4.2. Modification des moyens invoqués par une partie

Catchword: 1. The discretionary decision under Article 111(1) EPC to remit a case or not is to be taken ex officio, at any time during the appeal proceedings. It is not dependent on any request by a party. A request for remittal made by a party is therefore not subject to the provisions of Articles 12 and 13 RPBA 2020 (points 23 and 24 of the Reasons). 2. Articles 12 and 13 RPBA 2020 serve to take account of changes in the facts or the subject-matter of the appeal proceedings ("amendments" within the meaning of Articles 12(4) and 13(1) and (2) RPBA), within narrow limits (point 25 of the Reasons). 3. Procedural requests are not amendments within the meaning of Articles 12(4) and 13(1) and (2) RPBA. They can therefore be made at any time during the appeal proceedings and must be considered by the board, regardless of when they are made (points 26 to 29 of the Reasons)

Orientierungssatz: 

Nicht-Zulassung eines spät eingereichten prozeduralen Antrags (Punkt 2 der Entscheidungsgründe)

Orientierungssatz:

Ein Antrag mit einem Anspruchssatz, der in dem erstinstanzlichen Verfahren eingereicht, jedoch nicht verbeschieden wurde, wird im Beschwerdeverfahren nicht automatisch zugelassen sondern daraufhin geprüft, ob er im erstinstanzlichen Einspruchsverfahren in zulässiger Weise vorgebracht und aufrechterhalten wurde. Dabei ist das Kriterium der Konvergenz mit höherrangigen Anträgen zu berücksichtigen. Sollte der Antrag nicht in zulässiger Weise vorgebracht und aufrechterhalten worden sein, hat die Kammer das Ermessen ihn nicht zuzulassen. Siehe Punkte 3.1 bis 3.7 der Entscheidungsgründe.

Catchword:

Artikel 12(4) VOBK 2020 enthält keine Einschränkung dahin, dass sich jede Partei in der Beschwerde nur auf diejenigen Gegenstände des Vorverfahrens beziehen dürfte, die sie selbst dort "in zulässiger Weise vorgebracht" hat. Daher erscheint es legitim, sich auch auf Angriffslinien zu beziehen, die von anderen Beteiligten ins Einspruchsverfahren eingeführt worden waren. Geschieht dies, liegt insoweit daher keine zulassungsbedürftige Änderung des Vorbringens vor (siehe Punkt 4.4).

Catchword:

In general, an auxiliary request which is directed to a combination of granted dependent claims as new independent claim, and filed after the statement of grounds or the reply thereto, will be an amendment of the party's appeal case within the meaning of Article 13 RPBA 2020. See reasons 9. A skilled person assessing the contents of the original application documents uses his technical skill. If they recognise that certain elements of the original application documents are essential for achieving a technical effect then adding that technical effect to a claim without also adding the essential elements can create fresh subject-matter even if the essential elements are originally portrayed as being optional. See reasons 3.6.3.

Catchword:

To judge whether a claim request was admissibly raised in opposition proceedings within the meaning of Article 12(4) RPBA 2020, a board has to decide whether the opposition division should have admitted the claim request, had a decision on admittance been required. If so, the claim request was admissibly raised (reasons, point 7). As a rule, claim requests filed in reply to the notice of opposition within the time limit set under Rule 79(1) EPC should have been admitted by the opposition division and were thus admissibly raised. Not admitting these claim requests and thus considering them not to have been admissibly raised must be limited to truly exceptional situations (reasons, points 7.1.2 and 7.1.3). Whether or not a claim request filed after the expiry of the time limit set under Rule 79(1) EPC and before the expiry of the time limit set under Rule 116(1) EPC is to be considered filed in due time depends on whether this request was submitted in direct and timely response to a change to the subject of the proceedings introduced by the opponent or the opposition division. Opposition divisions have the discretion to not admit any late-filed claim request and therefore the board has the discretion to consider a late-filed claim request not to have been admissibly raised (reasons, points 7.2.4 and 7.2.6). The criteria generally used by the boards of appeal when exercising their discretion to admit or not a party's submission in appeal under the Rules of Procedure 2020 may also be considered when deciding whether or not a late-filed claim request submitted after the expiry of the time limit set under Rule 79(1) EPC and before the expiry of the time limit set under Rule 116(1) EPC should have been admitted by the opposition division and was thus admissibly raised. However, when taking this decision, in view of the administrative character of opposition proceedings, these criteria should be used by the boards in a more lenient way than for a party's submission filed during appeal proceedings. In fact, to properly defend its patent, a patent proprietor must in principle be permitted to redefine its fallback positions in terms of auxiliary claim requests also at a late stage of opposition proceedings (reasons, points 7.2.7 and 7.2.10).

