T 2024/20 - Appeal against cost apportionment

Key points

•  This is an appeal regarding the apportionment of costs. Well, more precisely, against a decision of the OD under Rule 88(3) EPC to fix the costs.
• The representative of the patentee had forgotten the oral proceedings (or at least said so) and did not attend them (they were held in The Hague). The patent was revoked, with an apportionment of costs against the opponent, for the costs of the 4 opponents for the oral proceedings. The patentee did not appeal that decision.
• The formalities officer of the OD then fixed the costs under Rule 88(2) with an order of 14.02.2020 That order is, however, not visible in the online file.
• The patentee then requested a decision of the OD. The OD essentially maintained the order.
• The patentee filed an appeal against the OD's decision. The appeal is admissible; the amount of costs exceeded the appeal fee - by far, the total is about 24k EUR (Rule 97(2)).
•  The Board:  "there is no reason to doubt that the other costs listed (22.5 hours of preparation) were necessary to prepare for the oral proceedings in view of the number of opponents and documents and filings forming part of the proceedings opposition. Even if some of these documents and writings had probably already been studied at an earlier stage of the procedure, it is well known that good preparation for oral proceedings requires an in-depth study of the case, which implies time significant preparation. The board therefore accepts that opponent 2's preparation costs amount to EUR 6251.77." 
• " Opponent 2 indicated a preparation time of 22.5 hours and the Opponent 3 of 20.5 hours, which is certainly different from the number of hours indicated by Opponent 4, but still considerably higher than the day of preparation argued by the applicant. However, it is well known that depending on the importance of the same case for one or the other party, the time invested in preparing for oral proceedings may vary. The board has no concrete indications to cast doubt on the accuracy of the figures provided by opponent 4. Therefore, taking into account opponent 4's travel expenses, the appellant must reimburse ( 1299.27 + 9306)= 10605.27 EUR to opponent 4." 
• 
  

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.

T 0161/17 - Fixing costs and appeal

Key points

• In this opposition appeal case, the OD first decided that the patent as amended met the requirements of the EPC and wherein the opponent was ordered to bear the costs of the patentee for the oral proceedings. This decision was not appealed. Thereafter, the formalities officer for the OD fixed the amount of the costs award (see GL D-II 7). The opponent then requested a decision by the OD. The OD took a decision fixing the costs. The appeal is directed to this decision fixing the costs.
• The Board finds that because pursuant to Rule 97(1) EPC, the decision on the apportionment of the costs cannot be the sole subject of the appeal, and because the decision on the merits was not appealed, the decision to apportion the costs can be challenged together with the decision fixing the costs. The appeal is accordingly admissible. 
• The Board finds that the decision on the apportionment of costs is res iudicata,  even if under Rule 97(1) an apportionment of costs can not be the sole subject of an appeal. The Board cites T 0668/99. Hence, opponent's arguments against the costs apportionment are not considered. The appeal is not allowable. As a comment, in T 0668/99 the opponent had appealed the decision on patentability and had in that appeal did not challenge the costs apportionment. 
• The Board rejects the request of the proprietor for apportionment of the cost for the appeal procedure, as well as the request of the opponent for apportionment of the costs for the appeal procedure. 
• As a comment, it follows that the Opponent was effectively ordered to pay about EUR 6000 without an effective possibility for appeal if an appeal against the OD's decision on patentability would have been inadmissible. 

EPO T 0161/17 -  link

Sachverhalt und Anträge

I. Mit Zwischenentscheidung vom 27. Mai 2015 entschied die Einspruchsabteilung, dass das Patent in geändertem Umfang den Erfordernissen des EPÜ genüge und dass die der Patentinhaberin im Zusammenhang mit der mündlichen Verhandlung entstandenen Kosten von der Einsprechenden zu tragen seien.

Gegen diese Entscheidung wurde keine Beschwerde eingelegt.

T 1699/15 - No apportionment of costs

Key points

• Even though the appellant (patentee) had informed the Board that it would not be present at the oral proceedings only 14 hours in advance, an apportionment of costs is not ordered, as was requested by the opponent. 
• The reasons are in particular that the appellant had not requested oral proceedings, but the respondent-opponent had and that the preliminary opinion of the Board issued together with the summons indicated some topic to be debated. Hence, the opponent should  have been prepared those topics in any case, even in the absence of the appellant. 

T 1699/15 -  link

Motifs de la décision

[] 

1.7 Au vu de ce qui précède la Chambre conclut que les conditions de l'article 108 CBE, troisième phrase en relation avec la règle 99(2) CBE sont remplis et le recours est donc recevable.

2. Activité inventive

2.1 La décision attaquée a conclu au défaut d'activité inventive de l'objet revendiqué en partant de l'usage antérieur décrit par les document D2 et D3 entre autres (dite "prototype de première génération"). [] 

2.6 Pour ces raisons la chambre est convaincue qu'une combinaison de l'usage antérieur tel que représenté dans D2 avec ses connaissances générales permet à l'homme du métier d'arriver de manière évidente au dispositif selon la revendication 1 du brevet. La chambre confirme donc la décision de la division d'opposition sur le défaut d'activité inventive.

3. Répartition des frais

3.1 Selon l'intimée la requérante n'a prévenu de son absence que tardivement, la veille de la procédure orale à 14 heures. Dans la mesure ou l'intimée avait indiqué son souhait de n'assister à la procédure orale que dans le cas ou la requérante se présenterait, et comme l'information sur son absence a été fournie que trop tardivement pour permettre une annulation du voyage, l'intimée a du supporter ces frais pour une procédure qui aurait pu être évitée.

3.2 L'article 104(1) CBE prévoit qu'en principe, chacune des parties à la procédure d'opposition supporte les frais qu'elle a exposés. Toutefois, la division d'opposition ou la chambre de recours peuvent, dans la mesure où l'équité l'exige, décider d'une répartition différente des frais occasionnés par une procédure orale ou une mesure d'instruction. En particulier dans le cadre d'une procédure de recours, l'article 16(1) RPCR prévoit aussi que, sous réserve de l'art. 104(1) CBE, la chambre peut ordonner une répartition différente, pour les frais occasionnés notamment par une modification en vertu de l'article 13 RPCR (article 16(1)(a) RPCR), ou par une prolongation d'un délai (article 16(1)(e) RPCR), par tout acte ou toute omission ayant nui au bon déroulement de la procédure orale ou ayant conduit à la retarder (article 16(1)(c) RPCR) ou pour tout abus de procédure (article 16(1)(e) RPCR). Les faits présentés par l'intimée ne peuvent être considérés que comme tombant sous cette dernière condition, c'est précisément ce qu'a soumis l'intimée.

3.3 Tout d'abord la chambre ne peut reconnaître aucune preuve évidente que l'annonce tardive de la non-comparution à la procédure orale relève d'une intention délibérée ou d'une négligence fautive de la part de la requérante. Donc la chambre ne peut pas conclure à un tel abus de procédure.

3.4 Il est vrai que de manière générale les chambres de recours considèrent comme inopportun que des parties citées à une procédure orale signalent trop tard ou de manière ambiguë leur intention de ne pas comparaître, car ce comportement est incompatible avec l' obligation de coopérer et avec les règles élémentaires de la politesse que l'on attend des parties. La Chambre ne voit aucune raison de dévier de ce principe. Toutefois il est inhérent à la notion de courtoisie que si ces règles doivent par principe être respectées, elles sont difficiles à faire respecter légalement, du moins tant que le manque de courtoisie n'atteint pas l'abus. Il est aussi à noter que de manière générale la non-comparution d'une partie ne porte pas préjudice à la partie qui a assisté à la procédure orale (Jurisprudence des Chambres de Recours de l'OEB, 8ème édition, 2016, IV.C 6.2.2 a)(ii)).

