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.
T 1473/19 () of 30.9.2022 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on23.12.2022 |
Board3.2.02 |
Decision date30.9.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61B6/00H01F38/18 H04B5/00 |
Application no.11749363.5 |
Catchword
1.) Article 69 EPC in conjunction with Article 1 of the Protocol thereto can and should be relied on when interpreting claims and determining the claimed subject-matter in proceedings before the EPO, including for the purpose of assessing compliance with Article 123(2) EPC (Reasons 3.1-3.15). |
|||||
KeywordsNew evidence filed on appeal - admitted (yes)Amendments - added subject-matter (yes) Amendments - inescapable trap (yes) Correction of error - (no) |
Application titleCONTACTLESS ROTARY JOINT |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T147319.20220930 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 521 KB) |
|||
T 2599/19 () of 14.11.2022 | |||||
Online on23.12.2022 |
Board3.4.02 |
Decision date14.11.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG01F 1/84 |
Application no.07871714.7 |
CatchwordSince the initial main request, filed for the first time with the statement of grounds of appeal, would not have been admitted under Article 12(4) RPBA 2007, the objections raised by the board in the communication annexed to the summons to oral proceedings against this initial main request are of a hypothetical nature and do not establish exceptional circumstances referred to in Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 which could justify amending the applicant's appeal case. |
|||||
KeywordsAdmittance of main and sole request (no) - exceptional circumstances (no) |
Application titleA VIBRATING FLOW DEVICE AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING A VIBRATING FLOW DEVICE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T259919.20221114 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 335 KB) |
|||
T 1158/17 (Routing electronic message/ESCHER GROUP) of 12.12.2022 | |||||
Online on16.12.2022 |
Board3.5.01 |
Decision date12.12.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06Q 10/00G06Q 50/00 |
Application no.09783613.4 |
Catchword
A similarity [of the claimed subject-matter] to a business or administrative solution is not a sufficient reason for denying a technical contribution of a claim feature applied in a technical context and involving technical considerations. Put another way, technical considerations in the technical context cannot be negated merely on the basis of a non-technical analogy. |
|||||
KeywordsTechnical contribution - routing an electronic message and ensuring its integrity (yes - no mere automation of an administrative scheme)Remittal to the department of first instance (yes) |
Application titleELECTRONIC BUSINESS POSTAL SYSTEM |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T115817.20221212 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 414 KB) |
|||
T 0714/20 (Pedestrian detection/HITACHI) of 1.12.2022 | |||||
Online on14.12.2022 |
Board3.5.06 |
Decision date1.12.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06K 9/00G06T 7/00 B60R 1/00 G08G 1/16 H04N 5/235 H04N 7/18 |
Application no.14757497.4 |
CatchwordThe principles expressed in Article 12(6) RPBA 2020 for the admittance of non-maintained or non-admitted requests may be considered in the exercise of discretion to admit amendments based on such requests under Article 12(4) RPBA 2020. |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - auxiliary request (no)Amendment to case - exercise of discretion Amendment to case - Article 12(4) and 12(6) RPBA 2020 |
Application titleOBJECT SENSING DEVICE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T071420.20221201 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 355 KB) |
|||
T 1688/20 () of 19.10.2022 | |||||
Online on13.12.2022 |
Board3.2.07 |
Decision date19.10.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCB05B 3/10B05B 5/04 |
Application no.16155743.4 |
CatchwordNovelty of selection inventions - selection from a broad range - "gold standard" - see point 3.4 |
|||||
KeywordsGrounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosure (no)Grounds for opposition - added subject-matter (no) Grounds for opposition - lack of patentability (no) Novelty - (yes) Novelty - selection of numerical ranges Inventive step - (yes) |
Application titleROTARY ATOMIZING ELECTROSTATIC APPLICATOR AND SHAPING AIR RING FOR THE SAME |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T168820.20221019 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 443 KB) |
|||
T 0605/20 (Peptide formulations/NOVO NORDISK) of 11.11.2022 | |||||
Online on12.12.2022 |
Board3.3.07 |
Decision date11.11.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 9/00A61K 38/26 A61K 38/28 A61K 47/10 A61K 47/18 A61K 47/20 A61K 47/26 |
Application no.04797453.0 |
CatchwordThe undesired phenomena observed in the patent with the use of the prior art compositions would not inevitably manifest themselves upon the practical implementation of the teaching of the prior art. The recognition of the relevance of these phenomena should therefore be considered to form part of the technical contribution described in the patent. A specific reference in the formulation of the objective technical problem to the avoidance of these phenomena risks to unfairly direct development towards the claimed solution, which is not permissible in line with the principles as developed in the established jurisprudence (see reasons section 4.2.3). |
|||||
KeywordsAmendments - allowable (yes)Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes) Novelty - selection invention Inventive step - formulation of the technical problem |
Application titlePROPYLENE GLYCOL-CONTAINING PEPTIDE FORMULATIONS WHICH ARE OPTIMAL FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR USE IN INJECTION DEVICES |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T060520.20221111 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 476 KB) |
|||
T 1776/18 () of 5.10.2022 | |||||
Online on08.12.2022 |
Board3.3.09 |
Decision date5.10.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA23L 2/66A23L 33/00 A23L 33/185 A23J 3/14 A23J 3/16 |
Application no.12769275.4 |
Catchword
1.) Article 114(2) EPC provides a legal basis for disregarding claim requests which are not submitted in due time (Reasons 4.5.1-4.5.11). |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - (no)Late-filed request - request identical to request not admitted in first instance proceedings Legal basis for not admitting late-filed requests Amendment after summons - taken into account (no) |
Application titlePOWDERED NUTRITIONAL FORMULATIONS INCLUDING SPRAY-DRIED PLANT PROTEIN |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T177618.20221005 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 596 KB) |
T 0574/17 () of 16.9.2022 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on25.11.2022 |
Board3.2.03 |
Decision date16.9.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCE04B 1/86E04B 9/04 E04B 9/28 E04B 9/00 D04H 1/74 |
Application no.05716494.9 |
CatchwordIf there is an amendment to the patent in the appeal proceedings which has never been examined before, the Enlarged Board's obiter dictum in G 10/91, Reasons 19, is fully respected when only the prima facie relevance of an objection under Article 123(2) EPC is considered in the context of assessing whether there are exceptional circumstances under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (Reasons 2.3.1-2.3.14). |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - (no)Novelty - public prior use (yes) Claims - clarity after amendment (yes) Grounds for opposition - extension of subject-matter (no) Late-filed evidence - submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal Late-filed evidence - admitted (no) Amendment to appeal case - exercise of discretion Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no) Amendment after summons - taken into account (no) |
Application titleAcoustic elements and their production |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T057417.20220916 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 683 KB) |
|||
T 2080/18 (Streichung von Ansprüchen - Zulassung in das Verfahren) of 21.7.2022 | |||||
Online on25.11.2022 |
Board3.2.08 |
Decision date21.7.2022 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCF16D 51/18 |
Application no.12799210.5 |
Catchwordsiehe Punkt 5.1 |
|||||
KeywordsHauptantrag - Neuheit (ja) - Erfinderische Tätigkeit (Nein)Hilfsantrag 2 - Erfinderische Tätigkeit (nein) Hilfsantrag 5 - Klarheit (nein) Hilfsantrag 5A - Erfinderische Tätigkeit (nein) Hilfsantrag 6A - Zulassung in der mündlichen Verhandlung (ja) - Erfinderische Tätigkeit (ja) - Ausreichende Offenbarung (ja) |
Application titleBREMSSYSTEM EINER TROMMELBREMSE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T208018.20220721 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 633 KB) |
|||
T 1442/19 () of 5.7.2022 | |||||
Online on22.11.2022 |
Board3.3.02 |
Decision date5.7.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC07D 277/28C07D 417/14 A61K 31/427 A61P 31/12 |
Application no.12167589.6 |
CatchwordExtension of subject-matter: selection from an indication of equally preferred items (e.g. formed by several independent claims) disclosed in the application as filed (see point 2.4.1 of the Reasons) |
|||||
KeywordsDivisional application - added subject-matterInventive step Late-filed request - submitted with the reply to the statements of grounds of appeal |
Application titleModulators of pharmacokinetic properties of therapeutics |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T144219.20220705 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 672 KB) |
|||
T 2626/18 (Insurance risk prediction/SWISS RE) of 28.9.2022 | |||||
Online on18.11.2022 |
Board3.5.01 |
Decision date28.9.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06Q 40/00 |
Application no.11190452.0 |
CatchwordThe appellant argued that the claimed features relating to the abstract business concept neither could have been provided by the business person to the technical expert for programming, nor would the technical expert have corresponding knowledge starting from a networked standard computer system. The appellant thereby alleged that there was to be considered an imaginary third person who came up with the concept of the invention to be implemented on a computer system. The Board notes that when assessing inventive step in the field of computer implemented business related inventions following the COMVIK approach and the corresponding case law, there is no room for such a third expert. When analysing the features of a claim and answering the question of whether they provide a technical contribution, each such feature has to be judged to be either a contribution of the technical expert or of the non-technical business person in order to conclude whether there is an inventive technical contribution. (See point 4.13 of the reasons) |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - all requests (no)Inventive step - insurance risk predicition and loss frequency (not technical) |
Application titleSystem and method for forecasting frequencies associated to future loss and for related automated operation of loss resolving units |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T262618.20220928 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 392 KB) |
|||
T 3097/19 (Key word detection/OMRON) of 16.11.2022 | |||||
Online on17.11.2022 |
Board3.5.06 |
Decision date16.11.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06K 9/32G06F 17/30 |
Application no.12871077.9 |
Catchword
