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 that are published from 1 January 2020 on.

April 2021

T 1148/15 () of 20.1.2021

Online on

15.04.2021

Board

3.5.04

Decision date

20.1.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04N 5/00
H04N 5/44

Application no.

07004089.4

Catchword

see sections 3 to 6

Keywords

Inventive step - problem and solution approach
Inventive step - closest prior art
Inventive step - objective technical problem
Inventive step - selection of one of several obvious solutions
Inventive step - ex post facto analysis (no)
Claims - clarity (no)
Right to be heard - opportunity to comment (yes)
Objection under Rule 106 EPC (dismissed)

Application title

A protocol for control of network or bus attached cable TV set-top box front-end functionality

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T114815.20210120

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 627 KB)
T 0328/16 () of 2.2.2021

Online on

14.04.2021

Board

3.2.07

Decision date

2.2.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

D21F 11/00
D21G 1/00
B31F 1/16
D21H 27/10
B65D 30/02
B31B 19/00

Application no.

09169216.0

Catchword

Zurückweisung eines nach Eröffnung der mündlichen Verhandlung gestellten Antrages auf Aussetzung des als Videokonferenz durchgeführten Termins zur mündlichen Verhandlung und auf Neufestsetzung eines Termins zur mündlichen Verhandlung in physischer Präsenz aller Beteiligten (siehe Punkt 2 der Gründe)

Keywords

Neuheit - (ja)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (ja)
Ermittlung von Amts wegen - Beschwerdeverfahren
Antrag auf Aussetzung der mündlichen Verhandlungen mittels Videokonferenz und Neufestsetzung eines Termins zur mündlichen Verhandlung in phyischer Präsenz der Beteiligten - Antragstellung erst nach Eröffnung der mündlichen Verhandlung - zurückgewiesen
Verlegung der mündlichen Verhandlung - schwerwiegende Gründe (nein)

Application title

Verfahren zur Herstellung von Sackpapier, Sackpapier und Papiersack

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T032816.20210202

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 542 KB)
T 0488/18 () of 25.3.2021

Online on

12.04.2021

Board

3.4.02

Decision date

25.3.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

G01M3/32
G01F23/00

Application no.

11186605.9

Catchword

Eine Rückzahlungsmöglichkeit der Beschwerdegebühr gemäß Regel 103 (4) c) EPÜ kann es auch dann geben, wenn ein Antrag auf mündliche Verhandlung nicht vom Beschwerdeführer zurückgenommen wurde, sondern von einem anderen Verfahrensbeteiligten, der keine Beschwerde eingelegt hat (siehe Nrn. 8.3 - 8.9 der Entscheidungsgründe).

Keywords

Entscheidung im schriftlichen Verfahren (ja)
Unterbrechung des Beschwerdeverfahrens wegen Insolvenzverfahren (nein)
Übertragung der Einsprechendenstellung (nein) - kein ausreichender Nachweis
Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde - Beschwerde hinreichend begründet (ja)
Änderungen - zulässig (ja)
Änderungen - Erweiterung über den Inhalt der Anmeldung in der eingereichten Fassung hinaus (nein)
Zurückverweisung an die erste Instanz
Zurückverweisung - (ja)
Teilweise Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr (ja)

Application title

Leckagesonde für einen doppelwandigen Tank

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T048818.20210325

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 623 KB)
T 0013/19 (Oral proceedings in absentia/JILDERDA) of 4.3.2021

Online on

06.04.2021

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

4.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04R 25/00

Application no.

07793860.3

Catchword

It is no more than the usual degree of courtesy owed to a Board of Appeal as a court of final appellate jurisdiction that a party's intention not to attend the oral proceedings or any impediment to attendance is communicated as early as possible (see point
1.3 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Oral proceedings - non-attendance of appellant
Added subject-matter - main and auxiliary requests (yes)
Reimbursement of the appeal fee - (no): appeal not allowable and no procedural violation

Application title

Hearing aid, expansion unit and method for manufacturing a hearing aid

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T001319.20210304

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 347 KB)

March 2021

T 1707/17 () of 19.2.2021

Online on

30.03.2021

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

19.2.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H01J37/32

Application no.

05794506.5

Catchword

Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 requires the party
not only to explain why the case involves exceptional circumstances, but also to explain why its amendment, in terms of both content and timing, represents a justified response to these circumstances.
In particular, where a party seeks to amend its case at a very late stage in the proceedings, the cogent reasons referred to in Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 should include reasons why it was not possible to file such an amendment earlier (Reasons, point
2.4).

Keywords

Amendments of main and 1st auxiliary request
Amendments - allowable (no)
Amendment after summons (2nd auxiliary request)
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)

Application title

MATERIAL DEPOSITION APPARATUS AND METHOD

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T170717.20210219

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 334 KB)
T 1127/16 (Aircraft communication method/BOEING) of 18.2.2021

Online on

29.03.2021

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

18.2.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04B 7/185

Application no.

06077126.8

Catchword

(1) With respect to the assessment of compliance with Article 123(2) EPC, the fact that a claim of a patent is to be construed by a mind willing to understand and not a mind desirous of misunderstanding does not mean that the description and the drawings have automatically to be consulted when an "ambiguous" feature (i.e. a feature which at least theoretically allows more than one interpretation) occurs in the claim, or where the claim as a whole includes one or more inconsistencies, to resolve that ambiguity or inconsistency. Rather, the claim should essentially be read and interpreted on its own merits (see points 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of the Reasons).
(2) As to the issue of an "inescapable trap", see point 4 of the Reasons.

