achieved by giving to the element in question its broadest technically sensible meaning. However, for a feature defined in a negative manner, which excludes the presence of a specific element, the broadest scope of the claim corresponds to the narrowest (i.e. most limited) technically sensible definition of the element to be excluded. (Reasons, point 5.7)

Keywords

Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
Novelty - (main request: no; first auxiliary request: yes)
Inventive step - (first auxiliary request: yes)

Application title

POLYMERIZABLE LIQUID COMPOSITION AND PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ORGANIC GLASS STARTING FROM POLYMERIZABLE LIQUID COMPOSITIONS OF THE POLYURETHANE TYPE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T155319.20221028

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 437 KB)
T 1001/18 () of 10.10.2022

Online on

03.11.2022

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

10.10.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G07D 1/00

Application no.

06014187.6

Catchword

Since the problem and solution approach defines the problem based on the effect of the differences from the closest prior art, and the effect is derived primarily from the disclosure of the invention, the effect documented in the present documents alone is taken as the basis for the problem formulation. The Board concluded that any further, undocumented effects would be speculative and should not be additionally included in the problem formulation (reasons 5.3.2)

Keywords

Inventive step - (yes)
Inventive step - problem and solution approach
Inventive step - after amendment
Inventive step - closest prior art
Inventive step - problem invention (yes)
Amendment after expiry of period in R. 100(2) EPC communication - exceptional circumstances (yes) - exercise of discretion - cogent reasons (yes)

Application title

Coin token assembly, method and device for dispensing coin tokens

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T100118.20221010

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 413 KB)
T 2194/19 (Error correction/TERAYON) of 24.10.2022

Online on

03.11.2022

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

24.10.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H03M 13/00

Application no.

04720810.3

Catchword

The requirement that the claims are to be supported by the description under Article 84, second sentence, EPC does not necessarily mean that all the "embodiments" of the description of a patent application have to be covered by the (independent) claims, i.e. that all the embodiments must fall within the scope of those claims (see point 6.2.2 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Added subject-matter - (no, after amendment)
Support by the description - (yes, after amendment)
Adaptation of the description: objection of examining division not justified
Remittal - special reasons (yes): novelty and inventive step not decided yet

Application title

Error-correcting code interleaver

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T219419.20221024

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 376 KB)

October 2022

T 0555/18 (Shrink Film/Cryovac) of 14.9.2022

Online on

26.10.2022

Board

3.3.06

Decision date

14.9.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

B32B 27/34
B65D 65/40
C08L 77/02
C08L 77/06

Application no.

08724899.3

Catchword

If the only feature that distinguishes a claim from the closest prior art is a range of an unusual parameter and it is concluded that it would be obvious for the skilled person to solve the underlying technical problem in ways that can be presumed to inherently lead to values within or close to the claimed range, it is the proprietor who should bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that implementing such solutions would not lead to the claimed parametrical range.

Keywords

Late-filed evidence - admitted (no)
Late-filed request - admitted (no)
Inventive step - (no)
Inventive step - obvious modification
Inventive step - Unusual parameter and burden of proof

Application title

SHRINK FILM CONTAINING SEMI-CRYSTALLINE POLYAMIDE, ARTICLES MADE THEREFROM, AND PROCESS FOR MAKING AND USING SAME

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T055518.20220914

Distribution

B

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 420 KB)
T 2179/16 () of 19.7.2022

Online on

18.10.2022

Board

3.3.02

Decision date

19.7.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A01N 25/04
A01N 47/24
A01N 43/653
A01N 43/56

Application no.

10730191.3

Catchword

Admittance of objections raised in appeal, said objections having been raised before the opposition division against a different claim request (point 4.3 of the Reasons)

Keywords

Admittance - objections raised in appeal which had been raised against a different claim request before the opposition division
Admittance - unsubstantiated objection (added subject-matter and novelty)
Sufficiency of disclosure
Inventive step

Application title

A PROCESS FOR PREPARING AN AQUEOUS SUSPENSION OF AN ORGANIC PESTICIDE COMPOUND

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T217916.20220719

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 466 KB)
T 0524/19 () of 16.9.2022

Online on

17.10.2022

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

16.9.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06Q 40/08
G08G 5/00

Application no.

