3.4.2 Grounds listed exhaustively

The grounds for a petition for review have been exhaustively defined by the legislator, namely in Art. 112a(2) EPC in conjunction with R. 104 EPC (R 1/08; see also R 10/09, R 14/09, R 16/09, R 17/09, R 18/09, R 20/09, R 20/10, R 6/11, R 13/11, R 19/11, R 20/11, R 2/12 of 17 October 2012 date: 2012-10-17, R 18/12, R 4/13, R 5/13, R 5/14, R 7/14, R 9/14, R 6/15, R 3/16). What is not defined by the Implementing Regulations does not qualify as a procedural defect under Art. 112a(2)(d) EPC (R 16/09).

The erroneous application of a procedural rule, which does not in itself belong to the grounds for review enumerated in the EPC, can only be considered if it results in one of the procedural defects listed in Art. 112a(2) EPC in conjunction with R. 104 EPC (R 2/08, R 20/10, R 18/12). In R 8/16 the Enlarged Board noted that Art. 125 EPC expressly states that it is only applicable in the absence of procedural provisions in the EPC and held that for this reason it could not be the basis for extending the scope of Art. 112a EPC.

In particular, the following issues cannot be considered in review proceedings:

- allegedly insufficient reasoning (R 6/11; see also R 1/08, R 19/11, R 5/13, R 1/15, R 8/15, R 7/16), unless this involves a fundamental violation of Art. 113 EPC

- the alleged violation of Art. 114 EPC in conjunction with R. 116(1) and (2) EPC or, respectively, R. 101 and 99(2) EPC (R 14/09)

- the refusal to allow the recording of oral proceedings, the use of a different (but equivalent) terminology than the one used in the EPC during the oral proceedings or the non-validation of the minutes at the end of the oral proceedings (R 17/09)

- the alleged inadequate keeping of minutes, the alleged incompetence to decide on the exclusion from file inspection or the alleged misunderstanding of a party submission (R 20/09)

- the alleged violation of Art. 6 ECHR (R 1/16, R 18/09), unless this involves a fundamental violation of Art. 113 EPC (see G 3/08 date: 2010-05-12, OJ 2011, 10, as to the general applicability of fundamental procedural rights in EPO proceedings)

- the alleged violation of the principle of legitimate expectations (R 13/11, R 1/16)

- the allegedly incorrect reversal of the burden of proof (R 21/10)

- alleged irrationality or "Wednesbury unreasonableness" (R 19/11)

- allegedly insufficient time allowed for the oral proceedings (R 2/12 date: 2012-10-17)

- the alleged violation of the right to be heard in respect of another party (R 5/14)

- the alleged lack of technical understanding of a board member, so that the board did not consist of two "technically qualified members" as required by Art. 21(4)(a) EPC (R 3/12)

- the alleged violation of Art. 4(3) EPC, or of Art. 11 RPBA, Art. 15(4) RPBA and Art. 20 RPBA 2007 (R 9/14)

- the alleged violation of Art. 15(5) and 15(6) RPBA 2007, unless this involves a fundamental violation of Art. 113 EPC or a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 112a(2)(d) EPC in combination with R. 104(b) EPC (R 7/14; see also R 10/08)

- the alleged violation of Art. 20(1) RPBA 2007 (R 7/13)

- the alleged violation of Art. 114 EPC, of Art. 13 RPBA 2007, or the alleged lack of impartiality (R 10/14)

- the alleged violation of the principle of procedural economy (R 1/16).

- an alleged misapplication of a provision of the RPBA 2007, unless it can be shown that it resulted in a fundamental procedural violation within the meaning of Art. 112a(2) EPC (R 3/17).

As R. 106 EPC implies, only procedural defects actually attributable to a board of appeal can be reviewed under Art. 112a EPC. Procedural defects that occurred in first instance proceedings may not be the subject of a petition for review (R 20/10, R 8/11; see also R 19/12 of 12 April 2016 date: 2016-04-12, R 3/16).