Keywords

Added subject-matter - main, 1st and 4th to 13th auxiliary requests (yes): unallowable limitation
Extension of protection conferred - 2nd and 3rd auxiliary requests (yes): "inescapable trap"
Referral to the Enlarged Board - inescapable trap (no): not required and no divergence

Application title

Multi-network aircraft communication systems and methods

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T112716.20210218

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 501 KB)
T 2475/16 () of 3.3.2021

Online on

29.03.2021

Board

3.2.04

Decision date

3.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A47J 31/06
A47J 31/40

Application no.

08709016.3

Catchword

Reasons 3

Keywords

Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes)
Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Late-filed auxiliary requests - admitted (yes)

Application title

DEVICE FOR PREPARING A LIQUID BEVERAGE FROM A CARTRIDGE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T247516.20210303

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 404 KB)
T 2320/16 (Oral proceedings by videoconference) of 4.2.2021

Online on

24.03.2021

Board

3.3.02

Decision date

4.2.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C07D 215/54
A61K 31/47
C07D 401/12
C07D 417/12
C07D 215/56
C07D 401/04
C07D 491/10
C07D 405/12
C07D 413/12
C07D 211/00

Application no.

10173332.7

Catchword

Oral proceedings by videoconference are consistent with the right to oral proceedings pursuant to
Article 116 EPC
(Reasons, 1)

Keywords

Oral proceedings - by videoconference
Inventive step - reasonable generalisation of the invention (yes)
Inventive step - burden of proof

Application title

SUBSTITUTED 3-CYANOQUINOLINES AS PROTEIN TYROSINE KINASES INHIBITORS

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T232016.20210204

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 766 KB)
T 0862/16 (Connection re-establishment/HTC) of 2.3.2021

Online on

22.03.2021

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

2.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04W76/02

Application no.

12004150.4

Catchword

As to raising a new objection by a Board of Appeal ex officio under Article 114(1) EPC, see points 2.8 and 8 of the Reasons.

Keywords

Added subject-matter - main and auxiliary requests 1 to 10 (yes)
Admittance of auxiliary request 11 filed at oral proceedings (yes): exceptional circumstances
Added subject-matter - auxiliary request 11 (no, after amendments)
Extension of protection - auxiliary request 11 (no)
Objection introduced ex officio by the board - request for referral to Enlarged BoA (no)
Remittal to the opposition division for further prosecution
Remittal - (yes): novelty and inventive step not examined yet
Request for reimbursement of the appeal fee - (no): no substantial procedural violation

Application title

Methods for synchronizing PDCP operations after PRC connection re-establishment in a wireless communication system and related apparatuses thereof

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T086216.20210302

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 473 KB)
T 1950/16 () of 14.1.2021

Online on

19.03.2021

Board

3.2.03

Decision date

14.1.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

B21B1/22

Application no.

07859801.8

Catchword

An ISBN number is a unique identifier which usually indicates that a book has been made publicly available. A copyright notice usually indicates the year of publication. Both are typically found at the beginning of a book, at the copyright page (edition notice). Taken together, they usually indicate that a book has been made available to the public in a certain year (see point 3.1 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Prior art - availability to the public (yes)
Novelty - main request (no)
Amendments - auxiliary request I
Amendments - added subject-matter (no)
Right to be heard - violation (no)
Remittal - (yes)
Remittal - fundamental deficiency in first-instance proceedings (no)

Application title

METHOD OF TEMPER ROLLING OF STEEL STRIP AND PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING HIGH TENSILE COLD ROLLED STEEL SHEET

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T195016.20210114

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 365 KB)
T 2344/16 (Bestimmung der Streuparameter eines Mehrtor-Messobjekts - Rohde & … of 15.2.2021

Online on

18.03.2021

Board

3.4.01

Decision date

15.2.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

G01R35/00

Application no.

03810391.7

Catchword

Einer Änderung der Besetzung einer Prüfungsabteilung vor der mündlichen Verhandlung steht grundsätzlich nichts entgegen. Eine Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren und insbesondere auf rechtliches Gehör liegt darin an sich nicht.
Die Einführung von neuem Stand der Technik, insbesondere zum Nachweis allgemeinen Fachwissens in Anwendung des Art. 114 EPÜ, zu einem späten Stadium der Prüfung und insbesondere während der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Prüfungsabteilung verstößt nicht an sich gegen die ,,Waffengleichheit" im Verfahren.

Keywords

Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag (ja)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Aufgabe und Lösung
Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr - Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme (ja)
Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr - wesentlicher Verfahrensmangel (nein)
Wesentlicher Verfahrensmangel - Verletzung des rechtlichen Gehörs (nein)
Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens - rechtfertigende Gründe des Beteiligten (ja)

Application title

VERFAHREN ZUM MESSEN DER STREUPARAMETER EINES MEHRTOR-MESSOBJEKTES MITTELS EINES MEHRTOR-NETZWERKANALYSATORS MIT NICHTSINUSFOERMIGEN MESSSIGNALEN

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T234416.20210215

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 393 KB)
T 0734/18 () of 15.1.2021

Online on

18.03.2021

Board

3.2.04

Decision date

15.1.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A47J31/46
A47J31/44

Application no.

10701110.8

Catchword

Reasons 4 - witness testimony - applicable standard of proof

Keywords

Novelty - main request (no)
Novelty - public prior use
Novelty - burden of proof
Evaluation of evidence - credibility of witness
Inventive step - auxiliary request (yes)

Application title

PUMP MOUNT IN A BEVERAGE PREPARATION MACHINE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T073418.20210115

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 459 KB)
T 1807/15 (Oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference) of 12.3.2021

Online on

17.03.2021

Board

3.5.02

Decision date

12.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H03F1/02

Application no.

04758381.0

Catchword

The following question is referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:
Is the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference compatible with the right to oral proceedings as enshrined in Article 116(1) EPC if not all of the parties to the proceedings have given their consent to the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference?

Keywords

Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - point of law of fundamental importance
Oral proceedings - format
Oral proceedings - videoconference
Oral proceedings - right to be heard in oral proceedings
Right to in-person oral proceedings

Application title

Doherty Amplifier with Output Hybrid Coupler

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T180715.20210312

Distribution

A

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 553 KB)
T 0755/18 (Semi-automatic answering/3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES) of 11.12.2020

Online on

16.03.2021

Board

3.5.07

Decision date

11.12.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06F17/30
G06F9/44

Application no.

11827611.2

Catchword

If neither the output of a machine-learning computer program nor the output's accuracy contribute to a technical effect, an improvement of the machine achieved automatically through supervised learning to generate a more accurate output is not in itself a technical effect

Keywords

Inventive step - mixture of technical and non-technical features

Application title

User feedback in semi-automatic question answering systems

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T075518.20201211

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 392 KB)
T 1472/14 (Verwendung anthropometrischer Daten zur Produktherstellung) of 19.1.2021

Online on

15.03.2021

Board

3.5.01

Decision date

19.1.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

G06Q30/00

Application no.

10721658.2

Catchword

Was der beanspruchte Gegenstand leistet ist lediglich, anthropometrische Daten in einer Datenbank so zu organisieren, dass diese in standardisierter Form oder in Form statistischer Kennwerte zur Abfrage über eine Kommunikationseinrichtung bereitgestellt werden. Der Anspruchs­gegenstand betrifft nur Auswertungsergebnisse, auch wenn solche im Rahmen einer Zweckangabe zur Produktherstellung gesendet werden. Es erfolgt keine Kontrolle des Betriebs einer Herstellungsanlage, sondern es werden lediglich Produktdaten bereit gestellt. Die Kammer bezweifelt, dass das Ziel der Anthropotechnik mit einer Gestaltung der Schnittstelle zwischen Mensch und Maschine hier relevant ist. Die Kammer erkennt in dem beanspruchten Verfahren keinen technischen Effekt, der über die reine naheliegende Automatisierung einer abstrakten Idee zur Standardisierung hinausgeht (vgl. Entscheidungsgründe, Punkt 7).

Keywords

Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Mischung technischer und nichttechnischer Merkmale
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - allgemeines Fachwissen - alle Anträge (nein)

Application title

VORRICHTUNG UND VERFAHREN ZUR PRODUKTOPTIMIERUNG AUF BASIS NATIONALER UND INTERNATIONALER REIHENMESSUNGSDATEN

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T147214.20210119

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 337 KB)
T 1099/16 () of 11.12.2020

Online on

11.03.2021

Board

3.2.06

Decision date

11.12.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

D07B1/16
C08J5/10

Application no.

08797940.7

Catchword

In order to decide whether a claim to the use of a known compound for a particular purpose, based on a technical effect which is described in the patent, should be interpreted as including that technical effect as a functional technical feature according to G 2/88, the Board finds that G 2/88 does not require the technical effect to be described in the patent in a manner sufficiently clear and complete to make the actual achievement of that technical effect credible (Reasons 17).
This finding applies even to a case where the ground for opposition under Article 100(b) EPC cannot be considered in the appeal proceedings (Reasons 24).
If, for the assessment of inventive step, it has to be determined whether the purpose defined in the claim can be interpreted as a limiting functional feature, the question whether the technical effect is described in the patent merely involves considering whether a skilled person can recognise what technical effect underlies the new purpose claimed (Reasons 20).

Keywords

Grounds for opposition - Inventive step
Grounds for opposition - use claim
Grounds for opposition - new technical effect
Grounds for opposition - functional feature (yes)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no)
Competence of the boards of appeal - composition of the board of appeal
Competence of the boards of appeal - enlargement (no)
Admissibility of appeal - appeal sufficiently substantiated (yes)

Application title

Use of an adhesion enhancer in a polymer jacket material of a metal cord and corresponding method of making a cord assembly comprising a jacket

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T109916.20201211

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 571 KB)
T 0772/18 (Erfassen einer Bewegungscharakteristik eines Fahrzeugs/TELEKOM) of 26.2.2021

Online on

10.03.2021

Board

3.5.01

Decision date

26.2.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

G06Q30/06
G07C5/00
G06Q30/02

Application no.

14157140.6

Catchword

Die Information, dass ein Kraftstoffverbrauch von einem Referenzkraftstoffverbrauch abweicht bzw. die Ursache einer solchen Abweichung (zum Beispiel Beschleunigung, Luftwiderstand, etc.), mag zwar als eine technische Information gelten. Die Kammer ist jedoch der Auffassung, dass eine solche Information den Fahrer nicht durch eine ständige und/oder geführte Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion glaubhaft bei der Ausführung einer technischen Aufgabe unterstützt
(wie in T 336/14, Entscheidungsgründe 1.2.4 und 1.2.5, oder
T 1000/09, Entscheidungsgrund 7, erläutert).
Zum einen beinhaltet die dem Fahrer lediglich angezeigte Information keine konkreten Hinweise, wie er das Fahrzeug steuern sollte, um zum Beispiel den Kraftstoffverbrauch zu optimieren, und zum andern wird auch nicht der reale Kraftstoffverbrauch abgebildet, weshalb diese Information nicht zur erfinderischen Tätigkeit beiträgt (siehe Gründe, Punkt 2.6).

