Selected decisions in 2021

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.

Available months in 2021

April 2021

T 0852/18 () of 15.3.2021

Online on

23.04.2021

Board

3.2.04

Decision date

15.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A01K5/02

Application no.

08741841.4

Catchword

Reasons 8.6, 8.7

Keywords

Amendments - broadening of claim (yes)
Inventive step - (no)

Application title

Feeding system and method

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T085218.20210315

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 440 KB)
T 0879/18 () of 9.3.2021

Online on

23.04.2021

Board

3.2.04

Decision date

9.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A21B3/13
A23G3/54
A23G3/34
A23G1/54
A23G1/00

Application no.

11155965.4

Catchword

Reasons 3 : incorrect exercise of discretion

Keywords

Late submitted material - correct exercise of discretion (no)
Late submitted material - request admitted
Amendments - allowable (no)
Amendments - intermediate generalisation

Application title

FOOD PRODUCT WITH A MOULDED BODY

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T087918.20210309

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 407 KB)
T 0884/18 () of 29.1.2021

Online on

23.04.2021

Board

3.2.04

Decision date

29.1.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A63B21/002

Application no.

06846239.9

Catchword

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

Keywords

Priority - basis in priority document (no)
Inventive step - (no)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)

Application title

COMBINATION GRIP FOR AN EXERCISE DEVICE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T088418.20210129

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 355 KB)
T 1839/18 () of 19.3.2021

Online on

20.04.2021

Board

3.2.04

Decision date

19.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A47J31/60
A47J31/44

Application no.

11702622.9

Catchword

Reasons 2: admissibility of straw man oppositions

Keywords

Admissibility of opposition - (yes)
Novelty - (no)
Amendments - intermediate generalisation
Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Inventive step - auxiliary request (yes)

Application title

BEVERAGE DISPENSER WITH HYGIENIC CLEANING CYCLE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T183918.20210319

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 567 KB)
T 2348/19 (Missing signatures/QUALCOMM) of 13.4.2021

Online on

19.04.2021

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

13.4.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04W 52/52
H03F 1/02

Application no.

14704496.0

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

Decision in written proceedings - (yes): no oral proceedings necessary or appropriate
Missing signatures of opposition division's chair - substantial procedural violation (yes)
Remittal - fundamental deficiency in first-instance proceedings (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - (yes)

Application title

Power tracker for multiple transmit signals sent simultaneously

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T234819.20210413

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 437 KB)
T 1148/15 () of 20.1.2021

Online on

15.04.2021

Board

3.5.04

Decision date

20.1.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04N 5/00
H04N 5/44

Application no.

07004089.4

Catchword

see sections 3 to 6

Keywords

Inventive step - problem and solution approach
Inventive 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 title

A protocol for control of network or bus attached cable TV set-top box front-end functionality

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T114815.20210120

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 627 KB)
T 0328/16 () of 2.2.2021

Online on

14.04.2021

Board

3.2.07

Decision date

2.2.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

D21F 11/00
D21G 1/00
B31F 1/16
D21H 27/10
B65D 30/02
B31B 19/00

Application no.

09169216.0

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

Neuheit - (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 title

Verfahren zur Herstellung von Sackpapier, Sackpapier und Papiersack

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T032816.20210202

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 542 KB)
T 0488/18 () of 25.3.2021

Online on

12.04.2021

Board

3.4.02

Decision date

25.3.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

G01M3/32
G01F23/00

Application no.

11186605.9

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

Entscheidung 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 title

Leckagesonde für einen doppelwandigen Tank

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T048818.20210325

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 623 KB)
T 0013/19 (Oral proceedings in absentia/JILDERDA) of 4.3.2021

Online on

06.04.2021

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

4.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04R 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
1.3 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Oral proceedings - non-attendance of appellant
Added subject-matter - main and auxiliary requests (yes)
Reimbursement of the appeal fee - (no): appeal not allowable and no procedural violation

Application title

Hearing aid, expansion unit and method for manufacturing a hearing aid

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T001319.20210304

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 347 KB)

March 2021

T 1707/17 () of 19.2.2021

Online on

30.03.2021

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

19.2.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H01J37/32

Application no.

05794506.5

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

Amendments of main and 1st auxiliary request
Amendments - allowable (no)
Amendment after summons (2nd auxiliary request)
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)

Application title

MATERIAL DEPOSITION APPARATUS AND METHOD

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T170717.20210219

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 334 KB)
T 1127/16 (Aircraft communication method/BOEING) of 18.2.2021

Online on

29.03.2021

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

18.2.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04B 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).
(2) As to the issue of an "inescapable trap", see point 4 of the Reasons.

Keywords

Added subject-matter - main, 1st and 4th to 13th auxiliary requests (yes): unallowable limitation
Extension 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 title

Multi-network aircraft communication systems and methods

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T112716.20210218

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 501 KB)
T 2475/16 () of 3.3.2021

Online on

29.03.2021

Board

3.2.04

Decision date

3.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A47J 31/06
A47J 31/40

Application no.

