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.
R 0003/20 () of 2.9.2021 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on23.12.2021 |
BoardEBA |
Decision date2.9.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCB60T 13/74B60T 17/22 |
Application no.07123489.2 |
CatchwordFundamental violation of Article 113 and Rule 104 (b) EPC |
|||||
KeywordsObjection under Rule 106 EPC raised (no)Petition for review clearly inadmissible (yes) |
Application titleMethod and device for controlling the intervention of the electric parking brake of a vehicle, in condition of dynamic functioning |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:R000320.20210902 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 414 KB) |
|||
T 1527/16 (Infant nutrition comprising hydrolysed proteins for preventing … of 11.10.2021 | |||||
Online on17.12.2021 |
Board3.3.09 |
Decision date11.10.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA23L 1/29A23L 1/305 A61P 3/04 |
Application no.06757833.6 |
CatchwordClaim 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. |
|||||
KeywordsNutritional composition - claim constructionMain request and auxiliary requests 1 and 3 - Inventive Step (no) Auxiliary request 2 - Admission (no) |
Application titleINFANT NUTRITION WITH HYDROLYSED PROTEINS |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T152716.20211011 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 359 KB) |
|||
T 2252/17 () of 14.10.2021 | |||||
Online on17.12.2021 |
Board3.2.06 |
Decision date14.10.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61F 13/02 |
Application no.11722120.0 |
CatchwordStrategic 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) |
|||||
KeywordsLate-filed main request - should have been submitted in first-instance proceedings (yes)Auxiliary request 1 - amendments - added subject-matter (yes) |
Application titleWOUND DRESSING |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T225217.20211014 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 404 KB) |
|||
T 0970/17 () of 14.10.2021 | |||||
Online on16.12.2021 |
Board3.2.02 |
Decision date14.10.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61M 39/02A61M 39/04 A61M 5/158 A61M 5/162 A61M 5/32 A61M 39/08 A61M 39/00 |
Application no.10183394.5 |
CatchwordAssessing 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). |
|||||
KeywordsAdmissibility 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 titleInfusion apparatuses and related methods |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T097017.20211014 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 1000 KB) |
|||
T 2238/17 (PROCÉDÉ ET SYSTÈMES DE PAIEMENT/Rossi, Jean-Yves) of 23.11.2021 | |||||
Online on16.12.2021 |
Board3.5.01 |
Decision date23.11.2021 |
Proc. languageFR |
IPCG06Q 20/00 |
Application no.07848326.0 |
CatchwordUn 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). |
|||||
KeywordsActivité inventive - "processus N2P"Activité inventive - (non, idée purement commerciale), Modifications - admises (oui), Remboursement de la taxe de recours - (non). |
Application titlePROCÉDÉ ET SYSTÈMES DE PAIEMENT |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T223817.20211123 |
DistributionD |
DecisionTexte de la décision en FR (PDF, 390 KB) |
|||
T 0158/19 (Ensemble/CONSTELLIUM) of 13.10.2021 | |||||
Online on16.12.2021 |
Board3.3.05 |
Decision date13.10.2021 |
Proc. languageFR |
IPCC22C 21/00F28D 1/04 F28F 13/12 F28F 21/08 B32B 15/01 |
Application no.12728629.2 |
CatchwordUn 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). |
|||||
KeywordsCorrection 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 titleENSEMBLE PLAQUÉ EN ALLIAGES D'ALUMINIUM POUR TUBE D'ECHANGEUR THERMIQUE A PLACAGE INTERNE PROTECTEUR ET A PERTURBATEUR BRASE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T015819.20211013 |
DistributionC |
DecisionTexte de la décision en FR (PDF, 427 KB) |
|||
T 2091/18 () of 9.11.2021 | |||||
Online on15.12.2021 |
Board3.2.05 |
Decision date9.11.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCB29C 43/24A61K 9/70 |
Application no.13700903.1 |
CatchwordDas 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). |
|||||
KeywordsÄnderung nach Ladung - außergewöhnliche Umstände (ja)Ausreichende Offenbarung (ja) Erfinderische Tätigkeit (ja) |
Application titleGitterverlustreduktion bei Pflasterherstellung |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T209118.20211109 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 491 KB) |
|||
T 1564/18 (Programmable memory repair scheme/RAMBUS INC.) of 17.9.2021 | |||||
Online on10.12.2021 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date17.9.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG11C 29/00 |
Application no.09730954.6 |
CatchwordSince 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. |
|||||
KeywordsRight to be heard - substantial procedural violation (yes) |
Application titleProgrammable memory repair scheme |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T156418.20210917 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 311 KB) |
|||
J 0007/20 () of 3.9.2021 | |||||
Online on09.12.2021 |
Board3.1.01 |
Decision date3.9.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCE03F 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. |
|||||
KeywordsLegal 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 titleDRAIN WITH ADJUSTING FRAME |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:J000720.20210903 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 482 KB) |
|||
T 2327/18 (Galvanikbad/COVENTYA) of 29.10.2021 | |||||
Online on08.12.2021 |
Board3.3.05 |
Decision date29.10.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCC25D 17/00C25D 3/56 |
Application no.09152660.8 |
CatchwordDie 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. |
|||||
KeywordsTeilanmeldungÄnderungen - zulässig (nein) Änderungen - Streichen eines Disclaimers, der in der Anmeldung wie ursprünglich eingereicht ausdrücklich als "Nicht-Teil" der Erfindung offenbart ist |
Application titleAlkalisches Galvanikbad mit einer Filtrationsmembran |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T232718.20211029 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 397 KB) |
|||
T 0768/20 () of 21.10.2021 | |||||
Online on06.12.2021 |
Board3.2.05 |
Decision date21.10.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCB41M 7/00 |
Application no.13757848.0 |
CatchwordExceptions to the "gold standard" (point 2.2 of the reasons) |
|||||
KeywordsAmendment extending beyond the content of the original application (yes)Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (refused) |
Application titleMulti-layer printing process |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T076820.20211021 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 918 KB) |
T 2117/17 () of 30.9.2021 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on30.11.2021 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date30.9.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCG07F 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). |
|||||
KeywordsNeuheit - (ja)Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (ja) Spät eingereichte Beweismittel - eingereicht mit der Beschwerdebegründung Spät eingereichte Beweismittel - zugelassen (nein) |
Application titleLeergutrücknahmeeinrichtung |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T211717.20210930 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 1 MB) |
|||
T 2122/17 () of 26.10.2021 | |||||
Online on29.11.2021 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date26.10.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCH01L 51/52H01L 27/32 |
Application no.11764774.3 |
CatchwordWird 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. |
|||||
KeywordsÄnderung 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 titleLEUCHTELEMENT MIT OLED-MODULEN |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T212217.20211026 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 825 KB) |
|||
T 1408/18 (Online TAN-Verfahren/STAR FINANZ) of 16.11.2021 | |||||
Online on29.11.2021 |
Board3.5.01 |
Decision date16.11.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCG06Q 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 |
|||||
KeywordsErfinderische 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 titleVerfahren und Vorrichtungen zum Durchführen einer Transaktion |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T140818.20211116 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 412 KB) |
|||
T 2090/15 () of 20.7.2021 | |||||
Online on22.11.2021 |
Board3.3.02 |
Decision date20.7.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC10M 133/56C10N 30/10 C10N 30/12 C10N 40/25 C10N 40/26 C10N 70/00 C10N 60/14 |
Application no.10171303.0 |
CatchwordNovelty 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) |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty of useNovelty - main and auxiliary requests (no) |
Application titleUse of an ashless borated dispersant |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T209015.20210720 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 439 KB) |
|||
T 2558/18 () of 8.11.2021 | |||||
Online on11.11.2021 |
Board3.4.02 |
Decision date8.11.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCG01M 17/02 |
Application no.03008932.0 |
CatchwordVerweist 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. |
|||||
KeywordsBindung 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 titleReifenprüfgerät |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T255818.20211108 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 775 KB) |