Keywords

Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag und Hilfsanträge (nein)

Application title

Verfahren zum Erfassen einer Bewegungscharakteristik eines Fahrzeugs

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T077218.20210226

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 330 KB)
T 2486/16 () of 12.1.2021

Online on

09.03.2021

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

12.1.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G07C5/00
G06F21/24
G06Q40/00
G06Q50/00

Application no.

08748262.6

Catchword

1. In applying Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 the Board may also rely on the criteria set out in Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 ... . The criteria of Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 may therefore supplement, but do not supplant, the separate requirements of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (Reasons, point 6.4.1).
2. When filing requests within the period mentioned in Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, the party, in providing its "cogent reasons", should not only identify the circumstances invoked and explain why they are to be regarded as "exceptional", it should also explain why these circumstances had the direct result of preventing the party from filing its requests at an earlier stage. (Reasons, point 6.5.6).
3. The mere fact that, in a communication under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020, the Board departs in some respects from the reasoning of the Examining Division on inventive step (while reaching the same conclusion) does not constitute "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, nor does it open the door to the filing of new requests as a response (Reasons, point 6.6.3).

Keywords

Novelty - main request (yes)
Inventive step - main request (no)
Inventive step - mixture of technical and non-technical features
Late-filed auxiliary requests - admitted (no)

Application title

RECORDING AND REPORTING OF DRIVING CHARACTERISTICS WITH PRIVACY PROTECTION

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T248616.20210112

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 469 KB)
T 1338/18 () of 15.1.2021

Online on

09.03.2021

Board

3.3.03

Decision date

15.1.2021

Proc. language

FR

IPC

C08K3/04

Application no.

09797081.8

Catchword

La découverte de l'ampleur d'un effet survenant lors de l'utilisation d'un produit de l'état de la technique, lorsqu'un tel effet était connu être exercé par ledit produit, ne justifie pas que cette ampleur, comparée à celle obtenue avec un autre produit qui était connu posséder le même effet, puisse à elle seule servir de base à une caractéristique technique d'ordre fonctionnel (cf. points 3.2 à 3.6.4 des motifs).

Keywords

Requête principale et première requête subsidiaire - Nouveauté de l'utilisation (non) - But défini n'est pas une caractéritique d'ordre fonctionnel
Première et deuxième requête subsidiaire - admises à la procédure
Deuxième requête subisidiaire - Renvoi à la première instance

Application title

UTILISATION D'UN GRAPHITE EXPANSE DANS UN MATERIAU POLYMERE.

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T133818.20210115

Distribution

C

Decision

Texte de la décision en FR (PDF, 509 KB)
T 0996/18 (Verbundscheibe/Schott AG) of 21.1.2021

Online on

02.03.2021

Board

3.3.06

Decision date

21.1.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

B32B17/10

Application no.

11183946.0

Catchword

Für Ansprüche, die der Patentinhaber durch die Aufnahme von Merkmalen aus der Beschreibung geändert hat, die jedoch im Einspruchsverfahren nicht überprüft wurden, ist im Beschwerdeverfahren von Amts wegen zu prüfen, ob sie im Einklang mit Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ stehen (Artikel 114 (1) EPÜ, Regel 100 (1) EPÜ).

Keywords

Neuheit - (ja)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (ja)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hilfsantrag 4A
Niederschrift über mündliche Verhandlung - Antrag auf Aufnahme einer Erklärung in die Niederschrift
Prüfung von Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ von Amts wegen

Application title

Verbundscheibe

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T099618.20210121

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 506 KB)
T 2015/20 (Aclidinium for treatment of asthma/ALMIRALL) of 23.2.2021

Online on

02.03.2021

Board

3.3.07

Decision date

23.2.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61K9/14
A61K9/72
A61K31/46
A61K45/06
A61K9/00

Application no.

15173011.6

Catchword

Claims in patent applications typically involve generalisations which inherently include an aspect of speculation. Patent applications in the field of medicine represent in this respect no exception. The approaches developed in the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO for the assessment of sufficiency of disclosure and inventive step specifically take account of the technical contribution actually disclosed in a patent application to avoid patent protection resulting from unreasonable speculation on the basis of propositions that are prima facie implausible (see also points 2.6, 2.7 and 5 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes)

Application title

INHALATION COMPOSITION CONTAINING ACLIDINIUM FOR TREATMENT OF ASTHMA

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T201520.20210223

Distribution

B

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 416 KB)

February 2021

T 0615/17 (Equipement mobile pour accéder au web/ALLANI) of 11.11.2020

Online on

16.02.2021

Board

3.5.07

Decision date

11.11.2020

Proc. language

FR

IPC

G06F17/30

Application no.

10003146.7

Catchword

La question de l'admissibilité ne doit pas dépendre d'un changement de mandataire qui relève du seul choix interne, voir stratégique du requérant (voir raisons, 4.1.6).