13736554.0

Catchword

While a feature might, in certain contexts, be seen as technical, the technical effect of a feature must be assessed as a whole and in the context of the claimed invention (reasons 2.7.4).

Keywords

Inventive step - mixture of technical and non-technical features
Inventive step - skilled person
Inventive step - notional business person

Application title

SELF-SUFFICIENT RESOURCE-POOLING SYSTEM FOR RISK SHARING OF AIRSPACE RISKS RELATED TO NATURAL DISASTER EVENTS

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T052419.20220916

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 479 KB)
T 0698/19 () of 16.9.2022

Online on

17.10.2022

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

16.9.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06Q 10/00

Application no.

12729952.7

Catchword

If non-technical features have both a technical and a non-technical effect, the technical effect must be taken into account when assessing inventive step, but the technical effect must be clearly derivable from the application as a whole (Reasons 3.6.4 (1)).

Keywords

Inventive step - (no)
Inventive step - mixture of technical and non-technical features
Inventive step - notional business person versus real business person versus technically skilled person

Application title

MICRO-RESOURCE-POOLING SYSTEM AND CORRESPONDING METHOD THEREOF

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T069819.20220916

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 473 KB)
T 0424/21 (Antibody Fc variants/ROCHE GLYCART) of 8.4.2022

Online on

12.10.2022

Board

3.3.04

Decision date

8.4.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C07K 16/00
C07K 16/28

Application no.

12710732.4

Catchword

1. If the deletion of dependent claims after notification of a summons to oral proceedings enhances procedural economy by clearly overcoming existing objections without giving rise to any new issues this might constitute cogent reasons justifying exceptional circumstances in the sense of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020.
2. For a first medical use of a substance or composition according to Article 54(4) EPC to be sufficiently disclosed it is not required to show the suitability for each and every disease, but it usually suffices to show that at least one medical use is credibly achieved.

Keywords

Amendments - main request, auxiliary requests 1 to 5: added subject-matter (yes)
Amendments - auxiliary request 6: added subject-matter (no)
Amendment to appeal case - justification by party (yes)
Sufficiency of disclosure - auxiliary request 6 (yes)
Inventive step - auxiliary request 6 (yes)

Application title

Antibody Fc variants

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T042421.20220408

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 589 KB)
T 1349/19 (Fat composition/BUNGE LODERS) of 13.9.2022

Online on

07.10.2022

Board

3.3.09

Decision date

13.9.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A23L 33/00
A23D 9/00
C11C 3/08
A23D 9/02
A23L 33/115
A23L 33/12

Application no.

13713532.3

Catchword

Inventive step objection based on hindsight: arguments involving a convoluted set of sequential steps conceived starting from the claimed subject-matter and working backwards in attempt to bridge the gap with the prior art (Reasons 1.27)

Keywords

Main request: inventive step - (Yes)

Application title

FAT COMPOSITION

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T134919.20220913

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 385 KB)

September 2022

T 0017/22 (Oral care composition / COLGATE-PALMOLIVE) of 20.9.2022

Online on

21.09.2022

Board

3.3.07

Decision date

20.9.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61K 8/22
A61K 8/34
A61K 8/81
A61Q 11/02

Application no.

18750027.7

Catchword

see point 1.2.2 of the reasons

Keywords

Substantial procedural violation - opportunity to comment (no)
Substantial procedural violation - reimbursement of appeal fee (yes)

Application title

ORAL CARE COMPOSITION

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T001722.20220920

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 340 KB)
T 0803/17 () of 21.6.2022

Online on

16.09.2022

Board

3.2.02

Decision date

21.6.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61B 19/00

Application no.

06709968.9

Catchword

The yardstick for determining whether the position of an appellant is, because of its own appeal, worsened in a way which is incompatible with the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in peius is the order of the decision under appeal, in particular the order's legal effect on the appellant.
If an opposition is considered inadmissible in the appeal proceedings, an appellant whose opposition was rejected in the decision under appeal as unallowable would not be in a worse position than if it had not appealed, as in both cases the patent would be maintained as granted. The legal reasons leading to this result, including whether the opposition is rejected as inadmissible or unallowable, do not fall within the scope of the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in peius (Reasons 3.5).

