b) No contradiction between Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 and Article 13 RPBA 2007 or the EPC 

In T 634/16 the board noted that Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020 provided more detail than the 2007 version on the conditions for admitting amendments to an appeal case. Nevertheless, it could not see any contradiction or incompatibility between the two provisions. On the contrary, in view also of the case law developed on the applicable criteria under Art. 13(1) RPBA 2007, the board held that the revised version codified and consolidated established practice in this area. In the same vein, see also T 32/16 (by the same board), according to which the difference between the 2007 and 2020 versions merely reflected much of the case law developed under Art. 13(1) RPBA 2007. Numerous decisions have since endorsed this reasoning. See e.g. T 102/16, T 446/16, T 1480/16, T 1554/16, T 1597/16, T 278/17, T 584/17, T 658/17, T 1014/17, T 552/18.

The board in T 700/15 likewise considered that Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020 essentially codified the case law developed under Art. 13(1) RPBA 2007. It also rejected the appellant's view that the boards' power to exercise discretion when it came to admitting requests with amended patent claims was at odds with the prohibition under Art. 23 RPBA 2007 of any application of the RPBA that would lead to a situation incompatible with the spirit and purpose of the EPC. The purpose of this discretion conferred on the boards was instead to guarantee, in view of the primary object of appeal proceedings, a fair procedure satisfying the legitimate interests of both the patent proprietor and the opponent by ensuring that the need for procedural economy, the complexity of any new submissions and their suitability to overcome any objections were taken into account (cf. Art. 12(4) and 13(1) RPBA 2020).