Keywords

Requête principale, première, seconde et quatrième requêtes subsidiaires produites tardivement (peu avant ou pendant la procédure orale) - requêtes non admises
Activité inventive - troisième requête subsidiaire (non)

Application title

Procédé et dispositif pour accéder à des sources d'information et services sur le web

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T061517.20201111

Distribution

D

Decision

Texte de la décision en FR (PDF, 471 KB)
J 0010/20 () of 22.1.2021

Online on

10.02.2021

Board

3.1.01

Decision date

22.1.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A23J7/00
C07F9/10

Application no.

16874169.2

Catchword

If the European Patent Office issues a promise or statement on how to act in a given area, the principle of legitimate expectations requires that promise or statement to be honoured unless there is good reason not to do so. Users and representatives cannot be expected to question, without any apparent reason, statements on the extension of time limits which are made in publications under Rule 134(4) EPC. Even in the absence of a general dislocation in the delivery or transmission of mail, they can rely on such publications without suffering any disadvantages (points 1.12.-1.20 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Extension of periods - COVID-19 pandemic - Notice from the EPO
Protection of legitimate expectations (yes)
Statement of grounds of appeal filed within time limit (yes)
Date on which payment is made - payment through bank outside of a Contracting State
Request for further processing within time limit (no)
Request for re-establishment of rights within time limit (no)

Application title

INDUSTRIAL METHOD FOR RECOVERING PHOSPHOLIPIDS AND PRODUCING LECITHIN FROM A RESIDUE FROM THE PRODUCTION OF SOY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE (SPC)

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:J001020.20210122

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 358 KB)
T 0353/18 () of 11.11.2020

Online on

01.02.2021

Board

3.3.03

Decision date

11.11.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C08L27/06
C09D127/06
B05D7/22
C08L61/06

Application no.

06828984.2

Catchword

Discrepancies between the clean and the annotated versions of a request: no provision in the EPC establishing any legal primacy of the clean version over the annotated version; special reasons justifying a remittal (reasons: section 8)

Keywords

Amendments - allowable (auxiliary requests 1 and 2: no)
Grounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosure (no)
Novelty - (yes)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no
Amendment after summons - auxiliary request 1a not admitted)
Remittal - special reasons for remittal

Application title

BADGE- AND BPA-FREE CAN COATING

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T035318.20201111

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 564 KB)

January 2021

T 1370/15 () of 25.1.2021

Online on

29.01.2021

Board

3.5.04

Decision date

25.1.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04N5/445
H04N5/50
H04N5/46

Application no.

09168309.4

Catchword

Not only in ex parte-, but also in inter partes appeal proceedings, a board is allowed to introduce new ex officio common general knowledge without evidence of such knowledge which prejudices maintenance of the patent, to the extent that the board is knowledgeable in the respective technical field from the experience of its members working on cases in this field. (See Reasons, point 5.3)

Keywords

Novelty - main and auxiliary requests (yes)
Inventive step - main and auxiliary requests (no)
Inventive step - introduction of new ex officio common general knowledge (yes, to the extent that the board is knowledgeable from its experience)

Application title

Broadcast processing apparatus and control method thereof

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T137015.20210125

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 658 KB)
T 1895/17 (Ring-shaped microphone indicator/Bosch) of 8.12.2020

Online on

25.01.2021

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

8.12.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04R27/00

Application no.

05100490.1

Catchword

The mere presentation of a speaker's state by a microphone's light indicator to the audience of a conference system does not credibly assist a user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process within the meaning of T 336/14 and T 1802/13 and thus cannot bring about a
technical
effect (see points 4.4.2 to 4.4.4 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Oral proceedings before the board: held by videoconference upon request
Inventive step - all requests (no): mixture of technical and non-technical features
Inventive step - presentation of information

Application title

Conference system

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T189517.20201208

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 430 KB)
T 0966/17 () of 30.10.2020

Online on

13.01.2021

Board

3.2.01

Decision date

30.10.2020

Proc. language

DE

IPC

E01C19/48

Application no.

12000504.6

Catchword

1. Das Ermessen der Einspruchsabteilung, geänderte Anträge zum Verfahren zuzulassen, ergibt sich grundsätzlich aus Artikel 123(1) EPÜ (erster Satz) in Verbindung mit Regeln 79(1) und 81(3) EPÜ (siehe Gründe, Punkt 2.2).
2. Eine Änderung der Auffassung der Einspruchsabteilung in der mündlichen Verhandlung in Bezug auf ihre mit der Ladung kommunizierte vorläufige Meinung kann alleine nicht dazu führen, dass in der mündlichen Verhandlung beliebige Anträge ohne ein Ermessen der Einspruchsabteilung zugelassen werden müssen (siehe Gründe, Punkt 2.4).
3. Soweit die Patentinhaberin mit neue Anträgen auf eine neue Angriffslinie der Einsprechenden und ein insoweit neu eingereichtes Dokument reagiert, kann bei der Entscheidung über die Zulassung berücksichtigt werden, ob die Anträge prima facie gewährbar erscheinen oder ohnehin aufgrund anderer schon länger im Verfahren befindlicher Einwände zurückzuweisen wären (siehe Gründe, Punkt 2.4).
4. Die Parteien haben in einem strittigen Verfahren kein Anrecht auf eine "detaillierte Anleitung" durch das entscheidende Organ zur Behebung des diskutierten Mangels. Stattdessen obliegt es jeder Partei, selbst auf den Vortrag des Verfahrensgegners adäquat zu reagieren (siehe Gründe, Punkt 2.5).

Keywords

Neuheit - Hauptantrag (nein)
Schwerwiegender Verfahrensmangel - (nein)
Ermessen bei Zulassung neuer Anträge (ja)

Application title

Strassenfertiger mit steuerbaren Fördereinrichtungen

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T096617.20201030

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 426 KB)
T 1187/16 () of 13.7.2020

Online on

11.01.2021

Board

3.5.02

Decision date

13.7.2020

Proc. language

DE

IPC

G08B25/04
G08B25/00

Application no.

08803225.5

Catchword

Falls sämtliche in einer Mitteilung der Kammer behandelten Einwände bereits Gegenstand des bisherigen Verfahrens waren, kann diese Mitteilung das Vorliegen außergewöhnlicher Umstände im Sinne von Art. 13 (2) VOBK 2020 nicht begründen (Punkt 3. der Entscheidungsgründe).

Keywords

Änderungen Hauptantrag und Hilfsanträge 1 bis 3
Änderungen - zulässig (nein)
Hilfsantrag - keine außergewöhnlichen Umstände - in das Beschwerdeverfahren zugelassen (nein)

Application title

Trennvorrichtung mit Energiespeicher für energieführende elektrische Leitung

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T118716.20200713

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 399 KB)

December 2020

R 0010/18 (Fundamental violation of the right to be heard) of 17.12.2020

Online on

21.12.2020

Board

EBA

Decision date

17.12.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04R1/10

Application no.

08766905.7

Catchword

1. One aspect of the right to be heard as covered by Article 113(1) EPC requires a board to consider a party's submissions, i.e. assess the facts, evidence and arguments submitted as to their relevance and correctness.
Article 113(1) EPC is infringed if the board does not address submissions that, in its view, are relevant for the decision in a manner adequate to show that the parties were heard on them, i.e. that the board substantively considered those submissions. (See Reasons, point 2.1.1, affirming the relevant part of catchword 1 of R 8/15).
2. A board is presumed to have taken into account a party's submissions that it did not address in the reasons for its decision, meaning that it, first, took note of them and, second, considered them, i.e. assessed whether they were relevant and, if so, whether they were correct.
An exception may apply if there are indications to the contrary, e.g. if a board does not address in the reasons for its decision submissions by a party that, on an objective basis, are decisive for the outcome of the case, or dismisses such submissions without first assessing them as to their correctness. (See Reasons, point 2.1.1.2).

Keywords

Decision sufficiently reasoned for purposes of the right to be heard (yes)
Petition allowable (no) – no violation of petitioner's right to be heard

Application title

Improved earpiece

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:R001018.20201217

Distribution

B

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 302 KB)
T 1861/17 (Rückkopplungsunterdrückung/SIVANTOS) of 12.11.2020

Online on

17.12.2020

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

12.11.2020

Proc. language

DE

IPC

H04R25/00

Application no.

10187394.1

Catchword

Zum Verhältnis zwischen "subjektiver" und "objektiver" technischer Aufgabe: siehe Punkt 3.4 der Entscheidungsgründe.

Keywords

Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag und Hilfsanträge 1 bis 3 (nein): "subjektive Aufgabe" wird nicht glaubhaft gelöst
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - naheliegende Parametereinstellungen
Unzulässige Erweiterung - Hilfsantrag 4 (ja)

Application title

Hörgerät mit Frequenzverschiebung und zugehöriges Verfahren

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T186117.20201112

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 462 KB)
T 0232/14 (Method and apparatus for identifying, authenticating, tracking and … of 6.10.2020

Online on

16.12.2020

Board

3.5.01

Decision date

6.10.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06Q30/00

Application no.

09722519.7

Catchword

The Board judges that using ranges of unit identifiers to label a number of (consecutive) unit identifiers of manufactured items is, at the level of generality at which it is claimed, on the business side of the line between technical and non-technical subject-matter (see e.g. T 144/11 - Security rating System / SATO MICHIHIRO, points 2.1, and 3.6 to 3.9).(See point 2.5 of the reasons)
The ranges of unit identifiers do have a meaning for the business person. They correspond to batches of units produced on a production line. (See point 2.6 of the reasons)
Even if the "determining of ranges of unit identifiers" achieved a technical effect, such as reducing data storage and data bandwidth requirements, it is a matter of routine design for the skilled person, a software programmer or a database expert, based on common general knowledge to store the first and the last element of a list of items, instead of the whole list. (See point 2.9 of the reasons)

Keywords

Inventive step - determining ranges of unit identifiers (no
Inventive step - not technical and obvious)
Inventive step - technical effect of saving storage (no
Inventive step - bonus effect)
Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (no)

Application title

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IDENTIFYING, AUTHENTICATING, TRACKING AND TRACING MANUFACTURED ITEMS

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T023214.20201006

Distribution

B

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 338 KB)
T 2314/16 (Distributing rewards by assigning users to partial advertisement … of 7.9.2020

Online on

16.12.2020

Board

3.5.01

Decision date

7.9.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06Q50/00
G06Q30/00
G06Q30/02

Application no.

