Selected decisions in 2022

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Ablehnung wegen Besorgnis der Befangenheit
- Zum notwendigen Inhalt einer dienstlichen Äußerung gemäß Artikel 3 (2) VOBK 2020 (Ziffer 1.4.3).
- Die Stellung eines Antrags und die Einlassung zur Sache sind Verfahrenshandlungen im Sinne von Artikel 24 (3) Satz 2 EPÜ (Ziffer 1.5.2).
- Ein Spruchkörper ist nicht generell verpflichtet, in der mündlichen Verhandlung Erklärungen oder Begründungen für die Auffassung der Kammer zu geben. Das Fehlen einer solchen Begründung rechtfertigt in der Regel nicht die Besorgnis der Befangenheit (Ziffer 2.3.1).
- Die Einleitung der durch ein Beratungsergebnis bedingten notwendigen weiteren Verfahrensschritte rechtfertigt nicht die Besorgnis der Befangenheit (Ziffer 2.3.2).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Statements 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.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

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).
Waiting for the written decision before submitting a request for correction of the minutes is incompatible with a party's obligation to request correction of the minutes in the shortest time possible after their receipt (Reasons 9.3).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

An 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).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

"Exceptional circumstances" in Rule 13(2) RPBA interpreted as those that compromise neither the procedural rights of the other party, nor procedural economy.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Reasons 7

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

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
points 6.3.2 and 6.3.4 of the Reasons.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1. 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)
2. The unexplained omission of the reasons of the responsible superior's decision from the final decision of the division justifies the suspicion of partiality and constitutes a substantial procedural violation (Reasons 2.9 and 2.15)
3. The principle of the prohibition of "reformatio in peius" is not applicable where a case is to be remitted to a division in a new composition because of a suspicion of partiality (Reasons 5.5 and 5.6)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Der Großen Beschwerdekammer werden folgende Rechtsfragen vorgelegt:
1. Kann eine europäische Patentanmeldung nach Artikel 97 (2) 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?
2.1 Wenn die erste Frage bejaht wird, welches sind dann die Bedingungen für eine solche Zurückweisung, und gelten unterschiedliche Bedingungen je nachdem, ob die zu prüfende europäische Patentanmeldung
a) am Anmeldetag oder
b) als europäische Teilanmeldung (Artikel 76 (1) EPÜ) zu oder
c) unter Inanspruchnahme der Priorität (Artikel 88 EPÜ) einer europäischen Patentanmeldung eingereicht wurde, auf deren Grundlage demselben Anmelder ein europäisches Patent erteilt wurde?
2.2 Hat insbesondere im letztgenannten Fall ein Anmelder ein legitimes Interesse an der Erteilung eines Patents auf die (spätere) europäische Patentanmeldung, weil nach Artikel 63 (1) EPÜ der Anmeldetag und nicht der Prioritätstag maßgeblich für die Berechnung der Laufzeit des europäischen Patents ist?

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
1. Can a European patent application be refused under Article 97(2) EPC if it claims the same subject-matter as a European patent which was granted to the same applicant and does not form part of the state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) and (3) EPC?
2.1 If the answer to the first question is yes, what are the conditions for such a refusal, and are different conditions to be applied depending on whether the European patent application under examination was filed
a) on the same date as, or
b) as a European divisional application (Article 76(1) EPC) in respect of, or
c) claiming the priority (Article 88 EPC) in respect of a European patent application on the basis of which a European patent was granted to the same applicant?
2.2 In particular, in the last of these cases, does an applicant have a legitimate interest in the grant of a patent on the (subsequent) European patent application in view of the fact that the filing date and not the priority date is the relevant date for calculating the term of the European patent under Article 63(1) EPC?

