Addition of further Designation States after grant (no)

T 1003/19, T 2081/16 not followed

The declaration of entitlement mentioned in the Notice of 18 December 2017 concerning the reduced appeal fee can be filed until the end of the appeal period, despite the wording of point 4, last sentence, of the Notice, which must be reconciled with the meaning of point 11 of the Notice.

An error in a duly filed form for paying the appeal fee may be corrected under Rule 139, first sentence, EPC (Reasons, points 2.3 to 2.5).

Un recours formé par une partie à la procédure et aux prétentions de laquelle la décision attaquée n'avait pas fait droit est recevable malgré le fait qu'en même temps une autre société qui n'était pas partie à la procédure a formé conjointement le recours (motifs 1.4).

Ein vollständiger Sachvortrag, wie ihn Artikel 108 EPÜ und Artikel 12 VOBK seit jeher verlangen, erfordert bei kumulativ aufeinander aufbauenden Argumentationslinien die Darlegung sämtlicher Tatsachen, die erst gemeinsam das behauptete rechtliche Ergebnis tragen (hier: Offenkundigkeit der Vorbenutzung und neuheitsschädliche Vorwegnahme aller Merkmale der Erfindung durch diese bei Beschwerde gegen die Einstufung einer Erfindung als neu im Sinne von Artikel 54 EPÜ). Erst dann ist dargelegt, dass die Entscheidung aufgehoben werden sollte, vgl. T 922/05, Gründe Nr. 3 und 4, für den spiegelbildlichen Fall einer Beschwerde gegen eine Entscheidung, die mehrere alternative Gründe für die f e h l e n d e Patentfähigkeit einer Erfindung aufzählt. Wird von mehreren kumulativ zur Änderung der Entscheidung darzulegenden Tatsachen nur eine ausreichend substantiiert, ist die Beschwerde unzulässig.

Zur Frage der Geringfügigkeit des Differenzbetrags zur vollen Beschwerdegebühr siehe Gründe Nr. 4.8. Zur Frage eines impliziten Antrags auf Berichtigung eines Abbuchungsauftrags sowie der Rechtszeitigkeit der Einreichung eines Berichtigungsantrags siehe Gründe Nr. 5.7 bis 5.14. Zur Frage der ex officio Korrektur von Beträgen in Abbuchungsaufträgen siehe Gründe Nr. 6.1 und 6.2. Zur Frage der Interpretation eines Abbuchungsauftrags hinsichtlich der Beschwerdegebühr siehe Gründe Nr. 8.4.

siehe Gründe 1,2

Siehe Punkte 2. und 3.

ABl. EPA 2021, Zusatzpublikation 2
OJ EPO 2021, Supplementary publication 2
JO OEB 2021, Publication supplémentaire 2

In T 611/15 the opposition division maintained the patent in amended form based on auxiliary request VIII. The proprietor had argued that it had withdrawn only the auxiliary requests filed in writing before the oral proceedings, not the main request. However, the minutes stated that the representative of the proprietor announced that he would withdraw all other requests so that auxiliary request VIII as filed during the oral proceedings represented the main and sole request of the proprietor. In the absence of any request for correction of the minutes, the board assumed that these statements accurately reflected the state of the proprietor's requests. Given that the decision on this request was in favour of the proprietor it followed that the proprietor was not adversely affected by the decision.

In T 317/19 the appellant filed the notice of appeal within the two-month time limit; it contained the following sentence: "We are paying the appeal fee from our deposit account of the attached fee sheet." However, due to an error in the "Method of payment" box on Form 1038E (the box did not indicate a method but stated "not specified"), the debit order for the payment of the appeal fee was not carried out before expiry of that time limit. Following the opinion 
G 1/18 (OJ EPO 2020, A26) this resulted in the appeal being deemed not to have been filed. To change the above result, the appellant filed a request for correction under R. 139 EPC. The board referred to G 1/12 (OJ EPO 2014, A114) where the Enlarged Board affirmed that a correction of errors under R. 139 EPC in documents filed with the EPO is generally applied. The board was aware that the Enlarged Board had made its findings only in the context of the correction of an error in the appellant's name. However, the board failed to see why it should not equally apply to a correction of an erroneously filled payment form. In the case in hand the appellant met the requirements for a correction under R. 139 EPC as summarised in G 1/12. The appellant originally intended to pay the appeal fee via Form 1038E. This was also immediately apparent. Furthermore, the error to be remedied was an incorrect statement in a document filed with the EPO, namely the wrong indication in the "Method of payment" box on Form 1038E. Finally, the appellant filed its request under R. 139 EPC only nine days after the examining division's communication which had hinted at the fact that the payment of the appeal fee had not been carried out. The board concluded that the requirements for the correction were met. As a consequence, the appeal was retroactively deemed to have been filed. Thus, an error in a duly filed form for paying the appeal fee may be corrected under R. 139, first sentence, EPC.

In T 1904/14 the board held that to apply even where the reasoning in the contested decision was wrong or contradictory. In the contested decision in that case, the examining division had concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the then first auxiliary request, which was identical to the main request on appeal, was not clear within the meaning of Art. 84 EPC. A lack of clarity was a main reason in the decision why none of the requests had been grantable. But the appellant had not addressed this ground for refusal at all in its grounds for appeal. It had argued neither that the claims objected to were clear nor that the reasoning for the decision reached under Art. 84 EPC as regards the then auxiliary requests was wrong, contradictory or otherwise inadequate. Nor had it filed any new requests to overcome the clarity objections. Instead, it had complained of a contradiction in the contested decision's reasoning only in response to the board's preliminary opinion. But the R. 99(2) EPC requirement for admissibility – a sufficient statement of grounds of appeal – had to be met by the deadline in Art. 108, third sentence, EPC for filing it; it could not be met retroactively by a late submission. Hence the appellant's allegation, first brought forward in the aforementioned letter, that the examining division had committed a procedural error due to the inadequate reasoning of its decision, should also already have been raised in the grounds of appeal. A wrong, contradictory or incomplete decision did not absolve an appellant of the need to address such deficiencies there. Consequently, the appeal had to be rejected as inadmissible.

In T 16/14, on the relevance of documents E1/E1a and E2/E2a for the patentability of the subject-matter of claim 1 according to the main request, the board observed that the appellant's statement of grounds of appeal merely referred to its notice of opposition and written submissions at first instance, i.e. to the written case it had made as opponent in those first-instance proceedings. Under Art. 12(2) RPBA 2007, the statement of grounds of appeal had to contain the party's complete case and specify expressly all the facts, arguments and evidence relied on and it was the boards' settled case law that a statement referring generally to submissions at first instance was usually insufficient. The appellant ought to have dealt explicitly with the substance of documents E1/E1a and E2/E2a in its statement. The board therefore concluded that the requirements of Art. 12(2) RPBA 2007 were not met by the mere reference to the case made at first instance and that the submissions on documents E1/E1a and E2/E2a therefore had to be disregarded on appeal in accordance with Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007.