4.5. Dritte Stufe des Konvergenzansatzes – Vorbringen nach Zustellung der Ladung oder Ablauf der in einer Regel 100 (2) EPÜ-Mitteilung gesetzten Frist – Artikel 13 (2) VOBK 2020

Orientierungssatz: 

Zum Argument, ein neuer Hilfsantrag sei nur eine Korrektur und keine Änderung im Sinne Art 13(2) VOBK, Gründe 5.1 bis 5.5

Orientierungssatz: 

1. Es scheint sich eine einheitliche Rechtsprechungslinie dahingehend zu entwickeln, dass in Fällen, in denen durch eine unkomplizierte Änderung wie das Streichen einer gesamten Anspruchskategorie eine Antragsfassung vorliegt, auf deren Basis das Patent erkennbar aufrechterhalten werden kann, außergewöhnliche Umstände im Sinne von Artikel 13(2) EPÜ vorliegen können. Diese erlauben dann eine positive Ermessensausübung, wenn die Änderung den faktischen oder rechtlichen Rahmen des Verfahrens nicht verschiebt, keine Neugewichtung des Verfahrensgegenstandes bedingt und weder dem Grundsatz der Verfahrensökonomie, noch den berechtigten Interessen einer Verfahrenspartei zuwiderläuft (im Anschluss an T 2295/19; siehe Gründe Nr. 3.4.2 bis 3.4.6)  2. Diese Rechtsprechung fügt sich hinsichtlich des Grades der geforderten prima facie Relevanz in die Stufen des mit der VOBK etablierten Konvergenzansatzes ein und führt diesen logisch fort (vgl. Gründe Nr. 3.4.7).  3. Es besteht keine Notwendigkeit (mehr), zur Sicherung einer einheitlichen Rechtsanwendung die Große Beschwerdekammer zu befassen (vgl. Gründe Nr. 4 bis 4.4).

Catchword: 

Exceptional circumstances may justify the admissibility of a request filed for the first time at the oral proceedings before the board even when the amendment to the case is made in response to an objection of added subject-matter raised long in advance (see Reasons, 1.5).

Catchword:

Im vorliegenden Fall konnte von der Beschwerdeführerin nicht erwartet werden, auf einen einzelnen Aspekt einer in ihrer Gesamtheit nicht überzeugenden Argumentationslinie in der angefochtenen Entscheidung der Prüfungsabteilung mit auf diesen Aspekt gerichteten Änderungen, die alle Einwände der Beschwerdekammer ausräumen, bereits bei Einlegen der Beschwerde zu reagieren.

Catchword:

Using a passage of the description to interpret a term in the claims does not constitute an "exceptional circumstance" which could justify amendments to the appeal case in the present case (see reasons point 5).

Catchword: 

1. If the deletion of dependent claims after notification of a summons to oral proceedings enhances procedural economy by clearly overcoming existing objections without giving rise to any new issues this might constitute cogent reasons justifying exceptional circumstances in the sense of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020. 

2. For a first medical use of a substance or composition according to Article 54(4) EPC to be sufficiently disclosed it is not required to show the suitability for each and every disease, but it usually suffices to show that at least one medical use is credibly achieved.

Catchword:

The substance of the request filed during the oral proceedings before the board - i.e. the claimed subject-matter and the attacks against it - is fully encompassed by both the appellant's and the respondent's initial appeal case within the meaning of Article 12(1) to (3) RPBA. The request certainly limits the potential issues for discussion. This means that, in view of the totality of the facts of the present case, the filing of this request, although formally an amendment and as such potentially subject to the strict provisions of Article 13(2) RPBA, in substance does not constitute an amendment of a party's case within the meaning of Article 12(4) RPBA, but rather a partial abandonment of the initial appeal case. There is no apparent reason not to admit such a request under any of the Articles 12(5), 13(1) or 13(2) RPBA. (Reasons 23.)

Orientierungssatz:

Zur Notwendigkeit einer rechtzeitigen Replik:

1. Unter der seit 1. Januar 2020 geltenden Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern (VOBK 2020) obliegt es den Parteien, ihren Vortrag so rechtzeitig im Verfahren zu bringen, dass die Beschwerdekammer ihn bereits bei Abfassung des Ladungsbescheids berücksichtigen kann.