1. If a request is not admitted because earlier objections are not overcome, Rule 111(2) EPC requires that these earlier objections be made explicit in the decision (see reasons 3). |
|||||
KeywordsDecision not to admit new main request insufficiently reasonedNon-admittance decision, therefore, not confirmed Inventive step - main request, first and second auxiliary requests (no) Inventive step - third and fourth auxiliary requests (yes, claims on their own) Consistency between claims and description of third and fourth auxiliary requests - no Scope of protection sought defined precisely - no |
Application titleKEY WORD DETECTION DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD AND CONTROL PROGRAM FOR SAME, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T309719.20221116 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 481 KB) |
|||
T 1553/19 () of 28.10.2022 | |||||
Online on14.11.2022 |
Board3.3.03 |
Decision date28.10.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC08G 18/08C08G 18/16 C08G 18/32 C08G 18/75 G02B 1/04 |
Application no.09748027.1 |
CatchwordThe normal rule of claim construction of reading a feature specified in a claim in its broadest technically meaningful sense corresponds to determining the broadest scope encompassed by the subject-matter being claimed according to a technically sensible reading. In the case of a feature defined in a positive manner, which imposes the presence of a specific element, this is effectively achieved by giving to the element in question its broadest technically sensible meaning. However, for a feature defined in a negative manner, which excludes the presence of a specific element, the broadest scope of the claim corresponds to the narrowest (i.e. most limited) technically sensible definition of the element to be excluded. (Reasons, point 5.7) |
|||||
KeywordsAmendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)Novelty - (main request: no; first auxiliary request: yes) Inventive step - (first auxiliary request: yes) |
Application titlePOLYMERIZABLE LIQUID COMPOSITION AND PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ORGANIC GLASS STARTING FROM POLYMERIZABLE LIQUID COMPOSITIONS OF THE POLYURETHANE TYPE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T155319.20221028 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 437 KB) |
|||
T 1001/18 () of 10.10.2022 | |||||
Online on03.11.2022 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date10.10.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG07D 1/00 |
Application no.06014187.6 |
CatchwordSince the problem and solution approach defines the problem based on the effect of the differences from the closest prior art, and the effect is derived primarily from the disclosure of the invention, the effect documented in the present documents alone is taken as the basis for the problem formulation. The Board concluded that any further, undocumented effects would be speculative and should not be additionally included in the problem formulation (reasons 5.3.2) |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - (yes)Inventive step - problem and solution approach Inventive step - after amendment Inventive step - closest prior art Inventive step - problem invention (yes) Amendment after expiry of period in R. 100(2) EPC communication - exceptional circumstances (yes) - exercise of discretion - cogent reasons (yes) |
Application titleCoin token assembly, method and device for dispensing coin tokens |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T100118.20221010 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 413 KB) |
|||
T 2194/19 (Error correction/TERAYON) of 24.10.2022 | |||||
Online on03.11.2022 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date24.10.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH03M 13/00 |
Application no.04720810.3 |
CatchwordThe requirement that the claims are to be supported by the description under Article 84, second sentence, EPC does not necessarily mean that all the "embodiments" of the description of a patent application have to be covered by the (independent) claims, i.e. that all the embodiments must fall within the scope of those claims (see point 6.2.2 of the Reasons). |
|||||
KeywordsAdded subject-matter - (no, after amendment)Support by the description - (yes, after amendment) Adaptation of the description: objection of examining division not justified Remittal - special reasons (yes): novelty and inventive step not decided yet |
Application titleError-correcting code interleaver |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T219419.20221024 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 376 KB) |
T 0555/18 (Shrink Film/Cryovac) of 14.9.2022 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on26.10.2022 |
Board3.3.06 |
Decision date14.9.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCB32B 27/34B65D 65/40 C08L 77/02 C08L 77/06 |
Application no.08724899.3 |
CatchwordIf the only feature that distinguishes a claim from the closest prior art is a range of an unusual parameter and it is concluded that it would be obvious for the skilled person to solve the underlying technical problem in ways that can be presumed to inherently lead to values within or close to the claimed range, it is the proprietor who should bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that implementing such solutions would not lead to the claimed parametrical range. |
|||||
KeywordsLate-filed evidence - admitted (no)Late-filed request - admitted (no) Inventive step - (no) Inventive step - obvious modification Inventive step - Unusual parameter and burden of proof |
Application titleSHRINK FILM CONTAINING SEMI-CRYSTALLINE POLYAMIDE, ARTICLES MADE THEREFROM, AND PROCESS FOR MAKING AND USING SAME |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T055518.20220914 |
DistributionB |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 420 KB) |
|||
T 1026/17 (Securing a tendering system/KOHLI) of 21.6.2022 | |||||
Online on19.10.2022 |
Board3.5.01 |
Decision date21.6.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06Q 30/00 |
Application no.06842769.9 |
Catchword
In the Board's judgement it is part of the non-technical requirement specification to keep keys (be it analog or electronic keys) away from people one does not trust. This does not require technical considerations of a technically skilled person. The Board does not consider this to be a technical difference, but to be an administrative consideration within the sphere of a business person when contemplating a secure tender process. It is not regarded as a technical innovation, but a natural choice for the bidders to use individual keys, keep the keys back as long as possible and furnish them as late as possible. And even if this was considered technical, it would, in the Board's view, be obvious to do so. |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - mixture of technical and non-technical featuresInventive step - bidder created pass-phrases (no Inventive step - not technical) Inventive step - main request and auxiliary request I (no) Auxiliary request II late filed during oral proceedings - not admitted |
Application titleA PROCESS FOR SECURING TENDERING SYSTEM |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T102617.20220621 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 357 KB) |
|||
T 2179/16 () of 19.7.2022 | |||||
Online on18.10.2022 |
Board3.3.02 |
Decision date19.7.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA01N 25/04A01N 47/24 A01N 43/653 A01N 43/56 |
Application no.10730191.3 |
CatchwordAdmittance of objections raised in appeal, said objections having been raised before the opposition division against a different claim request (point 4.3 of the Reasons) |
|||||
KeywordsAdmittance - objections raised in appeal which had been raised against a different claim request before the opposition divisionAdmittance - unsubstantiated objection (added subject-matter and novelty) Sufficiency of disclosure Inventive step |
Application titleA PROCESS FOR PREPARING AN AQUEOUS SUSPENSION OF AN ORGANIC PESTICIDE COMPOUND |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T217916.20220719 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 466 KB) |
|||
T 0524/19 () of 16.9.2022 | |||||
Online on17.10.2022 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date16.9.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06Q 40/08G08G 5/00 |
Application no.13736554.0 |
CatchwordWhile a feature might, in certain contexts, be seen as technical, the technical effect of a feature must be assessed as a whole and in the context of the claimed invention (reasons 2.7.4). |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - mixture of technical and non-technical featuresInventive step - skilled person Inventive step - notional business person |
Application titleSELF-SUFFICIENT RESOURCE-POOLING SYSTEM FOR RISK SHARING OF AIRSPACE RISKS RELATED TO NATURAL DISASTER EVENTS |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T052419.20220916 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 479 KB) |
|||
T 0698/19 () of 16.9.2022 | |||||
Online on17.10.2022 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date16.9.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06Q 10/00 |
Application no.12729952.7 |
CatchwordIf non-technical features have both a technical and a non-technical effect, the technical effect must be taken into account when assessing inventive step, but the technical effect must be clearly derivable from the application as a whole (Reasons 3.6.4 (1)). |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - (no)Inventive step - mixture of technical and non-technical features Inventive step - notional business person versus real business person versus technically skilled person |
Application titleMICRO-RESOURCE-POOLING SYSTEM AND CORRESPONDING METHOD THEREOF |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T069819.20220916 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 473 KB) |
|||
T 0806/21 (Humanized antibody/IMMUNE and GENENTECH) of 17.6.2022 | |||||
Online on17.10.2022 |
Board3.3.04 |
Decision date17.6.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC07K 16/18A61P 25/28 |
Application no.11192705.9 |
CatchwordAs ruled in decision G 1/10, Rule 140 EPC is not available to correct patents. G 1/10 does not restrict the scope of the exclusion of the applicability of the rule in any way. |
|||||
KeywordsCorrection of errors in decisionsCorrection of error - grant decision |
Application titleHumanized antibody against amyloid beta. |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T080621.20220617 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 328 KB) |
|||
T 0424/21 (Antibody Fc variants/ROCHE GLYCART) of 8.4.2022 | |||||
Online on12.10.2022 |
Board3.3.04 |
Decision date8.4.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC07K 16/00C07K 16/28 |
Application no.12710732.4 |
Catchword
1. If the deletion of dependent claims after notification of a summons to oral proceedings enhances procedural economy by clearly overcoming existing objections without giving rise to any new issues this might constitute cogent reasons justifying exceptional circumstances in the sense of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020. |
|||||
KeywordsAmendments - main request, auxiliary requests 1 to 5: added subject-matter (yes)Amendments - auxiliary request 6: added subject-matter (no) Amendment to appeal case - justification by party (yes) Sufficiency of disclosure - auxiliary request 6 (yes) Inventive step - auxiliary request 6 (yes) |
Application titleAntibody Fc variants |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T042421.20220408 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 589 KB) |