11800813.5

Catchword

The specification of the business method ended with how to determine the reward distribution ratio. The features of dividing the advertisement display area into partial areas and allocating each partial area to a user such that when the partial area is clicked on the user gets a reward, were based on technical considerations of the web page system. It was not motivated by any business considerations.
...
In order to come up with this idea, one needs to understand how a web site is built, and in particular how an image map works. Thus, this feature cannot be part of the non-technical requirements. Instead it is part of the solution that has to be evaluated for obviousness. (See point 2.10 of the reasons)

Keywords

Technical effect - reduced computational load (no - technical, but no embodiment to enable verification)
Inventive step - distributing rewards by assigning users to partial areas of an advertisement banner (yes
Inventive step - involves technical considerations of the web page system)

Application title

INFORMATION PROVIDING DEVICE, METHOD OF PROCESSING REWARD PAYMENT, REWARD PAYMENT PROCESSING PROGRAM, AND RECORDING MEDIUM WITH REWARD PAYMENT PROCESSING PROGRAM RECORDED THERON

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T231416.20200907

Distribution

B

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 347 KB)
T 2049/16 () of 6.10.2020

Online on

15.12.2020

Board

3.2.05

Decision date

6.10.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

B42D25/29
B42D25/328
G09F3/02
B41M3/14
G02B5/18
G02B27/42
G09F3/03

Application no.

07831864.9

Catchword

Possibility for a board of appeal to exclude a document admitted by the opposition division because of its prima facie relevance (see point 3 of the reasons).

Keywords

Inadmissible extension (yes: main request)
Exclusion of document D20 (no)
Novelty (no: auxiliary request 1)
Admissibility of auxiliary requests 2 to 16 (no)

Application title

Display and Information-Printed Matter

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T204916.20201006

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 1 MB)
T 1604/16 () of 7.12.2020

Online on

11.12.2020

Board

3.2.02

Decision date

7.12.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61G3/06
B60P1/43
B60R3/02

Application no.

09775807.2

Catchword

The boards have competence to review appealed decisions in full, including points of law and fact. This applies also to
findings of fact of the department of first instance which are based, at least in part, on the evaluation of witness evidence obtained in the course of hearing a witness (reasons, point 3.1 and sub-points).

Keywords

Sufficiency of disclosure (yes)
Review of a finding of fact of the department of first instance - (yes)
Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - (no)

Application title

FOLDABLE RAMP ALLOWING AN INVALID WHEELCHAIR PASSENGER ENTER INTO A VEHICLE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T160416.20201207

Distribution

B

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 548 KB)
T 0265/20 (Deemed approval to the text intended for grant) of 26.10.2020

Online on

11.12.2020

Board

3.5.05

Decision date

26.10.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G16H40/00
G16H40/40
G16H40/60
G16H40/67

Application no.

11820257.1

Catchword

1. The appellant is adversely affected by the decision to grant a patent in the present case, as all of the drawing sheets as requested are missing from the text of the granted patent (point 1).
2. It is not the content of the text intended for grant which triggers the deemed approval under Rule 71(5) EPC, but rather the applicant paying the fee for grant and publishing and filing the translations according to Rule 71(5) EPC. Thus the "true will" of the members of the examining division when editing the communication pursuant to Rule 71(3) EPC is of no relevance (point 2).

Keywords

Admissibility of appeal - appellant adversely affected despite decision to grant a patent
Approval by paying fee for grant and publishing and filing translations - binding effect

Application title

SYSTEM FOR ENABLING TEST DATA FROM A CLINICAL ANALYTIC DEVICE TO BE COMMUNICATED TO AN ELECTRONIC PATIENT INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T026520.20201026

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 323 KB)

November 2020

T 0646/20 () of 11.11.2020

Online on

25.11.2020

Board

3.2.04

Decision date

11.11.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

F03D7/02
F03D1/06

Application no.

07747361.9

Catchword

Addition of further Designation States after grant (no)

Keywords

Further processing - time limit for requesting further processing
Further processing - request admissible (no)
Admissibility of appeal - party adversely affected by decision (no)

Application title

WIND TURBINE WITH SLENDER BLADE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T064620.20201111

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 366 KB)
T 2620/18 (Ermäßigte Beschwerdegebühr) of 16.9.2020

Online on

24.11.2020

Board

3.2.06

Decision date

16.9.2020

Proc. language

DE

IPC

F01L1/047
F16H53/02
F01L1/344

Application no.

13783579.9

Catchword

Zur Frage der Geringfügigkeit des Differenzbetrags zur vollen Beschwerdegebühr siehe Gründe Nr. 4.8.
Zur Frage eines impliziten Antrags auf Berichtigung eines Abbuchungsauftrags sowie der Rechtszeitigkeit der Einreichung eines Berichtigungsantrags siehe Gründe Nr. 5.7 bis 5.14.
Zur Frage der ex officio Korrektur von Beträgen in Abbuchungsaufträgen siehe Gründe Nr. 6.1 und 6.2.
Zur Frage der Interpretation eines Abbuchungsauftrags hinsichtlich der Beschwerdegebühr siehe Gründe Nr. 8.4.

Keywords

Beschwerdegebühr (nicht vollständig entrichtet) - Beschwerde gilt als nicht eingelegt
ermäßigte Beschwerdegebühr - fehlende Berechtigung
Korrektur des Abbuchungsauftrags (nein)
Grundsatz des Vertrauensschutzes (nein)
Vorlage an die Große Beschwerdekammer (nein)

Application title

NOCKENWELLE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T262018.20200916

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 498 KB)
T 0886/15 (Power supply circuit board with radiation plate / Murata … of 1.10.2020

Online on

18.11.2020

Board

3.4.01

Decision date

1.10.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H01Q1/50
G06K19/07
G06K19/077
H05K1/16
B42D15/10
G09F3/00
H01Q1/44

Application no.

