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). 

January 2022

T 2073/18 () of 10.1.2022

Online on

13.01.2022

Board

3.2.07

Decision date

10.1.2022

Proc. language

EN

IPC

B65D 83/10

Application no.

07799574.4

Catchword

Special reasons present in the sense of Article 11 (1) RPBA 2020 (see point 6 of the reasons for the decision)

Keywords

Decision in written proceedings without oral proceedings - (yes)
Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes)
Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (yes)

Application title

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PACKAGING CUTTING BLADES

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T207318.20220110

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 278 KB)
T 0494/18 (Manufacturing a multi-ply tissue paper/SCA Tissue France) of 15.10.2021

Online on

03.01.2022

Board

3.3.06

Decision date

15.10.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

D21H 27/02
D21H 27/30
D21H 27/00
B31F 1/07

Application no.

12305973.5

Catchword

A request in which some claims have been deleted compared to the requests that were filed previously with the grounds of appeal or the reply is, according to the systematic context of Article 12(3) RPBA 2020 and Article 13 RPBA 2020, a new request and thus usually amounts to an "amendment to the party's appeal case".

Keywords

Late-filed auxiliary request 8 filed during the oral proceedings before the Board - admittance (yes) - formally allowable (yes) - inventive step (yes)

Application title

Multi-ply tissue paper product and method for manufacturing the same

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T049418.20211015

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 487 KB)

December 2021

R 0003/20 () of 2.9.2021

Online on

23.12.2021

Board

EBA

Decision date

2.9.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

B60T 13/74
B60T 17/22

Application no.

07123489.2

Catchword

Fundamental violation of Article 113 and Rule 104 (b) EPC

Keywords

Objection under Rule 106 EPC raised (no)
Petition for review clearly inadmissible (yes)

Application title

Method and device for controlling the intervention of the electric parking brake of a vehicle, in condition of dynamic functioning

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:R000320.20210902

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 414 KB)
T 1527/16 (Infant nutrition comprising hydrolysed proteins for preventing … of 11.10.2021

Online on

17.12.2021

Board

3.3.09

Decision date

11.10.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A23L 1/29
A23L 1/305
A61P 3/04

Application no.

06757833.6

Catchword

Claim not allowing a distinction between the ingredients which prevent obesity and those which do not prevent or can even induce it. Identification of the protein hydrolysate as an active ingredient for preventing obesity not distinguishing the claimed subject-matter from the disclosure of the prior art. See reasons, points 1.4 to 1.8.

Keywords

Nutritional composition - claim construction
Main request and auxiliary requests 1 and 3 - Inventive Step (no)
Auxiliary request 2 - Admission (no)

Application title

INFANT NUTRITION WITH HYDROLYSED PROTEINS

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T152716.20211011

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 359 KB)
T 2252/17 () of 14.10.2021

Online on

17.12.2021

Board

3.2.06

Decision date

14.10.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61F 13/02

Application no.

11722120.0

Catchword

Strategic or speculative reasons as to what might possibly please the opposition division, or not, do not justify delaying the filing of such a request until the appeal proceedings (see Reasons 1.1.5)

Keywords

Late-filed main request - should have been submitted in first-instance proceedings (yes)
Auxiliary request 1 - amendments - added subject-matter (yes)

Application title

WOUND DRESSING

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T225217.20211014

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 404 KB)
T 0970/17 () of 14.10.2021

Online on

16.12.2021

Board

3.2.02

Decision date

14.10.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61M 39/02
A61M 39/04
A61M 5/158
A61M 5/162
A61M 5/32
A61M 39/08
A61M 39/00

Application no.

10183394.5

Catchword

Assessing compliance with Article 123(3) EPC does not include a test taking into account national infringement laws such as the rules on contributory infringement (point 6.2 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Admissibility of appeal - (yes)
Admittance of claim requests - (yes / no)
Admittance of documents filed in appeal - (yes / no)
Amendments - extension beyond the content of the parent application as filed
Amendments - (no)
Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed
Amendments - (no)
Amendments - extension of the scope of the patent ("aliud")
Amendments - (no)
Novelty - (yes, after amendment)
Inventive step - (yes)
Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Late-filed objection - admitted
Late-filed objection - (no)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no)
Apportionment of costs - (no)

Application title

Infusion apparatuses and related methods

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T097017.20211014

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 1000 KB)
T 2238/17 (PROCÉDÉ ET SYSTÈMES DE PAIEMENT/Rossi, Jean-Yves) of 23.11.2021

Online on

16.12.2021

Board

3.5.01

Decision date

23.11.2021

Proc. language

FR

IPC

G06Q 20/00

Application no.