|||
T 1349/19 (Fat composition/BUNGE LODERS) of 13.9.2022 | |||||
Online on07.10.2022 |
Board3.3.09 |
Decision date13.9.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA23L 33/00A23D 9/00 C11C 3/08 A23D 9/02 A23L 33/115 A23L 33/12 |
Application no.13713532.3 |
CatchwordInventive step objection based on hindsight: arguments involving a convoluted set of sequential steps conceived starting from the claimed subject-matter and working backwards in attempt to bridge the gap with the prior art (Reasons 1.27) |
|||||
KeywordsMain request: inventive step - (Yes) |
Application titleFAT COMPOSITION |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T134919.20220913 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 385 KB) |
T 0017/22 (Oral care composition / COLGATE-PALMOLIVE) of 20.9.2022 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on21.09.2022 |
Board3.3.07 |
Decision date20.9.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 8/22A61K 8/34 A61K 8/81 A61Q 11/02 |
Application no.18750027.7 |
Catchwordsee point 1.2.2 of the reasons |
|||||
KeywordsSubstantial procedural violation - opportunity to comment (no)Substantial procedural violation - reimbursement of appeal fee (yes) |
Application titleORAL CARE COMPOSITION |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T001722.20220920 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 340 KB) |
|||
T 0803/17 () of 21.6.2022 | |||||
Online on16.09.2022 |
Board3.2.02 |
Decision date21.6.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61B 19/00 |
Application no.06709968.9 |
Catchword
The yardstick for determining whether the position of an appellant is, because of its own appeal, worsened in a way which is incompatible with the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in peius is the order of the decision under appeal, in particular the order's legal effect on the appellant. |
|||||
KeywordsAdmissibility of appeal - appeal sufficiently substantiated (yes)Admissibility of opposition Appeal decision - extent of examination Appeal decision - reformatio in peius Late-filed evidence - submitted shortly before oral proceedings Late-filed evidence - admitted (no) Novelty - (yes) Inventive step - (yes) |
Application titleSURGICAL PLANNING |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T080317.20220621 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 401 KB) |
|||
T 0882/17 () of 21.6.2022 | |||||
Online on16.09.2022 |
Board3.2.02 |
Decision date21.6.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61B 19/00 |
Application no.12161435.8 |
CatchwordIf the opponent is the sole appellant against an interlocutory decision maintaining a patent in amended form, an objection related to the inadmissibility of the opposition is subject to the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in peius. In such a procedural situation, the Board is prohibited from ordering the maintenance of the patent as granted due to the inadmissibility of the opposition (Reasons 3.19). |
|||||
KeywordsAdmissibility of appeal - appeal sufficiently substantiated (yes)Admissibility of opposition Appeal decision - extent of examination Appeal decision - reformatio in peius Late-filed evidence - submitted shortly before oral proceedings Late-filed evidence - admitted (no) Novelty - (yes) Inventive step - (yes) |
Application titleSurgical planning |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T088217.20220621 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 671 KB) |
|||
T 0351/19 () of 23.6.2022 | |||||
Online on14.09.2022 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date23.6.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06Q 20/32G06Q 20/20 G06Q 30/04 G06Q 30/06 |
Application no.15183537.8 |
CatchwordAccording to the Comvik approach the non-technical features of a claim may be incorporated into a goal to be achieved in a non-technical field. Subsequently, the approach invokes what might be described as the legal fiction that this goal, including the claimed non-technical features, would be presented to the skilled person, who would be charged with the task of technically implementing a solution which would achieve the stated goal. The question whether the skilled person would "arrive" at the non-technical features does not therefore arise, as these features have been made known to the skilled person, as part of the goal to be achieved. The relevant question for the assessment of inventive step is whether it would be obvious for the skilled person to implement a technical solution corresponding to the claimed subject-matter (Reasons, point 3.12). |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - main request (no)Late-filed auxiliary requests - admitted (no) |
Application titleAUTOMATED SESSION CLOSING UPON LOCATION-SENSED DEPARTURE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T035119.20220623 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 474 KB) |
T 2360/17 (Buffer status reporting/INNOVATIVE) of 7.7.2022 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on23.08.2022 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date7.7.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04W72/12 |
Application no.11003781.9 |
CatchwordAs to the divergence in the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal concerning the notion of an "amendment" within the meaning of Article 12(4) RPBA 2020, see point 2.4 of the Reasons. |
|||||
KeywordsAdded subject-matter - main request and auxiliary request 2b (yes): unallowable intermediate generalisationAdmittance - auxiliary request 1c (no): deletion of claims is an "amendment" (T 1480/16, T 1857/19 and T 2201/19 not followed); no cogent reasons + no clear allowability Partial reimbursement of appeal fee at 25% - (yes): withdrawal of the proprietor's appeal before announcement of decision |
Application titleMethod and apparatus for handling buffer status reporting in a wireless communication system |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T236017.20220707 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 358 KB) |
|||
J 0009/20 (Designation of inventor/DABUS II) of 21.12.2021 | |||||
Online on04.08.2022 |
Board3.1.01 |
Decision date21.12.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61M 21/00A61M 16/00 |
Application no.18275174.3 |
CatchwordA machine is not an inventor within the meaning of the EPC |
|||||
KeywordsDesignation of inventor - artificial intelligence |
Application titleDEVICES AND METHODS FOR ATTRACTING ENHANCED ATTENTION |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:J000920.20211221 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 540 KB) |
T 0682/22 (Interlocutory revision/ZTE) of 20.7.2022 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on27.07.2022 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date20.7.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04W 48/20H04W 76/02 |
Application no.14889608.7 |
Catchword
Different interpretation of Article 109(1) EPC from that provided for in the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO - application of Article |
|||||
KeywordsDecision in written proceedings: cancellation of hearing following appellant's announcement of non-attendanceNovelty under Art. 54(3) EPC Novelty - sole request (yes) Interlocutory revision - examining division should have rectified decision (yes) Substantial procedural violation - (no) Remittal - (yes): special reasons for remittal Reimbursement of appeal fee in full (no) Partial reimbursement of appeal fee at 25% - (yes): timely withdrawal of request for oral proceedings Inconsistency between Guidelines and Case Law |
Application titleMethod and system for controlling access of CSG in dual-connection architecture |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T068222.20220720 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 383 KB) |
|||
T 1190/17 (Microsonde radio-opaque de détection/stimulation / SORIN) of 8.3.2022 | |||||
Online on15.07.2022 |
Board3.4.01 |
Decision date8.3.2022 |
Proc. languageFR |
IPCA61N 1/05A61N 1/372 |
Application no.12187052.1 |
Catchword
Le fait que la chambre ait retenu un argument nouveau (absence d'effet technique clairement identifiable) dans la chaîne argumentaire conduisant au constat provisoire d'absence d'activité inventive ne saurait être ignoré. Il justifie |
|||||
KeywordsPriorité - base dans le document de priorité (oui)Activité inventive - (non) Requêtes subsidiaires produites tardivement - recevable (oui) |
Application titleMicrosonde de détection/stimulation, implantable dans des réseaux veineux, artériels ou lymphatiques |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T119017.20220308 |
DistributionD |
DecisionTexte de la décision en FR (PDF, 465 KB) |
|||
T 0809/21 () of 5.7.2022 | |||||
Online on13.07.2022 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date5.7.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG03G 21/16G03G 21/18 H04L 25/49 |
Application no.07831774.0 |
Catchword
In a case where the patent is not opposed in its entirety, the opposition being directed at certain claims only, and where the Opposition Division decides that all of the proprietor's requests in relation to the opposed claims must fail, only the unopposed claims, which are not part of any opposition proceedings, are left standing. |
|||||
KeywordsExtent of oppositionReimbursement of appeal fee - substantial procedural violation (yes) |
Application titleCOMMUNICATION DEVICE, IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND CARTRIDGE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T080921.20220705 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 406 KB) |
|||
T 3000/19 (Searching data with registered applications/BLACKBERRY) of 6.7.2022 | |||||
Online on12.07.2022 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date6.7.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 17/30 |
Application no.11741809.5 |
CatchwordWhen a video retrieved from the internet is used as prior-art evidence for refusing a patent application, its content, in a form suitable for reviewing the decision, and metadata evidence demonstrating when and how it was made available to the public should be preserved and made accessible over time to interested parties and judicial bodies. |
|||||
KeywordsAppealed decision - sufficiently reasoned (no)Remittal to the department of first instance Remittal - fundamental deficiency in first instance proceedings (yes) Prior-art evidence - accessibility over time Council of Europe: "Electronic evidence in civil and administrative proceedings - Guidelines and explanatory memorandum"July 2019 |
Application titleDevices and methods for searching data on data sources associated with registered applications |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T300019.20220706 |
DistributionB |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 354 KB) |
|||
T 1042/18 () of 11.5.2022 | |||||
Online on11.07.2022 |
Board3.2.02 |
Decision date11.5.2022 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCA61B 5/00A61M 1/36 A61B 5/1455 |
Application no.13167902.9 |
Catchword
1.) Im Beschwerdeverfahren bestehen Beschränkungen neuen Vorbringens sowohl durch die Rechtsprechung der Großen Beschwerdekammer in G 10/91, G 1/95 und G 7/95 zur Berücksichtigung neuer Einspruchsgründe, als auch durch die den Kammern in Artikel 114 (2) EPÜ und der Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern eingeräumte Möglichkeit, verspätetes Vorbringen nicht zuzulassen. Diese Beschränkungen bestehen unabhängig voneinander und wirken kumulativ (Nr. 4.5 der Gründe). |
|||||
KeywordsNeuheit - (ja)Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (ja) Spät eingereichte Beweismittel - eingereicht mit der Beschwerdebegründung - zugelassen (nein) Änderung nach Ladung - außergewöhnliche Umstände (nein) stichhaltige Gründe (nein) - berücksichtigt (nein) Vorlage an die Große Beschwerdekammer - (nein) |
