T 1362/15 - US style claims and basis

Key points

• This appeal is about Art. 123(2). “Claim 10 of [auxiliary request 2 has a feature X] . This feature was defined in the originally filed claim 14 which depended directly from independent claim 13 and was not linked to any other claim depending from independent claim 13, such as claims 15 and 17, which the appellant also provided as a basis for the subject-matter of claim 10.”
• The appellant requested a referral to the Enlarged Board, asking essentially the question “ if the features of a plurality of dependent claims are incorporated into an independent claim in a situation in which the application as originally filed includes a claims set with a "U.S. style" dependency” (i.e. no multiple dependent claims). 
• The Board does not refer the question. “Regarding the "U.S. style" claim dependency, the Board notes that there is no actual limitation regarding the possible combinations of features in the claims of a U.S. application. 35 U.S.C 112 allows multiple dependent claims to be drafted and states only that a multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. Contrary to the argument of the appellant, this is however not an absolute prohibition or even an insurmountable limitation, as it could be overcome, merely for example, by the use of several independent claims in the same category and/or by redrafting of the dependent claims accordingly.”
• “The Board is not persuaded by this argument and finds that the criteria stated in point 3.2 are the necessary and sufficient criteria to assess the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC. The claimed subject-matter, i.e. the claimed combination of features, must be clearly and unambiguously derivable from the whole content of the application as originally filed. If the combination of originally filed claims alone does not fulfill this criteria, it must be established whether this combination of features is derivable from any other part of the application as filed. This criteria is valid, irrespective of the particular dependency structure of the originally filed claims.”

EPO T 1362/15 -  link

The questions which the appellant requested be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal read:

"1) Does it comply with Art. 123(2) EPC if the features of a plurality of dependent claims are incorporated into an independent claim in a situation in which the application as originally filed includes a claims set with a "U.S. style" dependency (with the relevant dependent claims referring back to the independent claim separately), and includes an embodiment in which the features of the independent claim and the dependent claims are shown in combination?

2) If the answer to question 1) is "yes", may the fact that the embodiment possibly shows additional features, result in a violation of Art. 123(2) because of an intermediate generalization despite the fact that the features added to the independent claim are disclosed separately in the U.S. style claims set?"

Reasons for the Decision

3. Request for referral of two questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

3.1 The appellant requested the referral of two questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 112(1)(a) EPC (see point VIII. above)

T 0815/18 - Claim amendments changing CPA inadmissible

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the Board concludes that the Main Request is not inventive in view of  D2. The applicant then files a new Main Request at the end of the oral proceedings. The Board does not admit this request.
• " The appellant further argued that, because of [the] amendments, D2 did not represent the closest prior art anymore since it did not relate to microwave radio transmissions but to mobile communications." 
• “The board holds that, even if this technical argument were accepted, amendments to a claim aiming to change the closest prior art, considered as such during the whole examination proceedings, introduces subject-matter which has not been discussed so far and or probably even searched and could not be dealt with without the adjournment of oral proceedings.” 
• As a comment, in this case, the features were taken from the description, so in a way it introduced new subject-matter which have not been discussed so far. That may be enough for holding inadmissible amended claims filed at the end of the oral proceedings. Nevertheless, I tend to agree that the fact that the claim amendments aim to switch the closest prior art document, may provide an additional reason for holding requests inadmissible (also if filed earlier in the procedure). 
• This decision also illustrates that the CPA is to be determined for the claim(s) at issue, not for the patent application as a whole. 

EPO T 0815/18 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible (see point II above).

2. Main request - Admissibility

2.1 This request was filed late by the appellant at the end of the oral proceedings before the board, after the other requests had been examined, and replaced the previous main request which was thus withdrawn.

2.2 In the oral proceedings, the board had previously expressed the opinion that claim 1 of the previous main request did not meet the requirements of Article 56 EPC in view of D2. During discussion of the previous main request, the board held that D2 discloses the following

[...]

For these reasons, during oral proceedings the board concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the previous main request did not involve an inventive step, in view of D2.

2.3 Claim 1 of the main request differs in substance from claim 1 of the previous main request in that the line interface is a baseband wireline interface and the radio transmission is a microwave radio transmission, i.e. that the radio channels operate in the microwave range.

The appellant argued that these amendments were supported by the description in page 1, line 21 and from page 1, line 24 to page 2, line 6, respectively. The board notes, however, that these passages belong to the part entitled "Background of the invention" and that the terms "microwave" and "baseband" do not appear further in the description, so the board is not convinced that the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC are fulfilled.

The appellant further argued that, because of these amendments, D2 did not represent the closest prior art anymore since it did not relate to microwave radio transmissions but to mobile communications. The board holds that, even if this technical argument were accepted, amendments to a claim aiming to change the closest prior art, considered as such during the whole examination proceedings, introduces subject-matter which has not been discussed so far and or probably even searched and could not be dealt with without the adjournment of oral proceedings.

For these reasons, during the oral proceedings the board decided not to admit the main request into the proceedings (Article 13(3) RPBA).

T 2893/18 - File inspection exclusion appeal

Key points

• This is an unuasal appeal about a request to exclude documents from the public part of the file.
• " By letter dated 18 December 2017, the patent proprietor indicated that it had been informed that opponent 2 intended to make written submissions in preparation for the oral proceedings." The patentee then requests that the letter of the opponent is excluded from the public file and that the letter is not sent to the other opponent.
• First oral proceedings before the OD then take place. The OD decides to admit the documents at issue in the proceedings. The OD then concludes that second oral proceedings are to be held.
• " The present appeal was filed by the patent proprietor following a communication annexed to the summons [issued 31.08.2018] to second oral proceedings in opposition proceedings." 
• The question is whether this appeal is admissible, in particular, whether there is a decision. 
• The Board: " although an implicit decision is not acknowledged as such in the Convention, its possible existence cannot be excluded either because there are circumstances where a decision can be inferred from the context rather than based on the form of a document" 
• " The appellant argued [] that the contested documents were not only listed in this communication but were also commented upon. Therefore, their content was - at least indirectly - made available to any third party reading the communication." 
• " Although the board acknowledges the logic supporting this argument, it can nonetheless not draw the same conclusion as the appellant." 
• " There is no mention at all of the request for their exclusion from file inspection, let alone a decision rejecting such a request. Indeed, the communication appears to only contain the opposition division's provisional opinion on the therein identified outstanding issues and does not seem to even hint at a decision on any issue. Moreover, the contested documents are still in the non-public part of the file." 
• " Thus, the present appeal was filed in the absence of a decision and therefore has to be rejected as inadmissible" 
• " The fact that the documents were communicated to the other opponents is not in contradiction with their provisional exclusion from public inspection." 
•  The other opponent is party to the appeal proceedings. " Regarding the appeal, as foreseen in Article 107, second sentence, EPC "any other parties to the proceedings shall be parties to the appeal proceedings as of right". The provision contains no exception and allows no different interpretation, nor could the appellant's arguments shed a different light or lead to a different understanding. Thus, the opponents are parties to the present proceedings."

