4.4.2 Procedural economy
Overview
4.4.2 Procedural economy
|
You are viewing the 9th edition (2019) of this publication; for the 10th edition (2022) see here |
Under Art. 13(1) RPBA 2007, the board must exercise its discretion in view of the need for procedural economy, that is, the need to conclude proceedings swiftly and to create legal certainty. It also follows from the inter-relationship between Art. 12 and 13 RPBA 2007 that amendments made to a party's case after filing of the grounds of appeal do not form part of the subject of the appeal and so must be admitted in order to be considered (T 253/10).
- T 1707/17
Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 requires the party not only to explain why the case involves exceptional circumstances, but also to explain why its amendment, in terms of both content and timing, represents a justified response to these circumstances. In particular, where a party seeks to amend its case at a very late stage in the proceedings, the cogent reasons referred to in Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 should include reasons why it was not possible to file such an amendment earlier (Reasons, point 2.4).
- T 2734/16
1. Eine neue Angriffslinie auf die erfinderische Tätigkeit, die als Reaktion und unter Verwendung der von der Patentinhaberin mit der Einspruchserwiderung eingereichten Dokumente verfolgt wird, ist nicht per se als verspätet anzusehen. Sie kann aus Gründen der Waffengleichheit in das Einspruchsverfahren zugelassen werden, auch wenn die Dokumente im Ergebnis nicht relevanter als andere Dokumente sind (Siehe Punkt 1.4.1). 2. Das späte Einreichen von zufällig bekannt gewordenen Entgegenhaltungen ist nicht schon allein deswegen zulässig, weil sie in der japanischen Sprache verfasst sind und deren Auffindbarkeit deswegen unter Umständen erschwert gewesen sein mag. Dies gilt umso mehr, wenn dem Einreichenden die Bedeutung japanischer Unternehmen auf dem fraglichen technischen Gebiet bekannt war und deshalb Veranlassung zu rechtzeitigen umfassenden Recherchen bestand (Siehe Punkt 1.4.2).
- Case law 2020
-
In T 2734/16, the board had to decide (before the entry into force of the RPBA 2020) whether to admit documents that the appellant had submitted as part of the inventive-step discussion after filing its statement of grounds of appeal. The lack of relevance aside, the reason given for the late filing did not convince the board either. In its view, the late filing of citations coming to light by chance could not be regarded as admissible simply because they were in Japanese and might therefore have been difficult to find. But this applied all the more since the filing appellant had been aware of the importance of Japanese companies in the technical field in question and therefore had reason to carry out comprehensive searches in good time. See also chapter IV.B.2. "Late submissions – concept of 'in due time'" above.