2. Soweit die Beschwerdeführerin einen Teil ihres Vortrags nicht, wie es Artikel 12 Abs. 3 VOBK 2020 eigentlich fordert, bereits in der Beschwerdebegründung unterbreiten kann, weil es sich um die Antwort auf Angriffe bzw. Hilfsanträge handelt,die nicht bereits Gegenstand der angegriffenen Entscheidung waren, sondern von der Beschwerdegegnerin in der Beschwerdeerwiderung unterbreitet wurden, stellt eine Replik hierauf für die Beschwerdeführerin das geeignete Mittel der Wahl dar, um ihre Antwort rechtzeitig vorzubringen. Gerade aus diesem Grund sieht Artikel 15 (1) VOBK 2020 vor, dass die Kammer sich bemüht, nicht früher als zwei Monate nach Erhalt der Beschwerdeerwiderung (gemäß Artikel 12 (1) c) VOBK 2020) die Ladung zu versenden.

3. Das Argument, es sei nicht zumutbar, Kaskaden von Argumentationslinien im Hinblick auf jede denkbare Einschätzung der Kammer vortragen zu müssen, greift nicht. Im zweiseitigen Beschwerdeverfahren trifft die Parteien die Pflicht zur sorgfältigen und beförderlichen Verfahrensführung, aus Gründen der Fairness gegenüber der anderen Partei, aber auch um das Verfahren innerhalb einer angemessenen Verfahrensdauer zum Abschluss zu bringen. Artikel 13 (2) VOBK 2020 sanktioniert diese Pflicht zur Verfahrensförderung.

4. Das Argument der Beschwerdeführerin, es sei der Kammer und auch der Patentinhaberin zumutbar, sich in der mündlichen Verhandlung mit der Diskussion eines einfachen neuen Sachverhaltes zu beschäftigen, lässt den Einfluss auf den weiteren Verfahrensverlauf außer Acht. Die erstmalige Diskussion einer Argumentationslinie in der mündlichen Verhandlung mag zu einer Situation führen, in der die andere Partei ihre Verteidigungslinie erstmalig in der mündlichen Verhandlung überdenken und ggf. anpassen muss, was zu einer deutlichen Verzögerung des Verfahrens führen und eine sachgerechte ntscheidung in der mündlichen Verhandlung erschweren oder unmöglich machen kann.

Catchword: 

Since the initial main request, filed for the first time with the statement of grounds of appeal, would not have been admitted under Article 12(4) RPBA 2007, the objections raised by the board in the communication annexed to the summons to oral proceedings against this initial main request are of a hypothetical nature and do not establish exceptional circumstances referred to in Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 which could justify amending the applicant's appeal case.

Catchword:

Admittance under Article 13(2) RPBA of claims and an adapted description filed as a response to the express invitation of the Board in its communication under Article 15(1) RPBA to file such amended application documents (Reasons 3).

Catchword:

If, as in the present case, no causality exists between a newly raised aspect and the final conclusion of the Board, the newly raised aspect does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance according to Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 that could justify taking a new request into account. (Reasons 2.5.2)

Catchword:

Änderung eines Anspruchssatzes durch Streichung von Ansprüchen. Zur Frage seiner Zulassung unter Artikel 13 (2) RPBA 2020 siehe Entscheidungsgründe Nr. 3.4.1 bis 3.4.14       

Catchword: 

An inescapable trap (Article 123(2) and (3) EPC) intrinsically precludes the admission of new requests under Articles 13(1) and (2) RPBA 2020, as the requirements of Article 123(2) and (3) EPC cannot both be satisfied (Reasons 4.3).

Catchword:

The Board understands [the wording of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020] as laying down a basic rule but leaving some limited leeway for exceptions. The basic rule is that amendments are not considered unless there are exceptional circumstances justified by cogent reasons (by the submitting party). The leeway for deviating from this rule lies in the expression "in principle" ("en principe"; "grundsätzlich"), which the Board reads roughly as "as a rule", meaning that the provision's basic rule is not entirely without exception. This leeway, when applied, means that an amendment can be considered despite the absence of exceptional circumstances justified by cogent reasons.

Catchword:

Aufgrund folgender außergewöhnlicher Umstände ist das von der Einsprechenden verspätet eingereichte Dokument E65a im Sinne der Artikel 13 (1) und (2) VOBK 2020 im Verfahren zu berücksichtigen: - Das Dokument war objektiv schwer auffindbar. - Es wurde zweifellos nicht absichtlich zurückgehalten, sondern von einem Dritten erstmals in einem vom vorliegendem Einspruchsverfahren getrennten Einspruchsverfahren entgegengehalten und ist hierdurch der Einsprechenden bekannt geworden. - Es gehört prima facie zum Stand der Technik. - Es ist prima facie sehr relevant. (Siehe Punkt 3.3 der Entscheidungsgründe)

Catchword:

Modification des moyens selon l'article 13(2) RPCR ; recevabilité de requêtes dans lesquelles certaines revendications indépendantes sont supprimées ; échelonnement des requêtes subsidiaires déposées tout au long de la procédure de recours qui donne lieu à une approche "par tâtonnements" ou une tactique par élimination (tactique du "salami") (voir points 2 et 3 des motifs).