Catchword:

Änderung eines Anspruchssatzes durch Streichung von Ansprüchen. Zur Frage seiner Zulassung unter Artikel 13 (2) RPBA 2020 siehe Entscheidungsgründe Nr. 3.4.1 bis 3.4.14       

Catchword:

Ein nach der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung eingereichter neuer Hilfsantrag, der nur noch einen bereits im von der Einspruchsabteilung aufrechterhaltenen Hauptantrag enthaltenen unabhängigen Verfahrensanspruch enthält, während alle anderen vorrangigen (Produkt-)Ansprüche gestrichen wurden, kann dann nicht als grundsätzlich unberücksichtigt bleibende Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens im Sinne des Artikels 13(2) VOBK 2020 angesehen werden, wenn das bisherige Vorbringen der Beteiligten bereits eine hinreichende Grundlage zur Entscheidung über den neuen Hilfsantrag bietet (abweichend von T 2091/18, vgl. Punkt 5 der Gründe).

Catchword:

Modification des moyens selon l'article 13(2) RPCR ; recevabilité de requêtes dans lesquelles certaines revendications indépendantes sont supprimées ; échelonnement des requêtes subsidiaires déposées tout au long de la procédure de recours qui donne lieu à une approche "par tâtonnements" ou une tactique par élimination (tactique du "salami") (voir points 2 et 3 des motifs).

Catchword:

Amendment of a set of claims by deletion of claims. Admittance of said amended set of claims pursuant to Article 13(2) RPBA 2020: see points 3.1 to 3.16 of the Reasons for the Decision.

Catchword: 

Whether the documents which are taken as starting points for newly raised inventive step objections were previously used for objections regarding a lack of novelty has no bearing for determining whether these inventive step objections constitute an amendment to the opponent's appeal case under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (Reasons 4.7).

Catchword:

A request in which some claims have been deleted compared to the requests that were filed previously with the grounds of appeal or the reply is, according to the systematic context of Article 12(3) RPBA 2020 and Article 13 RPBA 2020, a new request and thus usually amounts to an "amendment to the party's appeal case".

Catchword: 

- Binding effect of a referring decision (see Reasons, points 9 to 9.4.5)
- Interpretation of order no. 2 of G 2/21 (see Reasons, points 10 to 11.14, in particular points 11.10 and 11.14)
- Submissions based on earlier decisions of the boards of appeal - admittance into the appeal proceedings (see Reasons, points 32 to 32.4, in particular point 32.3)

Catchword:

As to the divergence in the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal concerning the notion of an "amendment" within the meaning of Article 12(4) RPBA 2020, see point 2.4 of the Reasons.

Catchword:

A request not to admit a certain document, this request having been filed for the first time during oral proceedings before the board, may constitute an amendment of the appeal case the admittance of which is governed by Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (point 3 of the reasons).

Résumé

In T 1135/22 reichte die Beschwerdegegnerin (Patentinhaberin) Hilfsanträge 1 bis 12 mit der Beschwerdeerwiderung ein. Zuvor hatte sie diese Hilfsanträge bereits im Einspruchsverfahren innerhalb der Schriftsatzfrist nach R. 116 (1) und (2) EPÜ eingereicht. Die Hilfsanträge mussten jedoch von der Einspruchsabteilung nicht behandelt werden, da das Streitpatent wie erteilt aufrechterhalten wurde (sog. "carry-over requests").

Die Patentinhaberin brachte hierzu vor, dass Hilfsanträge 1 bis 12 automatisch Bestandteil des Beschwerdeverfahrens seien, da sie im Sinne von Art. 12 (2) VOBK bereits der angefochtenen Entscheidung "zugrunde gelegen" hätten. Dies sei auch der angefochtenen Entscheidung explizit zu entnehmen, weil deren Einreichung und Erörterung durch die Patentinhaberin im Teil "Sachverhalt und Anträge" der angefochtenen Entscheidung erwähnt werde. Somit seien diese Hilfsanträge keine "Änderung" im Sinne von Art. 12 (4) Satz 1 VOBK.

Die Kammer teilte diese Ansicht nicht. Die bloße Erwähnung von Hilfsanträgen im Teil "Sachverhalt und Anträge" könne nicht damit gleichgesetzt werden, dass sie im Sinne von Art. 12 (2) VOBK der angefochtenen Entscheidung "zugrunde lagen". Anderenfalls wäre der Passus von Art. 12 (4) Satz 1 VOBK "sofern der Beteiligte nicht zeigt, dass dieser Teil in dem Verfahren, das zu der angefochtenen Entscheidung geführt hat, in zulässiger Weise vorgebracht und aufrechterhalten wurde" belanglos. Es entspreche vielmehr sowohl Sinn und Zweck von Art. 12 (2) VOBK als auch der mittlerweile gefestigten Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern (siehe z. B. T 42/20, T 221/20, T 1800/20, T 364/20), dass Änderungsanträge nur dann der angefochtenen Entscheidung "zugrunde liegen", wenn das Entscheidungsorgan diese Anträge auch behandelt und darüber entschieden hat.

Ferner erläuterte die Kammer, es ergebe sich aus dem Wortlaut von Art. 12 (4) VOBK, dass die Kammer, bei der Prüfung der Frage, ob sie über einen Ermessensspielraum bei der Berücksichtigung von sog. "carry-over requests" verfügt, zwei Aspekte zu untersuchen habe: Zunächst ob der Beteiligte "gezeigt" hat, wie und warum die betreffenden Anträge im erstinstanzlichen Verfahren "in zulässiger Weise vorgebracht und aufrechterhalten" wurden; dann, wenn ein solcher Vortrag vorliegt, ob das betreffende Vorbringen sachlich zutreffend ist.

Zum ersten Aspekt verwies die Kammer auf T 246/22, wo sie in anderer Besetzung ausgeführt hatte, dass – wie aus dem Wortlaut von Art. 12 (4) VOBK klar hervorgehe – der Gesetzgeber den Kammern keine Verpflichtungen auferlegen wollte, von Amts wegen das erstinstanzliche Verfahren zu studieren, Anträge zu identifizieren und bis zu ihrem Ursprung zurückzuverfolgen und zu verstehen, warum sie eingereicht wurden. Vielmehr obliege es dem betreffenden Verfahrensbeteiligten, darzulegen, dass diese Anträge "in zulässiger Weise vorgebracht" wurden. Dass diese Darlegung bereits in der Beschwerdebegründung oder -erwiderung erfolgen müsse, ergebe sich aus dem Erfordernis des Art. 12 (3) Satz 1 VOBK.

Nach Auffassung der Kammer war die Patentinhaberin im vorliegenden Fall dieser Darlegungslast nicht nachgekommen. Den Verweis auf den Umstand, dass die Anträge innerhalb der erstinstanzlichen Schriftsatzfrist gemäß R. 116 (1) und (2) EPÜ eingereicht worden waren, hielt die Kammer nicht für ausreichend, da auch solche Anträge nach der Rechtsprechung "verspätet" sein könnten (s. z. B. T 364/20). Auch hatte die Patentinhaberin in ihrer Beschwerdeerwiderung nur die jeweilige Basis für die vorgenommenen Änderungen angegeben und kursorisch erwähnt, dass die hinzugefügten Merkmale im Stand der Technik nicht offenbart seien, nicht aber ausgeführt, ob die Anträge in zulässiger Weise erstinstanzlich vorgebracht wurden.

Die Kammer kam daher zu dem Schluss, dass die Zulassung dieser Änderung des Beteiligtenvorbringens in ihrem Ermessen stand. Bei der Ausübung dieses Ermessens berücksichtigte die Kammer zum einen, dass die Erfordernisse der Art. 56, 83, 84 und 123 (2) EPÜ der prima facie Gewährbarkeit nicht zwingend entgegenstanden, zum anderen die in Art. 12 (4) Satz 5 VOBK genannten Kriterien, und ließ den Hilfsantrag 6 ins Beschwerdeverfahren zu.

Résumé

In T 2124/21 the appellant (applicant) had filed with the statement of grounds of appeal a main request and a first auxiliary request that superseded the sole request subject of the appealed decision. In its communication under Art. 15(1) RPBA, the board informed the appellant of its preliminary intention not to admit these requests, inter alia because no reason had been given why these amendments were filed only on appeal, and because prima facie they contained added subject-matter. In its written reply the appellant withdrew the main request and the first auxiliary request and requested, by reference, the grant of a patent based on the claims of the request subject of the appealed decision.