08709016.3

Catchword

Reasons 3

Keywords

Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes)
Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Late-filed auxiliary requests - admitted (yes)

Application title

DEVICE FOR PREPARING A LIQUID BEVERAGE FROM A CARTRIDGE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T247516.20210303

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 404 KB)
T 2320/16 (Oral proceedings by videoconference) of 4.2.2021

Online on

24.03.2021

Board

3.3.02

Decision date

4.2.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C07D 215/54
A61K 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
Article 116 EPC
(Reasons, 1)

Keywords

Oral proceedings - by videoconference
Inventive step - reasonable generalisation of the invention (yes)
Inventive step - burden of proof

Application title

SUBSTITUTED 3-CYANOQUINOLINES AS PROTEIN TYROSINE KINASES INHIBITORS

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T232016.20210204

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 766 KB)
T 0862/16 (Connection re-establishment/HTC) of 2.3.2021

Online on

22.03.2021

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

2.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04W76/02

Application no.

12004150.4

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

Added 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 title

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

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T086216.20210302

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 473 KB)
T 1950/16 () of 14.1.2021

Online on

19.03.2021

Board

3.2.03

Decision date

14.1.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

B21B1/22

Application no.

07859801.8

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

Prior 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 title

METHOD OF TEMPER ROLLING OF STEEL STRIP AND PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING HIGH TENSILE COLD ROLLED STEEL SHEET

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T195016.20210114

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 365 KB)
T 2344/16 (Bestimmung der Streuparameter eines Mehrtor-Messobjekts - Rohde & … of 15.2.2021

Online on

18.03.2021

Board

3.4.01

Decision date

15.2.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

G01R35/00

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.
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

Erfinderische 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 title

VERFAHREN ZUM MESSEN DER STREUPARAMETER EINES MEHRTOR-MESSOBJEKTES MITTELS EINES MEHRTOR-NETZWERKANALYSATORS MIT NICHTSINUSFOERMIGEN MESSSIGNALEN

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T234416.20210215

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 393 KB)
T 0734/18 () of 15.1.2021

Online on

18.03.2021

Board

3.2.04

Decision date

15.1.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A47J31/46
A47J31/44

Application no.

10701110.8

Catchword

Reasons 4 - witness testimony - applicable standard of proof

Keywords

Novelty - main request (no)
Novelty - public prior use
Novelty - burden of proof
Evaluation of evidence - credibility of witness
Inventive step - auxiliary request (yes)

Application title

PUMP MOUNT IN A BEVERAGE PREPARATION MACHINE

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T073418.20210115

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 459 KB)
T 1807/15 (Oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference) of 12.3.2021

Online on

17.03.2021

Board

3.5.02

Decision date

12.3.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H03F1/02

Application no.

04758381.0

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

Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - point of law of fundamental importance
Oral proceedings - format
Oral proceedings - videoconference
Oral proceedings - right to be heard in oral proceedings
Right to in-person oral proceedings

Application title

Doherty Amplifier with Output Hybrid Coupler

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T180715.20210312

Distribution

A

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 553 KB)
T 0755/18 (Semi-automatic answering/3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES) of 11.12.2020

Online on

16.03.2021

Board

3.5.07

Decision date

11.12.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G06F17/30
G06F9/44

Application no.

11827611.2

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

Inventive step - mixture of technical and non-technical features

Application title

User feedback in semi-automatic question answering systems

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T075518.20201211

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 392 KB)
T 1472/14 (Verwendung anthropometrischer Daten zur Produktherstellung) of 19.1.2021

Online on

15.03.2021

Board

3.5.01

Decision date

19.1.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

G06Q30/00

Application no.

10721658.2

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

Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Mischung technischer und nichttechnischer Merkmale
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - allgemeines Fachwissen - alle Anträge (nein)

Application title

VORRICHTUNG UND VERFAHREN ZUR PRODUKTOPTIMIERUNG AUF BASIS NATIONALER UND INTERNATIONALER REIHENMESSUNGSDATEN

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T147214.20210119

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 337 KB)
T 1099/16 () of 11.12.2020

Online on

11.03.2021

Board

3.2.06

Decision date

11.12.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

D07B1/16
C08J5/10

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).
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

Grounds for opposition - Inventive step
Grounds 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 title

Use 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 Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T109916.20201211

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 571 KB)
T 0772/18 (Erfassen einer Bewegungscharakteristik eines Fahrzeugs/TELEKOM) of 26.2.2021

Online on

10.03.2021

Board

3.5.01

Decision date

26.2.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

G06Q30/06
G07C5/00
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
(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

Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag und Hilfsanträge (nein)

Application title

Verfahren zum Erfassen einer Bewegungscharakteristik eines Fahrzeugs

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T077218.20210226

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 330 KB)
T 2486/16 () of 12.1.2021

Online on

09.03.2021

Board

3.4.03

Decision date

12.1.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

G07C5/00
G06F21/24
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).
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

Novelty - main request (yes)
Inventive step - main request (no)
Inventive step - mixture of technical and non-technical features
Late-filed auxiliary requests - admitted (no)

Application title

RECORDING AND REPORTING OF DRIVING CHARACTERISTICS WITH PRIVACY PROTECTION

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T248616.20210112

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 469 KB)
T 1338/18 () of 15.1.2021

Online on

09.03.2021

Board

3.3.03

Decision date

15.1.2021

Proc. language

FR

IPC

C08K3/04

Application no.