Application titleMedizinisches Gerät zur extrakorporalen Blutbehandlung mit mehreren Sensoreinheiten |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T104218.20220511 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 705 KB) |
|||
T 0355/19 (Additif alimentaire/PANCOSMA) of 8.4.2022 | |||||
Online on11.07.2022 |
Board3.3.09 |
Decision date8.4.2022 |
Proc. languageFR |
IPCA23K 20/111A23K 10/30 A23K 10/37 A23K 50/10 |
Application no.06709242.9 |
CatchwordModification des moyens selon l'article 13(2) RPCR ; recevabilité de requêtes dans lesquelles certaines revendications indépendantes sont supprimées ; échelonnement des requêtes subsidiaires déposées tout au long de la procédure de recours qui donne lieu à une approche "par tâtonnements" ou une tactique par élimination (tactique du "salami") (voir points 2 et 3 des motifs). |
|||||
KeywordsRequête principale: matière ajoutée - (oui)Requêtes subsidiaires 1 et 2 - recevabilité (non) Requête subsidiaire 3 - recevabilité (oui); matière ajoutée (non); suffisance de l'exposé (oui), activité inventive (oui) |
Application titleADDITIF ALIMENTAIRE POUR RUMINANTS A BASE D'EUGENOL ET DE CINNAMALDEHYDE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T035519.20220408 |
DistributionD |
DecisionTexte de la décision en FR (PDF, 500 KB) |
|||
T 0920/20 (Schwalbenschwanzzahn/MARTINREA HONSEL GERMANY GMBH) of 23.6.2022 | |||||
Online on07.07.2022 |
Board3.2.01 |
Decision date23.6.2022 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCB23B 27/06B23B 27/14 B23B 29/034 B23B 41/12 C23C 4/02 F16J 10/04 B24B 33/08 |
Application no.09776027.6 |
CatchwordArtikel 12(4) VOBK 2020 enthält keine Einschränkung dahin, dass sich jede Partei in der Beschwerde nur auf diejenigen Gegenstände des Vorverfahrens beziehen dürfte, die sie selbst dort "in zulässiger Weise vorgebracht" hat. Daher erscheint es legitim, sich auch auf Angriffslinien zu beziehen, die von anderen Beteiligten ins Einspruchsverfahren eingeführt worden waren. Geschieht dies, liegt insoweit daher keine zulassungsbedürftige Änderung des Vorbringens vor (siehe Punkt 4.4). |
|||||
KeywordsÄnderungen - Zwischenverallgemeinerung Hauptantrag (ja)Änderungen - Zwischenverallgemeinerung Hilfsanträge 2 bis 4 (ja) Änderung nach Ladung - Hilfsantrag 1 Änderung nach Ladung - außergewöhnliche Umstände (nein) Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens (ja) Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens - Änderung der Verfahrensökonomie abträglich (ja) Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens - Eignung der Änderung zur Lösung der aufgeworfenen Fragen (nein) Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens - Änderung gibt Anlass zu neuen Einwänden (ja) |
Application titleVERFAHREN UND WERKZEUG ZUR ERZEUGUNG EINER OBERFLÄCHE VORBESTIMMTER RAUHEIT |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T092020.20220623 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 489 KB) |
|||
T 0755/16 () of 2.2.2022 | |||||
Online on06.07.2022 |
Board3.3.02 |
Decision date2.2.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC07K 16/00C07K 1/34 |
Application no.08784774.5 |
CatchwordA request not to admit a certain document, this request having been filed for the first time during oral proceedings before the board, may constitute an amendment of the appeal case the admittance of which is governed by Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (point 3 of the reasons) |
|||||
KeywordsInventive stepAmendment to appeal case Amendment after summons Late-filed facts Late-filed objection |
Application titleVARIABLE TANGENTIAL FLOW FILTRATION |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T075516.20220202 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 430 KB) |
|||
J 0008/20 (Designation of inventor/DABUS) of 21.12.2021 | |||||
Online on05.07.2022 |
Board3.1.01 |
Decision date21.12.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCB65D 6/02B65D 8/00 B65D 6/00 B65D 13/02 B65D 21/02 B65D 1/02 |
Application no.18275163.6 |
CatchwordA machine is not an inventor within the meaning of the EPC |
|||||
KeywordsDesignation of inventor - artificial intelligence |
Application titleFOOD CONTAINER |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:J000820.20211221 |
DistributionB |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 529 KB) |
T 2117/18 () of 17.5.2022 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on29.06.2022 |
Board3.2.03 |
Decision date17.5.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCB21B 45/02 |
Application no.06823437.6 |
Catchword
In order to substantiate an objection in the appeal proceedings which the Opposition Division did not consider convincing, it is necessary to provide specific reasons why the finding and the reasoning in the decision under appeal is supposedly incorrect with regard to this objection (Reasons 2.2.2-2.2.11). |
|||||
KeywordsStatement of grounds of appeal - party's complete caseStatement of grounds of appeal - insufficient substantiation of objection Late-filed objection - exceptional circumstances (no) Inventive step - (yes) |
Application titleCOOLING APPARATUS FOR HOT ROLLED STEEL BAND AND METHOD OF COOLING THE STEEL BAND |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T211718.20220517 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 428 KB) |
|||
T 2920/18 () of 30.3.2022 | |||||
Online on27.06.2022 |
Board3.3.03 |
Decision date30.3.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC08F 10/02C08L 23/06 C08J 5/18 |
Application no.13731746.7 |
CatchwordAmendment of a set of claims by deletion of claims. Admittance of said amended set of claims pursuant to Article 13(2) RPBA 2020: see points 3.1 to 3.16 of the Reasons for the Decision. |
|||||
KeywordsGrounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosure (yes: main request; no: auxiliary request)Novelty - auxiliary request (yes) Inventive step - auxiliary request (yes) Amendment after summons - taken into account (yes and no) Amendment after summons - deletion of claims Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (yes) |
Application titleFILM COMPOSITION |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T292018.20220330 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 617 KB) |
|||
T 0752/19 (Ticagrelor, acetylsalicylic acid and a computer program/INTELLECTUAL … of 4.4.2022 | |||||
Online on27.06.2022 |
Board3.5.05 |
Decision date4.4.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 19/00 |
Application no.12702463.6 |
CatchwordImproved patient compliance to a pharmaceutical formulation cannot be used to establish an overall technical effect if it is the result of a "broken technical chain", namely an alleged chain of technical effects starting with information provided to a patient which is then broken by the patient's mental activities (see points 2.4 and 2.5). |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - main request (no)Late-filed request - submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal Late-filed request - admitted (no) Late-filed request - should have been submitted in first-instance proceedings (yes) |
Application titlePHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT AND COMMUNICATION TOOL |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T075219.20220404 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 305 KB) |
|||
T 0043/18 () of 1.6.2022 | |||||
Online on23.06.2022 |
Board3.3.02 |
Decision date1.6.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC07D 489/00C07D 489/08 A61K 9/00 A61K 31/485 |
Application no.10011792.8 |
CatchwordNovelty - purity: decision T 1085/13 followed |
|||||
KeywordsNoveltyRemittal |
Application titlePharmaceutical dosage form comprising oxycodone hydrochloride having less than 25 ppm 14-hydroxycodeinone |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T004318.20220601 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 350 KB) |
|||
T 2295/19 () of 6.4.2022 | |||||
Online on20.06.2022 |
Board3.3.03 |
Decision date6.4.2022 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCC08G 65/00C08G 75/20 C08G 65/26 C08K 3/26 C08G 65/334 C08G 65/337 |
Application no.14724351.3 |
CatchwordÄnderung eines Anspruchssatzes durch Streichung von Ansprüchen. Zur Frage seiner Zulassung unter Artikel 13 (2) RPBA 2020 siehe Entscheidungsgründe Nr. 3.4.1 bis 3.4.14. |
|||||
KeywordsNeuheit - Hauptantrag, Hilfsanträge 1, 2, 2a, 3, 3a, 4, 4a (nein)Zulassung - Hilfsantrag 5 (ja) Einspruchsgründe - mangelhafte Offenbarung (nein) Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (ja) Änderung nach Ladung - Streichung von Ansprüchen Änderung nach Ladung - außergewöhnliche Umstände (ja) |
Application titlePOLYARYLETHERSULFONCOPOLYMERE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T229519.20220406 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 452 KB) |
|||
T 0071/21 (Berichtigung des Formblatts 1038 (nein)) of 28.4.2022 | |||||
Online on14.06.2022 |
Board3.2.03 |
Decision date28.4.2022 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCF24D 17/00C02F 1/00 |
Application no.13000618.2 |
Catchword
Berichtigung der Erklärung betreffend die Methode für die Entrichtung der Beschwerdegebühr im Formblatt 1038 |
|||||
KeywordsBerichtigung von Mängeln - (nein)Berichtigung von Mängeln - sofort erkennbar dass nichts anderes beabsichtigt sein konnte (nein) Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde - Beschwerdegebühr (nicht entrichtet) Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde - Beschwerde gilt als nicht eingelegt Vorlage an die Große Beschwerdekammer (nein) |
Application titleAnlage sowie Verfahren zur Erwärmung von Trinkwasser |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T007121.20220428 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 402 KB) |
|||
T 0955/20 (Query translation/GOOGLE) of 2.2.2022 | |||||
Online on10.06.2022 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date2.2.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 17/27 |
Application no.09151235.0 |
Catchword
1. A request for reimbursement of the appeal fee under Rule 103(1)(a) EPC can no longer be filed after the department of first instance has granted interlocutory revision (Reasons 2). |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - main request (no)Interlocutory revision - substantial procedural violation (yes) Reimbursement of appeal fee - first appeal fee (no) Reimbursement of appeal fee - second appeal fee (yes) Remittal to the department of first instance Remittal - (yes) |
Application titleSystems and methods for searching using queries written in a different character-set and/or language from the target pages |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T095520.20220202 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 418 KB) |
|||
W 0005/03 () of 11.6.2003 | |||||
Online on02.06.2022 |
Board3.2.02 |
Decision date11.6.2003 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPC- |
Application no.- |
HeadnoteNon-unity of invention |
|||||
KeywordsLack of unity (yes, in part) |
Application titleApparatus and method for sculpting the surface of a joint |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2003:W000503.20030611 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 592 KB) |
T 0857/20 (Nicht mitbeanspruchte Gegenstruktur/BRITAX RÖMER) of 23.2.2022 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on30.05.2022 |
Board3.2.01 |
Decision date23.2.2022 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCB60N 2/28 |
Application no.12008259.9 |
Catchword