|||
T 0245/18 () of 29.10.2021 | |||||
Online on05.11.2021 |
Board3.2.01 |
Decision date29.10.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCB23G 5/04B23G 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. |
|||||
KeywordsRechtliches 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 titleGewindeerzeugungswerkzeug mit Kantenübergang |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T024518.20211029 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 554 KB) |
T 3071/19 (Searching data/BLACKBERRY) of 26.10.2021 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on29.10.2021 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date26.10.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 17/30 |
Application no.11741807.9 |
Catchword
A decision open to appeal is not reasoned within the meaning of Rule |
|||||
KeywordsAppealed decision - sufficiently reasoned (no)Remittal to the department of first instance Remittal - fundamental deficiency in first instance proceedings (yes) |
Application titleDevices and method for searching data on data sources associated with a category |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T307119.20211026 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 303 KB) |
|||
G 0001/21 (Oral proceedings by videoconference) of 16.7.2021 | |||||
Online on28.10.2021 |
BoardEBA |
Decision date16.7.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH03F 1/02 |
Application no.04758381.0 |
HeadnoteDuring 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. |
|||||
KeywordsAdmissibility of referral-(yes)Oral proceedings by videoconference in case of general emergency Role of consent of the parties |
Application titleDOHERTY AMPLIFIER WITH OUTPUT HYBRID COUPLER |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:G000121.20210716 |
DistributionA |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 569 KB) |
|||
T 1857/19 (Compressor and PSA dryer/Ateliers François) of 17.9.2021 | |||||
Online on28.10.2021 |
Board3.3.05 |
Decision date17.9.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCB01D 53/047B01D 53/26 |
Application no.15173873.9 |
CatchwordRegarding 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 titleMETHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COMPRESSING AND DRYING A GAS |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T185719.20210917 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 330 KB) |
|||
T 3035/19 (Pharmaceutical preparations containing oxycodone and naloxone / EURO- … of 23.9.2021 | |||||
Online on28.10.2021 |
Board3.3.07 |
Decision date23.9.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 9/16A61K 9/20 A61K 31/485 |
Application no.11177518.5 |
CatchwordSelections in two or more lists, see points 1.4 and 1.5 of the reasons |
|||||
KeywordsAmendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (yes) |
Application titlePharmaceutical preparation containing oxycodone and naloxone |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T303519.20210923 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 398 KB) |
|||
T 1713/20 () of 20.10.2021 | |||||
Online on27.10.2021 |
Board3.3.02 |
Decision date20.10.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC07D 499/00A61K 9/20 |
Application no.14758539.2 |
CatchwordThe 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). |
|||||
KeywordsSubstantial procedural violationRight to be heard Remittal Reimbursement of appeal fee |
Application titleMICRONIZED AMOXICILLIN |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T171320.20211020 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 494 KB) |
|||
T 0575/17 (Standard-Verfahren, Plausibilität) of 16.9.2021 | |||||
Online on21.10.2021 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date16.9.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCH05K 1/02H05K 1/14 H05K 1/05 |
Application no.08152756.6 |
Catchworda) 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) |
|||||
KeywordsAusreichende Offenbarung - (ja)Neuheit - (ja) Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (nein) |
Application titleIsoliertes Metallsubstrat mit einem metallenen Implantat |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T057517.20210916 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 480 KB) |
|||
T 0116/18 () of 11.10.2021 | |||||
Online on20.10.2021 |
Board3.3.02 |
Decision date11.10.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA01N 43/56A01N 51/00 |
Application no.12002626.5 |
Catchword
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of |
|||||
KeywordsGrounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosureNovelty 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 titleInsecticide compositions |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T011618.20211011 |
DistributionA |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 850 KB) |
T 1791/16 (Multispectral skin biometrics / HID 2) of 22.6.2021 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on21.09.2021 |
Board3.5.06 |
Decision date22.6.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06K 9/00 |
Application no.04758859.5 |
CatchwordIf 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). |
|||||
KeywordsGrounds 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 titleMULTISPECTRAL BIOMETRIC SENSOR |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T179116.20210622 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 344 KB) |
|||
T 0066/18 () of 18.6.2021 | |||||
Online on21.09.2021 |
Board3.2.04 |
Decision date18.6.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCA47J 37/07 |
Application no.13710782.7 |
CatchwordSiehe Entscheidungsgründe 4 |
|||||
KeywordsErfinderische Tätigkeit - (nein)Erfinderische Tätigkeit - naheliegende Alternative Kostenverteilung - (nein) Vorlage an die Große Beschwerdekammer - (nein) |
Application titleGRILL |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T006618.20210618 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 396 KB) |
|||
T 1598/18 (Multispectral skin imaging / HID 3) of 23.6.2021 | |||||
Online on21.09.2021 |
Board3.5.06 |
Decision date23.6.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06K 9/00 |
Application no.05857436.9 |
CatchwordA 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). |
|||||
KeywordsAmendments - added subject-matter (no)Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (yes) |
Application titleMULTISPECTRAL IMAGING BIOMETRICS |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T159818.20210623 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 343 KB) |
|||
T 1599/18 (Multispectral skin biometrics / HID 4) of 24.6.2021 | |||||
Online on21.09.2021 |
Board3.5.06 |
Decision date24.6.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06K 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. |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - (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 titleMultispectral imaging biometrics |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T159918.20210624 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 395 KB) |
|||
T 1569/17 (Kaffeezusammensetzung/SHAKHIN) of 15.7.2021 | |||||
Online on15.09.2021 |
Board3.3.09 |
Decision date15.7.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCA23F 5/00A23F 5/10 A23F 5/24 A23F 5/40 |
Application no.10820887.7 |
CatchwordZur 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). |
|||||
KeywordsErfinderische Tätigkeit - (nein)Änderung nach Ladung - berücksichtigt (nein) |
Application titleKAFFEEZUSAMMENSETZUNG 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 IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T156917.20210715 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 394 KB) |
|||
T 2147/16 () of 7.9.2021 | |||||
Online on10.09.2021 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date7.9.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06Q 10/10H04L 12/58 |
Application no.13194781.4 |
CatchwordThe 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. |
|||||
KeywordsInventive 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 titleSystem and method for detecting spam using clustering and rating of e-mails |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T214716.20210907 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 408 KB) |
|||
T 2058/18 (Predicting bending durability/YAZAKI) of 23.4.2021 | |||||
Online on10.09.2021 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date23.4.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 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); |
|||||
KeywordsAmendments - 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 titleMETHOD FOR PREDICTING BENDING DURABILITY OF ELECTRIC WIRE AND BEND PROTECTION MEMBER, AND APPARATUS AND RECORDING MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM THEREFOR |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T205818.20210423 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 558 KB) |
|||
T 0806/18 () of 8.7.2021 | |||||
Online on09.09.2021 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date8.7.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG09G 3/32G09G 5/14 |
Application no.14195097.2 |
CatchwordIn 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). |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - (yes)Reimbursement of additional search fee - (yes) |
Application titleOrganic light emitting diode display device and method of driving the same |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T080618.20210708 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 388 KB) |
T 1197/18 () of 26.7.2021 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on20.08.2021 |
Board3.2.05 |
Decision date26.7.2021 |
Proc. languageFR |
IPCB41M 3/14B41N 1/06 D21H 21/40 D21H 27/02 |
Application no.10709889.9 |
Catchword
Tenue de la procédure orale sous forme de visioconférence, |
|||||
KeywordsAjournement 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 titleElément de sécurité pour document-valeur |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T119718.20210726 |
DistributionC |
DecisionTexte de la décision en FR (PDF, 1 MB) |
|||
J 0001/20 () of 15.4.2021 | |||||
Online on09.08.2021 |
Board3.1.01 |
Decision date15.4.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCF03D 11/04F03D 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. |
|||||
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 titleDEVICE FOR ESTABLISHING ADMITTANCE AND TRANSPORT OF CARGO TO AND FROM A WIND TURBINE CONSTRUCTION ABOVE GROUND LEVEL |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:J000120.20210415 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 548 KB) |
|||
T 1870/16 (Synchronising PDCP operations I/HTC) of 13.7.2021 | |||||
Online on05.08.2021 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date13.7.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04W 76/02 |
Application no.12004151.2 |
Catchword
As to the application of the principle of |
|||||
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 titleMethods for synchronizing PDCP operations after RRC connection re-establishment in a wireless communication system and related apparatuses thereof |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T187016.20210713 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 395 KB) |
|||
T 1790/17 (Redesigning product or process parameters/PROCTER & GAMBLE) of 18.3.2021 | |||||
Online on04.08.2021 |
Board3.5.01 |
Decision date18.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06Q 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 |
|||||
KeywordsPatentable invention - redesigning a product based on user feedback (noPatentable 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 titleMethod for redesigning one or more product or process parameters of a manufactured article |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T179017.20210318 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 332 KB) |
T 2455/18 (Controlled release formulations/ALPHAPHARM) of 18.5.2021 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on30.07.2021 |
Board3.3.07 |
Decision date18.5.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 9/26A61K 9/20 A61K 9/28 A61K 9/16 |
Application no.07718791.2 |
Catchwordsee point 2.1.2 of the Reasons |
|||||
KeywordsMain 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 titleCONTROLLED RELEASE FORMULATIONS COMPRISING UNCOATED DISCRETE UNIT(S) AND AN EXTENDED RELEASE MATRIX |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T245518.20210518 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 525 KB) |
|||
T 2702/18 () of 24.6.2021 | |||||
Online on28.07.2021 |
Board3.2.01 |
Decision date24.6.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCB60R 19/00B62D 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. |
|||||
KeywordsNeuheit - offenkundige VorbenutzungNeuheit - stillschweigende Geheimhaltungsverpflichtung (nein) |
Application titleBaumaschine, insbesondere Straßenfertiger oder Beschicker |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T270218.20210624 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 342 KB) |
|||
T 1185/17 () of 1.6.2021 | |||||
Online on27.07.2021 |
Board3.2.06 |
Decision date1.6.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61F 13/15B32B 3/30 |
Application no.10169558.3 |
CatchwordSee 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. |
|||||
KeywordsAmendments - added subject-matter (yes)Late-filed auxiliary requests - justification for late filing (no) Late-filed auxiliary requests - diverging versions of claims |
Application titleFeminine hygiene article with printed pattern and embossed pattern |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T118517.20210601 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 362 KB) |
|||
T 2696/16 () of 8.6.2021 | |||||
Online on20.07.2021 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date8.6.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCH05K 13/04H01L 21/67 |
Application no.03701466.9 |
CatchwordDient 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). |
|||||
KeywordsSprache in der mündlichen Verhandlung - ÜbersetzungskostenSprache 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 titleCHIPENTNAHMEVORRICHTUNG, BESTÜCKSYSTEM UND VERFAHREN ZUM ENTNEHMEN VON CHIPS VON EINEM WAFER |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T269616.20210608 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 462 KB) |
|||
T 0222/21 (Virtual Machine Migration/MICROSOFT) of 8.7.2021 | |||||
Online on12.07.2021 |
Board3.5.06 |
Decision date8.7.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 9/455 |
Application no.11790209.8 |
CatchwordProper exercise of discretion under Rule 137(3) EPC in respect of amendments filed pursuant to Rule 71(6) EPC (no) |
|||||
Keywords- |
Application titleVIRTUAL MACHINE MIGRATION TECHNIQUES |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T022221.20210708 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 352 KB) |
T 2988/18 (Hyaluronic acid-based gels including lidocaine Hydrochloride/ALLERGAN … of 21.4.2021 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on30.06.2021 |
Board3.3.07 |
Decision date21.4.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 8/73A61L 27/20 A61K 47/36 |
Application no.09785850.0 |
CatchwordSee point 1.4 |
|||||
KeywordsAdmission of new arguments (Yes)All requests - Amendments (No) |
Application titleHYALURONIC ACID-BASED GELS INCLUDING LIDOCAINE HYDROCHLORIDE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T298818.20210421 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision 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 on29.06.2021 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date24.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 11/16G06F 11/00 |
Application no.09171333.9 |
CatchwordPlausible 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). |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - after amendmentInventive step - claim 1 (yes) |
Application titleMethod and systems for restarting a flight control system |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T208115.20210324 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 363 KB) |
|||
T 2773/18 () of 17.5.2021 | |||||
Online on29.06.2021 |
Board3.2.04 |
Decision date17.5.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCF03D 80/00 |
Application no.11180804.4 |
CatchwordReasons 3.2 on argument that claimed invention is insufficiently disclosed across whole breadth |
|||||
KeywordsSufficiency of disclosure - (yes)Novelty - (yes) Inventive step - (yes) |
Application titleWind turbine with tower climatisation system using outside air |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T277318.20210517 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 410 KB) |
|||
T 2431/19 (Partial search/HARMAN) of 24.6.2021 | |||||
Online on29.06.2021 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date24.6.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04L 29/12 |
Application no.14151069.3 |
CatchwordRule 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). |
|||||
KeywordsDecision 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 titleNetwork address management and functional object discovery system |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T243119.20210624 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 413 KB) |
|||
G 0004/19 (Double patenting) of 22.6.2021 | |||||
Online on22.06.2021 |
BoardEBA |
Decision date22.6.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 35/74A23L 1/30 A61P 37/08 A61P 1/12 |
Application no.10718590.2 |
Headnote
1. A European patent application can be refused under Articles 97(2) and 125 EPC if it claims the same subject-matter as a European patent which has been granted to the same applicant and does not form part of the state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) and (3) EPC. |
|||||
KeywordsAdmissibility 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 titlePREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF ALLERGIC DIARRHOEA |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:G000419.20210622 |
DistributionA |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 424 KB) |
|||
T 0256/19 (Own-voice signal processing/SONOVA) of 4.5.2021 | |||||
Online on22.06.2021 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date4.5.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04R 25/00 |
Application no.12794164.9 |
CatchwordRule 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). |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - 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 titleOwn voice shaping in a hearing instrument |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T025619.20210504 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 537 KB) |
|||
T 0041/16 () of 20.4.2021 | |||||
Online on18.06.2021 |
Board3.3.10 |
Decision date20.4.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCC09K 19/02C09K 19/30 G02F 1/13 C09K 19/12 C09K 19/44 |
Application no.10004670.5 |
CatchwordEin 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). |
|||||
KeywordsAusreichende Offenbarung - Hauptantrag (ja)Erfinderische Tätigkeit - unerwartete Verbesserung Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag (ja) |
Application titleFlüssigkristallines Medium |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T004116.20210420 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 430 KB) |
|||
T 2218/16 (Gene therapy of motor neuron disorders/BEZZUBOVA) of 12.3.2021 | |||||
Online on17.06.2021 |
Board3.3.08 |
Decision date12.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC12N 15/864A61K 48/00 |
Application no.08836776.8 |
CatchwordSufficiency of disclosure - burden of proof, Novelty - new clinical situation |
|||||
KeywordsAdmission of the main request - (yes)Admission of late filed arguments - (no) Requirements of the EPC met - (yes) |
Application titleWidespread gene delivery to motor neurons using peripheral injection of AAV vectors |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T221816.20210312 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 739 KB) |
|||
J 0014/19 () of 19.4.2021 | |||||
Online on14.06.2021 |
Board3.1.01 |
Decision date19.4.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCB29C45/14B29C45/37 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). |
|||||
KeywordsAussetzung des Erteilungsverfahrens (ja)Zeitpunkt der Rechtshängigkeit eines nationalen Verfahrens - Anwendung fremden Rechts (ja) Rechtsmissbräuchliches Verhalten (nein) Fortsetzung des Erteilungsverfahrens (nein) |
Application titleVERFAHREN ZUM HERSTELLEN VON GETRÄNKEKISTEN AUS KUNSTSTOFF |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:J001419.20210419 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 680 KB) |
T 1661/16 () of 26.4.2021 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on21.05.2021 |
Board3.2.06 |
Decision date26.4.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61F 13/15B65H 23/188 |
Application no.06733373.2 |
Catchwordsee Reasons 1.4.1 to 1.4.5 |
|||||
KeywordsClaims - 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 titleMETHOD AND ARRANGEMENT FOR DETECTION OF A SYCHRONIYING MARK BEING USED IN SYCHRONIYED POSITIONING OF AT LEAST ONE ESSENTIALLZ CONTINUOUS MATERIAL WEB |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T166116.20210426 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 391 KB) |
|||
T 1511/15 () of 27.4.2021 | |||||
Online on20.05.2021 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date27.4.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 17/60 |
Application no.03781901.8 |
CatchwordIn 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). |
|||||
KeywordsAmendments to main and first auxiliary requests - added subject-matter (yes)Late-filed second auxiliary request - admitted (no) |
Application titleMETHOD, APPARATUS AND INTERFACE FOR TRADING MULTIPLE TRADEABLE OBJECTS |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T151115.20210427 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 366 KB) |
|||
T 0247/20 () of 25.3.2021 | |||||
Online on20.05.2021 |
Board3.2.08 |
Decision date25.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61F 5/44A61F 5/445 |
Application no.13728310.7 |
CatchwordOral 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. |
|||||
KeywordsSpecific arguments presented at the oral proceedings - no amendment to appeal caseLate-filed document - admitted (yes) Novelty - main request (no) Novelty - auxiliary request (no) |
Application titleCOMFORT LAYER FOR A COLLECTING BAG |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T024720.20210325 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 417 KB) |
|||
R 0006/19 () of 26.2.2021 | |||||
Online on17.05.2021 |
BoardEBA |
Decision date26.2.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F19/00 |
Application no.00989280.3 |
CatchwordThe 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). |
|||||
KeywordsViolation of the right to be heard (No) |
Application titleMETHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PATIENT MONITORING WITH WIRELESS INTERNET CONNECTIVITY |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:R000619.20210226 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 354 KB) |
|||
T 1294/16 (Image data arrangement/OMRON) of 10.3.2021 | |||||
Online on14.05.2021 |
Board3.5.06 |
Decision date10.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06K 9/64G06T 7/00 |
Application no.06022645.3 |
Catchword
Selection of the "closest prior art": see point 5. |
|||||
KeywordsAdmittance 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 titleImage processing device, image processing method, program for the same, and computer readable recording medium recorded with program |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T129416.20210310 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 475 KB) |
|||
T 0364/18 () of 16.4.2021 | |||||
Online on10.05.2021 |
Board3.2.04 |
Decision date16.4.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCF04B 7/00F04B 49/22 F04B 49/24 F04B 53/10 F04B 49/06 F04B 17/02 |
Application no.12705171.2 |
CatchwordReasons 4 : Extent of scrutiny limited by principle of ne ultra petita |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - main request (no)Extent of opposition |
Application titleMETHOD OF CONTROLLING A HYDRAULIC MACHINE TO REDUCE TORQUE RIPPLE AND/OR BEARING SIDE LOAD |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T036418.20210416 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 375 KB) |
|||
T 2277/18 (Implantat/BRI TECH) of 10.2.2021 | |||||
Online on10.05.2021 |
Board3.3.05 |
Decision date10.2.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCC22C 23/00A61F 2/28 C22C 23/04 C22F 1/06 |
Application no.13187287.1 |
CatchwordDie 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). |
|||||
KeywordsHauptantrag - 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 titleImplantat für Patienten im Wachstum, Verfahren zu dessen Herstellung und Verwendung |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T227718.20210210 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 486 KB) |
|||
T 1756/16 () of 14.4.2021 | |||||
Online on06.05.2021 |
Board3.2.02 |
Decision date14.4.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCA61M 1/16G01J 3/42 G01N 21/33 |
Application no.09001890.4 |
CatchwordNeuer Einwand nach Zustellung der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung. Entscheidungsgründe,Punkte 3.5-3.10, insbesondere Punkt 3.9. |
|||||
KeywordsZulassung des Hauptantrags (ja)Zulassung von Einwänden (teilweise) Ausführbarkeit (ja) |
Application titleVorrichtung zur extrakorporalen Blutbehandlung |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T175616.20210414 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 412 KB) |
|||
T 2271/18 (Acoustic-feedback reduction/SIVANTOS) of 25.3.2021 | |||||
Online on03.05.2021 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date25.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04R 25/00H04R 3/02 |
Application no.12787518.5 |
CatchwordA 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). |
|||||
KeywordsClarity - 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 titleMethod and device for reducing acoustic feedback |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T227118.20210325 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 414 KB) |
G 0002/19 (Rechtliches Gehör und richtiger Verhandlungsort) of 16.7.2019 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on29.04.2021 |
BoardEBA |
Decision date16.7.2019 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCH04L29/06H04L29/08 H04W28/06 H04W80/00 H04W80/02 H04W80/04 H04W88/18 |
Application no.10182497.7 |
Catchword
1. Ein Dritter im Sinne von Artikel 115 EPÜ, der gegen die Entscheidung über die Erteilung eines europäischen Patents Beschwerde eingelegt hat, hat keinen Anspruch darauf, dass vor einer Beschwerdekammer des Europäischen Patentamtes mündlich über sein Begehren verhandelt wird, zur Beseitigung vermeintlich undeutlicher Patentansprüche (Artikel 84 EPÜ) des europäischen Patents den erneuten Eintritt in das Prüfungsverfahren anzuordnen. |
|||||
KeywordsAnspruch eines Dritten im Sinne von Artikel 115 EPÜ auf mündliche Verhandlung bei Beschwerde wegen Deutlichkeitsmängeln erteilter Patentansprüche - neinPrüfung der Zulässigkeitsgründe für eine Vorlage nach Artikel 112 (1) a) EPÜ durch die Große Beschwerdekammer Aufschiebende Wirkung der Beschwerde eines Dritten im Sinne von Artikel 115 EPÜ wegen Deutlichkeitsmängeln erteilter Patentansprüche nein Offensichtliche Unzulässigkeit eines Rechtsbehelfs liegt vor, wenn eine zur Rechtsmitteleinlegung nicht befugte Person (hier: Dritter im Sinne von Artikel 115 EPÜ) einen nach dem EPÜ nicht anerkannten Beschwerdegegenstand verfolgt (hier: Beseitigung von Deutlichkeitsmängeln des Patentanspruchs im Sinne von Artikel 84 EPÜ). Mündliche Beschwerdekammerverhandlungen in Haar - zulässig |
Application titleVerfahren zum Betreiben eines Mobilfunknetzes |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2019:G000219.20190716 |
DistributionA |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 126 KB) |
|||
G 0002/19 (Right to be heard and correct venue for oral proceedings) of 16.7.2019 | |||||
Online on29.04.2021 |
BoardEBA |
Decision date16.7.2019 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCH04L29/06H04L29/08 H04W28/06 H04W80/00 H04W80/02 H04W80/04 H04W88/18 |
Application no.10182497.7 |
Catchword
