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). 

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)

July 2021

T 2455/18 (Controlled release formulations/ALPHAPHARM) of 18.5.2021

Online on

30.07.2021

Board

3.3.07

Decision date

18.5.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61K 9/26
A61K 9/20
A61K 9/28
A61K 9/16

Application no.

07718791.2

Catchword

see point 2.1.2 of the Reasons

Keywords

Main request(a) and Auxiliary requests 1(a)-4(a) - Novelty and amendments (No)
Auxiliary requests 5 and 5a - Novelty (No)
Auxiliary requests 6(a)-10(a) - Amendments (No)
Auxiliary requests 11(a)-17(a) - Inventive step (No)

Application title

CONTROLLED RELEASE FORMULATIONS COMPRISING UNCOATED DISCRETE UNIT(S) AND AN EXTENDED RELEASE MATRIX

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T245518.20210518

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 525 KB)
T 2702/18 () of 24.6.2021

Online on

28.07.2021

Board

3.2.01

Decision date

24.6.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

B60R 19/00
B62D 49/04
E01C 19/48

Application no.

12007317.6

Catchword

1. Zwischen Zulieferern und Kunden der Fahrzeugindustrie ist ein branchenübliches Vertrauensverhältnis anzunehmen, das es qua Handelsbrauch verbietet, dass der Zulieferer Betriebsgeheimnisse des Kunden, in deren Besitz er im Rahmen der Kooperation mit diesem kommt, an beliebige Dritte weitergibt. Hieraus ergibt sich aber keine Verpflichtung des Zulieferers, sein eigenes Wissen oder aus der Kooperation erlangte Kenntnisse über Vorrichtungen, die der Kunde bereits zuvor öffentlich zugänglich gemacht hatte, geheim zu halten.
2. Eine weitergehende stillschweigende Geheimhaltungsvereinbarung über sämtliche Umstände einer Kooperation setzt (im Anschluss an T 830/90, Gründe 3.2.2) voraus, dass beide Parteien einen entsprechenden Rechtsbindungswillen hatten und konkludent zum Ausdruck brachten, die gemeinsame Entwicklung nicht an die Öffentlichkeit gelangen zu lassen - zumindest nicht solange, wie ein gemeinsames Interesse an einer Geheimhaltung besteht.
3. Die Annahme einer tatsächlichen Vermutung, dass die Partner einer gemeinsamen Weiterentwicklung im Bereich des Fahrzeugbaus sich im Zweifel bis zur Veröffentlichung des entwickelten Produkts gegenseitig bindend zur Geheimhaltung verpflichten wollen, setzt als Anknüpfungstatsachen zumindest die Feststellung des Bewusstseins voraus, dass es sich um eine gemeinsame Entwicklung beider Partner handelt, und dass beide Seiten an einer Geheimhaltung interessiert sein werden.

Keywords

Neuheit - offenkundige Vorbenutzung
Neuheit - stillschweigende Geheimhaltungsverpflichtung (nein)

Application title

Baumaschine, insbesondere Straßenfertiger oder Beschicker

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T270218.20210624

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 342 KB)
T 1185/17 () of 1.6.2021

Online on

27.07.2021

Board

3.2.06

Decision date

1.6.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61F 13/15
B32B 3/30

Application no.

10169558.3

Catchword

See Reasons 3.3; auxiliary requests 7 to 10 not admitted into the proceedings due to a new lack of convergence caused by the filing of auxiliary requests 1 and 2, the latter not being taken into account under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020.

Keywords

Amendments - added subject-matter (yes)
Late-filed auxiliary requests - justification for late filing (no)
Late-filed auxiliary requests - diverging versions of claims

Application title

Feminine hygiene article with printed pattern and embossed pattern

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T118517.20210601

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 362 KB)
T 2696/16 () of 8.6.2021

Online on

20.07.2021

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

8.6.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

H05K 13/04
H01L 21/67

Application no.

03701466.9

Catchword

Dient eine Übersetzung lediglich der Annehmlichkeit einer Partei, ist dies kein ausreichender Grund für das Stellen der Übersetzung durch das EPA (siehe Entscheidungsgründe 1.1). Da keine Gründe für die verspätete Einreichung der prima facie hochrelevanten Dokumente genannt wurden (und auch nicht erkennbar sind), kam die Kammer folglich zu dem Schluss, in Ausübung ihres Ermessens gemäß Artikel 12 (4) VOBK 2007 die Dokumente E12 bis E16 trotz ihrer hohen Relevanz nicht in das Verfahren zuzulassen, denn andernfalls könnte ein Einsprechender eine (hoch)relevante Entgegenhaltung immer ohne Weiteres erst mit der Beschwerdebegründung einreichen und darauf vertrauen, dass diese Entgegenhaltung im Beschwerdeverfahren wegen ihrer Relevanz zugelassen wird (siehe Entscheidungsgründe 1.2).

Keywords

Sprache in der mündlichen Verhandlung - Übersetzungskosten
Sprache in der mündlichen Verhandlung - Übersetzung in eine Amtssprache des EPA
Ansprüche, eingereicht mit der Beschwerdeerwiderung, zugelassen (ja)
Spät eingereichte Dokumente - eingereicht mit der Beschwerdebegründung - Verfahrensökonomie - zugelassen (nein)

Application title

CHIPENTNAHMEVORRICHTUNG, BESTÜCKSYSTEM UND VERFAHREN ZUM ENTNEHMEN VON CHIPS VON EINEM WAFER

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T269616.20210608

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 462 KB)
T 0222/21 (Virtual Machine Migration/MICROSOFT) of 8.7.2021

Online on

12.07.2021

Board

3.5.06

Decision date

8.7.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06F 9/455

Application no.

11790209.8

Catchword

Proper exercise of discretion under Rule 137(3) EPC in respect of amendments filed pursuant to Rule 71(6) EPC (no)

Keywords

-

Application title

VIRTUAL MACHINE MIGRATION TECHNIQUES

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T022221.20210708

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 352 KB)

June 2021

T 2988/18 (Hyaluronic acid-based gels including lidocaine Hydrochloride/ALLERGAN … of 21.4.2021

Online on

30.06.2021

Board

3.3.07

Decision date

21.4.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61K 8/73
A61L 27/20
A61K 47/36

Application no.

09785850.0

Catchword

See point 1.4

Keywords

Admission of new arguments (Yes)
All requests - Amendments (No)

Application title

HYALURONIC ACID-BASED GELS INCLUDING LIDOCAINE HYDROCHLORIDE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T298818.20210421

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 395 KB)
T 2081/15 (Continuous bank of RAMs for faster fault recovery in a flight control … of 24.3.2021

Online on

29.06.2021

Board

3.5.07

Decision date

24.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06F 11/16
G06F 11/00

Application no.

09171333.9

Catchword

Plausible argument of the appellant about the choice of specific, non-obvious hardware implementation, in favour of an inventive step over the prior art (Article 56 EPC).

Keywords

Inventive step - after amendment
Inventive step - claim 1 (yes)

Application title

Method and systems for restarting a flight control system

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T208115.20210324

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 363 KB)
T 2773/18 () of 17.5.2021

Online on

29.06.2021

Board

3.2.04

Decision date

17.5.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

F03D 80/00

Application no.

11180804.4

Catchword

Reasons 3.2 on argument that claimed invention is insufficiently disclosed across whole breadth

Keywords

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

Application title

Wind turbine with tower climatisation system using outside air

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T277318.20210517

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 410 KB)
T 2431/19 (Partial search/HARMAN) of 24.6.2021

Online on

29.06.2021

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

24.6.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04L 29/12

Application no.

14151069.3

Catchword

Rule 137(5) EPC provides for a mandatory requirement that amended claims must fulfil to be allowable. Relating to substantive law rather than to procedural law, Rule 137(5) EPC does not provide a legal basis for the exercise of discretion. The non-admittance of an amended set of claims on the basis of that Rule alone therefore constitutes a substantial procedural violation under Rule 103(1)(a) EPC (see point 2.2 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Decision in written proceedings (yes)
Substantial procedural violation - (yes): erroneous application of R. 137(5) EPC
Amended claims relating to unsearched subject-matter in accordance with R. 63 EPC - (no)
Additional search necessary - (no)
Reimbursement of the appeal fee - (yes)
Remittal to the examining division
Remittal - (yes)

Application title

Network address management and functional object discovery system

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T243119.20210624

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 413 KB)
G 0004/19 (Double patenting) of 22.6.2021

Online on

22.06.2021

Board

EBA

Decision date

22.6.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61K 35/74
A23L 1/30
A61P 37/08
A61P 1/12

Application no.

