T 2076/13 - Remittal and own motion

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, both opponents withdrew their opposition. The Board finds the claimed to be sufficiently disclosed. The Board remits the case to the OD, because the EPO may continue the opposition of own motion and because the main purpose of appeal proceedings is to review decisions of departments of first instance.
• There is also a discussion of a parameter feature. " [The] skilled person would be able to identify without undue burden the temperature at which the surface tension and the contact angle are to be measured. For this reason alone, the Board cannot come to the same conclusion as the opposition division that the patent does not meet the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure ". The Board agrees with the rationale of decisions such as T 593/09 and T 608/07.

EPO T 2076/13 -  link

3.3 Regardless of the considerations set out above, the Board observes that deficiencies arising from the presence in a claim of an ambiguously defined parameter or a parameter that could be measured by different methods or under different conditions leading to different values do not necessarily result in a problem of insufficiency of disclosure.

T 1955/13 - In house public prior use

Key points

• The opponent had submitted a public prior use as state of the art during the procedure before the OD. The alleged public prior use was by himself. The OD had not admitted it, as being late filed. The OD had cited case law about opponents abusively delaying the filing of prior art already known to them There was no indication for such abuse in this case. Nevertheless, the Board considers the OD's approach correct. Public prior use by the opponent himself must be filed with the Notice of opposition, unless it only becomes relevant by developments during the opposition procedure. 

EPO Headnote
In case an opponent submits as prior art a public prior use by himself only late in the opposition procedure, there are good grounds, when deciding on admissibility, to make no difference between the case that the opponent admits that the piece of prior art was consciously hold back, and the case that he indicates that he had merely not earlier searched for it.
This is because fairness and the obligation to cooperate with the procedure require that also an in-house search is carried out within the opposition period. If the late filing of the prior art is  not explainable by developments in the opposition procedure that would have reasonably prompted parties to carry out a search for the first time in a particular direction, it does not seem legally incorrect that the opposition division applied the case law on abusive holding back of known prior art.

Legt der Einsprechende im Einspruchsverfahren eine aus dem eigenen Haus stammende offenkundige Vorbenutzung erst spät vor, so bestehen gute Gründe, bei der Zulassungsentscheidung nicht danach zu differenzieren, ob der Einsprechende ein bewusstes Zurückhalten dieses Standes der Technik einräumt oder ob er angibt, lediglich nicht schon früher nach diesem recherchiert zu haben.

Denn Fairness und Verfahrensförderungspflicht gebieten es, auch eine hausinterne Recherche bereits innerhalb der Einspruchsfrist vorzunehmen. War die späte Vornahme der Recherche daher nicht mit Entwicklungen im Verfahren erklärbar, die vernünftige Parteien zu einer erstmaligen Recherche in eine bestimmte Richtung veranlasst hätten, erscheint es nicht rechtsfehlerhaft, wenn die Einspruchsabteilung bei ihrer Zulassungsentscheidung die zum missbräuchlichen Zurückhalten von bekanntem Stand der Technik ergangene Rechtsprechung anwendet. (siehe Punkte 4.3 bis 4.4)

EPO T 1955/13 - link

T 0735/13 - Appeal opponent inadmissible

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the Board holds the appeal of the opponent inadmissible. The appeal was against the decision to maintain the patent in amended form based on the second auxiliary request. The Board holds the appeal inadmissible essentially because the opponent did not present arguments against the second auxiliary request during the oral proceedings before the OD. As a comment, it seems that the request was filed during the oral proceedings before the OD (at 14:10) but the minutes of the oral proceedings are not visible in the EPO online file (only the first and last page).
• The Board, in translation, "Because an opponent can only express its disagreement with a patent in amended form by submitting grounds foreseen in law, is the opponent in any case not adversely affected by the maintenance of the patent in amended form according to the second auxiliary request with respects to the grounds of opposition, which the opponent only asserted in appeal. " 
• It seems that under this decision, an opponent must maintain all grounds against all requests at any costs throughout the entire opposition procedure (even if a new request is admitted during the oral proceedings by the OD that the opponent did not prepare for) in order to safeguard an admissible appeal.