T 2893/18 - link

Reasons for the Decision

Party status of opponents 1 and 3

1. The appellant argued, in its submissions of 3 July 2019, that the issues to be considered in the present appeal warrant the participation of only opponent 2 in the proceedings and the exclusion of the other two opponents. The appellant reasoned that opponents 1 and 3 should not have party status since the appeal was not concerned with the opposition itself but with the incidental issue of the exclusion from file inspection of documents submitted by opponent 2 and the correct procedure to be applied when deciding it. They should even have been excluded from participation in the discussion of this issue during the opposition proceedings to safeguard that the contested documents remained unavailable to the public.

2. As the opposition division correctly pointed out in its communication dated 22 December 2017, all documents submitted in the course of opposition proceedings and all exchanges between one party and the opposition division have to be communicated to all parties due to the inter partes nature of opposition proceedings (see also 5.2 below).

Regarding the appeal, as foreseen in Article 107, second sentence, EPC "any other parties to the proceedings shall be parties to the appeal proceedings as of right". The provision contains no exception and allows no different interpretation, nor could the appellant's arguments shed a different light or lead to a different understanding. Thus, the opponents are parties to the present proceedings.

Admissibility of the appeal

3. The appellant's case rests on the argument that the opposition division's communication dated 31 August 2018 contains the implicit decision to reject its request for the exclusion of documents D18-D37 from public file inspection.

T 1364/12 - The positive side of Rule 79(1)

Key points

• In this older decision (2015), the Board explains that documents submitted by the proprietor in the Rule 79 period are admissible. It does  not matter if the documents are prima facie relevant or not. 
• The Board: “da [these documents] von der [patentee] fristgerecht in Antwort auf die Mitteilung nach Regel 79 (1) EPÜ eingereicht worden waren und somit Basis des Einspruchsverfahrens bilden hätten müssen. Die Einspruchsabteilung hätte sich die Frage, ob sie die Dokumente im Rahmen einer Ermessensausübung unter dem Aspekt der Prima-facie-Relevanz zum Verfahren zulässt [], nicht stellen dürfen”

T 1364/12 -  link

5. Berücksichtigung der E8 und E9 im Verfahren

5.1 Die Beschwerdeführerin hat die E8 und E9 mit ihrer ersten Stellungnahme zum Einspruch vom 2. März 2011 und mithin innerhalb der in der Mitteilung nach Regel 79 (1) EPÜ vom 11. November 2010 gesetzten Frist von vier Monaten eingereicht. Demnach war das Vorlegen dieser Druckschriften fristgerecht und zum frühest-möglichen Zeitpunkt im Einspruchsverfahren erfolgt.

5.2 Im Beschwerdeverfahren hat die Beschwerdeführerin in ihrer Beschwerdebegründung die E8 und E9 für die Interpretation des in der E3 verwendeten Begriffs "Sanitärapparat" herangezogen. Als Bestandteil der Beschwerdebegründung waren diese beiden Dokumente und das zugehörige Vorbringen somit von Anfang an Grundlage des Beschwerdeverfahrens (vgl. Artikel 12 (2) VOBK), und die Kammer sieht auch keinerlei Gründe, weshalb sie diese Dokumente und das Vorbringen nach Artikel 12 (4) VOBK nicht berücksichtigen sollte.

5.3 Zwar waren die Dokumente von der Einspruchsabteilung nicht zugelassen worden, allerdings war dies nach Ansicht der Kammer zu Unrecht erfolgt, da sie von der Beschwerdeführerin fristgerecht in Antwort auf die Mitteilung nach Regel 79 (1) EPÜ eingereicht worden waren und somit Basis des Einspruchsverfahrens bilden hätten müssen. Die Einspruchsabteilung hätte sich die Frage, ob sie die Dokumente im Rahmen einer Ermessensausübung unter dem Aspekt der Prima-facie-Relevanz zum Verfahren zulässt (vgl. Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung, Entscheidungsgründe Nr 2), nicht stellen dürfen, und es lag insoweit eine fehlerhafte Ermessensausübung vor.

5.4 Die Kammer kam also zur Schlussfolgerung, dass die Dokumente E8 und E9 und der diesbezügliche Vortrag gemäß Artikel 12 (2), (4) VOBK im Verfahren zu berücksichtigen sind. Auf ihre Prima-facie-Relevanz braucht nicht eingegangen zu werden.

T 0603/14 - Novelty attack to inventive step attack

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the opponent had used D1 and D3 up to the oral proceedings before the Board only to support objections of lack of novelty of claim 1 and claim 25. During the oral proceedings, the Board concludes that the claims are novel and the opponent raises an objection of lack of inventive step based on the same documents. 
• The Board does not admit the new attack.  "At least the allegation that [these documents] led, in combination, to a lack of inventive step is to the Board a new fact." 
• As a comment, the particular approach of calling attacks 'facts'  is due to T1914/12.
• The Board: " the [opponent] did not give any reason for presenting that attack only towards the end of the oral proceedings rather than at such a time before the oral proceedings as to allow the Board and the respondent to appropriately address it. The annex to the summons stated clearly that any further comments, documents or requests should be at the disposal of the Board and the other party one month before the oral proceedings at the latest and should not surprise the other party and the Board. The [patentee] indicated that he would need an appropriate amount of time to react to the objection. Admittance of the objection at this late stage would therefore not have respected the required procedural efficiency. Rather it might even have borne the risk of having to adjourn the oral proceedings." 
• As a comment, "the purpose of the communication of a board of appeal pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA is to prepare for the oral proceedings and it is not an invitation to the parties to make further submissions or to file further requests" (T0799/17). So the annex to the summons is not an invitation to make further submissions but the deadline given therein is still a deadline.

EPO T 0603/14 -  link

7. Admissibility of a late-filed inventive step objection

7.1 The Board exercised their discretion not to consider the late filed objection of lack of inventive step in view of D1 and D3.