Catchword:

"Exceptional circumstances" in Rule 13(2) RPBA interpreted as those that compromise neither the procedural rights of the other party, nor procedural economy.

Catchword:

Amendment of a set of claims by deletion of claims. Admittance of said amended set of claims pursuant to Article 13(2) RPBA 2020: see points 3.1 to 3.16 of the Reasons for the Decision.

Catchword:

That a "new" objection was raised by a board in appeal proceedings cannot per se amount to "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (see point 4.3 of the Reasons).

Catchword:

Notification of the statement of grounds of appeal is not a Rule 100(2) EPC communication (Reasons 1.4) 
Article 13(2) RPBA – “in principle” (Reasons 2.1)

Catchword:

siehe Punkt 5.1.

Catchword:
While objections raised by the Board for the first time in a communication under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 may be considered to give rise to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, and may possibly justify the filing of amendments which specifically respond to the new objections, this does not open the door to additional amendments which are unrelated to the new objections, and for which no exceptional circumstances exist (Reasons, point 3.10).

Catchword:

1.) Im Beschwerdeverfahren bestehen Beschränkungen neuen Vorbringens sowohl durch die Rechtsprechung der Großen Beschwerdekammer in G 10/91, G 1/95 und G 7/95 zur Berücksichtigung neuer Einspruchsgründe, als auch durch die den Kammern in Artikel 114 (2) EPÜ und der Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern eingeräumte Möglichkeit, verspätetes Vorbringen nicht zuzulassen. Diese Beschränkungen bestehen unabhängig voneinander und wirken kumulativ (Nr. 4.5 der Gründe). 

2.) Vorbringen, das nicht auf die in der Beschwerdebegründung oder Erwiderung enthaltenen Anträge, Tatsachen, Einwände, Argumente und Beweismittel gerichtet ist, bewirkt eine Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens im Sinne des Artikel 13 (2) VOBK (J 14/19, Nr. 1.4 der Gründe). In diesem Zusammenhang stellt sowohl eine neue Kombination von Tatsachenelementen (z.B. die Wahl einer anderen Entgegenhaltung oder einer anderen Textstelle einer Entgegenhaltung als Ausgangspunkt für einen Einwand erfinderischer Tätigkeit) als auch eine neue Kombination von Tatsachen- und Rechtselementen (z.B. die Bezugnahme auf ein Dokument oder eine Textstelle in einem anderen rechtlichen Zusammenhang) eine Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens dar. Ein in der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Beschwerdekammer erstmals vorgetragener Einwand mangelnder erfinderischer Tätigkeit ausgehend von einer Entgegenhaltung, die zuvor lediglich Gegenstand eines Neuheitseinwandes war, stellt somit regelmäßig eine Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens gemäß Artikel 13 (2) VOBK 2020 dar. (Nr. 4.9 der Gründe).

Catchword:

Le fait que la chambre ait retenu un argument nouveau (absence d'effet technique clairement identifiable) dans la chaîne argumentaire conduisant au constat provisoire d'absence d'activité inventive ne saurait être ignoré. Il justifie que les requêtes qui visent et se limitent à remédier à cette objection soient admises.

Catchword:
Weder Artikel 13(2) VOBK 2020 noch die erläuternden Bemerkungen dazu in CA/3/19 enthalten eine Erklärung, wie allgemein zu bestimmen ist, ob die Umstände "außergewöhnlich" sind. Die Erläuterungen der VOBK 2020 nennen als Beispiel für solche "außergewöhnlichen" Umstände allerdings den Fall, dass die Kammer einen Einwand erstmals in einer Mitteilung erhoben hat. In diesem Fall rechtfertige die veränderte Grundlage des Beschwerdeverfahrens ein verändertes Vorbringen. Die Frage, ob umgekehrt durch geändertes Vorbringen auch die Grundlage des Beschwerdeverfahrens verändert wird, stellt somit ein mögliches Kriterium dar, das für die Beurteilung der Außergewöhnlichkeit der Umstände heranzuziehen ist (Punkt 6.3 der Entscheidungsgründe).

Catchword: 

If there is an amendment to the patent in the appeal proceedings which has never been examined before, the Enlarged Board's obiter dictum in G 10/91, Reasons 19, is fully respected when only the prima facie relevance of an objection under Article 123(2) EPC is considered in the context of assessing whether there are exceptional circumstances under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (Reasons 2.3.1-2.3.14).

Catchword: 

If more than one summons are issued in appeal proceedings, both after the entry into force of the revised version of the Rules of Procedure, the first of these summons are the summons referred to in Article 13(2) RPBA 2020. Summons represent a predictable and objectively determinable trigger for the third level of convergence. This trigger function is independent of any subsequent procedural development, see reasons 2.  The postponement of oral proceedings due to a request for a referral of a question of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal which was not announced in advance by the party making the request normally does not justify apportionment of costs. Since there is no guarantee that such a request will be successful, all parties will normally have to prepare for a discussion of the substance of the case irrespective of whether the request is announced in advance or not, see reasons 8.

Zusammenfassung

In T 2124/21 the appellant (applicant) had filed with the statement of grounds of appeal a main request and a first auxiliary request that superseded the sole request subject of the appealed decision. In its communication under Art. 15(1) RPBA, the board informed the appellant of its preliminary intention not to admit these requests, inter alia because no reason had been given why these amendments were filed only on appeal, and because prima facie they contained added subject-matter. In its written reply the appellant withdrew the main request and the first auxiliary request and requested, by reference, the grant of a patent based on the claims of the request subject of the appealed decision.

The board first explained that it was with the main request and first auxiliary request that the resubmitted sole request subject of the appealed decision had to be compared when establishing whether it was an "amendment" to the appeal case. Since the sole request had been abandoned by the statement of grounds of appeal it was not pending anymore when resubmitted. Therefore, it could not be the object of comparison for the purposes of Art. 13(2) RPBA. The board then pointed out that, since claim 1 of each of the main request and the first auxiliary request had an additional feature compared with claim 1 of the sole request subject of the appealed decision, the resubmitted request constituted an amendment to the appeal case within the meaning of Art. 13(2) RPBA.

Regarding the question whether there were exceptional circumstances justified by cogent reasons, the board, citing Art. 12(2) and (3) RPBA, explained that the appellant had made a choice, at the outset of appeal proceedings, not to seek a review of the appealed decision and thereby prevented the board from pursuing the primary object of the appeal proceedings (cf. Art. 12(1)(a) and (b) and (2) RPBA). In the board's view, it could not be expected to begin the judicial review of the appealed decision only at the last stage of the appeal proceedings.

Moreover, the board held that the fact that the amendment in question did not imply a substantial technical change of the claimed subject-matter, was not a circumstance that justified admittance of the sole request. Rather, the only exceptional aspect of the case was the appellant's own choice to avoid the board's review of the appealed decision until the last stage of the appeal proceedings. The objection raised in the preliminary opinion against the then freshly filed main request and first auxiliary request was not an exceptional circumstance.

Since there was no admitted request on file the appeal was dismissed.

Zusammenfassung

In T 2482/22 the appellant (opponent) raised for the first time during the oral proceedings before the board an objection of lack of novelty over D1. The appellant's representative justified the late submission by arguing that he took over the case from a colleague, who had overlooked the novelty objection when he drafted the grounds of appeal. The appellant also argued that, because this concerned a European patent, it was of utmost importance that there be no doubts concerning validity. None of these arguments convinced the board of the existence of exceptional circumstances under Art. 13(2) RPBA.

As regards the meaning of the term "exceptional circumstances", according to the board it was established jurisprudence of the boards that such circumstances concerned new or unforeseen developments in the appeal proceedings, such as new objections raised by the board or another party.

In the present case, the appellant had already overlooked that objection when they drafted the notice of opposition, which was signed by the appellant's present representative. Thus, the fact that another representative of the appellant overlooked the novelty objection when drafting the grounds of appeal was not a development of the appeal proceedings, let alone a new or unforeseen one. The appellant alone had to bear the responsibility for any such errors and mistakes.

The board understood the appellant's further argument as implying that the legitimacy of the European patent system depended on the strength of validity of patents issued by it, and that therefore any concerns of validity had to trump any other considerations, e.g. those of procedural economy and transparency or the nature of appeal proceedings as a judicial review. The board pointed out that the legislator had seen this differently, as was evident from Art. 12(2) RPBA as adopted by Decision of the Administrative Council of 26 June 2019, according to which the primary object of the appeal proceedings is to review the decision under appeal and a party should direct their appeal case at the requests, facts, objections, arguments and evidence on which the decision under appeal is based. As a consequence, the possibility of a party to change its case or add to it was very limited, increasingly so as the appeal procedure progressed (see document CA/3/19, points 47 and 48, explaining the convergent approach underlying Art. 12 and 13 RPBA, as well as the explanatory remarks to these articles, reproduced in OJ 2020, Supplementary publication 2).