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Les questions suivantes sont soumises à la Grande Chambre de recours :
1. Une demande de brevet européen peut-elle être rejetée au titre de l'article 97(2) 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 ?
2.1 S'il est répondu par l'affirmative à la première question, quelles sont les conditions d'un tel rejet et faut-il appliquer des conditions différentes suivant que la demande de brevet européen faisant l'objet de l'examen :
a) a été déposée à la même date qu'une demande de brevet européen sur la base de laquelle un brevet européen a été délivré au même demandeur,
b) a été déposée en tant que demande divisionnaire européenne (article 76(1) CBE) relative à une telle demande, ou
c) revendique la priorité d'une telle demande (article 88 CBE) ?
2.2 En particulier, dans ce dernier cas, un demandeur a-t-il un intérêt légitime à obtenir la délivrance d'un brevet sur la base de la demande de brevet européen (ultérieure) étant donné que la date déterminante pour calculer la durée du brevet européen en vertu de l'article 63(1) CBE est la date de dépôt et non la date de priorité ?

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Stützung der Ansprüche durch die Beschreibung, s. Punkt 3.3.5

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

If 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).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

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.
2. Die Anmeldung kann auf dieser Rechtsgrundlage zurückgewiesen werden, unabhängig davon, ob sie
a) am Anmeldetag oder
b) als frühere Anmeldung oder Teilanmeldung (Artikel 76 (1) EPÜ) zu oder
c) unter Inanspruchnahme der Priorität (Artikel 88 EPÜ) der europäischen Patentanmeldung eingereicht worden ist, die zu dem bereits erteilten europäischen Patent geführt hat.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

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.
2. La demande en question peut être rejetée sur cette base juridique, indépendamment de la question de savoir
a) si elle a été déposée à la même date que la demande de brevet européen à l'origine du brevet européen déjà délivré, ou
b) si elle constitue une demande antérieure ou une demande divisionnaire (article 76(1) CBE) relative à une telle demande, ou encore
c) si elle revendique la même priorité (article 88 CBE) qu'une telle demande.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

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).
La conformité d'une procédure orale sous forme de visioconférence avec le droit d'une partie d'être entendue selon l'article 113 CBE ne dépend pas de l'accord de cette partie à ce que la procédure orale se tienne par visioconférence mais uniquement du fait si cette partie a suffisamment la possibilité de prendre position et de présenter son cas (point 10.8 des motifs).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

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
2091/18, vgl. Punkt 5 der Gründe).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The PCT Assembly may be considered the legislator for the PCT Regulations. See reasons 16.
"Understandings" of the PCT Assembly expressed in relation to a newly amended rule together with the adoption of this rule are an expression of the legislator's intention. See reasons 17 and 18.
The delegates of the PCT Contracting States in the PCT Assembly agreed, in the "understandings" related to R. 49ter.2(b)(i) PCT, on how this rule should be applied. As an act of authentic interpretation by the legislator this agreement may be taken into account when assessing the context for
the purpose of interpreting the new provision
. See reasons
19.
In the case in hand, when applying R. 49ter.2(b)(i) PCT in the light of the understandings of the PCT Assembly, the request and the payment for restoration of the right of priority were made in time. See reasons 23.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

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.
II. Under the Arrangements for deposit accounts valid as from 1 December 2017 (ADA 2017), a debit order having the clear purpose of paying a particular fee (here: the appeal fee) authorises the EPO to debit that fee in the applicable amount.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Application of decision G 1/19 to
- simulation methods (Reasons, point 2)
- design methods (Reasons, point 4)
- measurement methods (Reasons, point 7)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The 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.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

If 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.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

