Selected decisions in 2021

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Reasons 8.6, 8.7

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Reasons 3 : incorrect exercise of discretion

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Reasons 3, application of Art 13(2) RPBA 2020

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Reasons 2: admissibility of straw man oppositions

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

If 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).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

see sections 3 to 6

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Reasons 3

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Reasons 4 - witness testimony - applicable standard of proof

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

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

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision