Information
Cette page n'est disponible qu'en Anglais.
Selected decisions
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. The list contains all decisions with a headnote or catchword published in the last three years and can be viewed by year by selecting the year from the menu on the left.
The list below contains all decisions with a headnote or catchword that have been released for publication in the last six months (newest first).
April 2024
Zur Ersetzung eines erteilten unabhängigen Anspruchs durch mehrere unabhängige Ansprüche siehe Punkt
1 der Entscheidungsgründe.
Änderung veranlasst durch Einspruchsgrund (ja)
Änderung veranlasst durch Einspruchsgrund - Änderungen zulässig (ja)
Änderungen - Änderung über den Inhalt der Anmeldung in der eingereichten Fassung hinaus
Änderungen - Hauptantrag (nein)
Patentansprüche - Klarheit
Patentansprüche - Hauptantrag (ja)
Neuheit - Hauptantrag (ja)
Änderung des Vorbringens - Einwand zugelassen (nein)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag (ja)
Amendments - allowable (no)
Late-filed request - circumstances of appeal case justify admittance (no)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Patent wie erteilt (nein)
Zulassung von Anspruchssätzen, die bereits im Einspruchsverfahren eingereicht wurden - Hilfsantrag 6 (ja)
Zurückverweisung an die erste Instanz auf der Grundlage von Hilfsantrag 6Zurückverweisung - (ja): andere Anspruchsauslegung und unvollständige Begründung durch die Einspruchsabteilung sind "besondere Gründe"
Vorlage an die Große Beschwerdekammer - (nein)
For assessing an intermediate generalisation in an amended claim for compliance with Article 123(2) EPC it has to be established whether, because of this generalisation, the subject-matter of the claim extends beyond what was, be it explicitly or implicitly, directly and unambiguously disclosed to the person skilled in the art using common general knowledge in the application as filed. This is the "gold" standard for assessing any amendment for its compliance with Article 123(2) EPC (G 2/10, point 4.3 of the Reasons).
If an amended claim comprises only some features of an originally disclosed combination and the features left out of the claim were understood, by the person skilled in the art, to be inextricably linked to the claimed ones, the claim includes subject-matter extending beyond the application as filed. This is the case if the person skilled in the art would have regarded the omitted features to be necessary for achieving the effect associated with the added features. In such a situation the amended claim conveys the technical teaching that the effect can be obtained with the claimed features alone, which is in contrast with and extends beyond the original disclosure that the whole combination of features was needed.
The criteria for assessing the validity of a priority for the subject-matter of a claim as set out in G 2/98, no matter whether or not the claim includes intermediate generalisations, correspond to the "gold" standard for assessing any amendment for its compliance with Article 123(2) EPC. In view of Article 88(4) EPC, it is not required that this subject-matter be disclosed in the form of a claim or in the form of an embodiment or example specified in the description of the application from which the priority is claimed. In the passage in point 4 of the Reasons of G 2/98 these items, as derived from the expression "in particular", are simply listed as exemplary parts of the application documents.
(Reasons, points 2.4 and 3.2).
Priority - validity of priority date (yes)
Priority - basis in priority document (yes)
Grounds for opposition - added subject-matter (no) -
insufficiency of disclosure (no) - novelty (yes) -
inventive step (yes)
Amendments - intermediate generalisation
Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (no)
1. The discretionary decision under Article 111(1) EPC to remit a case or not is to be taken ex officio, at any time during the appeal proceedings. It is not dependent on any request by a party. A request for remittal made by a party is therefore not subject to the provisions of Articles 12 and 13 RPBA 2020 (points 23 and 24 of the Reasons).
2. Articles 12 and 13 RPBA 2020 serve to take account of changes in the facts or the subject-matter of the appeal proceedings ("amendments" within the meaning of Articles 12(4) and 13(1) and (2) RPBA), within narrow limits (point 25 of the Reasons).