Neuheitsschädlich sind nur solche Vorrichtungen, deren offenbarte Merkmale all jene der Erfindung vorwegnehmen, einschließlich etwaiger Strukturen und Funktionalitäten, die durch ein Verfahrensmerkmal bedingt sind. |
|||||
KeywordsNeuheit - (ja)Neuheit - frühere Offenbarung Neuheit - Merkmale nicht beschränkend (nein) Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (ja) |
Application titleKindersitz mit Seitenaufprallschutz |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T085720.20220223 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 703 KB) |
|||
T 2440/16 () of 17.5.2022 | |||||
Online on20.05.2022 |
Board- |
Decision date17.5.2022 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPC- |
Application no.- |
Catchword
Ablehnung wegen Besorgnis der Befangenheit |
|||||
KeywordsTeilweise Unzulässigkeit des Ablehnungsantrags wegen offensichtlich falscher Auslegung verfahrensrechtlicher Pflichten-jaTeilweise Unzulässigkeit des Ablehnungsantrags wegen Vornahme weiterer Verfahrenshandlungen - ja Tatsächliche Befangenheit - nein Besorgnis der Befangenheit - nein Dienstliche Äußerung nach Artikel 3 (2) VOBK 2020 - notwendiger Inhalt |
Application titlexxx |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T244016.20220517 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 486 KB) |
|||
T 2766/17 () of 17.3.2022 | |||||
Online on18.05.2022 |
Board3.2.02 |
Decision date17.3.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61J 3/07A61K 8/02 B65B 25/06 A61Q 11/00 B65B 11/50 A61K 9/70 |
Application no.03748966.3 |
CatchwordStatements in the description contradicting the plain claim wording may cast doubts as to the intended meaning of this wording. Under such circumstances an objection under Article 84 EPC has to be raised. |
|||||
KeywordsAmendment occasioned by ground for opposition - (yes)Remittal - special reasons for remittal Remittal - (no) Amendments - added subject-matter (no) Novelty - (yes) Inventive step - (yes) Adaptation of the description (yes) |
Application titlePACKAGING AND DISPENSING OF RAPID DISSOLVE DOSAGE FORM |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T276617.20220317 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 339 KB) |
|||
T 1891/20 (Request for correction of the minutes/THALES) of 16.5.2022 | |||||
Online on18.05.2022 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date16.5.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04W 8/18 |
Application no.14824813.1 |
Catchword
If a party considers that the "essentials of the oral proceedings" or "relevant statements" within the meaning of Rule 124(1) EPC are incorrect or missing in the minutes of oral proceedings, they must file a request for correction of the minutes in the shortest time possible after their receipt. This ensures that the relevant facts and submissions are still fresh in the minds of the members of the deciding body and, if applicable, the other party or parties (Reasons 9.2). |
|||||
KeywordsCorrection of the minutes - (no): present minutes include essentials of the oral proceedings and the parties' relevant statements |
Application titleMethod for accessing a service and a corresponding device |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T189120.20220516 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 401 KB) |
|||
T 1370/18 (Entropy coding/FRAUNHOFER GESELSCHAFT) of 2.12.2021 | |||||
Online on16.05.2022 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date2.12.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH03M 7/30 |
Application no.09776891.5 |
CatchwordAn encoding or compression algorithm contributes to the technical character of the claimed compression method if it is used for the purpose of reducing the amount of data to be stored or transmitted (reasons 7). |
|||||
KeywordsClaims - clarity after amendment (yes)Amendments - added subject-matter (no) Inventive step - (yes) Remittal |
Application titleMethod for encoding a symbol, method for decoding a symbol, method for transmitting a symbol from a transmitter to a receiver, encoder, decoder and system for transmitting a symbol from a transmitter to a receiver |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T137018.20211202 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 339 KB) |
|||
T 0339/19 (Film for stand-up-pouches/DOW) of 29.3.2022 | |||||
Online on16.05.2022 |
Board3.3.06 |
Decision date29.3.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCB32B 27/32B65D 75/00 |
Application no.14166395.5 |
Catchword"Exceptional circumstances" in Rule 13(2) RPBA interpreted as those that compromise neither the procedural rights of the other party, nor procedural economy. |
|||||
KeywordsAmendment after summons - exercise of discretionAmendment after summons - taken into account (yes) Inventive step - main request (yes) Amendment to appeal case - amendment detrimental to procedural economy (no) Amendment to appeal case - amendment overcomes issues raised (yes) General principles |
Application titleSingle polymer film structures for use in stand-up-pouches |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T033919.20220329 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 397 KB) |
|||
T 1791/19 () of 16.3.2022 | |||||
Online on13.05.2022 |
Board3.2.04 |
Decision date16.3.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCF04D 29/22F04D 7/04 F04D 29/42 |
Application no.12705877.4 |
CatchwordReasons 7 |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - (no)Amendments - allowable (no) Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no) Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (no) |
Application titleFREE-FLOW PUMP |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T179119.20220316 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 418 KB) |
|||
T 2622/19 (Deep-in-the-canal hearing device/INSOUND) of 7.4.2022 | |||||
Online on11.05.2022 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date7.4.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04R 25/00 |
Application no.12795674.6 |
Catchword
As to the application of the problem-solution approach, in particular the determination of the objective technical problem and the choice of the "second document", see |
|||||
KeywordsSufficiency of disclosure - (yes)Added subject-matter - (no) Novelty - (yes) Inventive step - (yes): problem-solution approach with partial problems Inventive step - ex post facto analysis |
Application titleCIC hearing device |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T262219.20220407 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 500 KB) |
|||
T 0727/19 () of 1.4.2022 | |||||
Online on10.05.2022 |
Board3.2.04 |
Decision date1.4.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA47J 31/44A47J 31/46 |
Application no.11772975.6 |
Catchword
1. The Guidelines, Part E, Chapter XI, set out the procedure whereby the reasons of a responsible superior's decision rejecting a challenge to the impartiality of a division can be appealed. This procedure does not make the responsible superior's decision formally appealable (Reasons 2.3 and 2.4) |
|||||
KeywordsJustified suspicion of partiality (yes)Substantial procedural violation - (yes) Remittal - fundamental deficiency in first-instance proceedings (yes) Remittal - re-examination of the case ab initio New composition of the first-instance department ordered Prohibition of reformatio in peius (no) Reimbursement of appeal fee - (yes) |
Application titleBEVERAGE MACHINE FOR DIFFERENT SPATIAL ENVIRONMENTS |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T072719.20220401 |
DistributionB |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 446 KB) |
|||
T 0318/14 (Doppelpatentierung) of 7.2.2019 | |||||
Online on06.05.2022 |
Board3.3.01 |
Decision date7.2.2019 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 35/74A23L 1/30 A61P 37/08 A61P 1/12 |
Application no.10718590.2 |
Catchword
Der Großen Beschwerdekammer werden folgende Rechtsfragen vorgelegt: |
|||||
KeywordsVorlage an die Große Beschwerdekammer - (bejaht) |
Application title- |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2019:T031814.20190207 |
DistributionA |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 259 KB) |
|||
T 0318/14 (Double patenting) of 7.2.2019 | |||||
Online on06.05.2022 |
Board3.3.01 |
Decision date7.2.2019 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 35/74A23L 1/30 A61P 37/08 A61P 1/12 |
Application no.10718590.2 |
Catchword
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal: |
|||||
KeywordsReferral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (yes) |
Application titlePREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF ALLERGIC DIARRHOEA |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2019:T031814.20190207 |
DistributionA |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 908 KB) |
|||
T 0318/14 (Double protection par brevet) of 7.2.2019 | |||||
Online on06.05.2022 |
Board3.3.01 |
Decision date7.2.2019 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 35/74A23L 1/30 A61P 37/08 A61P 1/12 |
Application no.10718590.2 |
Catchword
Les questions suivantes sont soumises à la Grande Chambre de recours : |
|||||
KeywordsSaisine de la Grande Chambre de recours - (oui) |
Application title- |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2019:T031814.20190207 |
DistributionA |
DecisionTexte de la décision en FR (PDF, 308 KB) |
|||
T 2293/18 () of 31.3.2022 | |||||
Online on04.05.2022 |
Board3.5.02 |
Decision date31.3.2022 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCH01R 9/24B41J 1/00 |
Application no.11763583.9 |
CatchwordStützung der Ansprüche durch die Beschreibung, s. Punkt 3.3.5 |
|||||
KeywordsZulässigkeit der Beschwerde - BeschwerdeschriftZulässigkeit der Beschwerde - Antrag in dem Beschwerdegegenstand festgelegt wird (ja) Spät eingereichte Tatsachen - Hauptantrag hätte bereits im erstinstanzlichen Verfahren vorgebracht werden können (ja) Hilfsantrag 1 - Klarheit (ja) - Stützung der Ansprüche durch die Beschreibung (nein) Hilfsantrag 2 - Erweiterung über den Inhalt der Anmeldung in der eingereichten Fassung hinaus (nein) Hilfsantrag 2 - Stützung der Ansprüche durch die Beschreibung und Klarheit (ja) Hilfsantrag 2 - Neuheit (ja) Hilfsantrag 2 - Erfinderische Tätigkeit - nicht naheliegende Lösung |
Application titleKennzeichnungsmatte zur Kennzeichnung elektrischer Bauelemente und Verfahren zur Herstellung einer solchen Kennzeichnungsmatte |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T229318.20220331 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 566 KB) |
|||
T 1362/19 (Implicit disclosure of abstract concepts / Wai-Lin) of 31.3.2022 | |||||
Online on04.05.2022 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date31.3.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG09G 5/00H03M 11/00 |
Application no.05782186.0 |
CatchwordIf an abstract feature is not defined in more concrete terms either in the relevant claim or in the description of the application, it has to be understood in a broad sense. This may be important when assessing the implicit disclosure of a document of the state of the art. In particular, for this assessment it may be irrelevant whether there are several alternatives for implementing the abstract feature in concrete terms (Reasons 2.3.7). |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - main request (no)Novelty - auxiliary request (no) Novelty - implicit disclosure (yes) |
Application titleVIRTUAL KEYPAD INPUT DEVICE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T136219.20220331 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 372 KB) |
G 0004/19 (Doppelpatentierung) of 22.6.2021 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on29.04.2022 |
BoardEBA |
Decision date22.6.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 35/74A23L 1/30 A61P 37/08 A61P 1/12 |
