T2328/22 - Res judicata against the intervenor

Key points

• In the first appeal, the Board decided to maintain the patent in amended form with a description to be adapted, and remitted the case.
• An accused infringer intervenes during the procedure before the OD after the remittal.
• Can the accused infringer contest the allowability of the claims?
• The Board concludes the accused infringer can not.
• The Board, in translation: "the board follows T 0694/01, which concerned a similar situation to the present case. In a first opposition appeal, the case was remitted to the opposition division for adaptation of the description. The intervention of the other opponents occurred subsequently, during the second opposition appeal. In T 0694/01, the question was discussed whether the intervener, as a party not previously involved in the proceedings, could still challenge the wording of the claim considered allowable by the board of appeal by raising new facts (in the form of a new ground for opposition), thus raising the same issue as in the present case."
• "In T 0694/01, the board denied the immediate res judicata effect of the board of appeal's decision against the intervener, but concluded that the res judicata effect of the decision against the previous parties to the proceedings could not be called into question (Reason 2.15)."
• The Board, in T 0694/01: "2.15 Die Beitretende beruft sich ferner darauf, daß die Entscheidung vom 27. Januar 2000 über den Wortlaut der Patentansprüche für sie nicht rechtsverbindlich sei, weil sie nicht an dem Verfahren beteiligt war. Auch die Kammer verneint eine unmittelbare Rechtskraftwirkung dieser Entscheidung gegenüber der Beitretenden, kann sich aber deren Schlußfolgerung nicht anschließen, daß durch den Beitritt auch die Rechtskraftwirkung der Entscheidung gegenüber den bisherigen Verfahrensbeteiligten in Frage gestellt werde."
• The Board then largely follows T 0694/01, which is a carefully reasoned decision.
• "In summary, there is therefore no apparent reason to deviate from the convincing arguments in Reasons 2.20 of T 0694/01 that an intervener joins a foreign proceeding and must consequently accept the proceedings in the state in which it finds itself at the time of the intervention."
• I don't know how this applies to the binding effect of ratio decidendi in the case of a remittal for further prosecution. There must be case law about it. Hints in the comments are welcome. 

EPO 

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

https://www.epo.org/de/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t222328du1