Proper exercise of discretion under Rule 137(3) EPC in respect of amendments filed pursuant to Rule 71(6) EPC (no)

Addition of further Designation States after grant (no)

Rule 137(5) EPC provides for a mandatory requirement that amended claims must fulfil to be allowable. Relating to substantive law rather than to procedural law, Rule 137(5) EPC does not provide a legal basis for the exercise of discretion. The non-admittance of an amended set of claims on the basis of that Rule alone therefore constitutes a substantial procedural violation under Rule 103(1)(a) EPC (see point 2.2 of the Reasons).

T 1003/19, T 2081/16 not followed

1. Rule 71(5) EPC only applies where the text intended for grant has been communicated to the applicant according to Rule 71(3) EPC (see Reasons 2.4).

2. The fact that the list of documents intended for grant neither corresponds to any request of the applicant nor to any amendment explicitly suggested by the examining division is sufficient to indicate that the communication under Rule 71(3) EPC does not contain the text intended for grant; the existence of discrepancies between the text of the communication and the "Druckexemplar" may be another indication (see Reasons 2.4.4).

3. Differentiation from G 1/10 (see Reasons 4).

4. Where the applicant could have noticed an apparent discrepancy between the text of the communication under Rule 71(3) EPC and the "Druckexemplar", the reimbursement of the appeal fee is not equitable by reason of a substantial procedural violation (see Reasons 5).

Verweist eine Beschwerdekammer eine Angelegenheit zur Erteilung eines Patents in genau bestimmter Fassung, d.h. mit genau bezeichneten Ansprüchen, Beschreibung und Zeichnungen, an die Prüfungsabteilung zurück, so beruht die Entscheidung über die Fassung des Patents auf Artikel 111 (1) Satz 2, Variante 1, EPÜ. Diese Patentfassung ist für die Prüfungsabteilung in Anwendung des in Artikel 111 (2) EPÜ verankerten Rechtsgrundsatzes bindend (res iudicata, rechtskräftig), in deren Anwendung auch die Zurückverweisung erfolgt. Das Verfahren nach Regel 71 (6) EPÜ findet im Hinblick auf die sich aus Artikel 111 (2) EPÜ ergebende bindende Wirkung gemäß Artikel 164 (2) EPÜ keine Anwendung.

See Reasons for the Decision, points 7 and 8.

The notion of a mistake eligible for correction under Rule 139 EPC does not cover the scenario where a declaration of withdrawal reflects the true intention of the applicant, but is based on wrong assumptions.

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

ABl. EPA 2020, Zusatzpublikation 4
OJ EPO 2020, Supplementary publication 4
JO OEB 2020, Publication supplémentaire 4