Application no.10718590.2 |
Headnote
1. Eine europäische Patentanmeldung kann nach den Artikeln 97 (2) und 125 EPÜ zurückgewiesen werden, wenn sie denselben Gegenstand beansprucht wie ein demselben Anmelder erteiltes europäisches Patent, das nicht zum Stand der Technik nach Artikel 54 (2) und (3) EPÜ gehört. |
|||||
KeywordsZulässigkeit der Vorlagen (bejaht)Auslegung des Artikels 125 EPÜ Keine Verfahrensvorschrift im Übereinkommen Ergänzende Auslegungsmittel nach dem Wiener Übereinkommen über das Recht der Verträge Rechtsgrundlage für eine Zurückweisung nach Artikel 97 (2) EPÜ wegen Doppelpatentierung |
Application title- |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:G000419.20210622 |
DistributionA |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 184 KB) |
|||
G 0004/19 (Double protection par brevet) of 22.6.2021 | |||||
Online on29.04.2022 |
BoardEBA |
Decision date22.6.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 35/74A23L 1/30 A61P 37/08 A61P 1/12 |
Application no.10718590.2 |
Headnote
1. Une demande de brevet européen peut être rejetée au titre des articles 97(2) et 125 CBE si elle revendique le même objet qu'un brevet européen qui a été délivré au même demandeur et n'est pas compris dans l'état de la technique au sens de l'article 54(2) et (3) CBE. |
|||||
KeywordsInterprétation de l'article 125 CBEAbsence d'une disposition de procédure dans la Convention Moyens complémentaires d'interprétation en vertu de la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités Base juridique d'un rejet au titre de l'article 97(2) CBE pour cause de double protection par brevet |
Application title- |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:G000419.20210622 |
DistributionA |
DecisionTexte de la décision en FR (PDF, 207 KB) |
|||
T 0250/19 () of 17.2.2022 | |||||
Online on28.04.2022 |
Board3.2.02 |
Decision date17.2.2022 |
Proc. languageFR |
IPCA61B 17/16 |
Application no.11188050.6 |
Catchword
L'impossibilité d'utiliser un tableau blanc ou un « flip chart » physiques lors d'une procédure orale tenue par visioconférence ne viole pas le droit d'une partie d'être entendue selon l'article 113 CBE (point 9.5.8 des motifs). |
|||||
KeywordsActivité inventive - (oui)Modifications - extension de la protection (non) Faits produits tardivement - requête aurait pu être produite en première instance (oui) Objection soumise tardivement - recevable (non) Preuves produites tardivement - requête aurait pu être produite en première instance (oui) Droit d'être entendu - procédure orale sous forme de visioconférence |
Application titleFraiseuse orthopédique de préparation osseuse, en particulier de préparation glénoïdienne |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T025019.20220217 |
DistributionC |
DecisionTexte de la décision en FR (PDF, 720 KB) |
|||
T 2201/19 (BEDIENSYSTEM BEI EINEM SCHIENENFAHRZEUG / Siemens Mobility) of 2.3.2022 | |||||
Online on26.04.2022 |
Board3.5.05 |
Decision date2.3.2022 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCB61L 15/00 |
Application no.13771411.9 |
Catchword
Ein nach der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung eingereichter neuer Hilfsantrag, der nur noch einen bereits im von der Einspruchsabteilung aufrechterhaltenen Hauptantrag enthaltenen unabhängigen Verfahrensanspruch enthält, während alle anderen vorrangigen (Produkt-)Ansprüche gestrichen wurden, kann dann nicht als grundsätzlich unberücksichtigt bleibende Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens im Sinne des Artikels 13(2) VOBK 2020 angesehen werden, wenn das bisherige Vorbringen der Beteiligten bereits eine hinreichende Grundlage zur Entscheidung über den neuen Hilfsantrag bietet (abweichend von T |
|||||
KeywordsÄnderung veranlasst durch Einspruchsgrund - HauptantragÄnderung veranlasst durch Einspruchsgrund - (nein) Spät eingereichte Hilfsanträge - Wechsel des Gegenstandes Spät eingereichte Hilfsanträge - Hilfsanträge 1-3 Spät eingereichte Hilfsanträge - (ja) Spät eingereichte Hilfsanträge - Wechsel des Gegenstandes Spät eingereichte Hilfsanträge - Hilfsantrag 4 (nein) |
Application titleBEDIENSYSTEM ZUR BEDIENUNG VON FUNKTIONSEINHEITEN BEI EINEM SCHIENENFAHRZEUG |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T220119.20220302 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 387 KB) |
|||
J 0014/21 () of 13.4.2022 | |||||
Online on20.04.2022 |
Board3.1.01 |
Decision date13.4.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61M 21/00A61B 5/00 G06F 3/01 |
Application no.19749424.8 |
Catchword
The PCT Assembly may be considered the legislator for the PCT Regulations. See reasons 16. |
|||||
KeywordsInternational (PCT) application - restoration of the right of priority - admissibilityRequest for further processing Failure to observe time limits for restoration of the right of priority and for entering in the European phase "Understandings relating to certain provisions" adopted by PCT Assembly as legislator Authentic interpretation of PCT Rules by PCT Assembly Time limit ending on Easter Monday Primary object of appeal proceedings to review decision "Eventualmaxime" Factual basis of impugned decision on restoration of the right of priority may not be changed in appeal proceedings Re-establishment of rights - (no) Re-establishment of rights - all due care (no) Re-establishment of rights - due care on the part of the professional representative Professional representative's failure to clarify client's instructions No substitution during absence of professional representative |
Application titleMETHOD OF DEVELOPMENT OF CONCENTRATIONS AND DEVICE PRK-1U FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:J001421.20220413 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 636 KB) |
|||
T 1474/19 (Payment by debit order/SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC) of 6.4.2022 | |||||
Online on12.04.2022 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date6.4.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 17/30 |
Application no.11771337.0 |
Catchword
I. A debit order has to be interpreted on its substance, according to the (objectively) clear intention of the appellant expressed therein to pay a fee in the applicable amount. |
|||||
KeywordsAppeal fee (paid) - appeal deemed to have been filed |
Application titleMETHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROVIDING ACCESS TO DATA AND MEASUREMENTS IN A MANAGEMENT SYSTEM |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T147419.20220406 |
DistributionB |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 737 KB) |
|||
T 0489/14 (Pedestrian simulation/BENTLEY SYSTEMS) of 26.11.2021 | |||||
Online on08.04.2022 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date26.11.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 17/50 |
Application no.03793825.5 |
Catchword
Application of decision G 1/19 to |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - main request, first to fifth, seventh and eighth auxiliary requests (no)Late-filed request - ninth, tenth and eleventh auxiliary requests (not admitted) |
Application titleSimulation of the movement of an autonomous entity through an environment |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T048914.20211126 |
DistributionB |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 457 KB) |
|||
T 0960/15 (Radiotherapeutic treatment plan adaptation / Philips) of 22.12.2021 | |||||
Online on06.04.2022 |
Board3.4.01 |
Decision date22.12.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61N 5/00G06K 9/00 |
Application no.05779771.4 |
CatchwordThe Boards of Appeal may review discretionary decisions. There are, however, limits on the extent of review that reflect the discretion accorded to the deciding body. In the present case, the Opposition Division decided to consider document D8 and the review of this decision is a primary object of the appeal proceedings (Article 12(2) RPBA 2020) - see Reasons 1 - 9. |
|||||
KeywordsPositive discretionary decision - legal basis for review (yes)Positive discretionary decision - set aside (no) Inventive step (main request, auxiliary requests I, IV') Inventive step - (no); (auxiliary request II') Inventive step - effect not made credible within the whole scope of claim Claims - clarity Claims - (auxiliary requests I, I', II, II', III, III', IV) (no) Amendment to appeal case (auxiliary requests I',I'', II'', II''', III'') Amendment to appeal case - suitability of amendment to resolve issues raised (no) |
Application titleRADIOTHERAPEUTIC TREATMENT PLAN ADAPTATION |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T096015.20211222 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 467 KB) |
|||
T 2361/18 (Objective function/GLOBAL NUCLEAR FUEL-AMERICAS) of 31.3.2022 | |||||
Online on06.04.2022 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date31.3.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 17/50 |
Application no.03255772.0 |
CatchwordIf a request for oral proceedings is withdrawn after a date for oral proceedings has been set but before the notification of a communication issued in preparation for the oral proceedings, the withdrawal occurs "within one month of notification" for the purpose of Rule 103(4)(c) EPC. |
|||||
KeywordsAmendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (yes)Reimbursement of appeal fee (yes) |
Application titleMethod and apparatus for adaptively determining weight factors within the context of an objective function |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T236118.20220331 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 307 KB) |
|||
T 1869/18 () of 31.3.2022 | |||||
Online on05.04.2022 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date31.3.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH01L 21/04H01L 29/16 H01L 29/45 |
Application no.05803665.8 |
CatchwordWhile objections raised by the Board for the first time in a communication under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 may be considered to give rise to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, and may possibly justify the filing of amendments which specifically respond to the new objections, this does not open the door to additional amendments which are unrelated to the new objections, and for which no exceptional circumstances exist (Reasons, point 3.10). |
|||||
KeywordsMain request - amendment after summons - admitted into the proceedings (no)Right to be heard - opportunity to comment (yes) Claims - clarity Claims - auxiliary requests (no) |
Application titleMETHOD OF PRODUCING SILICON-RICH NICKEL-SILICIDE OHMIC CONTACTS FOR SIC SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T186918.20220331 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 392 KB) |
|||
T 2843/19 () of 9.2.2022 | |||||
Online on05.04.2022 |
Board3.2.01 |
Decision date9.2.2022 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCB60G 17/052B60G 17/015 |
Application no.10767937.5 |
Catchword
Zur Notwendigkeit einer rechtzeitigen Replik: |
|||||
KeywordsErfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag (ja)Neuer Einspruchsgrund Neuheit - zugelassen (nein) Neuer Einwand nach Ladung - außergewöhnliche Umstände (nein) |
Application titleVENTILEINRICHTUNG FÜR EINE LUFTFEDERUNGSANLAGE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T284319.20220209 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 445 KB) |
|||
T 0689/20 () of 22.3.2022 | |||||
Online on05.04.2022 |
Board3.2.04 |
Decision date22.3.2022 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCA47L 15/42A47L 15/44 |
Application no.06819808.4 |
CatchwordGründe 3 |
|||||
KeywordsWesentlicher Verfahrensmangel - angefochtene Entscheidung ausreichend begründet (nein)Wesentlicher Verfahrensmangel - Verletzung des rechtlichen Gehörs (ja) Zurückverweisung - (ja) Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr - (ja) |
Application titleGESCHIRRSPÜLMASCHINE MIT VERBESSERTER ANORDNUNG DER ZUGABEEINRICHTUNG IN DER TÜR |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T068920.20220322 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 305 KB) |
|||
T 1117/19 (Lückenfüller bei TV-Live-Ereignissen/NOVOMATIC) of 18.3.2022 | |||||
Online on01.04.2022 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date18.3.2022 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCH04H 20/18H04H 20/42 |
Application no.10726906.0 |
CatchwordDie Verbesserung der Nutzerzufriedenheit z. B. bei einer TV-Live-Übertragung ist im Allgemeinen eine nicht-technische, administrative Aufgabe, für die üblicherweise ein TV-Stationsmanager als Fachperson zuständig ist (siehe Gründe 5.6 der Entscheidung). |
|||||
KeywordsNeuheit - Hauptantrag, Hilfsanträge I, Ia (nein)Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hilfsanträge II, IIa, IIb, III, II', IIa', IIb, III (nein) |
Application titleVerfahren und Vorrichtung zur Übertragung von Ereignisdaten wobei zumindest ein Teil der Daten über zumindest einen Übertragungskanal höherer Bandbreite und zumindest ein Teil der Daten über zumindest einen Übertragungskanal niedrigerer Bandbreite übertragen werden |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T111719.20220318 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 439 KB) |
T 1024/18 () of 1.3.2022 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on29.03.2022 |
Board3.2.06 |
Decision date1.3.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61F 13/15 |
Application no.12183745.4 |
CatchwordNecessity to adapt the description (Reasons 3) |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - public prior useNovelty - obligation to maintain secrecy (no) Amendments - auxiliary requests 1 and 3 Amendments - added subject-matter (yes) Claims - support in the description (no) |
Application titleApparatus and method for forming absorbent cores |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T102418.20220301 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 650 KB) |
|||
T 2660/18 (Developing rod patterns in nuclear reactors/GLOBAL NUCLEAR FUEL- … of 7.12.2021 | |||||
Online on29.03.2022 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date7.12.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 17/50G21C 5/02 |
Application no.03257922.9 |
Catchword
In case T 625/11, the board concluded that the determination, as a limit value, of the value of a first operating parameter conferred a technical character to the claim which went beyond the mere interaction between the numerical simulation algorithm and the computer system. The nature of the parameter thus identified was, in fact, "intimately linked to" the operation of a nuclear reactor, independently of whether the parameter was actually used in a nuclear reactor (T 625/11, Reasons 8.4). |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - main, first and second auxiliary requests (no) |
Application titleMethod and arrangement for developing rod patterns in nuclear reactors |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T266018.20211207 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 433 KB) |
|||
T 1641/18 (Verbundscheibe/SCHOTT) of 31.1.2022 | |||||
Online on18.03.2022 |
Board3.3.06 |
Decision date31.1.2022 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCB32B 17/10E04B 1/94 C03C 27/12 |
Application no.11179998.7 |
CatchwordWährend eine Fachperson im Allgemeinen Dokumente nicht kombinieren würde, wenn dies zu einem Verzicht auf eine wesentliche Funktion der Erfindung im nächstliegenden Stand der Technik führen würde, gilt dies in der Regel nicht für Kombinationen, bei denen ein wesentliches Merkmal durch ein dieselbe Funktion erfüllendes alternatives Merkmal ersetzt wird (Punkte 1.3.2 und 1.3.3 der Gründe). |
|||||
KeywordsErfinderische Tätigkeit - naheliegende Kombination bekannter Merkmale |
Application titleVerbundscheibe |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T164118.20220131 |
DistributionD |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 420 KB) |
|||
T 2120/18 () of 2.2.2022 | |||||
Online on18.03.2022 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date2.2.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH05K 3/24H01L 23/488 |
Application no.10175344.0 |
Catchword
1. An opposition division's rejection of a request for extension of the time limit indicated in its communication under Rule 79(1) EPC does not terminate the opposition proceedings. Therefore, a patent proprietor is in a position to respond to the notice of opposition beyond the expired time limit or, at least, request the rejection of the opposition as well as oral proceedings. The patent proprietor must anticipate that an opposition division may issue its decision after expiration of the time limit (see Reasons 4.5, 4.6 and 4.9). |
|||||
KeywordsSubstantial procedural violation - (no)Remittal to the opposition division for further prosecution Remittal - (no) Novelty - claim 1 as granted Novelty - (no) Auxiliary request could and should have been filed during the opposition proceedings - admitted (no) |
Application titleTerminal structure, printed wiring board, module substrate, and electronic device |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T212018.20220202 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 441 KB) |
|||
T 0550/14 (Catastrophe relief/SWISS RE) of 14.9.2021 | |||||
Online on16.03.2022 |
Board3.5.01 |
Decision date14.9.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06Q 40/00 |
Application no.09710436.8 |
Catchword
The appellant's wish for the Board to define criteria that the examining division should use to prove that a feature is not technical is tantamount to defining the term technical, which the Boards have consistently declined to do. However, as stated in e.g. T 2314/16 - Distributing rewards/RAKUTEN at points 2.6 to 2.8, over the years the case law has provided guidance on the issue of technicality. Recently, the Board has tended to use the framework for discussion given in the CardinalCommerce decision (T 1463/11 - Universal merchant platform/CardinalCommerce) to help classify whether borderline features of a claim are on the technical or the non-technical side. |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - parametric triggering of payments (noInventive step - not technical) |
Application titleCOMPUTER SYSTEM AND COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR MANAGING FUNDING OF CATASTROPHE RELIEF EFFORTS |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T055014.20210914 |
DistributionB |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 381 KB) |
|||
T 0288/19 (notional business person) of 17.2.2022 | |||||
Online on16.03.2022 |
Board3.4.03 |
Decision date17.2.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06Q 40/08G08G 5/00 |
Application no.12735847.1 |
CatchwordThe business person sets the framework of the problem to be solved by their business model (insurance conditions) and thus reduces - by setting specific boundary conditions - the degrees of freedom of the skilled computer specialist. The technically skilled person, who has to solve the objective technical problem of implementation, therefore has no latitude in selecting the corresponding (physical) parameters (reasons 3.6.10). |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - mixture of technical and non-technical featuresInventive step - skilled person Inventive step - reformulation of the technical problem Inventive step - main request (no) Inventive step - auxiliary request (no) |
Application titleAVIONIC SYSTEM FOR EMERGENCY INTERCEPTION IN CASE OF IMMINENT DAMAGES OF AIRCRAFT FLEETS FOLLOWING NATURAL DISASTER EVENTS |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T028819.20220217 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 504 KB) |
|||
T 1234/17 (Customization based on physiological data/ADIDAS AG) of 4.3.2022 | |||||
Online on15.03.2022 |
Board3.5.01 |
Decision date4.3.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06Q 30/06G06F 3/01 A63B 24/00 |
Application no.12196928.1 |
Catchword
However, the question is whether the mere idea of mapping this acceleration data to gait category is technical, involving any technical considerations or having any overall technical effect. This question arises in many inventions that involve mappings and algorithms. |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - customisation of footwear are based on human gait (noInventive step - no technical features) Inventive step - mapping acceleration data to human gait (no Inventive step - not technical) |
Application titleCustomization based on physiological data |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T123417.20220304 |
DistributionB |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 358 KB) |
|||
T 2632/18 (ON/OFF triggering event/SMAPPEE) of 15.2.2022 | |||||
Online on15.03.2022 |
Board3.5.03 |
Decision date15.2.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH04Q 9/00H02J 13/00 |
Application no.14733605.1 |
Catchword
That a "new" objection was raised by a board in appeal proceedings |
|||||
KeywordsInventive step - main request and 1st auxiliary request (no): obvious selection from equally likely alternativesAdmittance of claim request filed after summons - 2nd auxiliary request (no): no exceptional circumstances |
Application titleEnergy management system |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T263218.20220215 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 436 KB) |
|||
T 0184/19 () of 13.12.2021 | |||||
Online on11.03.2022 |
Board3.2.04 |
Decision date13.12.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCF03D 7/04 |
Application no.11716807.0 |
CatchwordReasons 6.2 to 6.4 |
|||||
KeywordsAdmissibility of appeal - appeal sufficiently substantiated (yes)Novelty - main request (no) Inventive step - auxiliary requests (no) Claims - clarity Claims - auxiliary request (no) Amendments - intermediate generalisation Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (no) Prohibition of reformatio in peius - not applicable |
Application titleA WIND TURBINE |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T018419.20211213 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 1 MB) |
|||
T 2125/18 () of 18.1.2022 | |||||
Online on09.03.2022 |
Board3.2.06 |
Decision date18.1.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCD06F 37/22 |
Application no.11003983.1 |
Catchword
Notification of the statement of grounds of appeal is not a Rule 100(2) EPC communication (Reasons 1.4) |
|||||
KeywordsAmendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no) |
Application titleDrum type washing machine |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T212518.20220118 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 707 KB) |
|||
T 2626/17 () of 19.1.2022 | |||||
Online on08.03.2022 |
Board3.5.02 |
Decision date19.1.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCH01B 3/56H02B 13/055 |
Application no.09783565.6 |
CatchwordThe identification of potential problems of an idea in a prior art document does not necessarily prejudice the public availability of this idea. |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - (no)Novelty - inherent features Inventive step - (no) Inventive step - choice of the less ambitious of two known alternatives Amendment after summons - taken into account (no) Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no) |
Application titleEncapsulated Switchgear |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T262617.20220119 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 436 KB) |
|||
T 0750/18 () of 20.12.2021 | |||||