7.2 The appellant raised this objection for the first time in the oral proceedings before the Board. The documents form part of the appeal proceedings.

7.3 The objection represents an amendment to the appellant's case and may as such, pursuant to Article 13(1) RPBA, be admitted and considered at the Board's discretion. Document D1 and D3 had up to that point only been used to support objections of lack of novelty of claim 1 and claim 25. At least the allegation that they led, in combination, to a lack of inventive step is to the Board a new fact.

7.4 The appellant did not present a convincing justification for the late submission of this alleged new fact. The Board's preliminary opinion on the disclosure of D1 did not introduce any new aspects into the discussion. It merely did not follow the appellant's conclusions. Even accepting arguendo that it did prompt the new objection, the appellant did not give any reason for presenting that attack only towards the end of the oral proceedings rather than at such a time before the oral proceedings as to allow the Board and the respondent to appropriately address it. The annex to the summons stated clearly that any further comments, documents or requests should be at the disposal of the Board and the other party one month before the oral proceedings at the latest and should not surprise the other party and the Board. The respondent indicated that he would need an appropriate amount of time to react to the objection. Admittance of the objection at this late stage would therefore not have respected the required procedural efficiency. Rather it might even have borne the risk of having to adjourn the oral proceedings. Even if one accepted that D1, having been cited to support an objection of lack of novelty, could have been expected to be used as a starting point for an objection of lack of inventive step, the other party cannot be expected to anticipate any arbitrary combination of D1 with other documents on file, such as D3, to be introduced into the proceedings. Furthermore, a document useful for assessing novelty is not necessarily a legitimate choice as closest prior art, see also T0181/17, reasons 7.4.

8. For the above reasons, the Board accedes to the respondent's main request and rejects the appellant's request.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

T 1906/17 - Rule 79(1)

Key points

• The Board considers the main request (claims as granted) to be not novel over D1 and does not admit the new auxiliary requests in this opposition appeal.
• The Board: “Die Kammer stellt fest, dass die [patentee] im Einspruchsverfahren mit der Mitteilung gemäß Regel 79 (1) EPÜ die Möglichkeit bekommen hat, geänderte Unterlagen einzureichen und dass sie diese Möglichkeit nicht genutzt hat, obwohl ihr zu diesem Zeitpunkt die vorläufige Meinung der Einspruchsabteilung nicht bekannt war.”
• The Board notes that the arguments of the opponent concerning the lack of novelty over D1 were the same throughout the opposition and appeal proceedings. 
• The Board: “Die Kammer ist daher der Meinung, dass die Hilfsanträge bereits am Anfang des Einspruchsverfahrens in Reaktion auf die Einspruchsbegründung hätten vorgebracht werden können und müssen. Das Zulassen der Hilfsanträge ins Verfahren liegt dementsprechend im Ermessen der Kammer im Sinne von Artikel 12 (4) VOBK.” (emphasis added).
• The Board furthermore notes that the respondent in opposition appeal, having won before the OD, can not wait until the preliminary opinion of the Board with filing auxiliary requests.
• The Board: “Dass eine Partei bewusst die vorläufige Stellungnahme der Kammer abwartet, bevor sie auf einen im Verfahren, das mit dem Erlass der angefochtenen Entscheidung endete, längst vorgebrachten Einwand der anderen Partei reagiert, widerspricht der eigentlichen auf die Überprüfung der angefochtenen Entscheidung gerichteten Funktion des Beschwerdeverfahrens und dem Prinzip des frühzeitigen und vollständigen Vorbringens der Parteien” 

EPO T 1906/17 - link

3. Zulassung der Hilfsanträge 1 bis 4

3.1 Die Beschwerdegegnerin hat mit Schriftsatz vom 25. Juli 2019 in Reaktion zur Kammermitteilung gemäß Artikel 15 (1) VOBK die Hilfsanträge 1 bis 4 eingereicht, deren Zulassung ins Beschwerdeverfahren die Beschwerdeführerin unter Hinweis auf die Entscheidung T1126/97 wegen Verspätung sowie deswegen widerspricht, weil alle Hilfsanträge Kombinationen von Merkmalen aus den Unteransprüchen und aus der Beschreibung enthielten, die zu weiteren Einwände führten.

3.2 Die seitens der Beschwerdegegnerin zur Rechtfertigung der späten Einreichung der Hilfsanträge vorgetragenen Argumente überzeugen nicht.

Diese beziehen sich im Kern darauf, dass nach Einschätzung der Beschwerdegegnerin die Hilfsanträge deshalb zugelassen werden sollten, um ihr die Möglichkeit zur Verteidigung des Streitpatents zu geben. Im Einspruch habe nämlich keine Veranlassung bestanden, Hilfsanträge einzureichen, und dies wäre aus ökonomischen Gründen auch nicht sinnvoll gewesen, weil mehrere Einwände seitens der Beschwerdeführerin vorgebracht worden wären. Weil die Auffassung der Prüfungsabteilung und der Einspruchsabteilung positiv für die Beschwerdegegnerin gewesen wären, sei nun die Entwicklung im Beschwerdeverfahren für sie unerwartet.

Die Kammer stellt fest, dass die Beschwerdegegnerin im Einspruchsverfahren mit der Mitteilung gemäß Regel 79 (1) EPÜ die Möglichkeit bekommen hat, geänderte Unterlagen einzureichen und dass sie diese Möglichkeit nicht genutzt hat, obwohl ihr zu diesem Zeitpunkt die vorläufige Meinung der Einspruchsabteilung nicht bekannt war.

