T 0360/13 - German law from 1925

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the patentee filed a new auxiliary request just after the break for deliberation of the Board and just before the Board announced its decision (about clarity of the pending requests).
•  The Board does not admit the request, which does not seem very surprising under Article 15(5) RPBA. However, for some reason, the Board supports this decision by quoting a German book about procedural law published in 1925. I don't know the book, but it is described as "a classic monograph on German procedural law". 
• As a comment, Article 125 EPC refers to the "principles of procedural law generally recognised in the Contracting States", not to German procedural law. Furthermore, the book does not seem to be in the EPO file, and I personally would be a bit surprised if a book about national law is quoted for the first time in the written decision (though, of course, perhaps the book was discussed earlier in the case at issue). 

EPO T 0360/13 - link

2.5 Den Stand des Verfahrens betreffend kommt im vorlie­gen­den Fall erschwerend hinzu, dass der neue Hilfs­antrag in der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Kammer erst nach Beendigung der sachlichen Debatte eingereicht wurde, als die Sache bereits entscheidungsreif war.

2.5.1 Der Vorsitzende der Kammer hatte nämlich nach der De­batte über die Klarheit des Merkmals (i) die Antrags­lage festgestellt und erklärt, dass sowohl Anspruch 1 des Hauptantrages als auch Anspruch 1 des damals vor­lie­gen­den Hilfsantrages dieses Merkmal enthielten. Daher wären beide Anträge nicht gewährbar, falls die Kammer zu dem Schluss käme, dass das Merkmal nicht klar wäre. Je nach Beratungsergebnis könnte es somit zu einer Endentscheidung kommen. Erst nach der Beratungs­pause, jedoch vor der Verkündung einer Entscheidung erklärte die Beschwerdeführerin, dass sie den damaligen Hilfs­antrag dahingehend ändern wolle, das diskutierte Merk­mal (i) zu streichen.

T 2247/12 - Explanatory Notes to the RPBA

Key points

• The Board refers to "the explanatory notes to Article 15(3) RPBA"  as providing (part of) the legal basis  for the decision. These Explanatory Notes are (also) cited in T 1704/06 as "CA/133/02 dated 12 November 2002, available at the EPO web site". As of yet I can not find them. 
• The document is also cited in CLBA IV.E.4.1.1. I am not sure if the document is (still) publicly available. 

EPO T 2247/12 -  link 

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. The duly summoned appellant did not attend the oral proceedings. In accordance with Rule 71(2) EPC 1973, however, the proceedings continued without it. In accordance with Article 15(3) RPBA, the board relied for its decision only on the appellant's written submissions. The board was in a position to decide at the conclusion of the oral proceedings since the case was ready for decision (Article 15(5) and (6) RPBA), and the voluntary absence of the appellant was not a reason for delaying the decision (Article 15(3) RPBA). The principle of the right to be heard pursuant to Article 113(1) EPC was observed since, by absenting itself from the oral proceedings, a party gives up this opportunity to be heard (see the explanatory notes to Article 15(3) RPBA cited in T 1704/06, not published in OJ EPO).

T 1704/067.3 The explanatory notes to this Article state the following (CA/133/02 dated 12 November 2002, available at the EPO web site):
"This provision does not contradict the principle of the right to be heard pursuant to Article 113(1) EPC since that Article only affords the opportunity to be heard and, by absenting itself from the oral proceedings, a party gives up that opportunity".

T 1459/11 - Written submissions

T 1459/11
For the decision, click here. [C] (online  19.10.2015) 

Headnote

The purpose of the communication of a board of appeal pursuant to Art. 15(1) RPBA is to prepare the oral proceedings; it is not an invitation to the parties to make further submissions or to file further requests (See Reasons 3.1-3.3)

Reasons for the Decision

3. First auxiliary request

3.1 Admissibility

According to the appellant this request should be admitted to the proceedings because it had been filed "in response" to the communication pursuant to Art. 15 RPBA issued by the Board in preparation of the oral proceedings.

3.2 According to Art. 15(1) RPBA the purpose of the communication is to draw attention to matters "which seem to be of special significance....or containing other observations that may help concentration on essentials during the oral proceedings" (emphasis of the Board).

The purpose of the communication is thus - explicitly -to establish the framework of the oral proceedings. The communication does not - explicitly or implicitly - represent an invitation or opportunity to file further written submissions or to shift the focus of the case to be heard at oral proceedings, it being recalled that the terms of the appeal are determined by the statement of grounds of the appeal and the reply thereto (Art. 12(2) RPBA).

3.3 Consequently there is no legal basis in either the EPC or the RPBA for the filing of a "response" to a communication pursuant to Art. 15 RPBA. This means that a Board is under no obligation to take such a "response" into account. Furthermore in view of the purpose of the communication pursuant to Art. 15 RPBA the argument that a "response" to the communication cannot be regarded as late filed, is moot. Any submissions - either arguments or requests - contained in such a "response" that go beyond those contained in the statement of grounds of appeal or the reply thereto may constitute an amendment to the case presented, and it is a matter for the discretion of the Board whether such submissions are to be taken into account (Art. 13(1) RPBA).