4.3.7 Submissions that should have been submitted or which were no longer maintained at first instance – Article 12(6), second sentence, RPBA 2020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 687/20 the appellant (opponent) objected to the decision of the opposition division to admit an auxiliary request with the argument that it was late filed at the oral proceedings and comprised not only unsearched matter taken from the description, but also features derived from the figures. The board however held that the appellant should have objected to the admittance of this request upon its submission at the oral proceedings if it was of the opinion that the amendments introduced at such a late stage of the discussion negatively affected its position in the opposition proceedings. The opponent failed to do so. Therefore, the appellant’s objection to the admittance of the corresponding auxiliary request in appeal proceedings was not admitted into the proceedings.