1. A third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC who has filed an appeal against a decision to grant a European patent has no right to have its request for an order that examination proceedings in respect of the European patent be reopened for the purpose of removing allegedly unclear claims (Article 84 EPC) heard at oral proceedings before a board of appeal of the European Patent Office. An appeal filed in such a way has no suspensive effect. |
|||||
KeywordsRight of a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC to oral proceedings on appeal against a lack of clarity in granted patent claims noExamination by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the grounds for admissibility of a referral under Article 112(1)(a) EPC Suspensive effect of an appeal filed by a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC against a lack of clarity in granted patent claims no A means of redress is clearly inadmissible where a person without standing to file an appeal (here: a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC) relies on a grievance not recognised under the EPC (here: a lack of clarity to be removed from the patent claims for the purposes of Article 84 EPC) Oral proceedings before the boards of appeal in Haar permissible |
Application title- |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2019:G000219.20190716 |
DistributionA |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 137 KB) |
|||
G 0002/19 (Droit d'être entendu et lieu approprié d'une procédure orale) of 16.7.2019 | |||||
Online on29.04.2021 |
BoardEBA |
Decision date16.7.2019 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCH04L29/06H04L29/08 H04W28/06 H04W80/00 H04W80/02 H04W80/04 H04W88/18 |
Application no.10182497.7 |
Catchword
1. Un tiers au sens de l'article 115 CBE, qui a formé un recours contre la décision de délivrer un brevet européen, n'a aucun droit à ce qu'une procédure orale ait lieu devant une chambre de recours de l'Office européen des brevets concernant sa demande de rouvrir la procédure d'examen afin de remédier à un prétendu manque de clarté des revendications du brevet européen (article 84 CBE). Un recours formé sur cette base n'a pas d'effet suspensif. |
|||||
KeywordsDroit d'un tiers au sens de l'article 115 CBE à la tenue d'une procédure orale en cas de recours pour manque de clarté des revendications d'un brevet délivré nonExamen, par la Grande Chambre de recours, des motifs de recevabilité d'une saisine au titre de l'article 112(1)a) CBE Effet suspensif du recours formé par un tiers au sens de l'article 115 CBE pour manque de clarté des revendications d'un brevet délivré non Irrecevabilité manifeste d'un moyen de recours moyen de recours manifestement irrecevable lorsqu'une personne non admise à exercer ledit moyen (en l'occurrence un tiers au sens de l'article 115 CBE) invoque un motif de recours non reconnu en vertu de la CBE (en l'occurrence le manque de clarté des revendications du brevet au sens de l'article 84 CBE) Procédures orales devant les chambres de recours peuvent avoir lieu à Haar |
Application title- |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2019:G000219.20190716 |
DistributionA |
DecisionTexte de la décision en FR (PDF, 152 KB) |
|||
T 2825/19 (Natural language to machine language translator/RAVENFLOW) of 19.3.2021 | |||||
Online on28.04.2021 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date19.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 17/27 |
Application no.02732949.9 |
Catchword
Assessment of technicality of programs for computers: "further technical considerations" in the sense of opinion |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - (no) |
Application titleComputer system with natural language to machine language translator |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T282519.20210319 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 412 KB) |
|||
G 0003/19 (Paprika (im Anschluss an "Tomate II" und "Broccoli II& … of 14.5.2020 | |||||
Online on26.04.2021 |
BoardEBA |
Decision date14.5.2020 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPC- |
Application no.- |
Headnote
Unter Berücksichtigung der Entwicklungen nach den Entscheidungen G 2/12 und G 2/13 der Großen Beschwerdekammer wirkt sich der Patentierbarkeitsausschluss von im Wesentlichen biologischen Verfahren zur Züchtung von Pflanzen oder Tieren in Artikel 53 b) EPÜ negativ auf die Gewährbarkeit von auf Pflanzen, Pflanzenmaterial oder Tiere gerichteten Erzeugnisansprüchen und Product-by-Process-Ansprüchen aus, wenn das beanspruchte Erzeugnis ausschließlich durch ein im Wesentlichen biologisches Verfahren gewonnen wird oder die beanspruchten Verfahrensmerkmale ein im Wesentlichen biologisches Verfahren definieren. |
|||||
Keywordsreferred point of law re-phrased yesadmissibility of referral by the President of the European Patent Office yes, after re-phrasing uniform application of the law - yes point of law of fundamental importance - yes different decisions by two Boards of Appeal yes application of Article 112(1)(b) EPC by analogy - no rules of interpretation hierachy of norms conflicting provisions - no of laws dynamic interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC yes impact of Rule 28(2) EPC on interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC yes exception to patentability of product claims or product-by-process claims directed to plants, plant material or animals, if the claimed product is exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process or if the claimed process features define an essentially biological process yes applicability of the exception to European patents granted before 1 July 2017 and pending European patent applications filed before that day no |
Application title- |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2020:G000319.20200514 |
DistributionA |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 1 MB) |
|||
G 0003/19 (Pepper (follow-up to Tomatoes II and Broccoli II)) of 14.5.2020 | |||||
Online on26.04.2021 |
BoardEBA |
Decision date14.5.2020 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPC- |
Application no.- |
Headnote
Taking into account developments after decisions G 2/12 and G 2/13 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the exception to patentability of essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals in Article 53(b) EPC has a negative effect on the allowability of product claims and product-by-process claims directed to plants, plant material or animals, if the claimed product is exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process or if the claimed process features define an essentially biological process. |
|||||
Keywordsreferred point of law re-phrased yesadmissibility of referral by the President of the European Patent Office yes, after re-phrasing uniform application of the law - yes point of law of fundamental importance - yes different decisions by two Boards of Appeal yes application of Article 112(1)(b) EPC by analogy - no rules of interpretation hierachy of norms conflicting provisions - no of laws dynamic interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC yes impact of Rule 28(2) EPC on interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC yes exception to patentability of product claims or product-by-process claims directed to plants, plant material or animals, if the claimed product is exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process or if the claimed process features define an essentially biological process yes applicability of the exception to European patents granted before 1 July 2017 and pending European patent applications filed before that day no |
Application title- |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2020:G000319.20200514 |
DistributionA |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 1 MB) |
|||
G 0003/19 (Poivron (faisant suite à "Tomate II" et "Brocoli II& … of 14.5.2020 | |||||
Online on26.04.2021 |
BoardEBA |
Decision date14.5.2020 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPC- |
Application no.- |
Headnote
Compte tenu des développements qui sont intervenus après les décisions G 2/12 et G 2/13 de la Grande Chambre de recours, l'exclusion de la brevetabilité des procédés essentiellement biologiques d'obtention de végétaux ou d'animaux prévue à l'article 53b) CBE a un effet négatif sur l'admissibilité des revendications de produit et des revendications de produits caractérisés par leur procédé d'obtention portant sur des végétaux, des matières végétales ou des animaux, si le produit revendiqué est obtenu exclusivement au moyen d'un procédé essentiellement biologique ou si les caractéristiques de procédé revendiquées définissent un procédé essentiellement biologique. |
|||||
KeywordsReformulation de la question de droit soumise ouiRecevabilité de la saisine par le Président de l'Office européen des brevets oui, après reformulation Application uniforme du droit oui Question de droit d'importance fondamentale oui Décisions divergentes rendues par deux chambres de recours oui Application de l'article 112(1)b) CBE par analogie non Règles d'interprétation Hiérarchie des normes Dispositions contradictoires non Interprétation dynamique de l'article 53b) CBE oui Incidence de la règle 28(2) CBE sur l'interprétation de l'article 53b) CBE" oui Exclusion de la brevetabilité des revendications de produit ou des revendications de produits caractérisés par leur procédé d'obtention portant sur des végétaux, des matières végétales ou des animaux, si le produit revendiqué est obtenu exclusivement au moyen d'un procédé essentiellement biologique ou si les caractéristiques de procédé revendiquées définissent un procédé essentiellement biologique oui Applicabilité de l'exclusion aux brevets européens délivrés avant le 1er juillet 2017 et aux demandes de brevet européen en instance déposées avant cette date non |
Application title- |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2020:G000319.20200514 |
DistributionA |
DecisionTexte de la décision en FR (PDF, 1 MB) |
|||
T 1787/16 (Verfahrenssprache) of 12.4.2021 | |||||
Online on26.04.2021 |
Board3.4.01 |
Decision date12.4.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCG01S 5/14H04R 25/00 |
Application no.06101317.3 |
Catchword
Die Entscheidungsbegründung gemäß R. 111(2) EPÜ muss zwar nicht alle Argumente der Parteien im Detail behandeln, doch muss zumindest auf die entscheidenden Streitpunkte eingegangen werden. Sie hat auf die maßgeblichen Tatsachen, Beweismittel und Argumente einzugehen und die logische Kette zu enthalten, die zur Bildung des abschließenden Urteils geführt hat. |
|||||
KeywordsSprachen des EPAEinheitlichkeit der Verfahrenssprache in der Entscheidung |
Application titleVerfahren zum Einstellen eines Hörhilfsgeräts, Hörhilfsgerät und mobile Ansteuereinheit zur Einstellung eines Hörhilfsgeräts |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T178716.20210412 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 407 KB) |
|||
T 0032/17 (Bispecific antibody/ DIASOURCE) of 2.7.2020 | |||||
Online on26.04.2021 |
Board3.3.04 |
Decision date2.7.2020 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC07K 16/26C07K 16/44 G01N 33/82 |
Application no.10189130.7 |
CatchwordThe deposit of a hybridoma under Rule 31 EPC for compliance with the disclosure requirement of Article 83 EPC does not in itself convey any technical information about the molecular structure of the monoclonal antibody produced by said hybridoma, such as its amino acid sequence (see points 5 to 17 of the Reasons). |
|||||
KeywordsMain request - novelty (no)Late-filed auxiliary requests 1 and 2 Late-filed auxiliary requests - admitted (no) Late-filed facts - admitted (no) Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no) Auxiliary request 3 - requirements of the EPC met (yes) |
Application titleProcess for the production of a hybridoma and antibody obtained therefrom, able to recognize more than one vitamin D metabolite. |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2020:T003217.20200702 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 528 KB) |
|||
T 0386/17 () of 25.3.2021 | |||||
Online on26.04.2021 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date25.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH01L 21/20 |
Application no.07017348.9 |
CatchwordA claimed feature that an angle has a magnitude of "more than 0 degrees" does not establish novelty over a prior art disclosure in which the corresponding angle is equal to 0 degrees, since the feature encompasses values closer to 0 degrees than the finite error margin to which the determination of the magnitude of the angle would always be subject, and such values would, in practice, be indistinguishable from 0 degrees (see Reasons, point 2.8, confirming T 594/01). |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - (no) |
Application titleEpitaxial silicon wafer and fabrication method thereof |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T038617.20210325 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 315 KB) |
|||
T 0852/18 () of 15.3.2021 | |||||
Online on23.04.2021 |
Board3.2.04 |
Decision date15.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA01K5/02 |
Application no.08741841.4 |
CatchwordReasons 8.6, 8.7 |
|||||
KeywordsAmendments - broadening of claim (yes)Inventive step - (no) |
Application titleFeeding system and method |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T085218.20210315 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 440 KB) |
|||
T 0879/18 () of 9.3.2021 | |||||
Online on23.04.2021 |
Board3.2.04 |
Decision date9.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA21B3/13A23G3/54 A23G3/34 A23G1/54 A23G1/00 |
Application no.11155965.4 |
CatchwordReasons 3 : incorrect exercise of discretion |
|||||
KeywordsLate submitted material - correct exercise of discretion (no)Late submitted material - request admitted Amendments - allowable (no) Amendments - intermediate generalisation |
Application titleFOOD PRODUCT WITH A MOULDED BODY |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T087918.20210309 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 407 KB) |
|||
T 0884/18 () of 29.1.2021 | |||||
Online on23.04.2021 |
Board3.2.04 |
Decision date29.1.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA63B21/002 |
Application no.06846239.9 |
CatchwordReasons 3, application of Art 13(2) RPBA 2020 |
|||||
KeywordsPriority - basis in priority document (no)Inventive step - (no) Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no) |
Application titleCOMBINATION GRIP FOR AN EXERCISE DEVICE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T088418.20210129 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 355 KB) |
|||
T 1839/18 () of 19.3.2021 | |||||
Online on20.04.2021 |
Board3.2.04 |
Decision date19.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA47J31/60A47J31/44 |
Application no.11702622.9 |
CatchwordReasons 2: admissibility of straw man oppositions |
|||||
KeywordsAdmissibility of opposition - (yes)Novelty - (no) Amendments - intermediate generalisation Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes) Inventive step - auxiliary request (yes) |
Application titleBEVERAGE DISPENSER WITH HYGIENIC CLEANING CYCLE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T183918.20210319 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 567 KB) |
|||
T 2348/19 (Missing signatures/QUALCOMM) of 13.4.2021 | |||||
Online on19.04.2021 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date13.4.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04W 52/52H03F 1/02 |
Application no.14704496.0 |
CatchwordIf a member of the department of first instance, who participated in the oral proceedings before that department, is unable to act at the time the reasoned decision is to be issued, for example due to death or a longer lasting illness, one of the other members may sign on behalf of the incapacitated member. However, in such a situation, a written explanation as to why one member is signing on behalf of another must be provided. In the absence of such an explanation, the contravention of Rule 113(1) EPC constitutes a substantial procedural violation (see points 1.3 and 1.4 of the Reasons). |
|||||
KeywordsDecision in written proceedings - (yes): no oral proceedings necessary or appropriateMissing signatures of opposition division's chair - substantial procedural violation (yes) Remittal - fundamental deficiency in first-instance proceedings (yes) Reimbursement of appeal fee - (yes) |
Application titlePower tracker for multiple transmit signals sent simultaneously |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T234819.20210413 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 437 KB) |
|||
T 1148/15 () of 20.1.2021 | |||||
Online on15.04.2021 |
Board3.5.04 |
Decision date20.1.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04N 5/00H04N 5/44 |
Application no.07004089.4 |
Catchwordsee sections 3 to 6 |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - problem and solution approachInventive 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 titleA protocol for control of network or bus attached cable TV set-top box front-end functionality |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T114815.20210120 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 627 KB) |
|||
T 0328/16 () of 2.2.2021 | |||||
Online on14.04.2021 |
Board3.2.07 |
Decision date2.2.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCD21F 11/00D21G 1/00 B31F 1/16 D21H 27/10 B65D 30/02 B31B 19/00 |
Application no.09169216.0 |
CatchwordZurückweisung 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) |
|||||
KeywordsNeuheit - (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 titleVerfahren zur Herstellung von Sackpapier, Sackpapier und Papiersack |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T032816.20210202 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 542 KB) |
|||
T 0488/18 () of 25.3.2021 | |||||
Online on12.04.2021 |
Board3.4.02 |
Decision date25.3.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCG01M3/32G01F23/00 |
Application no.11186605.9 |
CatchwordEine 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). |
|||||
KeywordsEntscheidung 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 titleLeckagesonde für einen doppelwandigen Tank |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T048818.20210325 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 623 KB) |
|||
T 0013/19 (Oral proceedings in absentia/JILDERDA) of 4.3.2021 | |||||
Online on06.04.2021 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date4.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04R 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 |
|||||
KeywordsOral proceedings - non-attendance of appellantAdded subject-matter - main and auxiliary requests (yes) Reimbursement of the appeal fee - (no): appeal not allowable and no procedural violation |
Application titleHearing aid, expansion unit and method for manufacturing a hearing aid |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T001319.20210304 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 347 KB) |
T 1707/17 () of 19.2.2021 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on30.03.2021 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date19.2.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH01J37/32 |
Application no.05794506.5 |
Catchword
Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 requires the party |
|||||
KeywordsAmendments of main and 1st auxiliary requestAmendments - allowable (no) Amendment after summons (2nd auxiliary request) Amendment after summons - taken into account (no) |
Application titleMATERIAL DEPOSITION APPARATUS AND METHOD |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T170717.20210219 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 334 KB) |
|||
T 1127/16 (Aircraft communication method/BOEING) of 18.2.2021 | |||||
Online on29.03.2021 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date18.2.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04B 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). |
|||||
KeywordsAdded subject-matter - main, 1st and 4th to 13th auxiliary requests (yes): unallowable limitationExtension 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 titleMulti-network aircraft communication systems and methods |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T112716.20210218 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 501 KB) |
|||
T 2475/16 () of 3.3.2021 | |||||
Online on29.03.2021 |
Board3.2.04 |
Decision date3.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA47J 31/06A47J 31/40 |
Application no.08709016.3 |
CatchwordReasons 3 |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - (yes)Inventive step - (yes) Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes) Late-filed auxiliary requests - admitted (yes) |
Application titleDEVICE FOR PREPARING A LIQUID BEVERAGE FROM A CARTRIDGE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T247516.20210303 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 404 KB) |
|||
T 2320/16 (Oral proceedings by videoconference) of 4.2.2021 | |||||
Online on24.03.2021 |
Board3.3.02 |
Decision date4.2.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC07D 215/54A61K 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 |
|||||
KeywordsOral proceedings - by videoconferenceInventive step - reasonable generalisation of the invention (yes) Inventive step - burden of proof |
Application titleSUBSTITUTED 3-CYANOQUINOLINES AS PROTEIN TYROSINE KINASES INHIBITORS |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T232016.20210204 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 766 KB) |
|||
T 0862/16 (Connection re-establishment/HTC) of 2.3.2021 | |||||
Online on22.03.2021 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date2.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04W76/02 |
Application no.12004150.4 |
CatchwordAs 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. |
|||||
KeywordsAdded 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 titleMethods for synchronizing PDCP operations after PRC connection re-establishment in a wireless communication system and related apparatuses thereof |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T086216.20210302 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 473 KB) |
|||
T 1950/16 () of 14.1.2021 | |||||
Online on19.03.2021 |
Board3.2.03 |
Decision date14.1.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCB21B1/22 |
Application no.07859801.8 |
CatchwordAn 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). |
|||||
KeywordsPrior 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 titleMETHOD OF TEMPER ROLLING OF STEEL STRIP AND PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING HIGH TENSILE COLD ROLLED STEEL SHEET |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T195016.20210114 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 365 KB) |
|||
T 2344/16 (Bestimmung der Streuparameter eines Mehrtor-Messobjekts - Rohde & … of 15.2.2021 | |||||
Online on18.03.2021 |
Board3.4.01 |
Decision date15.2.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCG01R35/00 |
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. |
|||||
KeywordsErfinderische 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 titleVERFAHREN ZUM MESSEN DER STREUPARAMETER EINES MEHRTOR-MESSOBJEKTES MITTELS EINES MEHRTOR-NETZWERKANALYSATORS MIT NICHTSINUSFOERMIGEN MESSSIGNALEN |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T234416.20210215 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 393 KB) |
|||
T 0734/18 () of 15.1.2021 | |||||
Online on18.03.2021 |
Board3.2.04 |
Decision date15.1.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA47J31/46A47J31/44 |
Application no.10701110.8 |
CatchwordReasons 4 - witness testimony - applicable standard of proof |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - main request (no)Novelty - public prior use Novelty - burden of proof Evaluation of evidence - credibility of witness Inventive step - auxiliary request (yes) |
Application titlePUMP MOUNT IN A BEVERAGE PREPARATION MACHINE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T073418.20210115 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 459 KB) |
|||
T 1807/15 (Oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference) of 12.3.2021 | |||||
Online on17.03.2021 |
Board3.5.02 |
Decision date12.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH03F 1/02 |
Application no.04758381.0 |
Catchword
The following question is referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision: |
|||||
KeywordsReferral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - point of law of fundamental importanceOral proceedings - format Oral proceedings - videoconference Oral proceedings - right to be heard in oral proceedings Right to in-person oral proceedings |
Application titleDoherty Amplifier with Output Hybrid Coupler |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T180715.20210312 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 553 KB) |
|||
T 0755/18 (Semi-automatic answering/3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES) of 11.12.2020 | |||||
Online on16.03.2021 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date11.12.2020 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F17/30G06F9/44 |
Application no.11827611.2 |
CatchwordIf 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 |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - mixture of technical and non-technical features |
Application titleUser feedback in semi-automatic question answering systems |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2020:T075518.20201211 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 392 KB) |
|||
T 1472/14 (Verwendung anthropometrischer Daten zur Produktherstellung) of 19.1.2021 | |||||
Online on15.03.2021 |
Board3.5.01 |
Decision date19.1.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCG06Q30/00 |
Application no.10721658.2 |
CatchwordWas 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). |
|||||
KeywordsErfinderische Tätigkeit - Mischung technischer und nichttechnischer MerkmaleErfinderische Tätigkeit - allgemeines Fachwissen - alle Anträge (nein) |
Application titleVORRICHTUNG UND VERFAHREN ZUR PRODUKTOPTIMIERUNG AUF BASIS NATIONALER UND INTERNATIONALER REIHENMESSUNGSDATEN |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T147214.20210119 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 337 KB) |
|||
G 0001/19 (Pedestrian simulation) of 10.3.2021 | |||||
Online on11.03.2021 |
BoardEBA |
Decision date10.3.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 17/50 |
Application no.03793825.5 |
Headnote
A computer-implemented simulation of a technical system or process that is claimed as such can, for the purpose of assessing inventive step, solve a technical problem by producing a technical effect going beyond the simulation's implementation on a computer. |
|||||
KeywordsAdmissibility of referral - (yes)Transitional provisions of the EPC 2000 Patentability of computer-implemented simulations |
Application titleSIMULATION OF THE MOVEMENT OF AN AUTONOMOUS ENTITY THROUGH AN ENVIRONMENT |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:G000119.20210310 |
DistributionA |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 533 KB) |
|||
T 1099/16 () of 11.12.2020 | |||||
Online on11.03.2021 |
Board3.2.06 |
Decision date11.12.2020 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCD07B1/16C08J5/10 |
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). |
|||||
KeywordsGrounds for opposition - Inventive stepGrounds 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 titleUse 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 IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2020:T109916.20201211 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 571 KB) |
|||
T 0772/18 (Erfassen einer Bewegungscharakteristik eines Fahrzeugs/TELEKOM) of 26.2.2021 | |||||
Online on10.03.2021 |
Board3.5.01 |
Decision date26.2.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCG06Q30/06G07C5/00 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 |
|||||
KeywordsErfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag und Hilfsanträge (nein) |
Application titleVerfahren zum Erfassen einer Bewegungscharakteristik eines Fahrzeugs |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T077218.20210226 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 330 KB) |
|||
T 2486/16 () of 12.1.2021 | |||||
Online on09.03.2021 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date12.1.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG07C5/00G06F21/24 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). |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - main request (yes)Inventive step - main request (no) Inventive step - mixture of technical and non-technical features Late-filed auxiliary requests - admitted (no) |
Application titleRECORDING AND REPORTING OF DRIVING CHARACTERISTICS WITH PRIVACY PROTECTION |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T248616.20210112 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 469 KB) |
|||
T 1338/18 () of 15.1.2021 | |||||
Online on09.03.2021 |
Board3.3.03 |
Decision date15.1.2021 |
Proc. languageFR |
IPCC08K3/04 |
Application no.09797081.8 |
CatchwordLa 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). |
|||||
KeywordsRequête principale et première requête subsidiaire - Nouveauté de l'utilisation (non) - But défini n'est pas une caractéritique d'ordre fonctionnelPremière et deuxième requête subsidiaire - admises à la procédure Deuxième requête subisidiaire - Renvoi à la première instance |
Application titleUTILISATION D'UN GRAPHITE EXPANSE DANS UN MATERIAU POLYMERE. |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T133818.20210115 |
DistributionC |
DecisionTexte de la décision en FR (PDF, 509 KB) |
|||
T 0377/95 (Herpes-simplex-Virus) of 5.8.1998 | |||||
Online on08.03.2021 |
Board3.3.04 |
Decision date5.8.1998 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 39/245 |
Application no.83901021.2 |
Headnote
Der Großen Beschwerdekammer wird folgende Rechtsfrage vorgelegt: |
|||||
KeywordsMißbrauchNeuheitsschonfrist Prioritätstag Geltungsbereich des Artikels 55 (1) EPÜ Befassung der Großen Beschwerdekammer |
Application titleMATERIAL UND VERFAHREN FÜR HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUSIMPFUNG |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:1998:T037795.19980805 |
DistributionA |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 71 KB) |
|||
T 0377/95 (Herpes simplex virus) of 5.8.1998 | |||||
Online on08.03.2021 |
Board3.3.04 |
Decision date5.8.1998 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 39/245 |
Application no.83901021.2 |
Headnote
The following question is referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal: |
|||||
KeywordsAbusePeriod of grace Priority date Scope of Article 55(1) EPC Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal |
Application titleMATERIALS AND METHODS FOR HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS VACCINATION |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:1998:T037795.19980805 |
DistributionA |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 65 KB) |
|||
T 0377/95 (Herpes simplex virus/UNIVERSITY PATENTS, Inc.) of 5.8.1998 | |||||
Online on08.03.2021 |
Board3.3.04 |
Decision date5.8.1998 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 39/245 |
Application no.83901021.2 |
Headnote
The following question is referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal: |
|||||
KeywordsAbusePeriod of grace Priority date Scope of Article 55(1) EPC Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal |
Application titleMaterials and methods for herpes simplex virus vaccination |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:1998:T037795.19980805 |
DistributionA |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 1 MB) |
|||
T 0377/95 (Virus herpes simplex) of 5.8.1998 | |||||
Online on08.03.2021 |
Board3.3.04 |
Decision date5.8.1998 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 39/245 |
Application no.83901021.2 |
Headnote
La question suivante est soumise à la Grande Chambre de recours : |
|||||
KeywordsAbusDélai de grâce Date de priorité Champ d'application de l'article 55(1) CBE Saisine de la Grande Chambre de recours |
Application titleMATERIAUX ET PROCEDES DE VACCINATION CONTRE LE VIRUS D'HERPES SIMPLEX |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:1998:T037795.19980805 |
DistributionA |
DecisionTexte de la décision en FR (PDF, 58 KB) |
|||
T 0996/18 (Verbundscheibe/Schott AG) of 21.1.2021 | |||||
Online on02.03.2021 |
Board3.3.06 |
Decision date21.1.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCB32B17/10 |
Application no.11183946.0 |
CatchwordFür 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). |
|||||
KeywordsNeuheit - (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 titleVerbundscheibe |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T099618.20210121 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 506 KB) |
|||
T 2015/20 (Aclidinium for treatment of asthma/ALMIRALL) of 23.2.2021 | |||||
Online on02.03.2021 |
Board3.3.07 |
Decision date23.2.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K9/14A61K9/72 A61K31/46 A61K45/06 A61K9/00 |
Application no.15173011.6 |
CatchwordClaims 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). |
|||||
KeywordsSufficiency of disclosure - (yes)Inventive step - (yes) |
Application titleINHALATION COMPOSITION CONTAINING ACLIDINIUM FOR TREATMENT OF ASTHMA |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T201520.20210223 |
DistributionB |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 416 KB) |
T 0615/17 (Equipement mobile pour accéder au web/ALLANI) of 11.11.2020 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on16.02.2021 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date11.11.2020 |
Proc. languageFR |
IPCG06F17/30 |
Application no.10003146.7 |
CatchwordLa 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). |
|||||
KeywordsRequête principale, première, seconde et quatrième requêtes subsidiaires produites tardivement (peu avant ou pendant la procédure orale) - requêtes non admisesActivité inventive - troisième requête subsidiaire (non) |
Application titleProcédé et dispositif pour accéder à des sources d'information et services sur le web |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2020:T061517.20201111 |
DistributionD |
DecisionTexte de la décision en FR (PDF, 471 KB) |
|||
J 0010/20 () of 22.1.2021 | |||||
Online on10.02.2021 |
Board3.1.01 |
Decision date22.1.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA23J7/00C07F9/10 |
Application no.16874169.2 |
CatchwordIf 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). |
|||||
KeywordsExtension of periods - COVID-19 pandemic - Notice from the EPOProtection 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 titleINDUSTRIAL METHOD FOR RECOVERING PHOSPHOLIPIDS AND PRODUCING LECITHIN FROM A RESIDUE FROM THE PRODUCTION OF SOY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE (SPC) |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:J001020.20210122 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 358 KB) |
|||
T 0353/18 () of 11.11.2020 | |||||
Online on01.02.2021 |
Board3.3.03 |
Decision date11.11.2020 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC08L27/06C09D127/06 B05D7/22 C08L61/06 |
Application no.06828984.2 |
CatchwordDiscrepancies 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) |
|||||
KeywordsAmendments - 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 titleBADGE- AND BPA-FREE CAN COATING |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2020:T035318.20201111 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 564 KB) |
T 1370/15 () of 25.1.2021 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on29.01.2021 |
Board3.5.04 |
Decision date25.1.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04N5/445H04N5/50 H04N5/46 |
Application no.09168309.4 |
CatchwordNot 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) |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - 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 titleBroadcast processing apparatus and control method thereof |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T137015.20210125 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 658 KB) |
|||
T 1895/17 (Ring-shaped microphone indicator/Bosch) of 8.12.2020 | |||||
Online on25.01.2021 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date8.12.2020 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04R27/00 |
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 |
|||||
KeywordsOral proceedings before the board: held by videoconference upon requestInventive step - all requests (no): mixture of technical and non-technical features Inventive step - presentation of information |
Application titleConference system |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2020:T189517.20201208 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 430 KB) |
|||
T 0966/17 () of 30.10.2020 | |||||
Online on13.01.2021 |
Board3.2.01 |
Decision date30.10.2020 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCE01C19/48 |
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). |
|||||
KeywordsNeuheit - Hauptantrag (nein)Schwerwiegender Verfahrensmangel - (nein) Ermessen bei Zulassung neuer Anträge (ja) |
Application titleStrassenfertiger mit steuerbaren Fördereinrichtungen |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2020:T096617.20201030 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 426 KB) |
|||
T 1187/16 () of 13.7.2020 | |||||
Online on11.01.2021 |
Board3.5.02 |
Decision date13.7.2020 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCG08B25/04G08B25/00 |
Application no.08803225.5 |
CatchwordFalls 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). |
|||||
KeywordsÄnderungen Hauptantrag und Hilfsanträge 1 bis 3Änderungen - zulässig (nein) Hilfsantrag - keine außergewöhnlichen Umstände - in das Beschwerdeverfahren zugelassen (nein) |
Application titleTrennvorrichtung mit Energiespeicher für energieführende elektrische Leitung |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2020:T118716.20200713 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 399 KB) |