T 2187/14 - Barely understandable machine translations

Key points

• In this case, a machine translation E10* was filed with the Statement of grounds. The Board found this to be " a barely understandable machine translation".
• E10** is a second and allegedly improved machine translation submitted in response to the Board's criticism of E10*. 
• "The Board does not see it as appropriate to allow a party to file numerous machine translations throughout the procedure until it comes up with one that conveys the nuance that supports its case. A certified translation should have been filed at the earliest opportunity." 
• "Therefore, these documents will be considered only to the extent that they might help in understanding the figures of E10." 
• As said in the comments at DeltaPatents, requiring a certified translation without invitation seems to go against Rule 5 EPC.  Rule 3 is also quite clear that a translation is only required upon invitation, and this applies also to opposition proceedings (GL A-VII 3.4) and therefore also to opposition appeal. In my view, the right to be heard of the other party requires that it can comment on a translation of the document in an EPO official language, but legal basis for that requires further study. In this case, the first translation E10* should perhaps have been admitted, but it is not for the Board or the other parties to infer what the Japanese document E10 says from a "barely understandable machine translation". 
• In addition, the legal basis for considering documents " only to the extent that they might help in understanding the figures of E10" is also not clear - is the document partially admitted?

EPO T 2187/14 - link

Reasons for the Decision

1. Consideration of late-filed documents (Articles 12(4), 13 RPBA)

1.1 Documents E4* and E10 to E14* were filed for the first time with the opponent's grounds of appeal. Therefore, it is necessary to assess whether they should have been submitted earlier (Article 12(4) RPBA).

1.3 E10* is a barely understandable machine translation of E10. E10** is a second and allegedly improved machine translation submitted in response to the Board's criticism of E10*. However, the Board does not see it as appropriate to allow a party to file numerous machine translations throughout the procedure until it comes up with one that conveys the nuance that supports its case. A certified translation should have been filed at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, these documents will be considered only to the extent that they might help in understanding the figures of E10.