The board first explained that it was with the main request and first auxiliary request that the resubmitted sole request subject of the appealed decision had to be compared when establishing whether it was an "amendment" to the appeal case. Since the sole request had been abandoned by the statement of grounds of appeal it was not pending anymore when resubmitted. Therefore, it could not be the object of comparison for the purposes of Art. 13(2) RPBA. The board then pointed out that, since claim 1 of each of the main request and the first auxiliary request had an additional feature compared with claim 1 of the sole request subject of the appealed decision, the resubmitted request constituted an amendment to the appeal case within the meaning of Art. 13(2) RPBA.

Regarding the question whether there were exceptional circumstances justified by cogent reasons, the board, citing Art. 12(2) and (3) RPBA, explained that the appellant had made a choice, at the outset of appeal proceedings, not to seek a review of the appealed decision and thereby prevented the board from pursuing the primary object of the appeal proceedings (cf. Art. 12(1)(a) and (b) and (2) RPBA). In the board's view, it could not be expected to begin the judicial review of the appealed decision only at the last stage of the appeal proceedings.

Moreover, the board held that the fact that the amendment in question did not imply a substantial technical change of the claimed subject-matter, was not a circumstance that justified admittance of the sole request. Rather, the only exceptional aspect of the case was the appellant's own choice to avoid the board's review of the appealed decision until the last stage of the appeal proceedings. The objection raised in the preliminary opinion against the then freshly filed main request and first auxiliary request was not an exceptional circumstance.

Since there was no admitted request on file the appeal was dismissed.

Résumé

In T 1774/21 the appellant had raised a new objection under Art. 123(2) EPC against a feature of the main request (patent as maintained by the opposition division) in its statement of grounds of appeal. The respondent, after first having replied to this allegedly new line of attack with counter-arguments, had requested only in its response to the board's communication under Art. 15(1) RPBA that this line of attack not be admitted into the proceedings pursuant to Art. 12(2), (4), (6) RPBA. The board rejected this request for non-admittance of the objection.

The board first explained that, in the context of the RPBA, the term "requests" included requests for non-admittance of, for example, an objection (contrary to what was suggested in T 1006/21). The general term "requests" was not limited to texts of patent applications or patents. When the RPBA sought to specifically address the issue of amendments of such texts, it expressly referred to "an amendment to a patent application or patent" (see Art. 12(4), fourth sentence, or Art. 13(1), fourth sentence, RPBA). This understanding was also confirmed in the explanatory remarks to Art. 12(2) RPBA (see Supplementary publication 2, OJ EPO 2020, 17). The board concluded that a request for non-admittance of an objection filed after the initial phase of the appeal proceedings constituted an amendment to the party's appeal case.

The respondent also argued that the request for non-admittance of the "new line of attack" should be admitted into the proceedings due to exceptional circumstances, as the appellant had failed to identify the "new line of attack" as an amendment in its statement of grounds of appeal and to give reasons why it had not been raised before the opposition division, contrary to what was required by Art. 12(4) RPBA. The appellant had countered that this objection was not "new" as it had been raised during oral proceedings before the opposition division.

The board held that, even assuming in the respondent's favour that this objection was indeed raised for the first time in the appellant's statement of grounds of appeal, the circumstances of the present case were neither exceptional nor could they justify the filing of the respondent's request for non-admittance only after the board's communication. The board pointed out that it was for the party itself to assess whether there is – in its opinion – an amendment to the other party's case and how to respond to it.

The board rejected the respondent's argument that the board was under the obligation, ex officio, to assess and decide on admittance of the "new line of attack". It explained that a board may indeed examine of its own motion the question of whether an objection was filed "late", since it was not restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought (Art. 114(1), second sentence, EPC). Moreover, Art. 114(2) EPC gave the board the power to "disregard facts or evidence" which are not submitted in due time. However, the fact that Art. 114(2) EPC stated that the EPO (therefore a board of appeal), "may" do so, also meant, that a board was not obliged ex officio to examine whether a submission was made "in due time". In the board's view such an obligation could also not be inferred from the principle of ex officio examination laid down in Art. 114(1), first sentence, EPC. In general, the principle of ex officio examination was to be applied in opposition appeal proceedings in a more restrictive manner (cf. G 9/91, point 18 of the Reasons), which was due to the fact that such proceedings could be regarded as essentially party-driven. In addition, this principle did not go so far as to require a board to examine whether an objection was late filed. Such an understanding of Art. 114(1), first sentence, EPC would be difficult to reconcile with the power given under Art. 114(2) EPC that may or may not be used. The board disagreed with point 27 of the Reasons of decision T 1006/21 in this respect.