Selected decisions 

1. The admittance of a substantively identical request in post-remittal proceedings is not excluded pursuant to Article 111(2) EPC if the facts underlying the Board's earlier decision for not admitting that request are not the same because a new objection was introduced in post-remittal proceedings (see 2.4).

2. When exercising the discretion to admit a party's request in post-remittal proceedings, the opposition division must take into account the framework defined in the appeal proceedings (see 2.5.1), as the prosecution of a case after remittal should in principle build upon the situation that existed at the end of the appeal proceedings that led to the remittal (see 2.5.2).

Wird die Neuheit eines beanspruchten Gegenstands infolge eines von der Einsprechenden am letzten Tag der Frist gemäß Regel

116(1) EPÜ erhobenen Einwandes mangelnder Neuheit in Bezug auf ein in diesem Zusammenhang erstmals erwähntes Dokument vorweggenommen, so ist der Patentinhaberin spätestens in der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Einspruchsabteilung Gelegenheit zu geben, auf diesen neuen Einwand mit einem neuen, noch nicht im Verfahren diskutierten Anspruchssatz zu reagieren. In diesem Fall liegt die Zulassung eines neuen Anspruchssatzes nicht im Ermessen der Einspruchsabteilung. Siehe Entscheidungsgründe, Punkt 2.3.5.

1. A request for apportionment of costs is not inadmissible for the sole reason that it had been filed after the closure of the appeal proceedings. Decision T 1556/14 is not followed. (Reasons 1.1 to 1.17)

2. A request for apportionment of costs after termination of the appeal proceedings can still open ancillary proceedings for deciding issues arising out of the original appeal proceedings, without re-opening the substantive appeal proceedings. (Reasons 1.6 to 1.7)

3. A reasonable time limit for filing a request for apportionment of costs where the appeal proceedings are terminated by a withdrawal of an appeal should correspond to the usual time limits applicable to proceedings before the EPO, namely the standard two months of Rule 132(1) EPC. Questions should be asked only if the request is submitted after a reasonable period of time. (Reasons 1.20 to 1.21)

4. Beyond the general obligation to inform the other parties as soon as possible, the parties have no formal obligation to take even more active steps merely to avoid the costs already foreseen by the other parties. At most, parties must seek to avoid additional costs. The recognition of such a formal obligation would place an unrealistic burden on parties to the proceedings before the EPO. (Reasons 2.6)