10718590.2

Catchword

-

Keywords

Admissibility of referral - (yes)
Interpretation of Article 125 EPC
Procedural provision absent from the Convention
Supplementary means of interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Legal basis for a refusal under Article 97(2) EPC for double patenting

Application title

PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF ALLERGIC DIARRHOEA

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:G000419.20210622

Distribution

A

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 424 KB)
T 0256/19 (Own-voice signal processing/SONOVA) of 4.5.2021

Online on

22.06.2021

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

4.5.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04R 25/00

Application no.

12794164.9

Catchword

Rule 80 EPC represents a non-discretionary provision of the EPC that relates to the allowability of a patent as amended rather than to admissibility (see point 4.7 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Novelty - main request (no)
Amendment occasioned by ground for opposition - auxiliary request 1 (no)
Inventive step - auxiliary requests 2, 3, 5 to 7, 7a (no)
Clarity - auxiliary request 4' (no)

Application title

Own voice shaping in a hearing instrument

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T025619.20210504

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 537 KB)
T 0041/16 () of 20.4.2021

Online on

18.06.2021

Board

3.3.10

Decision date

20.4.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

C09K 19/02
C09K 19/30
G02F 1/13
C09K 19/12
C09K 19/44

Application no.

10004670.5

Catchword

Ein unerwartet verbesserter Effekt von Zusammensetzungen gegenüber solchen des nächstliegenden Standes der Technik, auf den sich erfinderische Tätigkeit eines Anspruchs gründet, muss im wesentlichen über den gesamten beanspruchten Bereich glaubhaft sein. Dies bedeutet aber nicht, dass jede vom Anspruch umfasste Zusammensetzung eine Verbesserung gegenüber jeder beliebigen, oder auch nur gegenüber der für den Anspruch nächstliegenden Zusammensetzung dieses Standes der Technik darstellen muss. Vielmehr müssen jeweils korrespondierende Zusammensetzungen, die sich nur im abgrenzenden Merkmal des Anspruchs unterscheiden, einen solchen Effekt zeigen (Punkt 3.2.4 der Entscheidungsgründe).

Keywords

Ausreichende Offenbarung - Hauptantrag (ja)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - unerwartete Verbesserung
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag (ja)

Application title

Flüssigkristallines Medium

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T004116.20210420

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 430 KB)
T 2218/16 (Gene therapy of motor neuron disorders/BEZZUBOVA) of 12.3.2021

Online on

17.06.2021

Board

3.3.08

Decision date

12.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C12N 15/864
A61K 48/00

Application no.

08836776.8

Catchword

Sufficiency of disclosure - burden of proof, Novelty - new clinical situation

Keywords

Admission of the main request - (yes)
Admission of late filed arguments - (no)
Requirements of the EPC met - (yes)

Application title

Widespread gene delivery to motor neurons using peripheral injection of AAV vectors

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T221816.20210312

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 739 KB)
J 0014/19 () of 19.4.2021

Online on

14.06.2021

Board

3.1.01

Decision date

19.4.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

B29C45/14
B29C45/37
B29C33/42
B29C45/00
B65D1/24
B29L31/00

Application no.

12790415.9

Catchword

1.) Der Nachweis des Vorliegens der Voraussetzungen für die Aussetzung des Verfahrens nach Regel 14 (1) EPÜ muss während eines anhängigen Erteilungsverfahrens und somit vor Bekanntmachung des Hinweises auf die Erteilung im Europäischen Patentblatt erfolgen. Beweismittel, die erst nach diesem Zeitpunkt eingereicht werden, dürfen vom Europäischen Patentamt hierfür nicht berücksichtigt werden (Nr. 4.3 der Gründe).
2.)Die Frage zu welchem Zeitpunkt ein nationales Verfahren im Sinne der Regel 14 (1) EPÜ i.V.m. Artikel 61 (1) EPÜ als eingeleitet gilt, ist nach dem Verfahrensrecht jenes Staates zu beurteilen, dessen Gerichte zum Treffen einer Entscheidung im Sinne des Artikels 61 (1) EPÜ angerufen wurden (Nr. 6.1 und 6.2 der Gründe).
3.) Bei der Anwendung fremden Rechtes muss das Europäische Patentamt dieses, soweit möglich, im Gesamtzusammenhang der fremden Rechtsordnung anwenden. Dabei ist das Europäische Patentamt als von staatlichen Behörden und Gerichten unabhängige internationale Organisation nicht an die Rechtsprechung nationaler Gerichte zur Auslegung der anzuwendenden fremden Rechtsnorm gebunden. Sofern dem Europäischen Patentamt bekannt, sollte insbesondere höchstgerichtliche nationale Rechtsprechung bei der Entscheidungsfindung jedoch berücksichtigt und gewürdigt werden(Nr. 6.5 der Gründe).
4.) Fragen des Rechtsmissbrauchs stellen sich auch in den Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt (siehe etwa Artikel 16 (1) e) VOBK 2020). Zur Vermeidung von Wertungswidersprüchen sind derartige Fragen vom Europäischen Patentamt auch im Rahmen des Aussetzungsverfahrens autonom, also unabhängig von nationalen Rechtsordnungen zu beurteilen (Nr. 6.22 der Gründe).
5.) Die zweckwidrige Inanspruchnahme eines Rechtes kann unter Umständen Rechtsmissbrauch begründen. Dies ist etwa dann der Fall, wenn die Rechtsausübung überwiegend in Schädigungsabsicht erfolgt und andere, legitime Zwecke in den Hintergrund treten. Rechtsmissbrauch muss zweifelsfrei vorliegen und erfordert eine sorgfältige Prüfung und Abwägung der Einzelumstände. Die Beweislast trifft denjenigen, der sich auf Rechtsmissbrauch beruft (Nr. 13.1 der Gründe).