07741395.3

Catchword

The added features cannot be considered to be
the deliberate result of technical considerations directed to the solution of the technical problem involved.
In the absence of any identified technical purpose justifying the features in question, their selection in a claim is arbitrary (cf. points 16-22).

Keywords

Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (yes)
Amendments - intermediate generalisation
added feature not the deliberate result of technical considerations

Application title

ARTICLE PROVIDED WITH FEED CIRCUIT BOARD

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T088615.20201001

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 436 KB)
T 0492/18 () of 12.10.2020

Online on

18.11.2020

Board

3.2.04

Decision date

12.10.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

F03D1/06

Application no.

12156864.6

Catchword

See reasons 2

Keywords

Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes)
Amendments - allowable (yes)
Late-filed evidence - admitted (no)
Participation in oral proceedings by way of private video connection (no)

Application title

Arrangement to reduce noise originated by a wind turbine blade

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T049218.20201012

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 367 KB)
T 0225/19 (Berechtigung zur Zahlung der ermäßigten Beschwerdegebühr) of 16.10.2020

Online on

16.11.2020

Board

3.2.05

Decision date

16.10.2020

Proc. language

DE

IPC

B29C67/00

Application no.

11779556.7

Catchword

Auch wenn eine Erklärung nach Nr. 3 und 4 der Mitteilung des EPA vom 18. Dezember 2017 nicht schon bei Zahlung der ermäßigten Beschwerdegebühr verlangt werden kann, ist die Kammer jedoch befugt und verpflichtet, die Voraussetzungen für die wirksame Einlegung und die Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde in jedem Verfahrensstadium zu prüfen. Eine Überprüfung durch die Kammer ist insbesondere dann geboten, wenn das Vorliegen der Voraussetzungen nach Regel 6 (4) und (5) EPÜ für die Zahlung der ermäßigten Beschwerdegebühr von anderen Verfahrensbeteiligten bestritten wird. Dabei werden eine entsprechende Erklärung und Belege auch noch nach Ablauf der Beschwerdefrist akzeptiert (vgl. Nr. 2 und 3 der Entscheidungsgründe).

Keywords

Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde - Beschwerdegebühr (nicht vollständig entrichtet)
Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde - Beschwerde gilt als nicht eingelegt

Application title

Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Herstellen eines dreidimensionalen Bauteils

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T022519.20201016

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 429 KB)
T 0950/16 () of 25.9.2020

Online on

13.11.2020

Board

3.2.08

Decision date

25.9.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61M25/088
A61M25/04
A61F2/24

Application no.

09820051.2

Catchword

see reasons 3.2

Keywords

Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes)
Late-filed documents
Late-filed document - amendments after arrangement of oral proceedings
Late-filed document - justification for late filing (no)
Late-filed document - admitted (no)

Application title

MEDICAL DEVICES AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS FOR DELIVERING MEDICAL DEVICES

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T095016.20200925

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 338 KB)
T 0084/17 (Fabric treatment with probiotics /UNILEVER) of 22.9.2020

Online on

06.11.2020

Board

3.3.06

Decision date

22.9.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C11D3/38
C11D3/386
A61Q19/00

Application no.

08804202.3

Catchword

If the arguments in the appealed decision show that for the discretionary decision taken in the first instance some criteria weighed so heavily that other criteria cannot outweigh them, it is not always necessary that all criteria that could theoretically influence a discretionary decision concerning the admittance of a late filed request are discussed in the appealed decision (point 2.2.3)
If the need to file amended requests does not arise owing to the submission of additional documents that are merely confirming the arguments on file but had existed before, the filing of such additional documents cannot always justify the filing of new (belated) requests (point 2.3).

Keywords

Novelty (granted claims)
Novelty - no
Late-filed requests (Auxiliary Requests 1 to 4)
Late-filed request - not admitted

Application title

IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO FABRIC TREATMENT COMPOSITIONS

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T008417.20200922

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 418 KB)
T 0517/17 (Event notification system/HTC) of 27.10.2020

Online on

06.11.2020

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

27.10.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04M1/725
H04M19/04
G06Q10/06

Application no.

12150583.8

Catchword

As to the interpretation of Rule 103(4)(c) EPC, see point 6 of the Reasons.

Keywords

Added subject-matter - (yes)
Decision in written proceedings - (yes): cancellation of arranged oral proceedings following announcement of non-attendance
Reimbursement of appeal fee at 100%
Reimbursement of appeal fee - (no): appeal not allowable
Partial reimbursement of appeal fee at 25% - (yes): timely withdrawal of request for oral proceedings; T 0073/17 not followed

Application title

Event notification method and portable apparatus with event notification function

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T051717.20201027

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 313 KB)
T 0844/18 (CRISPR-Cas/BROAD INSTITUTE) of 16.1.2020

Online on

06.11.2020

Board

3.3.08

Decision date

16.1.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C12N15/63

Application no.

13818570.7

Catchword

i) The board is empowered to and must assess the validity of a priority right claim as required by Article 87(1) EPC,
ii) the board's interpretation of the expression "any person" in Article 87(1) EPC confirms the long-established "all applicants" or the "same applicants" approach,
iii) the national law does not govern who is "any person" as per Article 87(1) EPC, the Paris Convention determines who "any person" is.

Keywords

Priority - main request (no)
Novelty - main request (no)

Application title

Engineering of systems, methods and optimized guide compositions for sequence manipulation

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T084418.20200116

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 785 KB)

Quick Navigation