The board further explained that Art. 12 and 13 RPBA lay out the criteria by which the boards have to exercise their discretion when considering amendments to a party's appeal case. Art. 12(4) and 13(1) RPBA do still include criteria that could be seen as reflecting on the merits or relevance of new submissions (e.g. suitability to address issues), albeit subject to justifying reasons. Indeed, and following established case law (G 7/95, OJ 1996, 626), at an early appeal stage it might still be possible to consider novelty, even if not raised before, vis-a-vis a closest prior art already cited against inventive step, but only in the context of assessing inventive step. The board pointed out, however, that such criteria are entirely absent from the wording Art. 13(2) RPBA which was purposely chosen to express the much more stringent criterion applicable at this last stage of the appeal proceedings. The board rejected the approach according to which merit or relevance were somehow subsumed in the sole criterion of "exceptional circumstances". As was clear from the examples, these only concerned circumstances that arose from the way the proceedings had developed, i.e. from the procedure itself and not its subject.

Zusammenfassung

In T 1774/21 the appellant had raised a new objection under Art. 123(2) EPC against a feature of the main request (patent as maintained by the opposition division) in its statement of grounds of appeal. The respondent, after first having replied to this allegedly new line of attack with counter-arguments, had requested only in its response to the board's communication under Art. 15(1) RPBA that this line of attack not be admitted into the proceedings pursuant to Art. 12(2), (4), (6) RPBA. The board rejected this request for non-admittance of the objection.

The board first explained that, in the context of the RPBA, the term "requests" included requests for non-admittance of, for example, an objection (contrary to what was suggested in T 1006/21). The general term "requests" was not limited to texts of patent applications or patents. When the RPBA sought to specifically address the issue of amendments of such texts, it expressly referred to "an amendment to a patent application or patent" (see Art. 12(4), fourth sentence, or Art. 13(1), fourth sentence, RPBA). This understanding was also confirmed in the explanatory remarks to Art. 12(2) RPBA (see Supplementary publication 2, OJ EPO 2020, 17). The board concluded that a request for non-admittance of an objection filed after the initial phase of the appeal proceedings constituted an amendment to the party's appeal case.

The respondent also argued that the request for non-admittance of the "new line of attack" should be admitted into the proceedings due to exceptional circumstances, as the appellant had failed to identify the "new line of attack" as an amendment in its statement of grounds of appeal and to give reasons why it had not been raised before the opposition division, contrary to what was required by Art. 12(4) RPBA. The appellant had countered that this objection was not "new" as it had been raised during oral proceedings before the opposition division.

The board held that, even assuming in the respondent's favour that this objection was indeed raised for the first time in the appellant's statement of grounds of appeal, the circumstances of the present case were neither exceptional nor could they justify the filing of the respondent's request for non-admittance only after the board's communication. The board pointed out that it was for the party itself to assess whether there is – in its opinion – an amendment to the other party's case and how to respond to it.

The board rejected the respondent's argument that the board was under the obligation, ex officio, to assess and decide on admittance of the "new line of attack". It explained that a board may indeed examine of its own motion the question of whether an objection was filed "late", since it was not restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought (Art. 114(1), second sentence, EPC). Moreover, Art. 114(2) EPC gave the board the power to "disregard facts or evidence" which are not submitted in due time. However, the fact that Art. 114(2) EPC stated that the EPO (therefore a board of appeal), "may" do so, also meant, that a board was not obliged ex officio to examine whether a submission was made "in due time". In the board's view such an obligation could also not be inferred from the principle of ex officio examination laid down in Art. 114(1), first sentence, EPC. In general, the principle of ex officio examination was to be applied in opposition appeal proceedings in a more restrictive manner (cf. G 9/91, point 18 of the Reasons), which was due to the fact that such proceedings could be regarded as essentially party-driven. In addition, this principle did not go so far as to require a board to examine whether an objection was late filed. Such an understanding of Art. 114(1), first sentence, EPC would be difficult to reconcile with the power given under Art. 114(2) EPC that may or may not be used. The board disagreed with point 27 of the Reasons of decision T 1006/21 in this respect.