07848326.0

Catchword

Un procédé N2P ("nouveau processus de paiement") ayant pour objectif de séparer ("automa­tique­ment") le prix d'un article en différentes parties imputables à différentes sources de financement n'est pas une innovation technique (voir points 3.6 et 3.7 des motifs de la décision).

Keywords

Activité inventive - "processus N2P"
Activité inventive - (non, idée purement commerciale),
Modifications - admises (oui),
Remboursement de la taxe de recours - (non).

Application title

PROCÉDÉ ET SYSTÈMES DE PAIEMENT

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T223817.20211123

Distribution

D

Decision

Texte de la décision en FR (PDF, 390 KB)
T 0158/19 (Ensemble/CONSTELLIUM) of 13.10.2021

Online on

16.12.2021

Board

3.3.05

Decision date

13.10.2021

Proc. language

FR

IPC

C22C 21/00
F28D 1/04
F28F 13/12
F28F 21/08
B32B 15/01

Application no.

12728629.2

Catchword

Un recours formé par une partie à la procédure et aux prétentions de laquelle la décision attaquée n'avait pas fait droit est recevable malgré le fait qu'en même temps une autre société qui n'était pas partie à la procédure a formé conjointement le recours (motifs 1.4).

Keywords

Correction d'erreurs - (oui),
Modification des moyens invoqués dans le cadre du recours
Modification des moyens invoqués - pertinence de la modification pour résoudre les questions soulevées (oui),
Modification après signification - circonstances exceptionnelles (oui),
Revendications - clarté
Revendications - requête principale (oui),
Revendications - clarté après modification (oui),
Modifications - extension au-delà du contenu de la demande telle que déposée (non),
Modifications - admises (oui),
Activité inventive - requête principale (oui),

Application title

ENSEMBLE PLAQUÉ EN ALLIAGES D'ALUMINIUM POUR TUBE D'ECHANGEUR THERMIQUE A PLACAGE INTERNE PROTECTEUR ET A PERTURBATEUR BRASE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T015819.20211013

Distribution

C

Decision

Texte de la décision en FR (PDF, 427 KB)
T 2091/18 () of 9.11.2021

Online on

15.12.2021

Board

3.2.05

Decision date

9.11.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

B29C 43/24
A61K 9/70

Application no.

13700903.1

Catchword

Das Streichen eines oder mehrerer unabhängiger Ansprüche stellt eine Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens im Sinne von Artikel 13 (2) VOBK 2020 dar (siehe Punkte 3 und 4 der Entscheidungsgründe).

Keywords

Änderung nach Ladung - außergewöhnliche Umstände (ja)
Ausreichende Offenbarung (ja)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit (ja)

Application title

Gitterverlustreduktion bei Pflasterherstellung

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T209118.20211109

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 491 KB)
T 1564/18 (Programmable memory repair scheme/RAMBUS INC.) of 17.9.2021

Online on

10.12.2021

Board

3.5.07

Decision date

17.9.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G11C 29/00

Application no.

09730954.6

Catchword

Since neither the annex to the summons nor any of the previous communications of the examining division contained the essential legal and factual reasons leading to the finding in the appealed decision that claim 1 of the main request lacked novelty over the prior-art device considered for the first time in the novelty assessment of the refusal, and since no reason was given why the amendments made in advance of the oral proceedings held in absentia justified the change to this new closest prior art, the decision was issued in violation of the right to be heard even though the prior-art device on which the refusal was based was disclosed in the same document as a closest prior art considered previously in the examination procedure.

Keywords

Right to be heard - substantial procedural violation (yes)

Application title

Programmable memory repair scheme

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T156418.20210917

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 311 KB)
J 0007/20 () of 3.9.2021

Online on

09.12.2021

Board

3.1.01

Decision date

3.9.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

E03F 5/04

Application no.

09701716.4

Catchword

The list of events, i.e. grounds, prompting interruption of proceedings under Rule 142(1)(c) EPC is exhaustive.
External, practical and one-off kind of events (inter alia heavy snow, cancelled flights and failed communication) do not constitute "legal incapacity of the representative" under Rule 142(1)(c) EPC.

Keywords

Legal incapacity of the representative (no)
Interruption of review proceedings under Article 112a EPC (no)
Opponents status as parties to appeal proceedings (yes)
Fresh case on appeal (no)
Legal Board of Appeal competent to review decisions by Enlarged Board of Appeal (no)
Referral to Enlarged Board of Appeal required (no)

Application title

DRAIN WITH ADJUSTING FRAME

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:J000720.20210903

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 482 KB)
T 2327/18 (Galvanikbad/COVENTYA) of 29.10.2021

Online on

08.12.2021

Board

3.3.05

Decision date

29.10.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

C25D 17/00
C25D 3/56

Application no.

09152660.8

Catchword

Die Streichung eines in einer Anmeldung wie ursprünglich eingereicht ausdrücklich als "Nicht-Teil" der Erfindung offenbarten Disclaimers ist nicht zulässig, wenn die Streichung dazu führt, dass der "Nicht-Teil" teilweise doch beansprucht wird. Die Tatsache, dass es sich bei der Anmeldung um eine Teilanmeldung handelt und dass der Disclaimer patentrechtliche Gründe hatte, ist dabei unerheblich.

Keywords

Teilanmeldung
Änderungen - zulässig (nein)
Änderungen - Streichen eines Disclaimers, der in der Anmeldung wie ursprünglich eingereicht ausdrücklich als "Nicht-Teil" der Erfindung offenbart ist

Application title

Alkalisches Galvanikbad mit einer Filtrationsmembran

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T232718.20211029

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 397 KB)
T 0768/20 () of 21.10.2021

Online on

06.12.2021

Board

3.2.05

Decision date

21.10.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

B41M 7/00

Application no.

13757848.0

Catchword

Exceptions to the "gold standard" (point 2.2 of the reasons)

Keywords

Amendment extending beyond the content of the original application (yes)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (refused)

Application title

Multi-layer printing process

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T076820.20211021

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 918 KB)

November 2021

T 2117/17 () of 30.9.2021

Online on

30.11.2021

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

30.9.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

G07F 7/06

Application no.

10401095.4

Catchword

a) Besonders strenge Bedingungen sind an ein verspätetes Vorbringen einer offenkundigen Vorbenutzung geknüpft, insbesondere dann, wenn die Vorbenutzung durch die Verfahrensbeteiligten selbst erfolgt sein soll. Gerade in einem solchen Fall wäre von der Einsprechenden zu erwarten gewesen, Informationen über die eigenen Produkte schon vor der Einspruchsabteilung vorzubringen, um eine Zurückverweisung zu vermeiden (Punkt 4.2.8).
b) Obwohl zwar die Verfahrensschritte als solche in einem Vorrichtungsanspruch nicht unmittelbar Teil des Schutzumfangs sind, versteht die Fachperson aber, dass die Vorrichtung dazu eingerichtet sein muss, die Verfahrensschritte auszuführen (Punkt 5.2.3).

Keywords

Neuheit - (ja)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (ja)
Spät eingereichte Beweismittel - eingereicht mit der Beschwerdebegründung
Spät eingereichte Beweismittel - zugelassen (nein)

Application title

Leergutrücknahmeeinrichtung

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T211717.20210930

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 1 MB)
T 2122/17 () of 26.10.2021

Online on

29.11.2021

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

26.10.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

H01L 51/52
H01L 27/32

Application no.

11764774.3

Catchword

Wird allein durch die Streichung eines abhängigen Anspruchs ein Einspruchsgrund unter Artikel 100 EPÜ behoben, ist diese Änderung im Einklang mit Regel 80 EPÜ, selbst wenn der Einspruchsgrund von der Einsprechenden nicht geltend gemacht worden ist.

Keywords

Änderung veranlasst durch Einspruchsgrund - (ja)
Änderung veranlasst durch Einspruchsgrund - Änderungen zulässig (ja)
Änderung veranlasst durch Einspruchsgrund - Ermessen der Einspruchsabteilung
Änderung veranlasst durch Einspruchsgrund - verspätet eingereichter Antrag (zugelassen)
Ausreichende Offenbarung - Verhältnis von Art. 83 zu Art. 84 EPÜ
Neuheit - Hauptantrag (ja)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag (ja)

Application title

LEUCHTELEMENT MIT OLED-MODULEN

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T212217.20211026

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 825 KB)
T 1408/18 (Online TAN-Verfahren/STAR FINANZ) of 16.11.2021

Online on

29.11.2021

Board

3.5.01

Decision date

16.11.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

G06Q 20/38

Application no.

13156542.6

Catchword

Ein Geschäftsmann, der ein Produkt anbieten möchte, welches die Durchführung einer Transaktion mit nur einem Endgerät ermöglicht, würde vorgeben, dass diese erst nach einer Autorisierung durch den Benutzer ausgeführt wird und auch, dem Trend der Zeit entsprechend, dass es wünschenswert wäre, wenn der Benutzer alle erforderlichen Eingaben auf seinem Smartphone vornehmen könnte. Demgegenüber fällt die Verwendung eines TAN-basierten Verfahrens einschließlich der Frage, wie eine sichere Übertragung der TAN ermöglicht werden kann, in die Sphäre des technischen Fachmanns. Denn ausgehend von einer traditionellen PIN basierten Passwort Authentifizierung bildet die Verwendung einer TAN, das heißt eines Einmalpasswortes, eine zweite Sicherheitsebene. Die damit verbundene Interaktion von zwei Applikationen und Kommunikationskanälen zum Erhalten und Bereitstellen einer TAN führt zu einer Zwei-Faktor-Authentisierung, die eine erhöhte Sicherheit gewährleistet. Damit liegen dem TAN-Verfahren unabhängig von seiner konkreten Anwendung technische Überlegungen zugrunde, die über das hinausgehen, was von einem Geschäftsmann an technischem Verständnis erwartet werden kann (vgl. hierzu auch T 1082/13 - Computer implemented system offering replacement services for applying tax legislation/SAP, Entscheidungsgründe 4.8, und T
2455/13 - Überwachung von Kapitalunterlegungshöhen bei Risikoereignissen/SWISS RE, Entscheidungsgründe 3.10 bis 3.12 sowie Orientierungssatz)(siehe Entscheidungsgründe 6.2).

Keywords

Erfinderische Tätigkeit (Hauptantrag)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Verwendung von unterschiedlichen Kommunikationskanälen (nein
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - allgemeines Fachwissen)
Zurückverweisung an die erste Instanz (Hilfsanträge)
Zurückverweisung - Mangelnde Berücksichtigung technischer Merkmale durch die erste Instanz (ja
Zurückverweisung - Nachrecherche erforderlich)

Application title

Verfahren und Vorrichtungen zum Durchführen einer Transaktion

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T140818.20211116

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 412 KB)
T 2090/15 () of 20.7.2021

Online on

22.11.2021

Board

3.3.02

Decision date

20.7.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C10M 133/56
C10N 30/10
C10N 30/12
C10N 40/25
C10N 40/26
C10N 70/00
C10N 60/14

Application no.

10171303.0

Catchword

Novelty of non-medical use claims: the mere discovery of a new property or capability of a particular ingredient of a known composition used for a known purpose cannot confer novelty (reasons, 1.3)

Keywords

Novelty of use
Novelty - main and auxiliary requests (no)

Application title

Use of an ashless borated dispersant

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T209015.20210720

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 439 KB)
T 2558/18 () of 8.11.2021

Online on

11.11.2021

Board

3.4.02

Decision date

8.11.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

G01M 17/02

Application no.

03008932.0

Catchword

Verweist eine Beschwerdekammer eine Angelegenheit zur Erteilung eines Patents in genau bestimmter Fassung, d.h. mit genau bezeichneten Ansprüchen, Beschreibung und Zeichnungen, an die Prüfungsabteilung zurück, so beruht die Entscheidung über die Fassung des Patents auf Artikel 111 (1) Satz 2, Variante 1, EPÜ. Diese Patentfassung ist für die Prüfungsabteilung in Anwendung des in Artikel 111 (2) EPÜ verankerten Rechtsgrundsatzes bindend (res iudicata, rechtskräftig), in deren Anwendung auch die Zurückverweisung erfolgt. Das Verfahren nach Regel 71 (6) EPÜ findet im Hinblick auf die sich aus Artikel 111 (2) EPÜ ergebende bindende Wirkung gemäß Artikel 164 (2) EPÜ keine Anwendung.

Keywords

Bindung der Prüfungsabteilung bei Zurückverweisung mit genau bezeichneten Unterlagen (Ansprüche, Beschreibung, Zeichnungen) an diese Unterlagen im Rahmen von Regel 71 (3) EPÜ (ja)
Anwendbarkeit von Regel 71 (6) EPÜ in diesem Fall (nein)

Application title

Reifenprüfgerät

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T255818.20211108

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 775 KB)
T 0245/18 () of 29.10.2021

Online on

05.11.2021

Board

3.2.01

Decision date

29.10.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

B23G 5/04
B23G 5/06
B23G 5/18
B23C 5/10

Application no.

