T 0691/24 - Review of decision to hold inadmissible

Key points

• The OD did not admit an auxiliary request filed during the oral proceedings. Should the Board admit it under Art. 12(6), first sentence, RPBA, on the ground that the OD's decision suffered from an error in the use of discretion?
• "These claim requests were not filed within the period set out in the opposition division's invitation pursuant to Rule 79(1) EPC [ ...] . Rather, the opposition division had the discretion pursuant to Article 123(1) EPC in conjunction with Rules 81(3), 79(1) and/or 116(2) EPC not to admit them (see e.g. R 6/19, Reasons 6 and 7; T 256/19, Reasons 4.7 [post] ). "
• "This discretion exists independently of the provisions of Rule 116 EPC and of whether the opposition division deviated from its provisional opinion as set out in the annex to the summons to the first-instance oral proceedings (see e.g. T 966/17 [post])"
• " In other words, a positive preliminary opinion on auxiliary request 9a - already admitted into the proceedings at the opposition division's discretion - cannot guarantee per se the admittance of yet a further filing of claim requests. Nor does such a positive opinion "reset" the application of the "convergence criterion" which the opposition division relied upon when taking its discretionary decision on admittance in the opposition proceedings."
• "Also the EPO Guidelines (in its version of March 2025) do not state that an opposition division's deviation from its preliminary opinion necessarily constitutes a "change of the subject of the proceedings" within the meaning of Rule 116(1), fourth sentence, EPC (cf. part E, chapter VI, section 2.2.2, board's emphasis: "The following are examples of what would normally constitute a change of subject of the proceedings: [...] the opposition division departs from a previously notified opinion."). 
• "Nor can such a deviation as such justify an automatic admittance of claim requests (see the decisions cited by the proprietor, i.e. T 868/20, Reasons 3.1.2 and T 847/20, Reasons 3.3.3). "
•  "The "convergence criterion" as regards claim requests is definitely a well-established criterion which can legitimately be used by a first-instance department when exercising its discretion as to admittance of late-filed claim requests (and this even before the expiry of the time limit set under Rule 116(1) EPC; see e.g. T 364/20, Reasons 7.2.10; see also EPO Guidelines, part E, chapter VI, section 2.2.3: "Convergence of requests is another of the relevant factors that the division may consider when exercising its discretion"). 
• The GL paragraph seems to refer to the case " if the opposition division states in the annex to the summons that the patent is likely to be revoked and the proprietor in response submits amendments after the final date set under Rule 116(1), possibly not until the oral proceedings, the division could, in principle, treat such requests as late-filed" (which is quite the opposite of the Board's analysis).
• "In view of the minutes of the two oral proceedings before the opposition division, the board agrees with the respondents that the discussions concerning auxiliary requests 5 and 6 had already taken a considerable amount of time. Moreover, through the replacement of features, those discussions became at once moot when the appellant moved on to "auxiliary request 10a""
  
  
• "Concerning the present first auxiliary request, and as a matter of principle, the board takes issue with the opposition division's announcement to "permit one further request and no more" (see point 97 of the minutes of the second oral proceedings) and its subsequent decision to "not look at the auxiliary request" (see Reasons 38 of the decision under appeal). This is because, firstly, the board sees no legal basis in the EPC to make submissions from a party - irrespective of their content - being subject to prior approval from the deciding body. Secondly, the limitation to "one further request and no more" - ex ante and without any consideration as to their substance - appears to be purely arbitrary."
• See also T 1241/21 (post) and T 756/18, but see also T 350/19 (post)

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump.

https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t240691eu1