3. Procedural requests are not amendments within the meaning of Articles 12(4) and 13(1) and (2) RPBA. They can therefore be made at any time during the appeal proceedings and must be considered by the board, regardless of when they are made (points 26 to 29 of the Reasons).
Inventive step - (no)
Priority - same invention (no)
Remittal - (no)
March 2024
I. The onus to "demonstrate" that submissions were
"admissibly raised and maintained" within the meaning of
Article 12(4) RPBA lies, as a general rule, with the
party.
II. The minimum requirement under Article 12(4), first
sentence, RPBA for demonstrating that claim requests were
"admissibly raised" in the proceedings leading to the
decision under appeal is twofold, namely that the party
shows
(1) that the requests were filed in due time, typically
before the expiry of the time limit set by the
opposition division under Rule 116(1) and (2) EPC,
and
(2) that it was made clear, explicitly or by way of
unambiguous implication, for what purpose the
requests were filed, i.e. which objections raised by
the other party or the opposition division they try
to overcome and how this is actually achieved.
Inventive step - main, 1st and 10th auxiliary requests (no): juxtaposition of obvious features
Admittance of "carry-over requests" - 3rd to 8th auxiliary requests (no): not demonstrated that "admissibly raised" and not suitable to address the relevant issues; T 42/20 and T 476/21 not followed
Admittance of claim requests filed on appeal - 2nd, 9th and 11th auxiliary requests (no): not suitable to address the relevant issues and not convergent
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - (nein)
Zurückverweisung - (nein)
Inventive step - main request (no): no credible technical effect over the whole scope claimed
Admittance of amendment to opponent's appeal case - new line of attack based on document D18 (yes): "exceptional circumstances"
Admittance of amendment to proprietor's appeal case - auxiliary request 1 (yes): "exceptional circumstances"
Admittance of D23 not admitted by opposition division - (no): no need to prove skilled person's common general knowledge
Admittance of D26 not admitted by opposition division - (yes): "exceptional circumstances"
Remittal to opposition division
Remittal - (yes): "special reasons" -facts and claim requests underlying appeal case have changed
1. Es scheint sich eine einheitliche Rechtsprechungslinie dahingehend zu entwickeln, dass in Fällen, in denen durch eine unkomplizierte Änderung wie das Streichen einer gesamten Anspruchskategorie eine Antragsfassung vorliegt, auf deren Basis das Patent erkennbar aufrechterhalten werden kann, außergewöhnliche Umstände im Sinne von Artikel 13(2) EPÜ vorliegen können. Diese erlauben dann eine positive Ermessensausübung, wenn die Änderung den faktischen oder rechtlichen Rahmen des Verfahrens nicht verschiebt, keine Neugewichtung des Verfahrensgegenstandes bedingt und weder dem Grundsatz der Verfahrensökonomie, noch den berechtigten Interessen einer Verfahrenspartei zuwiderläuft (im Anschluss an T 2295/19; siehe Gründe Nr. 3.4.2 bis 3.4.6)
2. Diese Rechtsprechung fügt sich hinsichtlich des Grades der geforderten prima facie Relevanz in die Stufen des mit der VOBK etablierten Konvergenzansatzes ein und führt diesen logisch fort (vgl. Gründe Nr. 3.4.7).
3. Es besteht keine Notwendigkeit (mehr), zur Sicherung einer einheitlichen Rechtsanwendung die Große Beschwerdekammer zu befassen (vgl. Gründe Nr. 4 bis 4.4).
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag (nein)
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hilfsantrag V (ja)
Ermessen Vorbringen nicht zuzulassen - Hilfsanträge I-IV
Ermessen Vorbringen nicht zuzulassen - Voraussetzungen des Art. 12 (3) VOBK 2020 erfüllt (nein)
Änderung nach Ladung - Hilfsantrag V
Änderung nach Ladung - außergewöhnliche Umstände (ja)
Vorlage an die Große Beschwerdekammer - (nein)
Patentansprüche - Klarheit
Patentansprüche - Hilfsantrag V (ja)