T 0700/25 - Appealing the grant, filing a div

Key points

• A patent is granted. The proprietor appeals against the grant and files a divisional application. The EPO deletes the mention of the grant (that is to say, publishes a new statement in the Bulletin that the first mention of the grant is deleted). The proprietor withdraws the appeal before filing the Statement of grounds. The proprietor requests the refund of the appeal fee, and requests "that the application go back to its granted state, and that a communication informing them of the new date of the mention of the grant be issued"
• The Board sees an issue: "the appeal fee is also reimbursed if it was paid for no valid reason, e.g. if the appeal is deemed not filed (see G 1/18 ). This second basis for reimbursement takes precedence over the first [i.e., Rule 103(10(b) EPC], because ... . Therefore, preliminary to the reimbursement of the appeal fee under Rule 103(1)(b) EPC, the Board has to assess whether an appeal was validly filed or not."
• The actual question is, of course, whether the divisional application was validly filed.
• "The Board is of the view that an appeal of the Examining Division's decision to grant a patent, in order that the application again become "pending", within the meaning of Rule 36(1) EPC, is manifestly inadmissible and does not provide a valid reason for the payment of the appeal fee. The Board follows, in this regard, the rationale of decision J 28/03, and not that of decision J 1/24. In the Board's view, there is no basis for the appellant's contention that the more recent of the two decisions necessarily takes precedence. As will be explained below, the Board's view is also in line with the rationale of decisions G 2/19 and G 1/09"
• "One of the two conditions giving rise to an entitlement to appeal is that the appellant is adversely affected by the contested decision. However, an applicant is not adversely affected by a decision to grant that accedes to the applicant's requests. Therefore, such an applicant is not entitled under Article 107, first sentence, EPC to appeal such a decision."
• "Contrary to decision J 1/24, an appeal of a decision to grant cannot be assumed validly to exist. An application proceeds to grant only on condition that the applicant has agreed to the text, under Article 113(2) EPC (Rule 71a(1) EPC; [...]). Consequently, an applicant appealing a decision to grant must justify their entitlement to appeal and set out why that decision is not in conformity with the applicant's requests or why it otherwise negatively affects them. Therefore, there is a presumption, that an applicant is not entitled under Article 107, first sentence, EPC to appeal a decision to grant, if their appeal is withdrawn before the filing of any statement of grounds of appeal, since no reasons have been given justifying their entitlement to appeal. Moreover, the appeal being withdrawn, the decision to grant becomes effective. Therefore, a withdrawal of an appeal of the decision to grant, before the filing of a statement of grounds of appeal, confirms that the appeal was filed by an applicant not entitled to appeal under Article 107, second sentence, EPC. Hence, such an appeal is manifestly inadmissible and filed without legitimate reason.
• "The filing of an appeal of a decision to grant a patent based on the earlier application attempts to circumvent the deliberate lack of a legal remedy for restoring the pending status within the meaning of Rule 36(1) EPC. Such an appeal is a clearly inadmissible means of redress and has no suspensive effect (G 2/19, point 6)."
  • Evidently, the Board used the opportunity to opine on the validity of the divisional application lest the Examining Division happily grant it.
  • The Boards may have to decide in the near future on he modified case wherein the applicant files a Statement of grounds and shortly thereafter withdraws the appeal.
  • The Board departs from J 1/24 ,  see above.'

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump.

T 2048/23 - Inherent or intrinsic properties

Key points

• The opposed patent contains in Table 1 the results of measurements of a certain parameter of  existing, commercially available, absorbent articles. The claim defines a range overlapping with the measured values.
• The Board: "Even if the parameter measurements on the articles seen in Table 1 were never performed publicly or at least were never made available before the priority date, these are intrinsic properties of the articles which are thus considered to have been made publicly available, see for example G 1/23, items 73, 90 and 91, or G 1/92, items 1.4, 2 and 2.1."
  • G 1/92: "There is no support in the EPC for the additional requirement (...) that the public should have particular reasons for analysing a product put on the market, in order to identify its composition or internal structure. ... The introduction of such an additional requirement would remove a commercially available and reproducible product from the public domain. "
  • Suppose the proprietor had invented a new measurement device that enables measurement of a (new) parameter that could not be measured using prior art measurement technologies. Suppose the claim specifies a range for the new parameter, and that the commercial prior art products (which were commercially available on the filing date) are found to exhibit a value of the parameter in the claimed range. Does it matter that the parameter was not analysable on the filing date?

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump.

