4.3.4 Discretion under Article 12(4) RPBA 2020
This section has been updated to reflect case law and legislative changes up to 31 December 2023. For the previous version of this section please refer to the "Case Law of the Boards of Appeal", 10th edition (PDF). |
In T 1456/20, the board noted in the context of its decision regarding the admission of new requests under Art. 13(2) RPBA 2020 that the convergence criterion was an expression of procedural economy, non-compliance with which in certain parts of the proceedings, pursuant to Art. 12 and 13 RPBA 2020, could lead to new requests not being admitted even if the opponent had not raised any objection to that effect.
By contrast, the board in T 1516/20 did not take the convergence criterion into account when exercising its discretion under Art. 12(4) RPBA 2020. The board had had to decide whether to admit a new auxiliary request filed with the statement of grounds of appeal. It admitted said request pursuant to Art. 12(4) RPBA 2020 since it considered the amendments in claim 1 to be a direct reaction to the opposition division's decision and since the amendments addressed the inventive step issue and further limited the claimed subject-matter through the deletion of a variant. Doing so did not lead to any complex amendments. The board further noted that the convergence criterion asserted by one of the respondents was not relevant.