T 1698/15 - Ill representative and remittal

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the proprietor had filed only a single request before the OD, which was found unclear. The clarity issue was resolved by the new single request filed with the Statement of grounds. The Board admits the requests, one reason being that the professional representative was ill during the oral proceedings before the OD and did not attend them.
• " While it is not frequent that the Opposition Division and later on the Board of Appeal have to decide on a single request, it is up to the patent proprietor (with her representative) to decide how she defends her case. Of course, she could have filed an auxiliary request dealing with the clarity objection already in the written phase of the opposition proceedings, but she might possibly have been convinced that the Opposition Division would decide in her favour after hearing her, or she might have intended to file it during the oral proceedings, which she was unable to attend because her representative was ill. In any case it is established case law that a losing patent proprietor can in principle defend its case in appeal by filing a new request" 
• The appeal is also admissible, even though the appealed decision (of the OD) was not entirely clear because the proprietor refers to the " application"  and " grant" . 

EPO T 1698/15 - link

2. Admissibility of the appeal

The respondent/opponent submitted that the appeal was not admissible because the decision under appeal was not identifiable and there was no clear request on file since the appellant/patent proprietor talked about "application" and "granting" and not maintenance as granted or in amended form. By using such vocabulary it was even unclear whether the appellant/patent proprietor possibly wished to file an appeal against a decision of the Examining Division, which had also objected to the clarity of the claims. Further, it was not clear what the status of the new set of claims was, i.e. whether it constituted a main request or an auxiliary request. This was not clear from the statement setting out the grounds of appeal since the appellant/patent proprietor first seemed to address the revoked request before arguing about the new set of claims. According to the established case law, the requests had to be unambiguously formulated.

2.1 According to the established case law of the boards of appeal, the elements necessary for an appeal to be admissible, if not present explicitly, must at least be present implicitly.

2.2 As can be seen from the above (point V), the notice of appeal mentions the application number together with the date of the impugned decision and the name of the applicant (or patent proprietor). It appears that the date of the impugned decision is the date of the decision of the Opposition Division revoking the patent based on the mentioned application number and having the same proprietor. According to the Board, it follows from the above that even though the appellant/patent proprietor improperly used the wording "... decision to refuse the ... application..." and "... that European Patent Application ... be granted." it is clear that the appellant/patent proprietor meant to appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of the 22 June 2015 to revoke the patent and that, consequently, she is requesting the maintenance of the patent.

Thus, the necessary elements allowing identification of the decision under appeal are present in the notice of appeal.

2.3 The appellant/patent proprietor filed a new set of claims with her statement setting out the grounds of appeal. Claim 1 defended by the appellant/patent proprietor in the opposition proceedings and on which the decision was based, as well as claim 1 of the new set of claims, are a combination of claims 1 to 5 of the patent as granted with slight amendments, so that for this reason alone it seems clear that the appellant/patent proprietor is not seeking the maintenance of the patent as granted.

However, it could still possibly be questioned whether the appellant/patent proprietor wants the patent to be maintained on the basis of the same request as that revoked by the Opposition Division, and only as an auxiliary measure is seeking maintenance of the patent on the basis of the new set of claims.

In the Board's opinion it is clear that the new set of claims should form the basis for deciding on maintenance.

Indeed in the second paragraph of the statement setting out the grounds of appeal (point VI above) the appellant/patent proprietor states that "it is clear from the description and from the common sense, that the intestines cannot form part of the claimed subject-matter", and this appears to have been corrected in the new set of claims. This new set of claims is said to be "filed concurrently with the above comments, to show that the wording (...) is in compliance with originally granted Claim 1", which is an indication that it is meant to address the problem. Moreover, in the last paragraph of the statement setting out the grounds of appeal it is stated that "it is requested to confirm the New Set of Claims (...) as novel and inventive", which appears to be a clear indication that the new set of claims constitutes the only request of the appellant.

Thus, it appears at least implicit from the statement setting out the grounds of appeal that the new set of claims should form the basis for maintaining the patent in amended form.

