5. Amendments in opposition proceedings
Overview
5. Amendments in opposition proceedings
|
You are viewing the 9th edition (2019) of this publication; for the 10th edition (2022) see here |
- T 256/19
Rule 80 EPC represents a non-discretionary provision of the EPC that relates to the allowability of a patent as amended rather than to admissibility (see point 4.7 of the Reasons).
- T 879/18
Reasons 3 : incorrect exercise of discretion
- T 756/18
La division d'opposition outrepasse les limites appropriées de son pouvoir d'appréciation lorsqu'elle déclare n'admettre qu'une seule requête subsidiaire et écarte d'emblée des requêtes supplémentaires sans raisons apparentes valables et sans même avoir examiné si les modifications auraient permis d'écarter toutes les objections valablement soulevées jusque là sans donner lieu à de nouvelles, les rendant ainsi potentiellement recevables (cf. point 4 des motifs).
- T 2450/17
Zur Möglichkeit und den Folgen von Berichtigungen inhaltlich unzutreffender, in der Patentschrift enthaltener Hinweise auf den Stand der Technik, siehe Punkte 2. bis 2.5 und 3.3.3 bis 3.3.6
- T 966/17
1. Das Ermessen der Einspruchsabteilung, geänderte Anträge zum Verfahren zuzulassen, ergibt sich grundsätzlich aus Artikel 123(1) EPÜ (erster Satz) in Verbindung mit Regeln 79(1) und 81(3) EPÜ (siehe Gründe, Punkt 2.2).
2. Eine Änderung der Auffassung der Einspruchsabteilung in der mündlichen Verhandlung in Bezug auf ihre mit der Ladung kommunizierte vorläufige Meinung kann alleine nicht dazu führen, dass in der mündlichen Verhandlung beliebige Anträge ohne ein Ermessen der Einspruchsabteilung zugelassen werden müssen (siehe Gründe, Punkt 2.4).
3. Soweit die Patentinhaberin mit neue Anträgen auf eine neue Angriffslinie der Einsprechenden und ein insoweit neu eingereichtes Dokument reagiert, kann bei der Entscheidung über die Zulassung berücksichtigt werden, ob die Anträge prima facie gewährbar erscheinen oder ohnehin aufgrund anderer schon länger im Verfahren befindlicher Einwände zurückzuweisen wären (siehe Gründe, Punkt 2.4).
4. Die Parteien haben in einem strittigen Verfahren kein Anrecht auf eine "detaillierte Anleitung" durch das entscheidende Organ zur Behebung des diskutierten Mangels. Stattdessen obliegt es jeder Partei, selbst auf den Vortrag des Verfahrensgegners adäquat zu reagieren (siehe Gründe, Punkt 2.5).
- T 84/17
If the arguments in the appealed decision show that for the discretionary decision taken in the first instance some criteria weighed so heavily that other criteria cannot outweigh them, it is not always necessary that all criteria that could theoretically influence a discretionary decision concerning the admittance of a late filed request are discussed in the appealed decision (point 2.2.3) If the need to file amended requests does not arise owing to the submission of additional documents that are merely confirming the arguments on file but had existed before, the filing of such additional documents cannot always justify the filing of new (belated) requests (point 2.3).
- T 688/16
siehe Gründe 1,2
- T 2063/15
Amendment not occasioned by a ground for opposition - Reasons point 4.1.1 to 4.1.4
- T 1437/15
Gründe 3.2
- T 1285/15
Application of Rule 80 EPC (see point 6 of the Reasons) Treating insufficiency objections step by step (see point 12.2.10 of the Reasons)
- R 6/19
The basis for a board's (and opposition division's) discretion to admit or not claim requests is Article 123(1)EPC, (see Reasons points 5 to 10).
- Case law 2021
- Case law 2020
ABl. EPA 2021, Zusatzpublikation 2
OJ EPO 2021, Supplementary publication 2
JO OEB 2021, Publication supplémentaire 2- Case law 2019
-
In T 802/17 the opposition division had given the patent proprietor an opportunity to draft one additional request during the oral proceedings. However, as it had then filed only an amended main request, its later request for permission to file amended auxiliary requests too was refused. In the board's view, the presumably underlying considerations of procedural economy (which the opposition division had anyway merely hinted at) had been insufficient to justify this refusal in the circumstances, as the proprietor had been reacting to a new objection under Art. 123(2) EPC, which had been a surprising turn taken in the proceedings and which its amendment had overcome.
In T 368/16 the opposition division allowed the proprietor to file various auxiliary requests in the course of the oral proceedings. Request IIIb was admitted and found to comply with the requirements of Art. 83 and Art. 123(2) EPC. Its process claim 1 was held to be novel but not its product claim 23. The proprietor then filed a further request consisting only of process claims 1 – 22 of request IIIb. This request IVa was not admitted by the opposition division. Based on the following considerations the board held that the opposition division had exercised its power of discretion under R. 116(2) EPC in an unreasonable way and by not applying the proper principles: The request per se was apt to overcome all the objections discussed so far during oral proceedings. Even if inventive step had still to be discussed, its filing could not be considered as an attempt to prolong unnecessarily the proceedings; on the contrary, since request IVa was based on a convergent limitation with respect to request IIIb and on a combination of features derived from the granted claims, it clearly restricted the issues remaining to be discussed.
In T 688/16 the opposition division had revoked the patent after refusing under Art. 114(2) EPC to admit auxiliary requests 2 and 3 filed during the oral proceedings on the ground that they clearly lacked novelty. The appellant (patent proprietor) requested on appeal that this decision be set aside and that the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of its main request, which corresponded to the auxiliary request 3 it had filed during the opposition proceedings. The board held that the opposition division had lacked discretion to decide whether (or not) to admit auxiliary request 3. It had cited Art. 114(2) EPC but it served as a basis only for discretion to admit or refuse facts or evidence. Discretion not to admit late-filed requests was instead conferred by R. 116(2) EPC, but it could be exercised only if the patent proprietor had been notified of the grounds prejudicing the maintenance of its patent and invited to submit new documents by the date fixed under R. 116(1) EPC, in which case sentences 3 and 4 of R. 116(1) EPC applied mutatis mutandis. That discretion was thus conditional on a communication stating that grounds prejudiced the maintenance of the patent. In the case at issue, however, the opposition division had not issued any such negative communication but only one stating its provisional opinion that none of the grounds for opposition prejudiced maintenance of the patent as granted. The board found that R. 116(2) EPC had thus not been applicable. On the contrary, since the opposition division had not changed its provisional view until the oral proceedings, it ought to have given the patent proprietor an opportunity to respond accordingly by submitting a new request. The board could see no grounds for refusing to admit the main request on appeal, which had already been filed with the statement of grounds of appeal and so, exercising its discretion, decided to admit it in accordance with Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007.
In T 1437/15 the board pointed out that the grounds for opposition specified in Art. 100 EPC concerned only the maintenance of a granted patent (Art. 101(1) and (2) EPC). By contrast, where a patent was amended during opposition proceedings, it could be maintained as so amended only if, taking into consideration the amendments made, it met the requirements of the EPC (Art. 101(3) EPC).