3.5 En l'absence d'une requête sur la tenue d'une procédure orale de la part de la requérante, le fait de na pas réagir à la convocation à cette procédure orale ne peut pas objectivement être considéré comme ambiguë ou abusif. De la même manière il peut être légitimement attendu, qu'une partie n'ayant pas requis de procédure orale, notamment à titre subsidiaire, n'y assiste pas. Dans la configuration présente, la convocation à la procédure orale devait donc être interprétée comme issue non seulement en réponse à la requête subsidiaire de l'intimée, mais également pour débattre entre autres de la question du préjugé technique sur la possibilité de basculement de la benne comme indiqué dans l'avis préliminaire. La convocation a donc notamment été émise pour clarifier cette question et permettre ainsi à la chambre d'être en mesure de prononcer une décision à l'issue de la procédure orale. Sans information supplémentaire de la chambre sur une annulation possible de la procédure orale suite à l'indication de l'absence de la requérante, l'intimée n'avait donc pas de garantie d'avoir gain de cause, elle devait se préparer à défendre sa position en relation avec ces motifs.

3.6 Au vu de ces circonstances, et notamment en l'absence d'élément objectif servant d'indice à un comportement délibérément ambiguë ou abusif, la chambre a donc décidé de ne pas ordonner une répartition différente des frais.

Dispositif

Par ces motifs, il est statué comme suit

Le recours est rejeté

T 0493/12 - Acceleration after remittal

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the proprietor restricted to the method claims in appeal.
• " The Board holds that the filing with the statement of grounds of appeal of a request which essentially corresponds to a request decided upon by the Opposition Division, wherein claims which were found unallowable by the first instance have been deleted, said request thereby being restricted to subject-matter of a different category for which no negative decision has been issued by the Opposition Division, deprives the contested decision of its basis, and is normal behaviour of a losing party. " 
• There is no provision of the EPC under which any competence is given to a Board of Appeal to decide the time frame of first instance proceedings after remittal (see T 2362/08)

T 0493/12 - link

Auxiliary request 2

3. Admissibility

3.1 Auxiliary request 2 was filed with the statement of grounds of appeal. It is based on the main request wherein granted claims 1 to 5, namely the claims to the reactor system, have been deleted, and granted independent claim 6, directed to a method for starting up the reactor system of claim 1, has been reformulated as claim 1, wherein the features of the reactor system of granted claim 1 have now been incorporated into said claim in full. []

3.2 Appeal proceedings are based inter alia on the statement of grounds of appeal filed pursuant to Article 108 EPC, said statement containing the party's complete case (see Art. 12(1) and (2) RPBA). The Board may however hold inadmissible requests which could have been presented in the first instance proceedings (see Art. 12(4) RPBA).

T 0034/14 - Apportionment of costs

Key points

• The Board recalls that " an opposition division's decision on apportionment of costs is a discretionary one that should be overruled only if the board comes to the conclusion either that the first instance department exercised its discretion in accordance with the wrong principles or in an unreasonable way, and has thus exceeded the proper limits of its discretion (G 7/93; point 2.6)." 

T 0034/14 - link

Reasons for the Decision
Apportionment of costs

5. The opposition division decided to apportion costs against appellant 2.

5.1 This decision was based on the following sequence of events: in the opposition proceedings, appellant 2 filed a new document D17 two days before the oral proceedings scheduled for 18 April 2013. During these oral proceedings, the respondent requested that the oral proceedings be adjourned in order to have sufficient time to prepare a declaration and file experimental evidence if D17 was admitted into the proceedings. The opposition division decided to admit D17 into the proceedings and consequently adjourned the oral proceedings to 10 October 2013, as requested by the respondent.

5.2 In its decision, the opposition division essentially reasoned as follows: there had been no abuse of procedure by appellant 2, but its late filing of D17 was irresponsible and gave rise to unnecessary costs for the respondent. However, as one of the present inventors had co-authored D17, the respondent had been involved in writing it, and must therefore have known that it existed, and what was in it. In view of this, it was equitable for appellant 2 to bear only the respondent's travel and accommodation costs for attending the second oral proceedings held on 10 October 2013.

5.3 Appellant 2 requested that this decision be set aside, arguing that the respondent had been familiar with D17 well before the first oral proceedings, and its request for adjournment of the first oral proceedings had therefore not been justified.

5.4 The board does not agree. The respondent did not ask for an adjournment of the oral proceedings in order to familiarize itself with D17 but to have sufficient time to prepare a declaration or file experimental evidence in respect to the appellant's arguments relating to it. This was a justified request, since even if the respondent was familiar with D17 it did not need to file any submissions about it until it was brought into the proceedings by appellant 2. It was therefore perfectly reasonable for the opposition division to allow the respondent's request for adjournment, and in consequence to award costs against appellant 2.

Incidentally, an opposition division's decision on apportionment of costs is a discretionary one that should be overruled only if the board comes to the conclusion either that the first instance department exercised its discretion in accordance with the wrong principles or in an unreasonable way, and has thus exceeded the proper limits of its discretion (G 7/93; point 2.6).

5.5 Appellant 2 cited decisions T 330/88 and T 336/86, which however are not relevant to the present case:

5.5.1 In the case underlying T 330/88, a new document had been filed by the opponent during oral proceedings before the opposition division. After the oral proceedings, the proceedings were continued in writing. In subsequent appeal proceedings, the board held that the appellant (proprietor), who had requested an apportionment of costs, had had sufficient time to consider the late-filed document during the oral proceedings before the opposition division, which had lasted for two consecutive days. The board therefore rejected the appellant's (proprietor's) request for apportionment of costs. This is different from the present case, where there was not enough time during the oral proceedings to react properly to late-filed document D17.

5.5.2 In T 336/86, after the opponent had filed a new patent publication during the oral proceedings before the opposition division the proceedings were continued in writing. In the subsequent written proceedings, the proprietor requested the revocation of its patent and an apportionment of costs, since the oral proceedings could have been avoided if the opponent had submitted the new patent publication earlier. The board rejected the request for apportionment of costs basically on the grounds that the proprietor was also the holder of the late-filed patent. The board held that the failure of both parties to exercise all due care over this document had resulted in oral proceedings which proved to be superfluous and that in these circumstances it was not justified to award costs to either of the parties.

That case too is different from the present one because the new document was so highly relevant that the patent could no longer be defended, and the respondent (proprietor) actually requested its revocation. Hence, while it may be true that if the proprietor had exercised due care, it would have taken this document into account even before it was filed by the opponent, the same is not necessarily true in the present case.

5.6 The board therefore in the present case found that the opposition division's decision on costs was justified.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside as far as the opposition division had found that taking into account the amendments made by the patent proprietor during the opposition proceedings the patent and the invention to which it relates met the requirements of the Convention.

2. As regards the decision on apportionment of costs, the appeal of appellant 2 is dismissed.

3. The patent is revoked.

T 1763/12 - Apportionment of costs

Key points: 

• A highly relevant prior art document is submitted by the opponent three days before the oral proceedings and is admitted into the proceedings by the Board. The case is remitted. However, the Board makes an apportionment of costs, such that the costs for the oral proceedings of the patentee are to be born by the opponent.

EPO T 1763/12 - link

Summary of Facts and Submissions

VII. With letter of 23 November 2015, appellant-opponent 2 submitted the following document:

O6A: US 5,332,429

VIII. During the oral proceedings held on 26 November 2015, the appellant-patent proprietor withdrew its main request.

Reasons for the Decision

1.3 Conclusion

In view of the above considerations, the Board in the exercise of its discretion decides to admit document O6A into the appeal proceedings.

2. Remittal to the first instance

The appellant-patent proprietor has requested that the case be remitted to the opposition division in case document O6A was admitted.

In order to give the appellant-patent proprietor sufficient time to react to the new evidence and in order not to deprive it of the possibility of being heard by the two instances, the Board allows its request. The case is therefore remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution (Article 111(1) EPC).

3. Apportionment of the costs

Appellant-opponent 2 did not give any reason why document O6A was submitted only at such a late stage of the proceedings and why it could not file this document earlier. The consequence was that the discussion at the oral proceedings before the Board was limited to the issue of admittance of O6A without considering any substantive matter. This would have been avoided if the document had been filed earlier.

Accordingly, the Board considers it to be equitable that the expenses incurred by the appellant-patent proprietor in connection with the oral proceedings be borne by appellant-opponent 2 (Article 104(1) EPC, Article 16(1)(c) RPBA).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. Document O6A is admitted into the proceedings.

2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution.

3. The costs of the appellant-patent proprietor for the oral proceedings before the Board shall be borne by appellant-opponent 2.