While 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).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Zur Notwendigkeit einer rechtzeitigen Replik:
1. Unter der seit 1. Januar 2020 geltenden Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern (VOBK 2020) obliegt es den Parteien, ihren Vortrag so rechtzeitig im Verfahren zu bringen, dass die Beschwerdekammer ihn bereits bei Abfassung des Ladungsbescheids berücksichtigen kann.
2. Soweit die Beschwerdeführerin einen Teil ihres Vortrags nicht, wie es Artikel 12 Abs. 3 VOBK 2020 eigentlich fordert, bereits in der Beschwerdebegründung unterbreiten kann, weil es sich um die Antwort auf Angriffe bzw. Hilfsanträge handelt, die nicht bereits Gegenstand der angegriffenen Entscheidung waren, sondern von der Beschwerdegegnerin in der Beschwerdeerwiderung unterbreitet wurden, stellt eine Replik hierauf für die Beschwerdeführerin das geeignete Mittel der Wahl dar, um ihre Antwort rechtzeitig vorzubringen. Gerade aus diesem Grund sieht Artikel 15 (1) VOBK 2020 vor, dass die Kammer sich bemüht, nicht früher als zwei Monate nach Erhalt der Beschwerdeerwiderung (gemäß Artikel 12 (1) c) VOBK 2020) die Ladung zu versenden.
3. Das Argument, es sei nicht zumutbar, Kaskaden von Argumentationslinien im Hinblick auf jede denkbare Einschätzung der Kammer vortragen zu müssen, greift nicht. Im zweiseitigen Beschwerdeverfahren trifft die Parteien die Pflicht zur sorgfältigen und beförderlichen Verfahrensführung, aus Gründen der Fairness gegenüber der anderen Partei, aber auch um das Verfahren innerhalb einer angemessenen Verfahrensdauer zum Abschluss zu bringen. Artikel 13 (2) VOBK 2020 sanktioniert diese Pflicht zur Verfahrensförderung.
4. Das Argument der Beschwerdeführerin, es sei der Kammer und auch der Patentinhaberin zumutbar, sich in der mündlichen Verhandlung mit der Diskussion eines einfachen neuen Sachverhaltes zu beschäftigen, lässt den Einfluss auf den weiteren Verfahrensverlauf außer Acht. Die erstmalige Diskussion einer Argumentationslinie in der mündlichen Verhandlung mag zu einer Situation führen, in der die andere Partei ihre Verteidigungslinie erstmalig in der mündlichen Verhandlung überdenken und ggf. anpassen muss, was zu einer deutlichen Verzögerung des Verfahrens führen und eine sachgerechte Entscheidung in der mündlichen Verhandlung erschweren oder unmöglich machen kann.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Gründe 3

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Die 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).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Necessity to adapt the description (Reasons 3)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

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).
The board is of the opinion that, in the case at hand, no technical effect is achieved by the method's functionality as the method merely produces a test rod pattern (i.e. a fuel bundle configuration) design and data "indicative of limits that were violated by the proposed test rod pattern design during the simulation".
Contrary to case T 625/11, no parameter is identified that is "intimately linked to" the operation of a nuclear reactor.
A rod pattern design appears to have non-technical uses such as for study purposes. These are "relevant uses other than the use with a technical device", and therefore a technical effect is not achieved over substantially the whole scope of the claimed invention (G 1/19, points 94 and 95).
The data "indicative of limits that were violated by the proposed test rod pattern design during the simulation" do even not, or at least do not entirely, reflect the physical behaviour of a real system underlying the simulation (see G 1/19, point 128).
The board notes that, due to the breadth of the wording of claim 1 of the main request, the obtained rod pattern design might violate any number of limits by an almost unlimited amount.
Hence, this is not an "exceptional case" in which calculated effects can be considered implied technical effects (see decision G 1/19, points 94, 95 and 128).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Während 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).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

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).
2. There is no legal basis for a duty on the part of the opposition division to notify the patent proprietor in advance of its intention to reach a decision, even if that decision concerns the revocation of the patent (see Reasons 4.8, 4.10 and 4.11).
3. If a patent proprietor chooses not to file any submissions during the opposition proceedings but to present them only with its statement of grounds of appeal, this amounts to bringing an entirely fresh case in appeal proceedings. This is at odds with the primary object of the appeal proceedings to review the decision under appeal in a judicial manner. Consequently, a board has the discretion under Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 not to admit the patent proprietor's defence submissions into the appeal proceedings. This does, however, not necessarily lead to revocation of the patent. The decision under appeal is still to be reviewed by the board, which might overturn the impugned decision, for example if it is not convinced by the reasons given by the opposition division or in the event of a substantial procedural violation (see Reasons 5.5 and 5.6).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

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.
It is thus clear that some discussion can and ought to take place. However, rather like objections against added subject-matter, one is essentially trying to prove a negative which tends to be a rather short exercise. On the other hand, the appellant is trying to prove a positive which involves more argument. Thus an objection from the division should probably start with a prima facie assertion that the feature in question is non-technical, perhaps because it is in one of the exclusions listed in Article 52(2) EPC, or a related or analogous field. If this is uncontested then this would be enough. However the Board considers that it is then up to the appellant to provide arguments why there is a technical effect or that some technical considerations are involved. The division should consider these arguments and give reasons why they are not convincing. As mentioned above, the Board is satisfied that this happened in the present case.
One final piece of advice for examining divisions would be where possible to search for and start from a document that already discloses some of the alleged non-technical features, thus avoiding the discussion for these features (see for example, T 756/06 - Displaying a schedule/FUJITSU, point 5 or T 368/05 - Integrated account/CITIBANK, point 8).
(See points 3.3 to 3.5 of the reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The 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).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

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.
In T 1798/13 (Forecasting the value of a structured financial product/SWISS REINSURANCE COMPANY LTD), points 2.7 to 2.9, the present Board essentially held that it was not enough that an algorithm makes use of a technical quantity in the form of a measured physical parameter (weather data). What matters is whether the algorithm reflects any additional technical considerations about the parameter, such as its measurement. In that case there were none. This was contrasted with T 2079/10 (Steuerung von zellulär aufgebauten Alarmsystemen/SWISSRE) where the invention was seen to lie in the improvement of the measurement technique itself, which involved technical considerations about the sensors and their positions.
Such a situation is conceivable in the present case, if the algorithm were to somehow enhance the input data using considerations of e.g. the placement of the sensors. However, the claim only specifies that the data "includes a time series of acceleration vectors" and that this data is "analyzed". There are no further details that could constitute technical considerations about the data or the sensors.
(See points 2.11 to 2.13 of the reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

That a "new" objection was raised by a board in appeal proceedings
cannot
per se
amount to "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (see point 4.3 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Reasons 6.2 to 6.4

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Notification of the statement of grounds of appeal is not a Rule 100(2) EPC communication (Reasons 1.4)
Article 13(2) RPBA - "in principle" (Reasons 2.1)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The identification of potential problems of an idea in a prior art document does not necessarily prejudice the public availability of this idea.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The 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).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Public availability of a master's thesis, see point 3.1 of the reasons.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

If 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).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 9th edition, 2019, III.C.4.3.2

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Entscheidungsgründe 4

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The 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.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
I. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC?
II. If question I is answered in the affirmative
Can a party B validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT-application for the purpose of claiming priority rights under Article 87(1) EPC
in the case where
1) a PCT-application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States, including regional European patent protection and
2) the PCT-application claims priority from an earlier patent application that designates party A as the applicant and
3) the priority claimed in the PCT-application is in compliance with Article 4 of the Paris Convention?

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
I. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC?
II. If question I is answered in the affirmative
Can a party B validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT-application for the purpose of claiming priority rights under Article 87(1) EPC
in the case where
1) a PCT-application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States, including regional European patent protection and
2) the PCT-application claims priority from an earlier patent application that designates party A as the applicant and
3) the priority claimed in the PCT-application is in compliance with Article 4 of the Paris Convention?

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Weder 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).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

A 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).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Special reasons present in the sense of Article 11 (1) RPBA 2020 (see point 6 of the reasons for the decision)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

A 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".

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision