R 0013/21 - Review of decisions to hold inadmissible

Key points

• The Enlarged Board in translation: "According to the case law of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, discretionary decisions on the admission of new submissions or new requests are only subject to limited review. In the procedure under Article 112a EPC, the only things that can be examined are (i) whether the party was heard on the question of admission and/or (ii) whether there was an error of discretion. The latter examination may at most relate to two aspects, namely whether there was any discretion at all and whether the board also recognised this fact (exceeding or failing to exercise discretion), and whether the exercise of discretion was arbitrary or manifestly unlawful (abuse or misuse of discretion)"
• So, in summary, there are three grounds to challenge a decision under Art. 12 or 13 RPBA to hold a submission inadmissible in a petition for review:
• the party was not heard on the question of admissibility;
• the board had no discretion to hold the submission inadmissible;
• the board's discretionary decision was arbitrary or manifestly unlawful in the sense of abuse or misuse of discretion. (Ausübung des Ermessens willkürlich oder offensichtlich rechtswidrig war (Ermessensmissbrauch bzw. -fehlgebrauch))
• This seems to define a practical framework. It seems similar to, but a bit stricter than, the test of G7/93 r.2.6: "either that the first instance department in its decision has not exercised its discretion in accordance with the right principles [...] or that it has exercised its discretion in an unreasonable way, and has thus exceeded the proper limits of its discretion"
• In the case at hand, the inventive step attack over D7 + common general knowledge was held inadmissible after the novelty attack over D7 in view of common general knowledge was rejected on the merits. A rather strict approach, but the term common general knowledge can sometimes cover a few nuances. 

• The Board considered the MR to be not novel, the added feature of AR-1 to provide novelty, and did not admit the inventive step attack. The Board then maintained the patent according to AR-1 without examining the inventive step requirement.
• The Enlarged Board: "Although the board's approach of considering auxiliary request 1 to be allowable without further substantive examination may appear questionable from the point of view of Article 101(3) EPC (see the Enlarged Board of Appeal's communication of 30 November 2023, points 24-25 for details), the latter requirement and possible violations thereof are, however, irrelevant for the review procedure."
  
  
• The petition for review was filed on  16.07.2021 and rejected by a three-member panel on 25.10.2024.
• I don't know what the reasons for the delay were in this case. The file shows a change in the composition of the panel and a change in the rapporteur in 2023.
• Still, we can only hope the situation will improve soon.

EPO 

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

https://www.epo.org/de/boards-of-appeal/decisions/r210013du1

4. Der Antrag ist darauf gerichtet, die betreffende Ermessensentscheidung auf ihre inhaltliche Richtigkeit überprüfen zu lassen. Nach der Rechtsprechung der Großen Beschwerdekammer sind Ermessensentscheidungen über die Zulassung neuen Vorbringens oder neuer Anträge nur eingeschränkt überprüfbar. Im Verfahren nach Artikel 112a EPÜ soll und darf danach allenfalls geprüft werden, (i) ob der Beteiligte zur Frage der Zulassung gehört worden ist und/oder (ii) ob ein Ermessensfehler vorliegt. Die letztgenannte Prüfung darf sich allenfalls auf zwei Aspekte beziehen, nämlich darauf, ob überhaupt ein Ermessen bestand und die Kammer diesen Umstand auch erkannt hat (Ermessensüberschreitung bzw. -nichtgebrauch), sowie darauf, ob die Ausübung des Ermessens willkürlich oder offensichtlich rechtswidrig war (Ermessensmissbrauch bzw. -fehlgebrauch) (siehe Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern, 10. Auflage 2022, V.B.3.4.3, unter Hinweis auf R 6/17, Punkt Nr. 3.5; R 9/11, Punkt Nr. 3.2.3; R 11/20, Punkt Nr. 5). Im vorliegenden Verfahren scheint kein rechtlich relevanter Mangel in der Ermessensentscheidung der Kammer vorzuliegen.