T 1131/23 - Fee reduction for non-profit organisation

Key points

• The opponent, VRI-Verband der Reibbelagindustrie e.V., appeals.
• In machine translation: "The appellant [opponent] – a registered association under German law – argued in its appeal, using form 1011, that it was entitled to the reduced fee rate for non-profit organizations. It also paid only the reduced fee rate. To demonstrate that it does not pursue a profit motive, the appellant referred to its articles of association.
• The Board, in translation: " The question of whether the opponent is a non-profit organization and therefore only had to pay a reduced appeal fee when filing the appeal on 14 June 2023 is governed by Rule 6(4)(c) EPC in the version applicable until 30 April 2024 (Rule 6(4)(c) EPC old version).."
  • Obviously, Rule 6(4)(c) EPC applied only indirectly, namely through Art. 2(1).11 Rfees.
• The Board: " According to this provision, a non-profit organization is one which, by virtue of its legal form or articles of association, is prohibited under the relevant legal provisions from generating income, profits or other financial benefits for its owners, or which, if a profit motive is permitted, is subject to a statutory/legal obligation to reinvest these profits in the interests of the organization (see: Official Journal EPO 2014, A23, point 8i; Examining Guidelines Part A Chapter X 9.2.1; the same wording is found in point 8 of the Notice of the European Patent Office of 25 January 2024 on fee-related support measures for smaller units, Official Journal EPO 2024, A8, in which Rule 6 EPC (old version) was replaced by Rules 7a and 7b EPC)."
  • The text about "by virtue of its legal form or articles of association, is prohibited under the relevant legal provisions from generating income" cannot be found in Rule 6 (old) itself. OJ 2014 A23 is only a Notice from the EPO and does not bind the Board.
  • The Board indicates that it is not strictly bound by the OJ Notice, as follows: " From this definition, which the Board also bases its decision on [ Dieser Definition, die auch die Kammer zur Grundlage ihrer Entscheidung macht, ], it can be inferred that an organization is to be regarded as a non-profit organization if, due to its legal form, it is not permitted to engage in business activities aimed at generating profits."
• "In its assessment under the old version of Article 6(4) EPC, the Board follows the German case law on Section 21 of the German Civil Code (BGB), according to which limited economic activity within the scope of the so-called ancillary purpose privilege (see above, point 3) is permissible."
• "The opponent pursues the objective of the opposition proceedings it conducts to ensure that only those technical developments in the field of friction lining industry that are genuinely new, involve an inventive step, and fulfill the other requirements for patentability are granted a patent. This prevents the friction lining industry from being restricted from having unrestricted access to technical solutions that are already known and obvious from the prior art, and thus ultimately hinders further technical progress in this field. There is a general interest in this – not only, but also – of the friction lining industry, so these opposition proceedings are fundamentally suitable for promoting the objector's association's purpose."
• " Opposition proceedings do have economic consequences; however, these primarily affect the companies whose patent applications are being challenged. For an opponent who—like the opponent in these proceedings—does not manufacture or distribute any products, maintaining or invalidating a patent is neither economically advantageous nor disadvantageous. The costs of opposition proceedings, however, are considerable. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the opponent intends to profit from conducting opposition proceedings."
  • The members of the association are, of course, the (German) companies active in the industry. The association may be set up for cost-sharing purposes.
• "In light of all the above, it must be concluded that the opponent is to be regarded as a non-profit organisation within the meaning of Rule 6(4)(c) EPC old version and that his appeal is therefore deemed to have been lodged, even though he has only paid the reduced fee rate."
  • The preliminary opinion was negative. Oral proceedings were held only for the topic of the correct payment of the appeal fee / whether the appeal was deemed to have been filed. Summons for second oral proceedings, on the merits, were issued shortly after the first oral proceedings (with the oral proceedings to be held two months after the summons).
  • This confirms that under the EPC, the Boards hold oral proceedings even if they consider that the appeal is deemed to not have been filed due to an incorrect payment of the appeal fee.

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump.

T 1950/23 - Plausibility and generic statement of advantages

Key points

• The Board has to decide on inventive step.
• "Claim 1 of the main request is distinguished from the composition of example 23 of D1 solely in the presence (in claim 1) of "a detergent selected from sulfonate, phenate, or a mixture thereof"."
• "It is undisputed that the patent does not disclose a technical effect specifically linked to this distinguishing feature."
• " The respondent [proprietor] submitted that the effect of the distinguishing feature was an improvement in extreme pressure performance. Evidence of this effect was provided by the appellant's experimental tests D16, submitted in opposition proceedings."
• " The appellant [opponent] did not contest that this effect was demonstrated in D16 as described above, but rather argued that it could not be derived from the application as filed. Therefore, in view of Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 2/21, it could not be relied upon for inventive step, and hence also not in the formulation of the objective technical problem underlying claim 1."
• "Page 20, lines 15 to 22 ... states that the lubricating oil compositions may further comprise additives that can impart or improve any desirable property of the lubricating composition. Such additives are listed on page 20, lines 22 to 27 and include detergents. Detergents are mentioned in this list as one of many possible additives." In addition, "page 1, lines 20 to 22 states that the lubricating compositions of the invention exhibit both improved friction characteristics and extreme pressure performance"
• "However, further disclosures in the application as filed point to the specific importance of detergents in the claimed lubricating compositions: claim 7, which is dependent on claim 1, stipulates that the composition further comprises a detergent selected from sulfonate, phenate, or a mixture thereof. Claim 8 is the only other claim dependent on claim 1 and related to a further additive, namely a friction modifier. Since dependent claims are generally directed to preferred embodiments of the invention (Rule 43(3) EPC), this indicates a higher ranking for detergents and friction modifiers as additives over other additives listed in the application as filed. "
• "Furthermore, the lubricant compositions of all examples (table 1, page 31) comprise either a sulfonate or phenate detergent, and it is demonstrated for the inventive examples that adequate extreme pressure performance can be achieved ... . Therefore there is a link in the application as filed between the compositions of claim 7 and the effect of extreme pressure performance set out on page 1 as stated above.
• "it is not reasonable to expect patent applicants, at the time of drafting the application, to safeguard against the citation of then unknown prior art, for example in opposition proceedings, by providing comparative data showing an improvement for all potential distinguishing features over all potentially later cited closest prior art documents. Not only would this be unreasonably burdensome, it would also suffer from the shortcoming that not knowing the nature of the disclosure of the newly cited closest prior art, the information required to set up appropriate comparative tests representative thereof would not be at hand."
• " it would be an overly strict interpretation of G 2/21 to require that the application as filed demonstrate that the improvement of a technical effect disclosed in the application as filed and relied on by the patent proprietor is specifically attributed to the distinguishing feature. In such a situation, it would suffice for opponents to cite new prior art differing in the distinguishing feature compared to the prior art known when the application was drafted to invalidate the patent. More specifically, since relying on post-published data would be excluded under such a strict interpretation of G 2/21, such patents would be likely to face revocation."
• "Hence, this effect may be relied upon for inventive step, and consequently in the formulation of the objective technical problem underlying claim 1."

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump.

T 0583/25 - Allowable AR in examination appeal

• This is an appeal against a refusal decision.
• The examining division held that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request (sole request) underlying the decision under appeal did not specify that the "polysilicon emitter" was a "P-type polysilicon emitter" and therefore contravened the requirements of Article 76(1) EPC, as this constituted an unallowable intermediate generalisation.
• In a communication pursuant to Rule 100(2) EPC dated 26 June 2025, the board preliminarily agreed with the examining division and provided reasons for its view.
• The applicant withdraws the main request, and the Board has to decide on the admissibility of the auxiliary request filed with the SoG.
• “The amendments made to claim 1 of the auxiliary request overcome the sole reason for the refusal of the application, because the omitted term "P-type" is added in amended claim 1”
• “The auxiliary request could and should have been submitted in the examination proceedings. According to Article 12(6) RPBA, the board shall not admit such requests, unless the circumstances of the appeal case justify their admittance.”
• "In the present case, the board admits the auxiliary request into the appeal proceedings. The fact that the amendment in claim 1 of the auxiliary request overcomes the examining division's objection is regarded as a justifying circumstance within the meaning of Article 12(6) RPBA."
• "In this context, the board also takes into account the fact that the only possibility to have the examining division's decision on the claims of the main request reviewed by the board was to uphold the main request. In other words, even if the appellant had filed the auxiliary request in the examination proceedings as an auxiliary request, the examining division would have decided to refuse the main request, and the appellant would have had to file an appeal against this decision to have it reviewed by the board."
• If the applicant had filed AR-1 in the examination proceedings and maintained it, the Ex Div would have issued an intention to grant. The only way to obtain a refusal decision would have been to withdraw AR-1 (by keeping to the Main Request in reply to the Rule 71(3) Intention to grant). Then, the ‘not maintained’ prong of Art. 12(6)(s.2) would have applied.

T 1260/23 - Clarity and preferred features

Key points

• Claim 5 as granted: "5. The method of claim 4, wherein the soil and/or moisture resistant formulation is an aqueous polymer dispersion comprising dispersed particles having average particle sizes ranging from about 50 to about 150 nanometers, preferably wherein the aqueous polymer dispersion comprises from about 10 to about 40 % by dry weight of resin particles or solids selected from the group of polyurethane resins, polyether-urethane resins, urethane-acrylic resins, and mixtures thereof." 
• Claim 4 as granted " The method of claim 1, wherein the soil and/or moisture resistant formulation is an aqueous formulation containing one or more thermoplastic resins selected from the group of resins having an ester bond, polyurethane resins, functionalized polyurethane resins, and copolymers and mixtures thereof."
• Is the preferred feature of claim 5 open to the examination of clarity in opposition?
• The OD considered claim 1, amended with the mandatory and the preferred feature of claim 5 (and the feature of claim 4), to be unclear.  " The objection was based on an alleged ambiguity arising from the definition of two lists of polymers in claim 1, with the first including a broad reference to "resins having an ester bond" [i.e., former claim 4], and the second focusing on more specific chemical groups [i.e., the preferred list of claim 5]. According to the decision, it was unclear whether the second list was intended to limit the scope of all the groups in the first list, or simply to propose specific forms for some of them"
• The Board:  "the introduction of certain features by means of the term "preferably" merely indicates that they are optional, thereby rendering the defined subject-matter equivalent to that of an additional dependent claim. As argued by the proprietor, this corresponds to the case described in Reasons 3(a) of G 3/14 (the so-called "Type A(i)" cases), and is therefore not open to clarity objections during opposition or opposition-appeal proceedings."
• It is nice that the Board treats preferred features as "equivalent to that of an additional dependent claim" for the purposes of G 3/14 because you don't have to pay claim fees for preferred features.

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump.

T 1798/23 - Inconsistent indication of the opposed patent

Key points

• The opponent appeals against the decision to maintain the patent in amended form.
• "the respondent [proprietor] maintained their objection, already raised at opposition proceedings, to the admissibility of the opposition, due to a lack of the necessary information allowing the unambiguous identification of the opposed patent in the notice of opposition."
• It was submitted that while the notice of opposition indicated the correct European patent application No. 16 751 551. 9, the publication number was wrong with regard to the last digit (it indicates EP 3 332 023, whereas the publication number for the patent in suit is EP 3 332 028), as well as the title of the invention reading "Genetic testing for alignment-free predicting resistance of microorganisms against the antimicrobial agents" (this being the title of EP 3 332 023), instead of "Genetic resistance prediction against antimicrobial drugs in microorganism using structural changes in the genome" (this being the title of the patent EP 3 332 028).
• EP EP 3332023 exists, with indeed the title beginning with "Genetic test..."
• " The admissibility of an opposition must be assessed ex officio in every phase of the opposition and ensuing appeal proceedings (e.g. T 1178/04"
• "With [further] submissions dated 30 September 2021 [before the expiry of the opposition period], the notice of opposition was filed anew with the corrected title ("..."). The letter also contained the name of the patent owner (Ares Genetics GmbH), the European patent application No. 16751551. 9 and the patent's publication number EP 3 332 028, all as correctly indicated before in the first notice of opposition."
• From the European Patent Register, it can be derived that on 5 October 2021, the EPO issued a communication (Form 2302) indicating deficiencies under Rule 76(2)(b) EPC in the notice of opposition of 29 September 2021.
•  Irrespective of whether the submissions of 30 September 2021 were actually in reply to the EPO's communication of 5 October 2021, due to the opponent becoming aware of the deficiency in advance of the date indicated in that communication, or were filed by the opponent on its own motion, it is evident that the errors were corrected before expiry of the opposition period, as required by Rule 77(1) EPC.
• The opposition was hence admissible.
  
  
• The Board considers the claims to be not inventive. "It is established case law that the question of whether a skilled person would consider a modification of the prior art critically depends on the problem to be solved by the alleged invention. If the only contribution of the invention is to propose something different from the prior art (i.e. the provision of an alternative as in the present case), then it is usually appropriate to consider that the skilled person would take into account any common alternative known in the respective technical field (unless the closest prior art teaches away from it). In such cases it might not even be required to justify the selection of a particular solution, because it was assumed that an invention based on incorporating known features for the sole purpose of establishing novelty must be rendered obvious by a corresponding step of selecting any alternative known in the art"
• 
  

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump.