T 0250/20 - Four oral proceedings

Key points

• In translation: " European Patent No. 2,430,207 relates to a metal part obtained by deformation of a metal strip having an improved appearance. The metal parts thus obtained are more particularly intended, but not exclusively, for the manufacture of skin parts for land motor vehicles."
• "A first oral procedure [in appeal] took place on 21 December 2022, at the end of which an adjournment was decided. "
• A second oral procedure was held on 25 September 2023 at the end of which an adjournment was again decided. 
• A third oral proceeding was held on 11 March 2024, during which it was decided that the main request filed with the letter of 29 February 2024 was not admitted into the proceedings, that the new auxiliary request 1 filed during the oral proceedings (hereinafter "amended auxiliary request 1") in replacement of the previous auxiliary request 1 was admitted and that the subject-matters of its two claims 1 and 2 alone corresponded to the subject-matters of claims 10 and 11 of the patent as granted, respectively. At the end of the oral proceedings an adjournment was again decided.
• A final oral procedure took place on 23 August 2024 at the end of which the operative part of this decision was pronounced. 
  
  
• There is a lot in the decision (but less than could be expected, as the operative requests are significantly limited compared to the claims as granted).
• On the issue of cross-party reliance on arugments: "As stated by Applicants I and II [the opponents], there is no legal provision preventing a party, Applicant I in this case, from resuming in appeal proceedings an objection, line of attack or argument that was raised and maintained by another party in opposition proceedings, in this case Applicant II. The provisions of Articles 12(3) and (4) RPBA do not in any way prevent this way of proceeding. There is no specification therein of what the respondent seeks to allege through the interpretation of the indefinite or definite articles used, namely that only the party that raised and maintained the objection in opposition appeal proceedings would be entitled to pursue it in appeal proceedings. Such a restriction is not inferred from the wording of Articles 12(3) and (4) RPBA.

  This is supported by established case law according to which, for example, an opponent may rely on a ground of opposition invoked by other opponents either during the opposition proceedings or during any subsequent appeal proceedings, cf. JCR, IV.C.2.1.6, T 920/20, point 4.4 of the grounds."

EPO 

The link to the decision and an extract of it can be found after the jump.

https://www.epo.org/fr/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t200250fu1