Online on07.03.2022 |
Board3.3.02 |
Decision date20.12.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC07D 489/12 |
Application no.09789380.4 |
CatchwordThe requirement under Article 12(2) RPBA 2007 to present a complete case does not imply that an appellant/opponent, impugning a decision to maintain a patent in granted or amended form, has to raise objections against all dependent claims (point 4.2 of the reasons). |
|||||
KeywordsCorrection of error - (no)Amendments - added subject-matter (yes) Statement of grounds of appeal - complete case (yes) Statement of grounds of appeal - No need to raise objections against all dependent claims Late-filed test results - admitted (no) Inventive step - auxiliary request 5 (no) Reply to grounds of appeal - complete case (no) - auxiliary request not substantiated Amendment of the case after summons - exceptional circumstances (no) - auxiliary request 6 admitted (no) |
Application titlePROCESSES FOR THE ALKYLATION OF NORBUPRENORPHINE WITH REDUCED IMPURITY FORMATION |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T075018.20211220 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 722 KB) |
T 0582/18 () of 30.11.2021 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on28.02.2022 |
Board3.2.05 |
Decision date30.11.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCF16P 3/14G01S 17/02 G05B 19/18 |
Application no.13175585.2 |
CatchwordPublic availability of a master's thesis, see point 3.1 of the reasons. |
|||||
KeywordsLate-filed evidence - admitted (yes)Novelty - document made availabe to the public (yes) Novelty - main request (no) Prohibition of reformatio in peius - auxiliary request 1 (yes) |
Application titleMonitoring system and method |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T058218.20211130 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 610 KB) |
|||
T 1265/17 (Nanocellulose/Kemira Oyj) of 16.12.2021 | |||||
Online on14.02.2022 |
Board3.3.06 |
Decision date16.12.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCD21H 21/10 |
Application no.09174967.1 |
CatchwordIf a claim is unduly broadened with respect to the scope of the examples used to illustrate a technical effect, particularly when this broadening concerns the feature/s allegedly providing that effect, the burden of proof might shift back to the proprietor to prove that the effect observed in the examples would also be obtained throughout the entire scope of the claims. If no evidence is provided in this respect, a conclusion may have to be drawn on the basis of plausibility arguments (reasons 2.2.5-2.2.7). |
|||||
KeywordsNew explanation not regarded as an amended caseSufficiency of disclosure - (yes) Inventive step - reformulation of the technical problem Inventive step - main request (no) Inventive step - auxiliary request (yes) |
Application titleProcess for production of paper |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T126517.20211216 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 453 KB) |
|||
T 0084/18 (Testing a distributed processing structure/TELECOM ITALIA) of 7.2.2022 | |||||
Online on11.02.2022 |
Board3.5.07 |
Decision date7.2.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCG06F 11/34 |
Application no.05792039.9 |
CatchwordCase Law of the Boards of Appeal, 9th edition, 2019, III.C.4.3.2 |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - Main request (no)Inventive step - First auxiliary request (no) Late-filed request - second and third auxiliary requests not admitted in first instance proceedings Late-filed request - not admissible |
Application titleA METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATICALLY TESTING PERFORMANCE OF APPLICATIONS RUN IN A DISTRIBUTED PROCESSING STRUCTURE AND CORRESPONDING COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T008418.20220207 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 466 KB) |
|||
T 1842/18 () of 10.12.2021 | |||||
Online on11.02.2022 |
Board3.2.04 |
Decision date10.12.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCF04D 13/06H02K 5/22 H02K 11/33 |
Application no.11195807.0 |
CatchwordEntscheidungsgründe 4 |
|||||
KeywordsErfinderische Tätigkeit - (nein)Erfinderische Tätigkeit - naheliegende Alternative Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag (nein) Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hilfsantrag (nein) Spät eingereichter Antrag - divergierende Anspruchsfassungen Spät eingereichter Antrag - eingereicht in der mündlichen Verhandlung Spät eingereichter Antrag - zugelassen (nein) |
Application titlePumpenaggregat |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T184218.20211210 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 403 KB) |
|||
T 0077/18 (Dental composite / KERR CORPORATION) of 21.1.2022 | |||||
Online on07.02.2022 |
Board3.3.07 |
Decision date21.1.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 6/00A61K 6/083 |
Application no.03254200.3 |
CatchwordThe respondent's requests regarding the ground for opposition under Article 100 c) EPC confront the Board with the issue of admittance of a new ground for opposition which was raised during the oral proceedings before the opposition division but had deliberately not been decided upon by the opposition division. In the absence of a positive decision on admittance by the opposition division, the Board considers that the ground for opposition under Article 100 c) EPC should be treated as a fresh ground at the appeal stage and its admittance should be governed by the principles set forth in G 10/91, which require the proprietor's consent for its introduction in the appeal proceedings. In view of the appellant's refusal thereto, the ground for opposition under Article 100 c) is not to be introduced in the appeal proceedings. |
|||||
KeywordsNovelty - implicit disclosure (no)Inventive step - (yes) Grounds for opposition - late-filed ground for opposition |
Application titlePrepolymerized filler in dental restorative composite |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T007718.20220121 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 385 KB) |
|||
T 1513/17 (Prolongation of survival of an allograft/ALEXION) of 28.1.2022 | |||||
Online on01.02.2022 |
Board3.3.04 |
Decision date28.1.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCC07K 16/18 |
Application no.05779924.9 (consolidated with Case Number: T 2719/19 - 3.3.04) |
Catchword
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal: |
|||||
KeywordsPriorityCorrection of error Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal |
Application titleProlongation of survival of an allograft by inhibiting complement activity |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T151317.20220128 |
DistributionA |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 456 KB) |
|||
T 2719/19 (Prolongation of survival of an allograft/ALEXION) of 28.1.2022 | |||||
Online on01.02.2022 |
Board3.3.04 |
Decision date28.1.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA61K 39/395C07K 16/18 |
Application no.16160321.2 (consolidated with Case Number:T 1513/17 - 3.3.04) |
Catchword
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal: |
|||||
KeywordsPriorityCorrection of error Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal |
Application titleProlongation of survival of an allograft by inhibiting complement activity |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T271919.20220128 |
DistributionA |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 385 KB) |
T 0988/17 () of 26.11.2021 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online on17.01.2022 |
Board3.2.02 |
Decision date26.11.2021 |
Proc. languageDE |
IPCA61M 5/32 |
Application no.04018070.5 |
CatchwordWeder Artikel 13(2) VOBK 2020 noch die erläuternden Bemerkungen dazu in CA/3/19 enthalten eine Erklärung, wie allgemein zu bestimmen ist, ob die Umstände "außergewöhnlich" sind. Die Erläuterungen der VOBK 2020 nennen als Beispiel für solche "außergewöhnlichen" Umstände allerdings den Fall, dass die Kammer einen Einwand erstmals in einer Mitteilung erhoben hat. In diesem Fall rechtfertige die veränderte Grundlage des Beschwerdeverfahrens ein verändertes Vorbringen. Die Frage, ob umgekehrt durch geändertes Vorbringen auch die Grundlage des Beschwerdeverfahrens verändert wird, stellt somit ein mögliches Kriterium dar, das für die Beurteilung der Außergewöhnlichkeit der Umstände heranzuziehen ist (Punkt 6.3 der Entscheidungsgründe). |
|||||
KeywordsAusreichende Offenbarung - (ja)Änderungen - Erweiterung über den Inhalt der Anmeldung in der eingereichten Fassung hinaus (nein) Neuheit - (ja) Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (ja) Spät vorgebrachte Argumente - zugelassen (ja) Spät eingereichte Beweismittel - Umstände der Beschwerdesache rechtfertigen Zulassung (nein) Angefochtene Entscheidung - ausreichend begründet (nein) Wesentlicher Verfahrensmangel - Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr (ja) |
Application titleNadelschutz für eine Glasspritze |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T098817.20211126 |
DistributionC |
DecisionText der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 742 KB) |
|||
T 2759/17 () of 7.10.2021 | |||||
Online on17.01.2022 |
Board3.3.02 |
Decision date7.10.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCA01N 63/00A01P 15/00 A01N 31/02 |
Application no.07742566.8 |
CatchwordA disclosure within a prior art document can only be considered to represent a suitable starting point for assessing inventive step if the skilled person would have realistically started from it. An important consideration in this assessment generally is whether this disclosure aims at the same or a similar purpose or effect as that underlying the patent in question (see in particular 5.3 to 5.6 of the Reasons). |
|||||
KeywordsSufficiency of disclosureNovelty Inventive step |
Application titleCOMPOSITION OF BIOFILM CONTROL AGENT |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T275917.20211007 |
DistributionC |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 459 KB) |
|||
T 2073/18 () of 10.1.2022 | |||||
Online on13.01.2022 |
Board3.2.07 |
Decision date10.1.2022 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCB65D 83/10 |
Application no.07799574.4 |
CatchwordSpecial reasons present in the sense of Article 11 (1) RPBA 2020 (see point 6 of the reasons for the decision) |
|||||
KeywordsDecision in written proceedings without oral proceedings - (yes)Novelty - (yes) Inventive step - (yes) Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (yes) |
Application titleSYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PACKAGING CUTTING BLADES |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2022:T207318.20220110 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 278 KB) |
|||
T 0494/18 (Manufacturing a multi-ply tissue paper/SCA Tissue France) of 15.10.2021 | |||||
Online on03.01.2022 |
Board3.3.06 |
Decision date15.10.2021 |
Proc. languageEN |
IPCD21H 27/02D21H 27/30 D21H 27/00 B31F 1/07 |
Application no.12305973.5 |
CatchwordA request in which some claims have been deleted compared to the requests that were filed previously with the grounds of appeal or the reply is, according to the systematic context of Article 12(3) RPBA 2020 and Article 13 RPBA 2020, a new request and thus usually amounts to an "amendment to the party's appeal case". |
|||||
KeywordsLate-filed auxiliary request 8 filed during the oral proceedings before the Board - admittance (yes) - formally allowable (yes) - inventive step (yes) |
Application titleMulti-ply tissue paper product and method for manufacturing the same |
||||
European Case Law IdentifierECLI:EP:BA:2021:T049418.20211015 |
DistributionD |
DecisionDecision text in EN (PDF, 487 KB) |