Selected decisions
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 in the last three years 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).
March 2024
1. Es scheint sich eine einheitliche Rechtsprechungslinie dahingehend zu entwickeln, dass in Fällen, in denen durch eine unkomplizierte Änderung wie das Streichen einer gesamten Anspruchskategorie eine Antragsfassung vorliegt, auf deren Basis das Patent erkennbar aufrechterhalten werden kann, außergewöhnliche Umstände im Sinne von Artikel 13(2) EPÜ vorliegen können. Diese erlauben dann eine positive Ermessensausübung, wenn die Änderung den faktischen oder rechtlichen Rahmen des Verfahrens nicht verschiebt, keine Neugewichtung des Verfahrensgegenstandes bedingt und weder dem Grundsatz der Verfahrensökonomie, noch den berechtigten Interessen einer Verfahrenspartei zuwiderläuft (im Anschluss an T 2295/19; siehe Gründe Nr. 3.4.2 bis 3.4.6)
2. Diese Rechtsprechung fügt sich hinsichtlich des Grades der geforderten prima facie Relevanz in die Stufen des mit der VOBK etablierten Konvergenzansatzes ein und führt diesen logisch fort (vgl. Gründe Nr. 3.4.7).
3. Es besteht keine Notwendigkeit (mehr), zur Sicherung einer einheitlichen Rechtsanwendung die Große Beschwerdekammer zu befassen (vgl. Gründe Nr. 4 bis 4.4).
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag (nein)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hilfsantrag V (ja)
Ermessen Vorbringen nicht zuzulassen - Hilfsanträge I-IV
Ermessen Vorbringen nicht zuzulassen - Voraussetzungen des Art. 12 (3) VOBK 2020 erfüllt (nein)
Änderung nach Ladung - Hilfsantrag V
Änderung nach Ladung - außergewöhnliche Umstände (ja)
Vorlage an die Große Beschwerdekammer - (nein)
Patentansprüche - Klarheit
Patentansprüche - Hilfsantrag V (ja)
1. Extension of the period for paying the opposition fee was provided under point 5.5 ADA. The evidence strongly suggested that the inability to file the debit order was due to a malfunction of the EPO's Online Filing software, which, in this case, was attributable to the EPO.
2. The request for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal posed questions on issues that are part of the appeal case. Hence, the request was not an amendment to the appeal case.
Extension of payment period - (yes); Opposition deemed to have been filed - (yes)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - admitted, not allowed
On appeal, the sole request subject of the appealed decision was abandoned, and amended requests were filed instead. When later the sole request was submitted in reply to the board's communication, it constituted an "amendment" to the appeal case within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA.
The appellant's choice, on appeal, not to seek a review of the appealed decision prevented the board from pursuing the primary object of the appeal proceedings (cf. Article 12(1)(a) and (b) and (2) RPBA). Instead, the late submission of the sole request left its consideration to the board's discretion under Article 13(2) RPBA.
Amendment to the appeal case within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA - (yes)
Exceptional circumstances justified by cogent reasons - (no)
Amendment taken into account - (no)
As to the proprietor's argument that the board should not question the compliance of its auxiliary claim requests with the EPC since the opponent had not challenged the admittance or the allowability of those auxiliary requests, see point
3.1 of the Reasons.
With regard to the question of compatibility of certain principles of claim interpretation for the purposes of considering novelty or inventive step with Article 69 EPC, reference is made to Reasons 1.1.11 to 1.1.16.
The principle of primacy of the claims seems to exclude the use of the description and drawings for limiting the claims if an interpretation of the claim in the light of common general knowledge already leads to a technically meaningful result. Similarly, the principle, established by case law, according to which "limiting features which are only present in the description and not in the claim cannot be read into a patent claim" is also fully compatible with Article 69 EPC and Article 1 of the Protocol.
Novelty - main request (no)
Novelty - interpretation of claims
Novelty - application of Article 69 EPC
Remittal - special reasons for remittal
Remittal - (no)
Right to be heard - violation (no)
Obligation to raise objections - objection dismissed
Inventive step - (no)
1. On the limits of claim interpretation in the light of the description (see point 13 of the reasons).
2. In application of decision G 3/14, an objection under Article 84 EPC that a claim is not supported by the description is open to examination in opposition or opposition appeal proceedings only when, and then only to the extent that, the lack of support has been introduced by an amendment to the patent. It must thus be accepted that the removal of an inconsistency between the description and a claim amended in opposition or opposition appeal proceedings is not possible when the inconsistency previously existed in the patent as granted (see point 83 of the reasons).
Acceleration of appeal proceedings (yes)
Claim interpretation
Grounds for opposition - subject-matter extends beyond content of earlier application (no)
Grounds for opposition - lack of patentability (yes)
Novelty (auxiliary request 1: no; auxiliary request 2: yes)
Amendments - added subject-matter (auxiliary request 2: no)
Sufficiency of disclosure (auxiliary request 2: yes)
Inventive step (auxiliary request 2: yes)
Late-filed objection - admitted (no)
Claims - support in the description (overcoming objections arising out of amendments made in the course of the opposition proceedings: yes)
Re-opening the debate (no)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no)
1.) The removal of the cause of non-compliance with a time limit under Rule 136(1) EPC occurs, as a rule, on the date on which the person responsible for the application vis-à-vis the EPO becomes aware of the fact that the time limit has not been observed, for example by receipt of a loss of rights communication under Rule 112(1) EPC. If a professional representative is appointed, the representative is the person responsible for the application vis-a-vis the EPO (Reasons 3 and 4).
2.) Regarding time limits for the payment of fees, an appointed professional representative remains the person responsible for the application vis-a-vis the EPO, and thus the person whose knowledge matters in assessing when the cause of non-compliance was removed, irrespective of whether a third party other than the representative is responsible for the payment of fees. Hence, also when a time limit for the payment of fees was missed, removal of the cause of non-compliance in principle occurs on the date on which an appointed professional representative receives the corresponding loss of rights communication (Reasons 5). The removal of the cause of non-compliance does not require any additional knowledge on the part of the professional representative about possible reasons for missing the time limit, such as whether the non-payment of renewal fees had been intentional or not (Reasons 7).
Re-establishment of rights - time limit for filing request for re-establishment
Re-establishment of rights - two months of the removal of the cause of non-compliance (no)