4.5.4 Présentation par la partie de raisons convaincantes justifiant l'existence de circonstances exceptionnelles

Orientierungssatz:

Zur Notwendigkeit einer rechtzeitigen Replik:

1. Unter der seit 1. Januar 2020 geltenden Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern (VOBK 2020) obliegt es den Parteien, ihren Vortrag so rechtzeitig im Verfahren zu bringen, dass die Beschwerdekammer ihn bereits bei Abfassung des Ladungsbescheids berücksichtigen kann.

2. Soweit die Beschwerdeführerin einen Teil ihres Vortrags nicht, wie es Artikel 12 Abs. 3 VOBK 2020 eigentlich fordert, bereits in der Beschwerdebegründung unterbreiten kann, weil es sich um die Antwort auf Angriffe bzw. Hilfsanträge handelt,die nicht bereits Gegenstand der angegriffenen Entscheidung waren, sondern von der Beschwerdegegnerin in der Beschwerdeerwiderung unterbreitet wurden, stellt eine Replik hierauf für die Beschwerdeführerin das geeignete Mittel der Wahl dar, um ihre Antwort rechtzeitig vorzubringen. Gerade aus diesem Grund sieht Artikel 15 (1) VOBK 2020 vor, dass die Kammer sich bemüht, nicht früher als zwei Monate nach Erhalt der Beschwerdeerwiderung (gemäß Artikel 12 (1) c) VOBK 2020) die Ladung zu versenden.

3. Das Argument, es sei nicht zumutbar, Kaskaden von Argumentationslinien im Hinblick auf jede denkbare Einschätzung der Kammer vortragen zu müssen, greift nicht. Im zweiseitigen Beschwerdeverfahren trifft die Parteien die Pflicht zur sorgfältigen und beförderlichen Verfahrensführung, aus Gründen der Fairness gegenüber der anderen Partei, aber auch um das Verfahren innerhalb einer angemessenen Verfahrensdauer zum Abschluss zu bringen. Artikel 13 (2) VOBK 2020 sanktioniert diese Pflicht zur Verfahrensförderung.

4. Das Argument der Beschwerdeführerin, es sei der Kammer und auch der Patentinhaberin zumutbar, sich in der mündlichen Verhandlung mit der Diskussion eines einfachen neuen Sachverhaltes zu beschäftigen, lässt den Einfluss auf den weiteren Verfahrensverlauf außer Acht. Die erstmalige Diskussion einer Argumentationslinie in der mündlichen Verhandlung mag zu einer Situation führen, in der die andere Partei ihre Verteidigungslinie erstmalig in der mündlichen Verhandlung überdenken und ggf. anpassen muss, was zu einer deutlichen Verzögerung des Verfahrens führen und eine sachgerechte ntscheidung in der mündlichen Verhandlung erschweren oder unmöglich machen kann.

Catchword:

Admittance under Article 13(2) RPBA of claims and an adapted description filed as a response to the express invitation of the Board in its communication under Article 15(1) RPBA to file such amended application documents (Reasons 3).

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:

The Board understands [the wording of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020] as laying down a basic rule but leaving some limited leeway for exceptions. The basic rule is that amendments are not considered unless there are exceptional circumstances justified by cogent reasons (by the submitting party). The leeway for deviating from this rule lies in the expression "in principle" ("en principe"; "grundsätzlich"), which the Board reads roughly as "as a rule", meaning that the provision's basic rule is not entirely without exception. This leeway, when applied, means that an amendment can be considered despite the absence of exceptional circumstances justified by cogent reasons.

Catchword:

"Exceptional circumstances" in Rule 13(2) RPBA interpreted as those that compromise neither the procedural rights of the other party, nor procedural economy.

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:

That a "new" objection was raised by a board in appeal proceedings cannot per se amount to "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (see point 4.3 of the Reasons).

Catchword:
While objections raised by the Board for the first time in a communication under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 may be considered to give rise to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, and may possibly justify the filing of amendments which specifically respond to the new objections, this does not open the door to additional amendments which are unrelated to the new objections, and for which no exceptional circumstances exist (Reasons, point 3.10).