2.4 From the only reasoning present in the decision under appeal (point III above) in respect of the clarity objection that led to the revocation of the patent it follows that the only reason for revoking the patent was that the intestines were considered to form part of the claimed subject-matter together with the rings in the feature:

"both the outer ring (2) and the intestine (4) fixed on said outer ring (2) are adapted to be overturned so that the intestine (4) is connected to the inside of the outer ring (2), the outer ring (2) and inner ring (1) and the adventitia (3, 4) of the intestines fixed on the rings (1, 2) being adapted to be clamped together;"

In claim 1 of the new set of claims filed with the statement setting out the grounds of appeal this feature reads:

"the outer ring (2), when the second intestines end (4) is fixed on said outer ring (2), is adapted to be overturned so that the second intestines end (4) is connected to an inside of the outer ring (2), the outer ring (2), the inner ring (1) and the first and second intestines ends (3, 4), when fixed on the inner and the outer rings (1, 2), being adapted to be clamped together;" (emphasis added).

This wording with "when" was present in claim 1 of the patent as granted and clarifies that the intestines do not form part of the claimed subject-matter.

Hence, it is also self-evident that this amendment overcomes the sole reason for revocation in the decision under appeal, making further explanations in this regard unnecessary (e.g. T 0655/03, T 1708/08, J 0022/86 (OJ EPO 1987,280)).

2.5 Consequently, it appears that the decision under appeal is identifiable, that it is clear what the request of the appellant/patent proprietor is, and a full reasoning as to why claim 1 of the new set of claims on file overcomes the single reason for revocation is not necessary, with the result that the notice of appeal and the statement setting out the grounds of appeal fulfil the requirements of Rule 99 EPC.

Hence, the appeal is admissible.

3. Admissibility of the new set of claims

The respondent/opponent considered that the new set of claims should not be admitted into the proceedings because not only was the same objection as in the reasons for the decision already addressed in the examining phase but the respondent/opponent had also addressed it in its reply of 20 March 2014 more than a month before the planned oral proceedings in the opposition proceedings. Thus, the appellant/patent proprietor knew about the objection and had plenty of time to deal with it. She should not be allowed to concentrate on it only by filing an amended request in the appeal proceedings. Article 12(4) RPBA had to be applied and the request had to be held inadmissible because the appellant/patent proprietor could have filed it earlier in the first-instance proceedings.

While it is not frequent that the Opposition Division and later on the Board of Appeal have to decide on a single request, it is up to the patent proprietor (with her representative) to decide how she defends her case. Of course, she could have filed an auxiliary request dealing with the clarity objection already in the written phase of the opposition proceedings, but she might possibly have been convinced that the Opposition Division would decide in her favour after hearing her, or she might have intended to file it during the oral proceedings, which she was unable to attend because her representative was ill. In any case it is established case law that a losing patent proprietor can in principle defend its case in appeal by filing a new request, which is what she has done here. And she did so at the earliest time possible in the appeal proceedings, namely with the filing of the statement setting out the grounds of appeal. In addition, as already mentioned above, it clearly addressed the objection that led to revocation.

Therefore, in the present case, the Board considers that it would not be appropriate to exercise its discretion according to the first part of Article 12(4) RPBA (...the power of the Board to hold inadmissible ... requests which could have been presented ... in the first-instance proceedings...) in order to dismiss the request, because this would result in a disproportionate outcome, namely the definitive revocation of the patent in the special situation in which the appellant/patent proprietor could not file that request at the first-instance oral proceedings because her representative was ill, but then did so at the earliest possible time afterwards.

Hence, the new set of claims is admitted into the appeal proceedings.

4. Remittal

Following the Board's communication to the parties, indicating that it intended to remit the case to the department of first instance for further prosecution, the respondent/opponent objected because that would give the appellant/patent proprietor an opportunity to correct her own negligence, and an opportunity to redo the first-instance oral proceedings.

In the present case, considering that the appellant/patent proprietor did not have chance to defend her case in oral proceedings at first instance because her representative was ill, that the objection on which the revocation was based has been overcome, that the respondent/opponent and the appellant/patent proprietor will have every opportunity to defend their cases before two instances, and finally also that the case has been dealt with swiftly in appeal proceedings so that the length of the proceedings is not seriously affected, the Board is of the opinion that an immediate remittal pursuant to Article 111(1) EPC is the most appropriate procedural step.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution.