Information
Diese Seite ist nur auf Englisch verfügbar.
Selected decisions
The list of “Selected decisions” alerts users to all newly published decisions for which a headnote or a catchword has been provided by the board. Usually, a board will add a headnote or catchword if it wishes to provide a brief summary of a particular point of law or to draw attention to an important part of the reasons for the decision. The list contains all decisions with a headnote or catchword published in the last three years and can be viewed by year by selecting the year from the menu on the left.
The list below contains all decisions with a headnote or catchword that have been released for publication in the last six months (newest first).
March 2025
Amendment to case - amendment within meaning of Art. 12(4) RPBA 2020 (yes)
Late-filed objection - admitted (no)
Novelty - multiple selection
Novelty - main request (no)
Novelty - auxiliary request (yes)
Remittal - special reasons for remittal (no)
Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (yes)
Inventive step - non-obvious solution
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
February 2025
Grounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosure (no)
Grounds for opposition - added subject-matter (no)
Sufficiency of disclosure - enabling disclosure (yes)
Remittal - special reasons for remittal (yes)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no)
Novelty - public prior use (yes)
Novelty - main request (no)
Inventive step - auxiliary request (no)
Standard of proof - required degree of conviction
Modification après notification au titre de l'article 15(1) RPCR - circonstances exceptionnelles (non)
Modification après notification au titre de l'article 15(1) RPCR - prise en compte (non)
Motifs d'opposition - exposé insuffisant (non)
Renvoi - motifs particuliers justifiant le renvoi (oui)
January 2025
1. While an admissible intervention is to be treated as an
opposition (Article 105(2) EPC), its filing shortly prior
to the oral proceedings before a board does not generally
excuse the proprietor (or the other parties), and in
particular it does not hand them a voucher for more time.
Its concrete implications for opposition appeal proceedings
are rather to be determined on a case-by-case basis, under
the provisions of the EPC and the RPBA (see Reasons 4.5).
2. Nor are opposition appeal proceedings designed to serve as
a placeholder for tactical considerations in parallel
proceedings for infringement. They are rather an
existential challenge to the title, on the basis of which
enforcement is pursued in the infringement proceedings,
and parameters such as legal certainty and procedural
economy are also involved. Any difficulties for the
proprietor in drafting auxiliary requests that also provide
the best scope of protection, considering the ongoing
infringement proceedings, are not a reason to delay the
opposition appeal proceedings (see Reasons 4.6).
Postponement of oral proceedings - (no): no "serious reasons"
Postponement of decision on appeal - (no): no "serious reasons"
Added subject-matter (yes)
Objection under Rule 106 EPC - dismissed
Inventive step
Amendment to appeal case
Obligation to raise objections - objection dismissed
Amendments - main request
Amendments - allowable (no)
Inventive step - auxiliary request (no)
Amendment to case - amendment within meaning of Art. 12(4) RPBA 2020
Amendment to case - allowable (yes)
Amendment after notification of Art. 15(1) RPBA communication - auxiliary request
Amendment after notification of Art. 15(1) RPBA communication - exceptional circumstances (yes)
Amendment after notification of Art. 15(1) RPBA communication - additional auxiliary request
Amendment after notification of Art. 15(1) RPBA communication - exceptional circumstances (no)