T 0043/16 - OD should have admitted requests

Key points

• The OD had not admitted Auxiliary Request 1. The Board considers that the OD did so according to the wrong principles (G7/93). Oral proceedings before the OD were held on 13.10.2015. The Board notes that AR-1 was filed with letter of 18.12.2014. This letter was after the expiry of the period of Rule 79(1) EPC (The Rule 79(1) Communication was dated 21.02.2014. A first extension with 2 months was granted, i.e. until 21.08.2014. A second extension was denied. The Patentee's response was filed only in December 2014. 
• The Board: "Auch wenn sie [Auxiliary Request 1] formal nach Ablauf der nach Regel 79 (1) EPÜ gesetzten Frist eingegangen sind, sind sie Gegenstand sowohl der in der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung geäußerten vorläufigen Meinung der Einspruchsabteilung, als auch der Eingabe der Einsprechenden vom 23. Juli 2015. Daher mussten sie als faktisch in das Einspruchsverfahren zugelassen gelten."
• As a first comment, I note that the Board appears to acknowledge that auxiliary requests filed after the expiry of the Rule 79(1) period are in principle late-filed. However, I find it rather weird that a late-filed request becomes admissible because the opponent comments in substance on it. The opponent can hardly be expected to restrict itself to only contesting admissibility, in view of the risk that the OD could admit the request. If I understand the present Board, if you wile a substantive rebuttal as an opponent, patentee's late-filed auxiliary requests automatically become admissible. What is the opponent supposed to do, then? Has the Rule 79(1) period any meaning, except for being a delay until the OD can issue summons?
• The OD had also decided to not admit Auxiliary Requests 3 to 6, filed after the Rule 116(2) date. The Board: Die Kammer stellt fest, dass die Nichtzulassung der Hilfsanträge 3 bis 6 lediglich damit begründet wurde, dass der Antrag nach Regel 116(2) EPÜ verspätet eingereicht worden war. [in particular: “Durch die Eingabe der Einsprechenden vom 23. Juli 2015 habe sich der Sachverhalt geändert, da die Einsprechende neue Einwände, zusätzliche Argumente und weitere Druckschriften eingereicht habe.”] Die Einspruchsabteilung berücksichtigte nicht, dass der Antrag durch eine Änderung des Streitstoffs veranlasst war, [...] . Hinsichtlich der Hilfsanträge 4 bis 6 setzte sie sich inhaltlich nicht erkennbar mit den geänderten Ansprüchen auseinander, bevor sie die Hilfsanträge 3 bis 6 als nicht zulässig verwarf. Die Einspruchsabteilung hat ihr Ermessen daher rein formalistisch ausgeübt.
• As a comment, I tend to agree that if the opponent submits new attacks and documents shortly before the Rule 116(2) date (and these are admitted), then the patentee must be given an opportunity to reply, with auxiliary requests if desired, under Article 113. Rule 116(2) indeed only applies if the proprietor “has been notified” of the grounds prejudicing the maintenance of the patent and invitation to submit amended claims has accordingly been issued. The Rule 116(2) date applies only for amended claims that are responsive to those objections notified in that invitation. 
• The OD had also decided to not admit the new Main Request, filed two weeks before the oral proceedings, which were the claims as granted (with the reply of 18.12.2014, the Main Request was amended claims). According to the Board, two weeks was sufficient for the opponent to consider this new request, because the claims as granted were already the subject of the Notice of opposition. "Somit war der Einsprechenden durchaus zuzumuten, sich etwa zwei Wochen vor dem Termin der mündlichen Verhandlung erneut mit den erteilten Ansprüchen und mit ihrer eigenen Argumentation auseinanderzusetzen, an der sich angesichts der erteilten Ansprüche nichts geändert haben sollte." 

EPO T 0043/16 -  link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Die Beschwerde ist zulässig.

2. Die Beschwerdeführerin reichte zusammen mit ihrer Beschwerdebegründung erneut ihren Hauptantrag betreffend die erteilten Ansprüche, sowie die Hilfsanträge 1 bis 6 ein, die von der Einspruchsabteilung unter Verweis auf Regel 116 (2) EPÜ in das Einspruchsverfahren nicht zugelassen worden waren.

2.1 Daher hat die Kammer zu überprüfen, ob einzelne oder alle diese Anträge in das Beschwerdeverfahren zuzulassen sind. Gemäß Artikel 12(4) der Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern (VOBK) kann eine Kammer das Vorbringen eines Beteiligten in das Beschwerdeverfahren zulassen, auch wenn es von der ersten Instanz als verspätet nicht zugelassen wurde. Soweit nach Artikel 12 (4) VOBK im Beschwerdeverfahren über die Zulassung von Vorbringen zu entscheiden ist, das bereits im erstinstanzlichen Verfahren nicht zu gelassen wurde, entspricht dies einer Überprüfung der auf Regel 116 EPÜ gestützten Ermessensentscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung.

2.2 Nach ständiger Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern ist bei der Überprüfung einer Ermessensentscheidung des erstinstanzlichen Organs zu beurteilen, ob es sein Ermessen nach Maßgabe der falschen Kriterien, unter Nichtbeachtung der richtigen Kriterien oder in willkürlicher Weise ausgeübt hat (siehe G 7/93, ABl. EPA 1994, 775, Entscheidungsgründe Punkt 2.6; T 640/91, ABl. EPA 1994, 918, Entscheidungsgründe Punkt 6.3; T 109/08, Entscheidungsgründe Punkt 4.1).

2.3 Daher wird die Kammer im Folgenden untersuchen, ob die Nichtzulassung der erneut im Beschwerdeverfahren vorgelegten Anträge von der Einspruchsabteilung nach Ausübung pflichtgemäßen Ermessens erfolgte, oder ob die Einspruchsabteilung ihr Ermessen fehlerhaft ausgeübt hat.

3. Hauptantrag

3.1 Die Beschwerdeführerin hat mit ihrer ersten Eingabe im Einspruchsverfahren geänderte Ansprüche eingereicht. Erst mit ihrer zweiten Eingabe im Einspruchsverfahren, mit dem Schriftsatz vom 28. September 2015, legte sie als Hauptantrag die erteilten Ansprüche vor, die sie auch im Beschwerdeverfahren als Hauptantrag weiterverfolgt.

T 0834/14 - Requests not admitted by OD

Key points

• The OD considers claim 1 of the main request to include a feature that lacks basis in the application as filed, as submitted by the opponent in the Notice of opposition. The OD had refused to admit auxiliary requests filed during the oral proceedings. The Board does not consider this to form a substantial procedural violation.
• "As mentioned by the Opposition Division in its decision (point 11.2), the opponent had already objected to the feature [x] in the notice of opposition (point II), and the [proprietor] had not reacted by amending claim 1 to overcome that objection [prior to the oral proceedings]. In the Board's opinion, the [proprietor] could have filed an amended version of the claims to address this objection together with its reply to the notice of opposition, or at the latest before the oral proceedings. Therefore, for that reason alone, the Board does not see any substantial procedural violation in forbidding the appellant to file additional requests during the oral proceedings. "
• For not admitting the new requests, it does not matter that the OD had also raised new objections during the oral proceedings.
• "the fact that there was one objection which had been in the file right from the start of the opposition proceedings and which could and should have been addressed earlier seems enough to justify the refusal to file new requests. Such a decision by the Opposition Division might be considered severe, but in the present situation it does not constitute a substantial procedural violation."