07010422.9

Catchword

Der Übung der Beschwerdekammern, einer bei der Großen Beschwerdekammer anhängigen Vorlagefrage in einem parallel gelagerten Fall nicht vorzugreifen, kann nach der im Jahr 2020 novellierten Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern auch dadurch Rechnung getragen werden, dass am Ende der mündlichen Verhandlung nicht eine Entscheidung verkündet, sondern ein Termin zur Versendung der Entscheidung nach Artikel 15(9) VOBK bestimmt wird, wenn die Entscheidung der GBK bereits in absehbarer Zeit zu erwarten ist.
Die Entscheidung kann dann zum festgesetzten Termin als Endentscheidung ergehen, wenn die GBK die mit den Parteien in der mündlichen Verhandlung diskutierte Auffassung der Kammer bestätigt, oder als Zwischenentscheidung, dass erneut in die mündliche Verhandlung einzutreten ist, wenn dies nicht der Fall ist.

Keywords

Rechtliches Gehör - mündliche Verhandlung als Videokonferenz vor der Beschwerdekammer (ja)
Aussetzung des Verfahrens (nein)
Ausreichende Offenbarung - Hauptantrag (ja)
Neuheit - Hauptantrag (ja)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag (ja)
Änderung nach Ladung - berücksichtigt (nein)
Änderung nach Ladung - stichhaltige Gründe (nein)

Application title

Gewindeerzeugungswerkzeug mit Kantenübergang

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T024518.20211029

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 554 KB)

October 2021

T 3071/19 (Searching data/BLACKBERRY) of 26.10.2021

Online on

29.10.2021

Board

3.5.07

Decision date

26.10.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06F 17/30

Application no.

11741807.9

Catchword

A decision open to appeal is not reasoned within the meaning of Rule
111(2) EPC if it does not enable the board of appeal to review its correctness. A decision should therefore not rely on evidence accessible only at a web page which is not guaranteed to remain accessible and unchanged. Rather, it should be ensured that a person inspecting the file can reliably access the cited evidence.

Keywords

Appealed decision - sufficiently reasoned (no)
Remittal to the department of first instance
Remittal - fundamental deficiency in first instance proceedings (yes)

Application title

Devices and method for searching data on data sources associated with a category

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T307119.20211026

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 303 KB)
G 0001/21 (Oral proceedings by videoconference) of 16.7.2021

Online on

28.10.2021

Board

EBA

Decision date

16.7.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H03F 1/02

Application no.

04758381.0

Headnote

During a general emergency impairing the parties' possibilities to attend in-person oral proceedings at the EPO premises, the conduct of oral proceedings before the boards of appeal in the form of a videoconference is compatible with the EPC even 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

Admissibility of referral-(yes)
Oral proceedings by videoconference in case of general emergency
Role of consent of the parties

Application title

DOHERTY AMPLIFIER WITH OUTPUT HYBRID COUPLER

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:G000121.20210716

Distribution

A

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 569 KB)
T 1857/19 (Compressor and PSA dryer/Ateliers François) of 17.9.2021

Online on

28.10.2021

Board

3.3.05

Decision date

17.9.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

B01D 53/047
B01D 53/26

Application no.

15173873.9

Catchword

Regarding the question under which circumstances the mere deletion of a category of claims is not to be considered an amendment of a party's appeal case or could - at least - be seen as exceptional circumstances under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, see reasons 1.1

Keywords

-

Application title

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COMPRESSING AND DRYING A GAS

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T185719.20210917

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 330 KB)
T 3035/19 (Pharmaceutical preparations containing oxycodone and naloxone / EURO- … of 23.9.2021

Online on

28.10.2021

Board

3.3.07

Decision date

23.9.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61K 9/16
A61K 9/20
A61K 31/485

Application no.

11177518.5

Catchword

Selections in two or more lists, see points 1.4 and 1.5 of the reasons

Keywords

Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (yes)

Application title

Pharmaceutical preparation containing oxycodone and naloxone

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T303519.20210923

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 398 KB)
T 1713/20 () of 20.10.2021

Online on

27.10.2021

Board

3.3.02

Decision date

20.10.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C07D 499/00
A61K 9/20

Application no.

14758539.2

Catchword

The requirement in Rule 111(2) EPC of a decision being reasoned is not met if the decision merely contains statements that at best give rise to speculation about what the deciding body might have intended to express (Reasons, 1.3.3).

Keywords

Substantial procedural violation
Right to be heard
Remittal
Reimbursement of appeal fee

Application title

MICRONIZED AMOXICILLIN

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T171320.20211020

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 494 KB)
T 0575/17 (Standard-Verfahren, Plausibilität) of 16.9.2021

Online on

21.10.2021

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

16.9.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

H05K 1/02
H05K 1/14
H05K 1/05

Application no.

08152756.6

Catchword

a) Soll ein Standard-Verfahren oder -Produkt geschützt werden, so muss definiert werden oder durch die Gesamtoffenbarung eindeutig klar sein, auf welchen anerkannten Standard sich das Verfahren oder Produkt bezieht. (Gründe 4.1.4) b) Gibt es in den gesamten Anmeldeunterlagen keine direkte oder plausible Offenbarung, wie die erwünschte Wirkung der Erfindung erzielt wird und warum durch die beanspruchten Merkmale die Aufgabe gelöst wird, dann kann die Wirkweise auch durch die Lehre von anderen (vorveröffentlichten) Dokumenten abgeleitet werden. (Gründe 5.4.4)

Keywords

Ausreichende Offenbarung - (ja)
Neuheit - (ja)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (nein)

Application title

Isoliertes Metallsubstrat mit einem metallenen Implantat

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T057517.20210916

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 480 KB)
T 0116/18 () of 11.10.2021

Online on

20.10.2021

Board

3.3.02

Decision date

11.10.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A01N 43/56
A01N 51/00

Application no.

12002626.5

Catchword

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of
Appeal for decision.
If for acknowledgement of inventive step the patent proprietor relies on a technical effect and has submitted evidence, such as experimental data, to prove such an effect, this evidence not having been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and having been filed after that date (post-published evidence):
1. Should an exception to the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see e.g. G 3/97, Reasons 5, and G 1/12, Reasons 31) be accepted in that post-published evidence must be disregarded on the ground that the proof of the effect rests exclusively on the post-published evidence?
2. If the answer is yes (the post-published evidence must be disregarded if the proof of the effect rests exclusively on this evidence), can the post-published evidence be taken into consideration if, based on the information in the patent application in suit or the common general knowledge, the skilled person at the filing date of the patent application in suit would have considered the effect plausible (ab initio plausibility)?
3. If the answer to the first question is yes (the post-published evidence must be disregarded if the proof of the effect rests exclusively on this evidence), can the post-published evidence be taken into consideration if, based on the information in the patent application in suit or the common general knowledge, the skilled person at the filing date of the patent application in suit would have seen no reason to consider the effect implausible (ab initio implausibility)?

Keywords

Grounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosure
Novelty
Inventive step
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal
Late-filed evidence - submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal
Late-filed evidence - submitted shortly before oral proceedings
Decision of the Administrative Council of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under Article 7 of the Act revising the EPC
Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Generics (UK) Ltd t/a Mylan anr [2018] UKSC 56

Application title

Insecticide compositions

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T011618.20211011

Distribution

A

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 850 KB)

September 2021

T 1791/16 (Multispectral skin biometrics / HID 2) of 22.6.2021

Online on

21.09.2021

Board

3.5.06

Decision date

22.6.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06K 9/00

Application no.

04758859.5

Catchword

If a claim is ambiguous/unclear, all technically reasonable claim interpretations must be considered. If one of those interpretations contains matter that extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed, it must be concluded that added subject-matter is present (reasons point 11).

Keywords

Grounds for opposition - added subject-matter (yes)
Grounds for opposition - clarity in opposition proceedings
Amendment to appeal case - suitability of amendment to resolve issues raised (no)

Application title

MULTISPECTRAL BIOMETRIC SENSOR

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T179116.20210622

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 344 KB)
T 0066/18 () of 18.6.2021

Online on

21.09.2021

Board

3.2.04

Decision date

18.6.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

A47J 37/07

Application no.

13710782.7

Catchword

Siehe Entscheidungsgründe 4

Keywords

Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (nein)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - naheliegende Alternative
Kostenverteilung - (nein)
Vorlage an die Große Beschwerdekammer - (nein)

Application title

GRILL

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T006618.20210618

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 396 KB)
T 1598/18 (Multispectral skin imaging / HID 3) of 23.6.2021

Online on

21.09.2021

Board

3.5.06

Decision date

23.6.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06K 9/00

Application no.

05857436.9

Catchword

A new definition or the re-defining of a known term does not add subject matter, if there is pertinent disclosure in the application as a whole (point 18).

Keywords

Amendments - added subject-matter (no)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (yes)

Application title

MULTISPECTRAL IMAGING BIOMETRICS

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T159818.20210623

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 343 KB)
T 1599/18 (Multispectral skin biometrics / HID 4) of 24.6.2021

Online on

21.09.2021

Board

3.5.06

Decision date

24.6.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06K 9/00

Application no.