Catchword:

Le fait que la chambre ait retenu un argument nouveau (absence d'effet technique clairement identifiable) dans la chaîne argumentaire conduisant au constat provisoire d'absence d'activité inventive ne saurait être ignoré. Il justifie que les requêtes qui visent et se limitent à remédier à cette objection soient admises.

Catchword:
Weder Artikel 13(2) VOBK 2020 noch die erläuternden Bemerkungen dazu in CA/3/19 enthalten eine Erklärung, wie allgemein zu bestimmen ist, ob die Umstände "außergewöhnlich" sind. Die Erläuterungen der VOBK 2020 nennen als Beispiel für solche "außergewöhnlichen" Umstände allerdings den Fall, dass die Kammer einen Einwand erstmals in einer Mitteilung erhoben hat. In diesem Fall rechtfertige die veränderte Grundlage des Beschwerdeverfahrens ein verändertes Vorbringen. Die Frage, ob umgekehrt durch geändertes Vorbringen auch die Grundlage des Beschwerdeverfahrens verändert wird, stellt somit ein mögliches Kriterium dar, das für die Beurteilung der Außergewöhnlichkeit der Umstände heranzuziehen ist (Punkt 6.3 der Entscheidungsgründe).

Résumé

In T 2482/22 the appellant (opponent) raised for the first time during the oral proceedings before the board an objection of lack of novelty over D1. The appellant's representative justified the late submission by arguing that he took over the case from a colleague, who had overlooked the novelty objection when he drafted the grounds of appeal. The appellant also argued that, because this concerned a European patent, it was of utmost importance that there be no doubts concerning validity. None of these arguments convinced the board of the existence of exceptional circumstances under Art. 13(2) RPBA.

As regards the meaning of the term "exceptional circumstances", according to the board it was established jurisprudence of the boards that such circumstances concerned new or unforeseen developments in the appeal proceedings, such as new objections raised by the board or another party.

In the present case, the appellant had already overlooked that objection when they drafted the notice of opposition, which was signed by the appellant's present representative. Thus, the fact that another representative of the appellant overlooked the novelty objection when drafting the grounds of appeal was not a development of the appeal proceedings, let alone a new or unforeseen one. The appellant alone had to bear the responsibility for any such errors and mistakes.

The board understood the appellant's further argument as implying that the legitimacy of the European patent system depended on the strength of validity of patents issued by it, and that therefore any concerns of validity had to trump any other considerations, e.g. those of procedural economy and transparency or the nature of appeal proceedings as a judicial review. The board pointed out that the legislator had seen this differently, as was evident from Art. 12(2) RPBA as adopted by Decision of the Administrative Council of 26 June 2019, according to which the primary object of the appeal proceedings is to review the decision under appeal and a party should direct their appeal case at the requests, facts, objections, arguments and evidence on which the decision under appeal is based. As a consequence, the possibility of a party to change its case or add to it was very limited, increasingly so as the appeal procedure progressed (see document CA/3/19, points 47 and 48, explaining the convergent approach underlying Art. 12 and 13 RPBA, as well as the explanatory remarks to these articles, reproduced in OJ 2020, Supplementary publication 2).

The board further explained that Art. 12 and 13 RPBA lay out the criteria by which the boards have to exercise their discretion when considering amendments to a party's appeal case. Art. 12(4) and 13(1) RPBA do still include criteria that could be seen as reflecting on the merits or relevance of new submissions (e.g. suitability to address issues), albeit subject to justifying reasons. Indeed, and following established case law (G 7/95, OJ 1996, 626), at an early appeal stage it might still be possible to consider novelty, even if not raised before, vis-a-vis a closest prior art already cited against inventive step, but only in the context of assessing inventive step. The board pointed out, however, that such criteria are entirely absent from the wording Art. 13(2) RPBA which was purposely chosen to express the much more stringent criterion applicable at this last stage of the appeal proceedings. The board rejected the approach according to which merit or relevance were somehow subsumed in the sole criterion of "exceptional circumstances". As was clear from the examples, these only concerned circumstances that arose from the way the proceedings had developed, i.e. from the procedure itself and not its subject.