Chapter III – Sufficiency of disclosure
4. Burden of proof in relation to the possibility of performing and repeating the invention
Although the burden of proof in relation to sufficiency of disclosure lies, as a rule, with the party raising the objection, this principle does not apply to cases where the application as filed does not provide a single example or other technical information from which it is plausible that the claimed invention can be carried out (see e.g. T 1329/11).
Furthermore, if there are serious doubts as to the possibility of performing the invention and repeating it as described, the burden of proof in relation to this possibility, or at least a demonstration that success is credible, rests with the applicant or the proprietor of the patent. In opposition, this may be the case where, for example, experiments carried out by the opponent suggest that the subject-matter of the patent does not achieve the desired technical result. As regards the possibility of performing and repeating the invention, see also F‑III, 3.