10181332.7

Catchword

Lack of novelty (see point 14): there is no need that a prior art document explicitly mentions the claimed features. It is necessary and sufficient that an embodiment falling under the claim scope be directly and unambiguously derivable from the prior art document. That an alternative exists does not change this: it is possible that multiple alternatives can be considered directly und unambiguously derivable, even when none is explicitly mentioned.
Right to be heard (see points 18 and 29): the right to be heard does not entail a right to an amendment, but a right to present comments on why a specific request should be admitted to the proceedings.

Keywords

Novelty - (no)
Novelty - implicit disclosure (yes/no)
Right to be heard - opportunity to comment (yes)
Right to be heard - substantial procedural violation (no)
Late-filed request - request identical to request not admitted in first instance proceedings
Late-filed request - request could have been filed in first instance proceedings (yes)
Amendment to appeal case - suitability of amendment to resolve issues raised (no)

Application title

Multispectral imaging biometrics

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T159918.20210624

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 395 KB)
T 1569/17 (Kaffeezusammensetzung/SHAKHIN) of 15.7.2021

Online on

15.09.2021

Board

3.3.09

Decision date

15.7.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

A23F 5/00
A23F 5/10
A23F 5/24
A23F 5/40

Application no.

10820887.7

Catchword

Zur Frage, ob das Streichen von Produktansprüchen keine Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens im Sinne von Artikel 13(2) VOBK 2020 darstellt (siehe Punkt 4.3 der Entscheidungsgründe).

Keywords

Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (nein)
Änderung nach Ladung - berücksichtigt (nein)

Application title

KAFFEEZUSAMMENSETZUNG AUS LÖSLICHEM, GEFRIERGETROCKNETEM UND FEINGEMAHLENEM NATÜRLICHEM GERÖSTETEM KAFFEE MIT DEM GESCHMACK UND DEM AROMA VON FRISCH GERÖSTETEM NATÜRLICHEM KAFFEE SOWIE VERFAHREN ZUR HERSTELLUNG DIESER ZUSAMMENSETZUNG

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T156917.20210715

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 394 KB)
T 2147/16 () of 7.9.2021

Online on

10.09.2021

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

7.9.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06Q 10/10
H04L 12/58

Application no.

13194781.4

Catchword

The mere assumption that an algorithm is optimised for the computer hardware and may have a technical contribution is not sufficient. The implementation of an algorithm in a method for filtering spam messages must have a proved further technical effect or specific technical considerations; such further technical effect must be specifically and sufficiently documented in the disclosure of the invention and be reflected in the claim wording; the algorithm must serve a technical purpose.

Keywords

Inventive step - (no)
Inventive step - effect not made credible within the whole scope of claim
Inventive step - improvement not credible
Inventive step - obvious combination of known features
Inventive step - mixture of technical and non-technical features
Inventive step - problem and solution approach
Inventive step - obvious solution

Application title

System and method for detecting spam using clustering and rating of e-mails

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T214716.20210907

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 408 KB)
T 2058/18 (Predicting bending durability/YAZAKI) of 23.4.2021

Online on

10.09.2021

Board

3.5.07

Decision date

23.4.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06F 17/50

Application no.

03775909.9

Catchword

It is the responsibility of the representative to consult with its client (appellant) when presenting arguments about essential distinguishing features of the invention over the closest prior art. It is however the ultimate responsibility of the appellant to file amendments. Generally, these distinguishing features, presented as essential ones, could not anymore be considered as being obvious errors afterwards (Reasons, 3.5.6);
The disclosure of a family member of a document cited in an application can not be used to dispel doubts as to the meaning of an ambiguous part of the application (Reasons 3.13.1);
the (technically) skilled person might be considered a multilingual person but not normally a linguist (Reasons 3.13.7).

Keywords

Amendments - main request -correction of errors (no)
Sufficiency of disclosure - first auxiliary request (no)
Late-filed second and third auxiliary requests - requests could have been filed in first instance proceedings (yes)

Application title

METHOD FOR PREDICTING BENDING DURABILITY OF ELECTRIC WIRE AND BEND PROTECTION MEMBER, AND APPARATUS AND RECORDING MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM THEREFOR

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T205818.20210423

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 558 KB)
T 0806/18 () of 8.7.2021

Online on

09.09.2021

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

8.7.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G09G 3/32
G09G 5/14

Application no.

14195097.2

Catchword

In determining whether or not to request further search fees from an applicant, the Search Division should not adopt a purely algorithmic approach, but should consider whether it would be reasonable, under the circumstances of the case and in the light of the subject-matter already searched and the prior art found, to demand additional fees for extending the search to the remaining claims (see Reasons, point 5.5).

Keywords

Inventive step - (yes)
Reimbursement of additional search fee - (yes)

Application title

Organic light emitting diode display device and method of driving the same

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T080618.20210708

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 388 KB)

August 2021

T 1197/18 () of 26.7.2021

Online on

20.08.2021

Board

3.2.05

Decision date

26.7.2021

Proc. language

FR

IPC

B41M 3/14
B41N 1/06
D21H 21/40
D21H 27/02

Application no.

10709889.9

Catchword

Tenue de la procédure orale sous forme de visioconférence,
en l'absence d'accord d'une partie (voir point 1)

Keywords

Ajournement de la procédure orale (non)
Nouveauté (non : requête principale ; oui : requête subs. 1)
Admission des nouvelles objections au titre de l'activité inventive (non)
Activité inventive (oui)

Application title

Elément de sécurité pour document-valeur

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T119718.20210726

Distribution

C

Decision

Texte de la décision en FR (PDF, 1 MB)
J 0001/20 () of 15.4.2021

Online on

09.08.2021

Board

3.1.01

Decision date

15.4.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

F03D 11/04
F03D 1/00

Application no.

10826125.6

Catchword

1. The established approach of applying the due-care criterion to the question of removal of the cause of non-compliance under Rule 136 EPC leads to an additional admissibility requirement, by expanding the scope of the substantive due-care criterion, which has no basis in the EPC.
2. Removal of the cause of non-compliance is a question of fact which occurs on the date on which the person responsible for the application or patent actually became aware of an error (actual knowledge), rather than when this person ought to have noticed the error (presumption of knowledge).
3. Pursuant to Article 122(1) EPC, if failure to observe a time limit is due to an error of fact, the due-care criterion is to be assessed only in the context of the merits of a request for re-establishment of rights.
4. The same applies if failure to observe a time limit is based on an error of law. Thus, the due-care criterion is to be assessed only in the context of the merits of the request and removal of the cause of non-compliance occurs when the responsible person actually became aware of the error of law.

Keywords

"Request for re-establishment of rights"
"Removal of the cause of non-compliance - no consideration of the due-care criterion"
"Error of law: due care only relevant for allowability - Excuse of error of law (no)"
"Principle of proportionality: application if conditions of Article 122 EPC are not met - (no)"

Application title

DEVICE FOR ESTABLISHING ADMITTANCE AND TRANSPORT OF CARGO TO AND FROM A WIND TURBINE CONSTRUCTION ABOVE GROUND LEVEL

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:J000120.20210415

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 548 KB)
T 1870/16 (Synchronising PDCP operations I/HTC) of 13.7.2021

Online on

05.08.2021

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

13.7.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04W 76/02

Application no.

12004151.2

Catchword

As to the application of the principle of
res judicata
, see point 4 of the Reasons.

Keywords

"Mixed-mode" oral proceedings held without the consent of one party - stay of proceedings in view of G 1/21 (no)
Added subject-matter - main request (yes)
Referral to the Enlarged BoA - first auxiliary request (no): res judicata - not the same facts
Validity of priority claim - second and third auxiliary requests (no): no "same invention"
Inventive step - second and third auxiliary requests (no)

Application title

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

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T187016.20210713

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 395 KB)
T 1790/17 (Redesigning product or process parameters/PROCTER & GAMBLE) of 18.3.2021

Online on

04.08.2021

Board

3.5.01

Decision date

18.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06Q 10/06

Application no.

14178116.1

Catchword

The purpose of the oral proceedings for the appellant is to better explain his case and for the Board to understand and clarify points which, perhaps, up to that point were not sufficiently clear. This is particularly relevant in
ex parte
cases where besides the applicant/appellant no other party is involved. If amendments resulting from such discussions were not possible, oral proceedings would be pointless. The new [substantially amended] auxiliary request was filed as a direct reaction following the exchange of arguments in the oral proceedings and addressing the objections and concerns the Board had. Furthermore, this request overcame the grounds on which the appealed decision was based. The Board considers the filing of such a request is justified by exceptional circumstances and therefore admits it into the proceedings. (See point 7 of the reasons)

Keywords

Patentable invention - redesigning a product based on user feedback (no
Patentable invention - business method)
Patentable invention - controlling manufacture of a product with improved process data (yes
Patentable invention - technical)
Amendment after summons (yes
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances)
Remittal (yes
Remittal - exceptional circumstances)

Application title

Method for redesigning one or more product or process parameters of a manufactured article

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T179017.20210318

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 332 KB)

Quick Navigation