4.11. Article 12(4) RPBA 2007
Overview
- T 2455/18
see point 2.1.2 of the Reasons
- T 852/18
Reasons 8.6, 8.7
- T 2117/17
a) Besonders strenge Bedingungen sind an ein verspätetes Vorbringen einer offenkundigen Vorbenutzung geknüpft, insbesondere dann, wenn die Vorbenutzung durch die Verfahrensbeteiligten selbst erfolgt sein soll. Gerade in einem solchen Fall wäre von der Einsprechenden zu erwarten gewesen, Informationen über die eigenen Produkte schon vor der Einspruchsabteilung vorzubringen, um eine Zurückverweisung zu vermeiden (Punkt 4.2.8).
b) Obwohl zwar die Verfahrensschritte als solche in einem Vorrichtungsanspruch nicht unmittelbar Teil des Schutzumfangs sind, versteht die Fachperson aber, dass die Vorrichtung dazu eingerichtet sein muss, die Verfahrensschritte auszuführen (Punkt 5.2.3).
- T 101/17
Reasons 4 and 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 2696/16
Dient eine Übersetzung lediglich der Annehmlichkeit einer Partei, ist dies kein ausreichender Grund für das Stellen der Übersetzung durch das EPA (siehe Entscheidungsgründe 1.1). Da keine Gründe für die verspätete Einreichung der prima facie hochrelevanten Dokumente genannt wurden (und auch nicht erkennbar sind), kam die Kammer folglich zu dem Schluss, in Ausübung ihres Ermessens gemäß Artikel 12 (4) VOBK 2007 die Dokumente E12 bis E16 trotz ihrer hohen Relevanz nicht in das Verfahren zuzulassen, denn andernfalls könnte ein Einsprechender eine (hoch)relevante Entgegenhaltung immer ohne Weiteres erst mit der Beschwerdebegründung einreichen und darauf vertrauen, dass diese Entgegenhaltung im Beschwerdeverfahren wegen ihrer Relevanz zugelassen wird (siehe Entscheidungsgründe 1.2).
- T 62/15
Evidence filed with the statement of grounds of appeal - prima facie relevance and interests of the public in valid patents not taken into account when deciding on admittance (point 1 of the reasons)
- T 52/15
Filing of a series of main requests resulting in each new main request being considered as replacing the previously filed main request. Procedural steps preventing the department of first instance from deciding on relevant issues. (See points 1.1-2.11 of the reasoning)
- T 1695/14
- Die Rücknahme eines Antrags kann ausdrücklich oder konkludent erfolgen. Eine konkludente Antragsrücknahme liegt vor, wenn sich aus den Umständen zweifelsfrei ergibt, dass bestimmte Anträge nicht weiterverfolgt werden sollen. - Werden Anträge, die im Beschwerdeverfahren zunächst gestellt und nachfolgend ausdrücklich oder konkludent zurückgenommen worden waren, später erneut eingereicht (wieder aufgegriffen), richtet sich ihre Zulassung nach den verfahrensrechtlichen Normen der VOBK, die für die Zulassung eines gänzlich neuen Antrags maßgeblich sind.
- J 12/18
Under Article 76(2) EPC only those Contracting States that had been designated in the earlier application at time of filing the divisional can be designated in the divisional. A designated state forfeited in the parent application at time of filing the divisional cannot be revived in the divisional one.
- Case law 2021
- Case law 2020
-
In T 101/17 Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007 still applied, as the statement of grounds of appeal had been filed before the entry into force of the RPBA 2020. The board recalled that this provision codified the principle that each party should submit all facts, evidence, arguments and requests that appear relevant as early as possible so as to ensure a fair, speedy and efficient procedure (e.g. T 162/09). With reference to T 1848/12 and the case law cited therein, the board emphasised that an appellant was not at liberty to bring about the shifting of its case to the appeal proceedings as it pleased, and so to compel the board either to give a first ruling on the critical issues or to remit the case to the opposition division. Conceding such freedom to an appellant would run counter to orderly and efficient opposition-appeal proceedings. In effect, it would allow a kind of "forum shopping" which would jeopardise the proper distribution of functions between the departments of first instance and the boards of appeal and would be unacceptable for procedural economy generally (G 9/91, OJ 1993, 408, T 1705/07, T 1067/08). The board then examined the case in hand in the light of the foregoing approach. The novelty objection to be overcome by the auxiliary requests had been in the proceedings already since the filing of the opposition; its framework of facts and arguments had remained unchanged throughout the opposition proceedings. Nonetheless the appellant had restricted its case to defending the patent as granted without providing any fallback positions by filing auxiliary requests. The board left open at which point it would have been incumbent on the appellant to file an auxiliary request to address the novelty objection (in response to the opposition, in response to the preliminary opinion of the opposition division, both raising the objection, or when invited to do so at the oral hearing). However, the board noted that the appellant had taken none of these opportunities and for reasons of equity in appeal was restricted to defending the patent in unamended form. For these reasons, the board decided not to admit any of the auxiliary requests filed at the appeal stage. See also chapter III.F. "Apportionment of costs" above.
- Case law 2019
-
In T 1719/13 the auxiliary request corresponded to auxiliary request 1 found allowable by the opposition division, except for the addition of dependent claim 5. The board found that there was no convincing reason to admit this request into the proceedings. The board referred to the consistent case law that the opposition proceedings may not be used to tidy up the patent by adding one or more dependent claims; such an addition was normally inadmissible under R. 80 EPC (see for instance T 993/07). By the same token, the board considered the addition of one or more dependent claims in appeal proceedings to a claim request held allowable by the opposition division to be an attempt to tidy up the allowable claim request and thus not admissible under Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007.
In T 1467/13, in the opposition proceedings the patent proprietor had sought maintenance on the basis of new requests that were now, on appeal, its main and first to eighth auxiliary requests. Those requests had therefore defined the scope of the proceedings at first instance. In its ninth to thirteenth auxiliary requests, filed with its statement of grounds of appeal, a feature had been deleted. Their subject-matter was thus, with no apparent justification, outside the scope of the proceedings as defined at first instance. Based on Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007, it therefore should have been filed in the first-instance proceedings.