Keywords

Aussetzung des Erteilungsverfahrens (ja)
Zeitpunkt der Rechtshängigkeit eines nationalen Verfahrens - Anwendung fremden Rechts (ja)
Rechtsmissbräuchliches Verhalten (nein)
Fortsetzung des Erteilungsverfahrens (nein)

Application title

VERFAHREN ZUM HERSTELLEN VON GETRÄNKEKISTEN AUS KUNSTSTOFF

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:J001419.20210419

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 680 KB)

May 2021

T 1661/16 () of 26.4.2021

Online on

21.05.2021

Board

3.2.06

Decision date

26.4.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61F 13/15
B65H 23/188

Application no.

06733373.2

Catchword

see Reasons 1.4.1 to 1.4.5

Keywords

Claims - main request (no)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - uniform application of law
Amendment to appeal case - exercise of discretion
Amendment to appeal case - state of the proceedings
Amendment to appeal case - amendment detrimental to procedural economy (yes)

Application title

METHOD AND ARRANGEMENT FOR DETECTION OF A SYCHRONIYING MARK BEING USED IN SYCHRONIYED POSITIONING OF AT LEAST ONE ESSENTIALLZ CONTINUOUS MATERIAL WEB

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T166116.20210426

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 391 KB)
T 1511/15 () of 27.4.2021

Online on

20.05.2021

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

27.4.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06F 17/60

Application no.

03781901.8

Catchword

In a case where the Board has sent more than one summons to oral proceedings, it is normally the summons which was first sent which is "the summons to oral proceedings" within the meaning of Article 25(3) RPBA 2020 (Reasons, point 3.6).

Keywords

Amendments to main and first auxiliary requests - added subject-matter (yes)
Late-filed second auxiliary request - admitted (no)

Application title

METHOD, APPARATUS AND INTERFACE FOR TRADING MULTIPLE TRADEABLE OBJECTS

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T151115.20210427

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 366 KB)
T 0247/20 () of 25.3.2021

Online on

20.05.2021

Board

3.2.08

Decision date

25.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61F 5/44
A61F 5/445

Application no.

13728310.7

Catchword

Oral proceedings would serve no purpose if the parties were limited to present a mere repetition of the arguments put forward in writing. Instead, parties must be allowed to refine their arguments, even to build on them provided they stay within the framework of the arguments, and of course the evidence, submitted in a timely fashion in the written proceedings.

Keywords

Specific arguments presented at the oral proceedings - no amendment to appeal case
Late-filed document - admitted (yes)
Novelty - main request (no)
Novelty - auxiliary request (no)

Application title

COMFORT LAYER FOR A COLLECTING BAG

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T024720.20210325

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 417 KB)
R 0006/19 () of 26.2.2021

Online on

17.05.2021

Board

EBA

Decision date

26.2.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06F19/00

Application no.

00989280.3

Catchword

The basis for a board's (and opposition division's) discretion to admit or not claim requests is Article 123(1)EPC, (see Reasons points 5 to 10).

