T 2250/21 - Is the witness a deepfake?

Key points

•  The OD revoked the patent. The proprietor appeals.
• The Board, in translation: "The appellant had essentially complained that the hearing of witnesses was not suitable to prove the alleged facts, since the chosen format of the hearing, namely by video conference, opened up a wide range of possibilities for influence or manipulation. "
• The The OD heard witnesses by video conference (in 2021). However, the Board considers the public prior use to be proven by the evidence alone, see below.
• "Therefore, questions should be submitted to the Enlarged Board of Appeal regarding the obligations of the opposition division, in particular whether the opposition division "must insure
• - whether the witness is not a deepfake,
• - whether the witness is a real human person,
• - whether the witness examined fully and not only partially confirms the identity given,
• - whether the ID is genuine and/or physically existent and/or is not a deepfake,
• - whether the witness is uninfluenced, for example by a 360° camera pan to view the entire room,
• or whether the mere testimony of the witness must be accepted physically without verification (e.g. with the risk that the witness is a deepfake acted by another person)""
• The Board, in the original German: "Wie oben unter Punkt 1. dargelegt, und im Laufe der mündlichen Verhandlung von der Vorsitzenden erläutert, ist die beanstandete Zeugenvernehmung jedoch für den Beweis der geltend gemachten offenkundigen Vorbenutzung "Space Jet 3 Almbahn", und damit die vorliegende Entscheidung, nicht relevant (Artikel 112 (1) a) EPÜ). Demgemäß erklärte die Vorsitzende während der mündlichen Verhandlung, dass eine Vorlage diesbezüglicher Fragen an die Große Beschwerdekammer nicht in Betracht komme. Die Patentinhaberin widersprach dieser Feststellung nicht und erklärte, dass die Vorlage angesichts der Auffassung der Kammer keinen Sinn mehr ergeben würde."

• In point 1 of the decision, the Board finds the public prior use proven by the documentary evidence alone.

• The documentary evidence did not include  affidavits, only documents such as a manual, technical drawing, and delivery receipt. 

• For sure, there are already some inventions addressing the authenticity of videos? 

EPO 

The link to the decision can be found after the jump.

https://www.epo.org/de/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t212250du1