a) Application of Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 and/or Article 13 RPBA 2007 in transitional cases 

For the procedural situation where the summons to oral proceedings or a communication of the board under R. 100(2) EPC was notified before the date of entry into force of the RPBA 2020, but the decision was taken after their entry into force, numerous boards have come to the conclusion that, according to Art. 25(1) and (3) RPBA 2020, Art. 13 RPBA 2007 and Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020 apply simultaneously (see T 2227/15, T 634/16, summarised below, and e.g. T 513/15, T 700/15, T 1187/15, T 731/16, T 2129/16, T 886/17).

In T 584/17 the board found that it was at liberty to use the criteria in Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020 when deciding whether to admit an amended case under Art. 13 RPBA 2007 (similarly, T 989/15; see also T 1656/14 and T 1533/15, in which the boards applied Art. 13 RPBA 2007 alone, without addressing whether Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020 was applicable).

By contrast, the board in T 2688/16 took the view that, under Art. 24(1) RPBA 2020 and Art. 25(1) RPBA 2020 and Art. 25(3) RPBA 2020, only Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020 was applicable to appeal proceedings pending on 1 January 2020, holding that the legislator had deliberately chosen to apply this provision, which was more stringent than the previous one, to already pending cases. In T 446/16 the board considered that, having regard to Art. 25(3) RPBA 2020, it was unclear which version of Art. 13(1) RPBA was applicable, but this legal question could, it found, be left unanswered as the two versions did not contradict each other.