4.3.5 Incomplete case in grounds of appeal or reply – Article 12(3) RPBA 2020 in conjunction with Article 12(5) 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 503/20 the board held that it had discretion whether to admit passages of the reply to the opposition which had been referred to using their specific margin references, and this depended on the specific circumstances of the case in hand. These included whether the impugned decision had been discussed to a sufficient extent and, if the points at issue were irrelevant for this decision, whether it was clear enough from both parties' complete submissions which points were being pursued for what specific reasons and how these relate to the opposing party's case.
In ex parte case T 1421/20 requests were introduced and commented on in the statement of grounds of appeal, but no claims were filed, and so the board had discretion not to admit them under Art. 12(5) RPBA 2020. The board took into account that the requests contained a feature which had previously been found to be unclear. Since none of the requests at issue met the requirement of clarity, the board exercised its discretion not to admit these requests.
For further cases in which the boards considered that the requirements of Art. 12(3) RPBA 2020 were not met and exercised their discretion under Art. 12(5) RPBA 2020 not to admit the part of the appeal submissions which did not meet these requirements, see e.g. T 2457/16, T 430/20, T 640/20, T 1421/20, T 557/21, T 1041/21.