Keywords

Admissibility of appeal - appeal sufficiently substantiated (yes)
Admissibility of opposition
Appeal decision - extent of examination
Appeal decision - reformatio in peius
Late-filed evidence - submitted shortly before oral proceedings
Late-filed evidence - admitted (no)
Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes)

Application title

SURGICAL PLANNING

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T080317.20220621

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 401 KB)
T 0882/17 () of 21.6.2022

Online on

16.09.2022

Board

3.2.02

Decision date

21.6.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61B 19/00

Application no.

12161435.8

Catchword

If the opponent is the sole appellant against an interlocutory decision maintaining a patent in amended form, an objection related to the inadmissibility of the opposition is subject to the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in peius. In such a procedural situation, the Board is prohibited from ordering the maintenance of the patent as granted due to the inadmissibility of the opposition (Reasons 3.19).

Keywords

Admissibility of appeal - appeal sufficiently substantiated (yes)
Admissibility of opposition
Appeal decision - extent of examination
Appeal decision - reformatio in peius
Late-filed evidence - submitted shortly before oral proceedings
Late-filed evidence - admitted (no)
Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes)

Application title

Surgical planning

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T088217.20220621

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 671 KB)
T 0351/19 () of 23.6.2022

Online on

14.09.2022

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

23.6.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06Q 20/32
G06Q 20/20
G06Q 30/04
G06Q 30/06

Application no.

15183537.8

Catchword

According to the Comvik approach the non-technical features of a claim may be incorporated into a goal to be achieved in a non-technical field. Subsequently, the approach invokes what might be described as the legal fiction that this goal, including the claimed non-technical features, would be presented to the skilled person, who would be charged with the task of technically implementing a solution which would achieve the stated goal. The question whether the skilled person would "arrive" at the non-technical features does not therefore arise, as these features have been made known to the skilled person, as part of the goal to be achieved. The relevant question for the assessment of inventive step is whether it would be obvious for the skilled person to implement a technical solution corresponding to the claimed subject-matter (Reasons, point 3.12).

Keywords

Inventive step - main request (no)
Late-filed auxiliary requests - admitted (no)

Application title

AUTOMATED SESSION CLOSING UPON LOCATION-SENSED DEPARTURE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T035119.20220623

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 474 KB)

August 2022

T 2360/17 (Buffer status reporting/INNOVATIVE) of 7.7.2022

Online on

23.08.2022

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

7.7.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04W72/12

Application no.

11003781.9

Catchword

As to the divergence in the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal concerning the notion of an "amendment" within the meaning of Article 12(4) RPBA 2020, see point 2.4 of the Reasons.

Keywords

Added subject-matter - main request and auxiliary request 2b (yes): unallowable intermediate generalisation
Admittance - auxiliary request 1c (no): deletion of claims is an "amendment" (T 1480/16, T 1857/19 and T 2201/19 not followed); no cogent reasons + no clear allowability
Partial reimbursement of appeal fee at 25% - (yes): withdrawal of the proprietor's appeal before announcement of decision

Application title

Method and apparatus for handling buffer status reporting in a wireless communication system

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T236017.20220707

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 358 KB)
J 0009/20 (Designation of inventor/DABUS II) of 21.12.2021

Online on

04.08.2022

Board

3.1.01

Decision date

21.12.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61M 21/00
A61M 16/00

Application no.

18275174.3

Catchword

A machine is not an inventor within the meaning of the EPC

Keywords

Designation of inventor - artificial intelligence

Application title

DEVICES AND METHODS FOR ATTRACTING ENHANCED ATTENTION

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:J000920.20211221

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 540 KB)

July 2022

T 0682/22 (Interlocutory revision/ZTE) of 20.7.2022

Online on

27.07.2022

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

20.7.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04W 48/20
H04W 76/02

Application no.

