b) Prima facie relevance 

In T 482/18 it was not until the oral proceedings on appeal that the appellant (opponent) raised objections under Art. 123(2) and 84 EPC to a term in the claims according to the main request (identical to the auxiliary request on the basis of which the opposition division had maintained the patent). The board rejected the opponent's argument that under Art. 114(1) EPC 1973 it had to examine compliance with the requirements of Art. 123(2) EPC and Art. 84 EPC of its own motion. It also did not agree that the new submissions were no more than arguments based on facts already at issue in the proceedings (which, in the board's view, would have been admissible). It found that its refusal to admit the announced new submissions in the case in hand could be based on all criteria for exercising discretion under Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020. It also explained that the criterion of prima facie relevance, which the boards – generally rightly – still considered even though it was not referred to in the provision, could not be decisive here in view of the stage reached in the proceedings and the fact that the new submissions had not been occasioned by any statements made by the patent proprietor in the proceedings before the board or by the board itself.