Keywords

Violation of the right to be heard (No)

Application title

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PATIENT MONITORING WITH WIRELESS INTERNET CONNECTIVITY

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:R000619.20210226

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 354 KB)
T 1294/16 (Image data arrangement/OMRON) of 10.3.2021

Online on

14.05.2021

Board

3.5.06

Decision date

10.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06K 9/64
G06T 7/00

Application no.

06022645.3

Catchword

Selection of the "closest prior art": see point 5.
RPBA 2020 Article 13(1) and (2): see points 15 to 20.
Technical effects: see points 24 to 26 and 35.

Keywords

Admittance of late-filed requests under Article 13(1) and (2) RPBA 2020 - (yes)
Technical effect of image data arrangement (no) - in the claimed context
Technical effect of difference in mathematics - mathematical equivalents (no) - in the claimed context
Inventive step (no)
Inventive step - all requests
Substantial procedural violation (no)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no)

Application title

Image processing device, image processing method, program for the same, and computer readable recording medium recorded with program

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T129416.20210310

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 475 KB)
T 0364/18 () of 16.4.2021

Online on

10.05.2021

Board

3.2.04

Decision date

16.4.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

F04B 7/00
F04B 49/22
F04B 49/24
F04B 53/10
F04B 49/06
F04B 17/02

Application no.

12705171.2

Catchword

Reasons 4 : Extent of scrutiny limited by principle of ne ultra petita

Keywords

Novelty - main request (no)
Extent of opposition

Application title

METHOD OF CONTROLLING A HYDRAULIC MACHINE TO REDUCE TORQUE RIPPLE AND/OR BEARING SIDE LOAD

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T036418.20210416

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 375 KB)
T 2277/18 (Implantat/BRI TECH) of 10.2.2021

Online on

10.05.2021

Board

3.3.05

Decision date

10.2.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

C22C 23/00
A61F 2/28
C22C 23/04
C22F 1/06

Application no.

13187287.1

Catchword

Die Bedingungen von G 1/99 für eine zulässige Ausnahme vom Verschlechterungsverbot gelten auch dann, wenn es sich bei der unzulässigen Änderung um einen nicht offenbarten Disclaimer handelt (Entscheidungsgründe 7).

Keywords

Hauptantrag - Rückkehr zur erteilten Fassung - zulässig (nein)
Hilfsantrag - Änderungen - nicht offenbarter Disclaimer - Disclaimer nimmt mehr aus als nötig - zulässig nach G 1/03 (nein)
Hilfsanträge - Einschränkung des Disclaimers - Ausnahme vom Verschlechterungsverbot zulässig nach G 1/99 (nein)
Rüge nach Regel 106 EPÜ - zulässig (nein)

Application title

Implantat für Patienten im Wachstum, Verfahren zu dessen Herstellung und Verwendung

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T227718.20210210

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 486 KB)
T 1756/16 () of 14.4.2021

Online on

06.05.2021

Board

3.2.02

Decision date

14.4.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

A61M 1/16
G01J 3/42
G01N 21/33

Application no.

09001890.4

Catchword

Neuer Einwand nach Zustellung der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung. Entscheidungsgründe,Punkte 3.5-3.10, insbesondere Punkt 3.9.

Keywords

Zulassung des Hauptantrags (ja)
Zulassung von Einwänden (teilweise)
Ausführbarkeit (ja)

Application title

Vorrichtung zur extrakorporalen Blutbehandlung

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T175616.20210414

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 412 KB)
T 2271/18 (Acoustic-feedback reduction/SIVANTOS) of 25.3.2021

Online on

03.05.2021

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

25.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04R 25/00
H04R 3/02

Application no.

12787518.5

Catchword

A clear and detailed preliminary opinion provided by a board - rather than merely "drawing attention to matters that seem to be of particular significance for the decision to be taken" (cf. Article 15(1), fourth sentence, RPBA 2020) - is predominantly intended to give the party(ies) an opportunity to thoroughly prepare their arguments in response to it but not to file new submissions, such as new sets of claims, and to thereby arguably shift the focus regarding the issues on file to be decided in appeal proceedings. In particular, amendments submitted in response to such a preliminary opinion cannot give rise to "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (see point 3.3 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Clarity - main and auxiliary requests 5 to 9 (no)
Admittance of requests filed after notification of summons - auxiliary requests 1 to 4 (no): no exceptional circumstances and no clear allowability
Admittance of request not admitted by examining division - auxiliary request 10 (no): no incorrect exercise of discretion

Application title

Method and device for reducing acoustic feedback

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T227118.20210325

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 414 KB)

Quick Navigation