EPO T 0834/14 - link

6. Substantial procedural violation

In its statement of grounds, the appellant considered that given the objections raised for the first time during the oral proceedings and introduced into the proceedings by the Opposition Division, the appellant should have been given an opportunity to file amended requests. Moreover, since in the annex to the summons to the oral proceedings the Opposition Division did not comment on the feature "valve actuation flow path", the appellant considered that the Opposition Division did not see any problem with it, which was an additional reason to allow the filing of auxiliary requests. It also requested that in case of a remittal the composition of the Opposition Division be changed for reasons of equity.

T 1871/14 - Rule 137(5) and single general inventive concept

Key points

• The Board, about Art. 83 of the Main Request in this examination appeal: "[t]he only passage describing an embodiment of the invention on pages 47 to 58 of the 175 page A2-publication is completely silent about the contested claim feature of an area of the 1931 CIE chromaticity diagram. It also contains no indication as to whether the embodiment provides the claimed difference in correlated colour temperatures. The remaining 164 pages are nothing more than copies of claim wording and repetitions." The Board considers the invention to be insufficiently disclosed.
• Turning to AR-2, the Board notes that "[w]ith this request, filed with the statement of grounds of appeal, this technical concept [about a ratio of first and second power lines] has been claimed for the first time during the European phase of the application. Thus, this concept is not covered by the supplementary European search. Moreover, this concept does not combine with the invention as originally claimed in claims 1 to 15 as filed upon entry into the European phase to form a single general inventive concept, which like the claims of the present main and first auxiliary requests were characterised by properties of the light emitted by the device, such as correlated colour temperatures [...]. Therefore, the subject-matter of the second auxiliary request constitutes an inadmissible amendment in the sense of Rule 137(5) EPC. Should the appellant have wished to pursue subject-matter of this nature, they should have filed corresponding claims upon entry into the European phase of the application." 
• The Board however then combines this holding about Rule 137(5) with Article 12(4) RPBA: “In that context, with respect to Article 12(4) RPBA, because the second auxiliary request relates to a different invention not covered by the supplementary European search, it clearly could and should have been filed before the department of first instance. [] Consequently, the board exercised its power under Article 12(4) RPBA to hold inadmissible the second auxiliary request.”
• As a comment, I see no advantage in adding Article 12(4) RPBA for holding a request inadmissible that is already inadmissible under Rule 137(5) EPC. 
• On the other hand, I like how the  Board states that the two cumulative requirements of Rule 137(5) are met: “this concept is not covered by the supplementary European search. Moreover, this concept does not combine with the invention as originally claimed in claims 1 to 15 as filed upon entry into the European phase to form a single general inventive concept” (emphasis added). 

EPO T 1871/14 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

1. Admissibility of the appeal

The appeal was filed in due time and form and sufficiently substantiated. Thus, the appeal is admissible.

2. Main request and first auxiliary request

Clarity (Article 84 EPC)

2.1 The independent claims 1 and 11 according to the main request as well as independent claims 1 and 10 according to the first auxiliary request define the claimed subject-matter merely by a result to be achieved.

2.2 The appellant's argument, that the examining division had never raised an objection under Article 84 EPC against claim 1 does not take into account point 2.6.5 on page 14 of the contested decision, where former claim 2, the features of which are contained in the independent claims of the present main request and auxiliary request, was found not to comply with the requirements of Article 84 EPC, because it lacked essential features. Besides that, the appellant's argument has no bearing on the decision because the board can, according to Article 111(1), 2nd sentence EPC, exercise any power within the competence of the department which was responsible for the decision appealed. Thus, in appeal proceedings concerning a decision of an examining division, the board may even raise new objections which did not form part of the contested decision at all.

2.3 The board is also not convinced by the appellant's substantive arguments with respect to Article 84 EPC.

T 0430/17 - Remittal and withdrawal opposition

Key points

• The proprietor appeals against the revocation of the patent by the OD on the ground of insufficient disclosure. The  Board finds the patent to be sufficiently disclosed.
• The Board remits the case. However, as the only opposition was withdrawn during the appeal proceedings, the Board remits the case with the order for the OD whether to continue the procedure of own motion under Rule 84(2) s.2 EPC.

T 0430/17 -  link

2.5 In Anbetracht der obigen Ausführungen gelangt die Kammer zu dem Ergebnis, dass der Einspruchsgrund nach Artikel 100 b) EPÜ der Aufrechterhaltung des Streitpatents in der erteilten Fassung nicht entgegensteht.

Da die weiteren Einspruchsgründe von der Einspruchsabteilung noch nicht geprüft wurden und zwischenzeitlich der einzige Einspruch zurückgenommen wurde, wird die Angelegenheit an die Einspruchsabteilung zurückverwiesen zur weiteren Prüfung, ob sie das Verfahren von Amts wegen fortsetzt (Artikel 111 (1) EPÜ).

Entscheidungsformel

Aus diesen Gründen wird entschieden:

1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben.

2. Die Angelegenheit wird an die Einspruchsabteilung zurückverwiesen zur Ausübung ihres Ermessens nach Regel 84 (2), Satz 2 EPÜ.

R 0007/17 - Petition for review

Key points

• This petition for review was filed 14.09.2017. The written decision was issued 16.12.2019. The petition for review "is unanimously rejected as clearly unallowable".
• To cite OJ 2007 SE 4 En p.130, “In the interest of a quick and effective screening of petitions for review which are clearly inadmissible or not allowable, special procedural provisions apply to the three-member panel []. The proceedings before this panel shall be as simple and short as possible.” “A quick screening procedure at the outset of review proceedings to sort out petitions which clearly cannot be successful is essential in order to avoid an inappropriate prolongation of legal uncertainty for third parties. It is also of great importance to counteract effectively intentional prolongation of proceedings by filing a petition for review.”
• I leave it to the judgement of the readers whether a two years procedure is a "quick" screening procedure. Let me observe that the application was filed in 2010, so that the "lifetime" of the patent was increased by roughly 30% by the petition for review procedure (from 7 to 9 years). Calculated from the grant of the patent in 2012, the increase was 40%.
• The decision contains a remark about the importance of the Technical Board asking for the parties' final requests: "When the chairman summarised the patent proprietor’s requests, not including auxiliary requests 5 to 8, he made clear that these requests did not form part of the appeal proceedings. The chairman then asked the parties if they had any further comments or requests. According to the minutes of the oral proceedings, there were none. At least at that time, the patent proprietor could have answered this question by filing additional auxiliary requests. It did not submit any." 

EPO R 0007/17 - link

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The petition for review concerns decision T 0360/15 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.01 of 17 May 2017 and despatched on 5 July 2017, revoking European patent No. 2298640.

II. The petition for review was filed by the patent proprietor (hereinafter “the petitioner”) on 14 September 2017. The corresponding fee was paid on the same day.

III. The petition is based on the grounds under Article 112a(2)(c) EPC that a fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC occurred in the appeal proceedings.

IV. In a communication accompanying the summons to oral proceedings dated 8 March 2019, the Enlarged Board expressed its provisional and non-binding opinion that no fundamental violation of the right to be heard occurred and that it intended to consider the petition for review at least in part clearly inadmissible and in any case clearly unallowable.

V. Oral proceedings were held on 13 June 2019.

...

T 1695/14 - Withdrawing and reintroducing requests

Key points

• The Boards finds that the proprietor's earlier requests where implicitly withdrawn during the written appeal proceedings by the filing of new auxiliary requests: “Die Übernahme der Bezeichnung mit römischen Ziffern und die klare Erläuterung, welche der ehemaligen Anträge mit welchen Änderungen und welcher Bezifferung bzw. Rangstelle weitergeführt werden, lässt nur den Schluss zu, dass die übrigen vormaligen Hilfsanträge nicht weiterverfolgt werden sollten. ” 
• The Board concludes that the requests can be resubmitted and that their admissibility is then decided on the basis of the moment of resubmitting them. However, in the discretionary decision whether or not to admit the requests, the Board can take into account that the opponent has earlier in the procedure already engaged with the request, for instance if a request is dropped at the beginning of the oral proceedings and is later resubmitted. However, in the present case, the patentee had withdrawn the requests a few weeks before the oral proceedings, so that there was no need for the opponent to prepare for a discussion of those requests.
• The Board also notes the large number of auxiliary requests.
• “Würden die Anträge zugelassen, so würde das bedeuten, dass die übrigen Beteiligten sich in unzumutbarer Weise vor der mündlichen Verhandlung auf sechzehn Anträge (ein Hauptantrag und fünfzehn Hilfsanträge) hätten vorbereiten müssen und dann spontan auf die in der Verhandlung (wieder)gestellten vormaligen Hilfsanträge hätten reagieren müssen, was nicht zumutbar wäre.”

EPO T 1695/14 -  link



EPO  Headnote

• Die Rücknahme eines Antrags kann ausdrücklich oder konkludent erfolgen. Eine konkludente Antragsrücknahme liegt vor, wenn sich aus den Umständen zweifelsfrei ergibt, dass bestimmte Anträge nicht weiterverfolgt werden sollen.
•  Werden Anträge, die im Beschwerdeverfahren zunächst gestellt und nachfolgend ausdrücklich oder konkludent zurückgenommen worden waren, später erneut eingereicht (wieder aufgegriffen), richtet sich ihre Zulassung nach den verfahrensrechtlichen Normen der VOBK, die für die Zulassung eines gänzlich neuen Antrags maßgeblich sind.

4. Hilfsantrag I (MV 13:30 Uhr) - Artikel 13 (1) VOBK

4.1 Der unabhängige Anspruch 1 von Hilfsantrag I (MV 13:30 Uhr) entspricht jenem des mit der Beschwerdebegründung der Patentinhaberin eingereichten Hilfsantrags I. Diesen ursprünglichen Hilfsantrag hat die Patentinhaberin im Verlauf des schriftlichen Verfahrens jedoch nicht weiterverfolgt. Vielmehr hat sie in ihrem Schriftsatz vom 14. Juni 2019 auf Seite 2, 4. Absatz erläutert:

"Um den Einwänden der Beschwerdekammer gerecht zu werden, werden neue Hilfsanträge I, II und XIII bis XV eingereicht, in welchen die Bedeutung der ,,zusammenhängenden Heizbereiche" des bisherigen Hauptantrags weiter spezifiziert werden. Der bisherige Hilfsantrag IV wird unverändert als neuer Hilfsantrag V weitergeführt. Die bisherigen Hilfsanträge I, und III bis X werden ferner als neue Hilfsanträge III, IV und VI bis XII weitergeführt, wobei die gegenüber dem Hauptantrag hinzugefügten Merkmale des Hilfsantrags I auch bei den neuen Hilfsanträgen III, IV und VI bis XII hinzugefügt worden sind."

4.2 Diese Ausführungen machen unmissverständlich deutlich, dass die Patentinhaberin ihre bisherigen Anträge durch die mit Schriftsatz vom 14. Juni 2019 eingereichten Anträge ersetzen wollte. Die Übernahme der Bezeichnung mit römischen Ziffern und die klare Erläuterung, welche der ehemaligen Anträge mit welchen Änderungen und welcher Bezifferung bzw. Rangstelle weitergeführt werden, lässt nur den Schluss zu, dass die übrigen vormaligen Hilfsanträge nicht weiterverfolgt werden sollten. Die mit der Beschwerdebegründung eingereichten Anträge sollten daher abgesehen von dem Hauptantrag und dem seinerzeitigen Hilfsantrag IV nicht bzw. nicht in unveränderter Fassung weiterverfolgt, sondern durch andere Anträge ersetzt werden.

Filed in 1999/2019, granted in 2019

Key points

• There appear to be 12 patent applications actually filed in 1999 and published in 2019 (i.e. without divisional applications that were filed years later).
• There were 5 patent applications actually filed in 2019 and granted in the same year (and with filing date in 2019, so again without divisional applications).
• The patents granted in 2019, most were published as patent application in 2017 (20%). About 67% were published in 2018-2015. 

This year, I searched for European patents granted in 2019 with a publication date in 2000 or in 2001 and filing date in 1999 (query date 20.12).

EP99943443 filed in 1999, EP entry 2000, search report 2008, Communications in 2008, 2015, 2018, Rule 71(3) in 2019. Optics. EP1041637 

EP99922578  filed in 1999, EP entry 2000, search report 2005, Communications in 2006, 2013, 2014, 2016, Intention to grant in 2018 (twice). Optics. EP1001566

EP99970064 filed in 1999. EP entry 2000, search report 2005. Communication in 20005. Summons in 2018 (!) (same primary examiner in 2005 and in 2018 by the way). Self-driving vehicle technology. EP1038734

EP99301793  filed in 1999.  Search report 2002. Communications in 2009, 2016. Wireless communications. EP0973117 

EP99310580 filed in 1999. Search report 2001. Communications in 2002, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2016. User interface. EP1016953

EP99902775 filed in 1999. EP entry 2000. First Communication in 2014 (!). Summons 2015. Summons 2016. Oral proceedings from 09:01 to 19:55. Refusal decision in 2017. Appeal decision 2019 (T2377/17). I note that the Board mainly considered inventive step in view of D10, a document introduced by the Board. The invention concerns low-level software (parallel additions and subtractions on packed data). EP0983557

EP99810788 filed 1999. Search report 2004. communications in 2007, 2008 (twice), 2010, 2014, 2018. Semiconductor manufacturing. EP0989594 

EP1082098 EP entry 2000, Communications in 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2015, 2016. Intention to grant 2018. Cosmetics.

EP1090480  EP entry 2000, search report 2005. Communications in 2007, 2012, 2015. Intention grant 2018. Cryptography

EP1104247 EP entry 2001. Communications in 2007, 2010, 2015, 2016. Intention to grant 2018. Veterinary medicines.

EP1129414 EP entry 2001. Search report 2007. Communication 2007, 2016 (!). Intention to grant 2018. Software for television.

EP1144513 filed in 1999. Supplementary ESR in 2005. Communications in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2013, 2015, 2016, . Intention to grant in 2018. Mixing paint.

I saw no indications of stays, suspensions or interruption of proceedings in the online files.

Additionally, 26 divisional applications were granted in 2019 with a filing date in 1999. Two divisional applications were granted with a filing date in 1998, two further divisional applications with a filing date in 1997 and one with a filing date in 1996.


The rocket docket:

Filing date in 2019, granted in 2019:

EP3521557  -  filed 29.01.2019, search report 29.05.2019, examination started 09.08.2019, intention to grant 18.09.2019.

EP3524993 -  filed 06.02, search opinion 13.06, start examination 28.08, intention to grant 24.09. NMR sample head.

EP3548792  filed 06.02 as PCT application. ISR 02.05 Early entry 03.07 (with Rule 47.4 PCT request). Examination started 02.08. Intention to grant 22.10. Safety device. 

EP3545259 - filed 08.02 as PCT, ISR 17.04 (EPO as ISA), early entry 06.06, examination start 03.09, intention to grant 24.09. Measurement device.

EP3528594 - filed 12.02, search opinion 04.07, examination started 13.09, intent to grant 08.10. Heater for fluids.


Numbers
And now by the visualized numbers:

Fig. 1 European patents granted in 2019 (B1 publication date), by year of publication of the application (A publication).

Fig. 2 European patents granted in 2019 respectively 2015, (B1 publication date), by years since publication of the patent application (A), as percentage of total grants in grant year.

Fig. 2 shows that a larger fraction of the patents is granted within 4 years from publication year, in 2019 compared to 2015. This can be caused by either (i) the EPO grant proceedings speeding up since 2019 or (ii) (less likely) the EPO choosing to work only on newer cases in 2019.

This is illustrated in Fig. 3 below. So, in 2019, a larger fraction of the granted patents was granted within 3 years from the publication date than in grant year in 2015.  On the other hand, the fraction of patents granted 4 to 10 years after publication was smaller. Relative to the 2015 percentages, the decrease was quite large.

Fig. 3 Relative change in the fraction of patents granted in the number of years since publication year between the grant year 2015 and grant year 2019; relative to the fraction in 2015 (i.e. in 2015, 1.99% of the granted patents was published 10 years earlier, in 2019 this was 1.69%).

Finally, to show it in numbers, the percentage of the granted patents, granted within   0 to 3 years since publication (basically in time under the  Paris Conference goal*), granted within 4 to 10 years and the percentage of patents granted after more than 11 years since publication (i.e. the EPO clearing out their cupboards).

Years between publication and grant	Grants 2015	Grants 2019	Delta
0 to 3	53.6%	56.2%	2.6%
4 to 10	43.7%	40.4%	-3.3%
11 to 19	2.72%	3.41%	0.7%

Methodology: EP Bulletin search, e.g. " PUB1 [2015,2015] AND PUA [2000, 2000]"

* = there is a built-in delay for Euro-PCT applications were the EPO was not the ISA until about 18 months after the PCT publication date.

Note 2021.06.02: current search query "PUB1 = 2021* AND PUA <20050101" at https://data.epo.org/expert-services/index.html

T 0570/14 - Opposing only some claims

Key points

• In the Notice of opposition, only claims 1-4 and 8-19 were opposed (also in Box V of Form 2300E).
• The Board finds that claims 5-7 as granted are therefore not opposed and the request directed to only these claims is allowed without examination by the Board. "Since no opposition proceedings are open against these claims, the obligation under point 19 of G 9/91 is not applicable, with the Board having no power to examine these claims."
• Claims 5-7 as granted were dependent claims. The Enlarged Board in G9/91 held that "However, even if the opposition is explicitly directed only to the subject-matter of an independent claim of a European patent, subject-matters covered by claims which are depending on such an independent claim may also be examined as to patentability, [...]"
• The present Board adds that this "second sentence of the order of G 9/91 is not applicable to the present case because the claims intended to be opposed have been clearly specified."
• "Since in the present case the appellant/opponent expressly opposed claims 1 to 4 and 8 to 19, it follows that the above principle expressed by the Enlarged Board of Appeal does not give the Board the power to examine claims 5 to 7."

EPO T 0570/14 -  link

3. Extent of the opposition

The question of the extent of the opposition is important, since from a procedural point of view there would be no opposition proceedings open against non-opposed claims, with the consequence that the appellant/opponent, the Board and even the appellant/patent proprietor could not object to or amend these claims in any way.

The appellant/opponent considers that its statement in an accompanying letter to the notice of opposition filed on the same day and specifying that "John Gerard LEEMING, (...), hereby files Opposition to the above European Patent and requests that the patent be revoked in its entirety." was evidence enough that the patent as a whole was opposed. Also G 9/91 (order, second sentence) confirmed that as soon as an independent claim was opposed the dependent claims could be examined as well: "However, subject-matters of claims depending on an independent claim, which falls in opposition or appeal proceedings, may be examined as to their patentability even if they have not been explicitly opposed, provided their validity is prima facie in doubt on the basis of already available information."

T 0385/14 - Activated oocytes

Key points

• This is an opposition case. The OD had issued the decision 19.12.2013 finding the method of claim 1 unallowable as it involved stem cells derived from human embryonic stem cells.
• The CJEU decided on 18.12.2014 that "unfertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis does not constitute a 'human embryo'" (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2451).
• The Board: "In view of this ruling and the fact that a protocol to derive human parthenogenetic embryonic stem cells from parthenotes (activated oocytes) was made available by [WO 2003/046141] on 5 June 2003, the European Patent Office now considers that an objection under Article 53(a) EPC and Rule 28(1)(c) EPC [] cannot be raised in respect of an application pertaining to human pluripotent stem cells, [] if (i) the application has an effective date[] on or after 5 June 2003, and (ii) its technical teaching can be put into practice using human embryonic stem cells derived from parthenogenetically activated human oocytes."
• "The board sees no reason, in the context of the present case, to question [this] revised interpretation [by the  EPO].
• "Consequently, the method of claim 1 cannot be regarded as excluded from patentability under Article 53(a) EPC."
• As a comment: the "revised interpretation" appears to never have been published by the EPO. See e.g. T2365/13. I add that in T2365/13 actually had remitted the examination appeal without any substantive findings. 
• As a comment, the present Board appears to adopt the substantive position that activated oocytes are not "human embryos" in the sense of Rule 28 EPC without any examination of the technical merits of that position (I note that the opponent made no submissions on Rule 28). A question is whether the Board has a duty to consider the technical merits of the CJEU's position that oocytes are not "human embryos" in view of the reference to the EU Biotech directive in Rule 26(1) EPC, laid down by the Administrative Council, and the Board's task and independent responsibility under the EPC. 

EPO T 0385/14  link

Reasons for the Decision

Main request (claims as granted) - Articles 100(a) and 53(a) EPC and Rule 28(1)(c) EPC

1. In the decision under appeal, the opposition division, referring to decision G 2/06 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (OJ EPO 2009, 306) and the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, Part G, Chapter II-32.5.3(iii), found that the method of claim 1, as far as it involved the use of in vitro differentiated cardiomyocytes that were derived from a human embryonic stem cells, was excluded from patentability under Article 53(a) and Rule 28(c) EPC, because at the effective date such cells could be prepared exclusively by a method which necessarily involved the destruction of human embryos.

T 0273/16 - OD should have heard witness

Key points

• The opponent had invoked public prior use in the notice of opposition and had offered witnesses. The OD did not summon the witnesses, did not hear the witnesses, and rejected the opposition. 
• The Board recalls that according to established case law, the competent department of the EPO must, as a rule, grant a request of an opponent to hear a witness on an alleged public prior use, before deciding that the public prior use is not proven (CLBA III.B.2.6.4)
• The Board notes that the public prior use was properly substantiated in the notice of opposition. Moreover, the opponent repeatedly requested the hearing of the witnesses during the first instance proceedings. 
• The Board concludes that this a substantial procedural violation. The Board remits the case and orders reimbursement of the appeal fee. 

EPO  T 0273/16 -  link

3. Wesentlicher Verfahrensmangel,

Zurückverweisung an die Einspruchsabteilung,

Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr

3.1 Die Beschwerdekammer wird gemäß Artikel 111 (1) EPÜ entweder im Rahmen der Zuständigkeit des Organs tätig, das die Entscheidung erlassen hat, oder sie verweist die Angelegenheit zur weiteren Entscheidung an dieses Organ zurück. Nach Artikel 11 VOBK verweist eine Kammer die Angelegenheit an die erste Instanz zurück, wenn das Verfahren vor der ersten Instanz wesentliche Mängel aufweist, es sei denn, dass besondere Gründe gegen die Zurückverweisung sprechen. Es steht somit im pflichtgemäßen Ermessen der Kammer, unter Würdigung aller Umstände des Einzelfalls darüber zu befinden, ob eine Sache zurückzuverweisen oder sachlich zu entscheiden ist.

T 0819/15 - Identity appellant

Key points

• This is a straightforward case where the appeal was filed in the wrong name. The Board allows a correction in the identity of the appellant in line with G1/12.
• " the notice of appeal has been filed by the representative of the opponent in the first-instance proceedings, under the same internal reference, referring to the same patent, the same patent proprietor and mentioning the correct date of the impugned decision []. Thus sufficient elements were provided to indicate that a mistake occurred in the naming of the appellant and that a correction of this name is allowable." 
• " The correction of the notice of appeal does not reflect a later change of mind as to whom the appellant should be, but on the contrary only expresses what was intended when filing the appeal". 
• The appeal is admissible (and successful, the patent is revoked). 

EPO T 0819/15 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

1. Admissibility of the appeal

1.1 It is undisputed that, within the two-month period under Article 108, first sentence, EPC, the representative of the opponent in the first-instance proceedings filed notice of appeal which did not contain the name and address of any of the parties to the first-instance proceedings. Rather the notice of appeal contained the name and address of another legal person.

With the grounds of appeal, the same representative requested correction of the appellant's name and address. The board's registrar dispatched a communication according to Rule 101(2) EPC and the representative filed a corrected notice of appeal within the specified period.

1.2 According to decision G 1/12, OJ EPO 2014, A114, such a deficiency can be corrected under Rule 101(2) EPC, if the true intention was to file on behalf of the legal person who should have filed the appeal. The board assesses the evidence supporting such "true intention" in accordance with the free evaluation of evidence.

1.3 The board notes that the notice of appeal has been filed by the representative of the opponent in the first-instance proceedings, under the same internal reference, referring to the same patent, the same patent proprietor and mentioning the correct date of the impugned decision (see also decision T 540/09, Reasons, point 1). Thus sufficient elements were provided to indicate that a mistake occurred in the naming of the appellant and that a correction of this name is allowable.

1.4 Upon this basis the board finds that the true appellant was identifiable on expiry of the two-month period under Article 108, first sentence, EPC. The true intention of the appellant was to file the notice of appeal in the name of Per Aarsleff A/S, the opponent in the proceedings before the opposition division. The correction of the notice of appeal does not reflect a later change of mind as to whom the appellant should be, but on the contrary only expresses what was intended when filing the appeal (see G 1/12, loc. cit. and Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 9th edition 2019, V.A.2.5.2 a) and also V.A.2.4.1 a)).

1.5 These findings are confirmed by the facts that the actual appellant was the only party affected by the rejection of the opposition and that the file shows no indication that the appellant had or was seeking to transfer his status as opponent to a third party. In addition, the legal person named in the notice of appeal has, as far as the board is aware, no connection whatsoever to the opponent or the subject matter of this case, neither is there any similarity between the name of this legal person and that of the opponent.

1.6 In view thereof, the appeal is admissible.