Key points
- Board 3.4.01 recalls the purpose of the RPBA: "the purpose of [Articles 12 and 13 RPBA] is not, in itself, the refusal to consider late requests, but rather the defence of the [parties'] rights to a fair hearing within a reasonable time".
- The Board then admits the amended claims because " in the present case, consideration of this particular request does not impair these basic rights of either party".
- The Board refers to T 339/19 of Board 3.3.06.
- In that decision, the Board recalled that according to T 855/96 that "It serves to ensure legal peace and the acceptance of the decisions of the Boards of Appeal and recognizes their importance as the only judicial instance that decides on the patentability of the patent with effect for all designated Contracting States when these decisions take into account the entire matter submitted in the appeal proceedings. A document submitted in the appeal proceedings should therefore be considered if it is not entirely irrelevant and its consideration is procedurally justifiable" (fresh machine translation of T 855/96).
- Obviously, the key part in this quote is "procedurally justifiable".
EPO
The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.
14. At last, the board notes that the purpose of the rules of procedure before the Boards is not, in itself, the refusal to consider late requests, but rather the defence of the parties rights to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, and that, in view of the above, in the present case, consideration of this particular request does not impair these basic rights of either party (cf. T 339/19, items 1.3.4 and 1.5; T 2920/18 item 3.14; T 2295/19, item 3.4.13).
"their importance as the only judicial instance that decides on the patentability of the patent with effect for all designated Contracting States" : this quote from T 855/96 will have to be updated as of the start of the UPC.
ReplyDeleteEven if the UPC starts, it will be a Court for only some but not all of the EPC Contracting States.
Delete@Peter
DeleteIt seems you are not a fan of the UPC. This is your right. But once the UPC starts, its decisions will have greater authority than those of the EPO, regardless of the point you raise. I understand that for those who find it difficult to accept it is only natural to play down such a change.
My comment was not intended to express any political view on the UPC.
Delete