09797081.8

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

Requête principale et première requête subsidiaire - Nouveauté de l'utilisation (non) - But défini n'est pas une caractéritique d'ordre fonctionnel
Première et deuxième requête subsidiaire - admises à la procédure
Deuxième requête subisidiaire - Renvoi à la première instance

Application title

UTILISATION D'UN GRAPHITE EXPANSE DANS UN MATERIAU POLYMERE.

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T133818.20210115

Distribution

C

Decision

Texte de la décision en FR (PDF, 509 KB)
T 0996/18 (Verbundscheibe/Schott AG) of 21.1.2021

Online on

02.03.2021

Board

3.3.06

Decision date

21.1.2021

Proc. language

DE

IPC

B32B17/10

Application no.

11183946.0

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

Neuheit - (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 title

Verbundscheibe

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T099618.20210121

Distribution

D

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 506 KB)
T 2015/20 (Aclidinium for treatment of asthma/ALMIRALL) of 23.2.2021

Online on

02.03.2021

Board

3.3.07

Decision date

23.2.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A61K9/14
A61K9/72
A61K31/46
A61K45/06
A61K9/00

Application no.

15173011.6

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

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

Application title

INHALATION COMPOSITION CONTAINING ACLIDINIUM FOR TREATMENT OF ASTHMA

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T201520.20210223

Distribution

B

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 416 KB)

February 2021

T 0615/17 (Equipement mobile pour accéder au web/ALLANI) of 11.11.2020

Online on

16.02.2021

Board

3.5.07

Decision date

11.11.2020

Proc. language

FR

IPC

G06F17/30

Application no.

10003146.7

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

Requête principale, première, seconde et quatrième requêtes subsidiaires produites tardivement (peu avant ou pendant la procédure orale) - requêtes non admises
Activité inventive - troisième requête subsidiaire (non)

Application title

Procédé et dispositif pour accéder à des sources d'information et services sur le web

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T061517.20201111

Distribution

D

Decision

Texte de la décision en FR (PDF, 471 KB)
J 0010/20 () of 22.1.2021

Online on

10.02.2021

Board

3.1.01

Decision date

22.1.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

A23J7/00
C07F9/10

Application no.

16874169.2

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

Extension of periods - COVID-19 pandemic - Notice from the EPO
Protection 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 title

INDUSTRIAL METHOD FOR RECOVERING PHOSPHOLIPIDS AND PRODUCING LECITHIN FROM A RESIDUE FROM THE PRODUCTION OF SOY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE (SPC)

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:J001020.20210122

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 358 KB)
T 0353/18 () of 11.11.2020

Online on

01.02.2021

Board

3.3.03

Decision date

11.11.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

C08L27/06
C09D127/06
B05D7/22
C08L61/06

Application no.

06828984.2

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

Amendments - 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 title

BADGE- AND BPA-FREE CAN COATING

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T035318.20201111

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 564 KB)

January 2021

T 1370/15 () of 25.1.2021

Online on

29.01.2021

Board

3.5.04

Decision date

25.1.2021

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04N5/445
H04N5/50
H04N5/46

Application no.

09168309.4

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

Novelty - 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 title

Broadcast processing apparatus and control method thereof

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T137015.20210125

Distribution

C

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 658 KB)
T 1895/17 (Ring-shaped microphone indicator/Bosch) of 8.12.2020

Online on

25.01.2021

Board

3.5.03

Decision date

8.12.2020

Proc. language

EN

IPC

H04R27/00

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
technical
effect (see points 4.4.2 to 4.4.4 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Oral proceedings before the board: held by videoconference upon request
Inventive step - all requests (no): mixture of technical and non-technical features
Inventive step - presentation of information

Application title

Conference system

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T189517.20201208

Distribution

D

Decision

Decision text in EN (PDF, 430 KB)
T 0966/17 () of 30.10.2020

Online on

13.01.2021

Board

3.2.01

Decision date

30.10.2020

Proc. language

DE

IPC

E01C19/48

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).
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

Neuheit - Hauptantrag (nein)
Schwerwiegender Verfahrensmangel - (nein)
Ermessen bei Zulassung neuer Anträge (ja)

Application title

Strassenfertiger mit steuerbaren Fördereinrichtungen

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T096617.20201030

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 426 KB)
T 1187/16 () of 13.7.2020

Online on

11.01.2021

Board

3.5.02

Decision date

13.7.2020

Proc. language

DE

IPC

G08B25/04
G08B25/00

Application no.

08803225.5

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

Änderungen Hauptantrag und Hilfsanträge 1 bis 3
Änderungen - zulässig (nein)
Hilfsantrag - keine außergewöhnlichen Umstände - in das Beschwerdeverfahren zugelassen (nein)

Application title

Trennvorrichtung mit Energiespeicher für energieführende elektrische Leitung

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T118716.20200713

Distribution

C

Decision

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 399 KB)

Quick Navigation