14889608.7

Catchword

Different interpretation of Article 109(1) EPC from that provided for in the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO - application of Article
20(2) RPBA 2020 (see point 2.4.3 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Decision in written proceedings: cancellation of hearing following appellant's announcement of non-attendance
Novelty under Art. 54(3) EPC
Novelty - sole request (yes)
Interlocutory revision - examining division should have rectified decision (yes)
Substantial procedural violation - (no)
Remittal - (yes): special reasons for remittal
Reimbursement of appeal fee in full (no)
Partial reimbursement of appeal fee at 25% - (yes): timely withdrawal of request for oral proceedings
Inconsistency between Guidelines and Case Law

Application title

Method and system for controlling access of CSG in dual-connection architecture

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T068222.20220720

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 383 KB)
T 1190/17 (Microsonde radio-opaque de détection/stimulation / SORIN) of 8.3.2022

Online on

15.07.2022

Board

3.4.01

Decision date

8.3.2022

Proc. language

FR

IPC

A61N 1/05
A61N 1/372

Application no.

12187052.1

Catchword

Le fait que la chambre ait retenu un argument nouveau (absence d'effet technique clairement identifiable) dans la chaîne argumentaire conduisant au constat provisoire d'absence d'activité inventive ne saurait être ignoré. Il justifie
que les requêtes qui visent et se limitent à remédier à cette objection soient admises.

Keywords

Priorité - base dans le document de priorité (oui)
Activité inventive - (non)
Requêtes subsidiaires produites tardivement - recevable (oui)

Application title

Microsonde de détection/stimulation, implantable dans des réseaux veineux, artériels ou lymphatiques

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T119017.20220308

Distribution

D

Decision

Texte de la décision en FR (PDF, 465 KB)
T 0809/21 () of 5.7.2022

Online on

13.07.2022

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

5.7.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G03G 21/16
G03G 21/18
H04L 25/49

Application no.

07831774.0

Catchword

In a case where the patent is not opposed in its entirety, the opposition being directed at certain claims only, and where the Opposition Division decides that all of the proprietor's requests in relation to the opposed claims must fail, only the unopposed claims, which are not part of any opposition proceedings, are left standing.
Hence, provided the requirements of Rule 82(1) EPC are met (either during oral proceedings or, in a written procedure, by means of a separate communication), the patent may be maintained on the basis of the unopposed claims, irrespective of whether the proprietor has filed an explicit request for this during the proceedings. Such a request would, in fact, be superfluous, since the unopposed claims have been granted and are not the subject of any opposition. The unopposed claims of the granted patent are therefore always available to the proprietor as the minimum basis on which the patent may be maintained (Reasons, point 5.2).

Keywords

Extent of opposition
Reimbursement of appeal fee - substantial procedural violation (yes)

Application title

COMMUNICATION DEVICE, IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND CARTRIDGE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T080921.20220705

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 406 KB)
T 3000/19 (Searching data with registered applications/BLACKBERRY) of 6.7.2022

Online on

12.07.2022

Board

3.5.07

Decision date

6.7.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06F 17/30

Application no.

11741809.5

Catchword

When a video retrieved from the internet is used as prior-art evidence for refusing a patent application, its content, in a form suitable for reviewing the decision, and metadata evidence demonstrating when and how it was made available to the public should be preserved and made accessible over time to interested parties and judicial bodies.

Keywords

Appealed decision - sufficiently reasoned (no)
Remittal to the department of first instance
Remittal - fundamental deficiency in first instance proceedings (yes)
Prior-art evidence - accessibility over time
Council of Europe: "Electronic evidence in civil and administrative proceedings - Guidelines and explanatory memorandum"July 2019

Application title

Devices and methods for searching data on data sources associated with registered applications

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T300019.20220706

Distribution

B

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 354 KB)
T 1042/18 () of 11.5.2022

Online on

11.07.2022

Board

3.2.02

Decision date

11.5.2022

Proc. language

DE

IPC

A61B 5/00
A61M 1/36
A61B 5/1455

Application no.

13167902.9

Catchword

1.) Im Beschwerdeverfahren bestehen Beschränkungen neuen Vorbringens sowohl durch die Rechtsprechung der Großen Beschwerdekammer in G 10/91, G 1/95 und G 7/95 zur Berücksichtigung neuer Einspruchsgründe, als auch durch die den Kammern in Artikel 114 (2) EPÜ und der Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern eingeräumte Möglichkeit, verspätetes Vorbringen nicht zuzulassen. Diese Beschränkungen bestehen unabhängig voneinander und wirken kumulativ (Nr. 4.5 der Gründe).
2.) Vorbringen, das nicht auf die in der Beschwerdebegründung oder Erwiderung enthaltenen Anträge, Tatsachen, Einwände, Argumente und Beweismittel gerichtet ist, bewirkt eine Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens im Sinne des Artikel 13 (2) VOBK (J 14/19, Nr. 1.4 der Gründe). In diesem Zusammenhang stellt sowohl eine neue Kombination von Tatsachenelementen (z.B. die Wahl einer anderen Entgegenhaltung oder einer anderen Textstelle einer Entgegenhaltung als Ausgangspunkt für einen Einwand erfinderischer Tätigkeit) als auch eine neue Kombination von Tatsachen- und Rechtselementen (z.B. die Bezugnahme auf ein Dokument oder eine Textstelle in einem anderen rechtlichen Zusammenhang) eine Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens dar. Ein in der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Beschwerdekammer erstmals vorgetragener Einwand mangelnder erfinderischer Tätigkeit ausgehend von einer Entgegenhaltung, die zuvor lediglich Gegenstand eines Neuheitseinwandes war, stellt somit regelmäßig eine Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens gemäß Artikel 13 (2) VOBK 2020 dar (Nr. 4.9 der Gründe).

Keywords

Neuheit - (ja)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (ja)
Spät eingereichte Beweismittel - eingereicht mit der
Beschwerdebegründung - zugelassen (nein)
Änderung nach Ladung - außergewöhnliche Umstände (nein)
stichhaltige Gründe (nein) - berücksichtigt (nein)
Vorlage an die Große Beschwerdekammer - (nein)

Application title

Medizinisches Gerät zur extrakorporalen Blutbehandlung mit mehreren Sensoreinheiten

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T104218.20220511

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 705 KB)
T 0355/19 (Additif alimentaire/PANCOSMA) of 8.4.2022

Online on

11.07.2022

Board

3.3.09

Decision date

8.4.2022

Proc. language

FR

IPC

A23K 20/111
A23K 10/30
A23K 10/37
A23K 50/10

Application no.

06709242.9

Catchword

Modification des moyens selon l'article 13(2) RPCR ; recevabilité de requêtes dans lesquelles certaines revendications indépendantes sont supprimées ; échelonnement des requêtes subsidiaires déposées tout au long de la procédure de recours qui donne lieu à une approche "par tâtonnements" ou une tactique par élimination (tactique du "salami") (voir points 2 et 3 des motifs).

Keywords

Requête principale: matière ajoutée - (oui)
Requêtes subsidiaires 1 et 2 - recevabilité (non)
Requête subsidiaire 3 - recevabilité (oui); matière ajoutée (non); suffisance de l'exposé (oui), activité inventive (oui)

Application title

ADDITIF ALIMENTAIRE POUR RUMINANTS A BASE D'EUGENOL ET DE CINNAMALDEHYDE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T035519.20220408

Distribution

D

Decision

Texte de la décision en FR (PDF, 500 KB)
T 0920/20 (Schwalbenschwanzzahn/MARTINREA HONSEL GERMANY GMBH) of 23.6.2022

Online on

07.07.2022

Board

3.2.01

Decision date

23.6.2022

Proc. language

DE

IPC

B23B 27/06
B23B 27/14
B23B 29/034
B23B 41/12
C23C 4/02
F16J 10/04
B24B 33/08

Application no.

09776027.6

Catchword

Artikel 12(4) VOBK 2020 enthält keine Einschränkung dahin, dass sich jede Partei in der Beschwerde nur auf diejenigen Gegenstände des Vorverfahrens beziehen dürfte, die sie selbst dort "in zulässiger Weise vorgebracht" hat. Daher erscheint es legitim, sich auch auf Angriffslinien zu beziehen, die von anderen Beteiligten ins Einspruchsverfahren eingeführt worden waren. Geschieht dies, liegt insoweit daher keine zulassungsbedürftige Änderung des Vorbringens vor (siehe Punkt 4.4).

Keywords

Änderungen - Zwischenverallgemeinerung Hauptantrag (ja)
Änderungen - Zwischenverallgemeinerung Hilfsanträge 2 bis 4 (ja)
Änderung nach Ladung - Hilfsantrag 1
Änderung nach Ladung - außergewöhnliche Umstände (nein)
Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens (ja)
Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens - Änderung der Verfahrensökonomie abträglich (ja)
Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens - Eignung der Änderung zur Lösung der aufgeworfenen Fragen (nein)
Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens - Änderung gibt Anlass zu neuen Einwänden (ja)

Application title

VERFAHREN UND WERKZEUG ZUR ERZEUGUNG EINER OBERFLÄCHE VORBESTIMMTER RAUHEIT

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T092020.20220623

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 489 KB)
T 0755/16 () of 2.2.2022

Online on

06.07.2022

Board

3.3.02

Decision date

2.2.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C07K 16/00
C07K 1/34

Application no.

08784774.5

Catchword

A request not to admit a certain document, this request having been filed for the first time during oral proceedings before the board, may constitute an amendment of the appeal case the admittance of which is governed by Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (point 3 of the reasons)

Keywords

Inventive step
Amendment to appeal case
Amendment after summons
Late-filed facts
Late-filed objection

Application title

VARIABLE TANGENTIAL FLOW FILTRATION

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T075516.20220202

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 430 KB)
J 0008/20 (Designation of inventor/DABUS) of 21.12.2021

Online on

05.07.2022

Board

3.1.01

Decision date

21.12.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

B65D 6/02
B65D 8/00
B65D 6/00
B65D 13/02
B65D 21/02
B65D 1/02

Application no.

18275163.6

Catchword

A machine is not an inventor within the meaning of the EPC

Keywords

Designation of inventor - artificial intelligence

Application title

FOOD CONTAINER

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:J000820.20211221

Distribution

B

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 529 KB)

June 2022

T 2117/18 () of 17.5.2022

Online on

29.06.2022

Board

3.2.03

Decision date

17.5.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

B21B 45/02

Application no.

06823437.6

Catchword

In order to substantiate an objection in the appeal proceedings which the Opposition Division did not consider convincing, it is necessary to provide specific reasons why the finding and the reasoning in the decision under appeal is supposedly incorrect with regard to this objection (Reasons 2.2.2-2.2.11).
As a rule, in appeal proceedings general references to submissions made in the proceedings before the departments of first instance are not taken into account due to a lack of substantiation. Attaching the notice of opposition to the statement of grounds of appeal is to be considered equivalent to such a general reference to previous submissions (Reasons 2.2.13-2.2.14). An objection is to be considered to have been validly submitted only at the time on which sufficient substantiation is provided (Reasons 2.2.17).

Keywords

Statement of grounds of appeal - party's complete case
Statement of grounds of appeal - insufficient substantiation of objection
Late-filed objection - exceptional circumstances (no)
Inventive step - (yes)

Application title

COOLING APPARATUS FOR HOT ROLLED STEEL BAND AND METHOD OF COOLING THE STEEL BAND

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T211718.20220517

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 428 KB)
T 2920/18 () of 30.3.2022

Online on

27.06.2022

Board

3.3.03

Decision date

30.3.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C08F 10/02
C08L 23/06
C08J 5/18

Application no.

13731746.7

Catchword

Amendment of a set of claims by deletion of claims. Admittance of said amended set of claims pursuant to Article 13(2) RPBA 2020: see points 3.1 to 3.16 of the Reasons for the Decision.

Keywords

Grounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosure (yes: main request; no: auxiliary request)
Novelty - auxiliary request (yes)
Inventive step - auxiliary request (yes)
Amendment after summons - taken into account (yes and no)
Amendment after summons - deletion of claims
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (yes)

Application title

FILM COMPOSITION

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T292018.20220330

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 617 KB)
T 0752/19 (Ticagrelor, acetylsalicylic acid and a computer program/INTELLECTUAL … of 4.4.2022

Online on

27.06.2022

Board

3.5.05

Decision date

4.4.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06F 19/00

Application no.

12702463.6

Catchword

Improved patient compliance to a pharmaceutical formulation cannot be used to establish an overall technical effect if it is the result of a "broken technical chain", namely an alleged chain of technical effects starting with information provided to a patient which is then broken by the patient's mental activities (see points 2.4 and 2.5).

Keywords

Inventive step - main request (no)
Late-filed request - submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal
Late-filed request - admitted (no)
Late-filed request - should have been submitted in first-instance proceedings (yes)

Application title

PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT AND COMMUNICATION TOOL

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T075219.20220404

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 305 KB)
T 0043/18 () of 1.6.2022

Online on

23.06.2022

Board

3.3.02

Decision date

1.6.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C07D 489/00
C07D 489/08
A61K 9/00
A61K 31/485

Application no.

10011792.8

Catchword

Novelty - purity: decision T 1085/13 followed

Keywords

Novelty
Remittal

Application title

Pharmaceutical dosage form comprising oxycodone hydrochloride having less than 25 ppm 14-hydroxycodeinone

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T004318.20220601

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 350 KB)
T 2295/19 () of 6.4.2022

Online on

20.06.2022

Board

3.3.03

Decision date

6.4.2022

Proc. language

DE

IPC

C08G 65/00
C08G 75/20
C08G 65/26
C08K 3/26
C08G 65/334
C08G 65/337

Application no.

14724351.3

Catchword

Änderung eines Anspruchssatzes durch Streichung von Ansprüchen. Zur Frage seiner Zulassung unter Artikel 13 (2) RPBA 2020 siehe Entscheidungsgründe Nr. 3.4.1 bis 3.4.14.

Keywords

Neuheit - Hauptantrag, Hilfsanträge 1, 2, 2a, 3, 3a, 4, 4a (nein)
Zulassung - Hilfsantrag 5 (ja)
Einspruchsgründe - mangelhafte Offenbarung (nein)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (ja)
Änderung nach Ladung - Streichung von Ansprüchen
Änderung nach Ladung - außergewöhnliche Umstände (ja)

Application title

POLYARYLETHERSULFONCOPOLYMERE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T229519.20220406

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 452 KB)
T 0071/21 (Berichtigung des Formblatts 1038 (nein)) of 28.4.2022

Online on

14.06.2022

Board

3.2.03

Decision date

28.4.2022

Proc. language

DE

IPC

F24D 17/00
C02F 1/00

Application no.

13000618.2

Catchword

Berichtigung der Erklärung betreffend die Methode für die Entrichtung der Beschwerdegebühr im Formblatt 1038
- Ermittelung der ursprünglichen Absicht bei der Auswahl der Zahlungsmethode, siehe Entscheidungsgründe 6.4

Keywords

Berichtigung von Mängeln - (nein)
Berichtigung von Mängeln - sofort erkennbar dass nichts anderes beabsichtigt sein konnte (nein)
Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde - Beschwerdegebühr (nicht entrichtet)
Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde - Beschwerde gilt als nicht eingelegt
Vorlage an die Große Beschwerdekammer (nein)

Application title

Anlage sowie Verfahren zur Erwärmung von Trinkwasser

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T007121.20220428

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 402 KB)
T 0955/20 (Query translation/GOOGLE) of 2.2.2022

Online on

10.06.2022

Board

3.5.07

Decision date

2.2.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06F 17/27

Application no.

09151235.0

Catchword

1. A request for reimbursement of the appeal fee under Rule 103(1)(a) EPC can no longer be filed after the department of first instance has granted interlocutory revision (Reasons 2).
2. If the department of first instance grants interlocutory revision only to refine the written reasons which already complied with Rule 111(2) EPC, this may constitute a substantial procedural violation (Reasons 1).
3. Such a substantial procedural violation may justify the reimbursement under Rule 103(1)(a) of the appeal fee paid for a subsequent appeal (Reasons 3.1 and 3.2).

Keywords

Inventive step - main request (no)
Interlocutory revision - substantial procedural violation (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - first appeal fee (no)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - second appeal fee (yes)
Remittal to the department of first instance
Remittal - (yes)

Application title

Systems and methods for searching using queries written in a different character-set and/or language from the target pages

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T095520.20220202

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 418 KB)
W 0005/03 () of 11.6.2003

Online on

02.06.2022

Board

3.2.02

Decision date

11.6.2003

Proc. language

EN

IPC

-

Application no.

-

Headnote

Non-unity of invention

Keywords

Lack of unity (yes, in part)

Application title

Apparatus and method for sculpting the surface of a joint

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2003:W000503.20030611

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 592 KB)

Quick Navigation