EPO T 0735/13 -  link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Nach Art. 107 EPÜ ist jeder Verfahrensbeteiligte, der durch eine Entscheidung beschwert ist berechtigt, Beschwerde einzulegen.

2. Entscheidend für das Vorliegen einer Beschwer ist es, ob die angegriffene Entscheidung hinter dem Begehren des Beschwerdeführers zurückbleibt (Entscheidung T 244/85, ABl. 1988, 216 Nr. 3 und aus der Literatur: Singer/Stauder, Kommentar zum Europäischen Patentübereinkommen, 7. Aufl. 2016, Art. 107 Rz. 18 (Bühler). Zu prüfen ist hier zunächst, ob der einsprechende Beschwerdeführer gegen die von der Einspruchsabteilung aufrechterhaltene Fassung des Patents Einwände vorbringt, die der Aufrechterhaltung des Patents entgegenstehen könnten. Das ist, wie sich aus dem Sachverhalt ergibt, der Fall. Von einer Beschwer kann allerdings dann nicht gesprochen werden, wenn der Beschwerdeführer zwar zum Entscheidungszeitpunkt mit der Entscheidung einverstanden war, es sich indessen im Nachhinein anders überlegt hat. Abzustellen ist für die Beschwer daher auf eine Diskrepanz zwischen dem Begehren des Beschwerdeführers zum Zeitpunkt der Entscheidung, und der Entscheidung selbst.

T 0950/13 - Plausible without examples (Dasatinib II)

Key points

• The Board decides on sufficiency of disclosure of a claim for the use dasatinib for the treatment of a specific type of cancer, namely chronic myelogenous leukemia. As a comment, in T 0488/16 the Board had found insufficient disclosure of the use of dasatinib as medicament (based on a different PCT application).
• "In the present case the suitability of dasatinib for the treatment of patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia has to be plausible to the skilled person either from the teaching of the application as filed or from common general knowledge at the relevant date".
• "[It] is clearly disclosed in the application as filed that dasatinib is suitable in the treatment of CML []The board also concurs with the [patentee] that a person skilled in the art at the filing date of the application was familiar with the fact that CML can indeed be treated by inhibiting BRC-ABL kinase. []The application does not contain experimental evidence for dasatinib's BRC-ABL kinase inhibitory activity. However, the disclosure of experimental results in the application is not always required to establish sufficiency".
• "The board is satisfied that the application discloses at least a plausible technical concept, namely that dasatinib based on its functional equivalence to imatinib as a BRC-ABL kinase inhibitor is suitable in the treatment of CML."
• "As a consequence, the post-published evidence in the form of document [D2], which confirms the BRC-ABL kinase inhibitory activity of dasatinib [] can be taken into account"
• "The board also does not agree with the opposition division's approach to equate non-obviousness with the existence of serious doubts. A technical teaching - in the present case the teaching that dasatinib is suitable for the treatment of CML based on its functional analogy to imatinib as BRC-ABL inhibitor - is not rendered implausible, because it may not have been obvious in view of the prior art."
• "Concerning the lack of explicit data, the board re-emphasises that in cases where the application discloses a technical concept which is plausible in the light of the common general knowledge at the relevant date, but lacks concrete or tangible proof that the claimed concept can be put into practice, post-published documents may be used as evidence that the invention was indeed reproducible without undue burden at the relevant filing date of the application "
• Claim 2 is however not plausible. Claim 2 is directed to treatment of CML cancer that is resistent to imatinib. [] The application as filed contains no information at all, neither in the form of experimental data nor in the form of a plausible technical concept, that dasatinib is suitable in the treatment of those patients with imatinib-resistant CML. The functional analogy to imatinib as BRC-ABL kinase inhibitor is not helpful in this context and cannot explain why dasatinib should be active, when imatinib is, or has become, inactive." 
• The case is remitted.

EPO T 0950/13 - link

The main request consist of 6 claims with claims 1 and 4 reading as follows:

"1. Use of the compound of formula (IV) or a salt thereof: [Dasatinib ] for the manufacture of a medicament for the oral treatment of cancer, wherein the cancer is chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML)."

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. As communicated in advance to the board (see point VIII above), the respondent did not attend oral proceedings, to which it had been duly summoned. The board decided to continue the proceedings pursuant to Rule 115(2) EPC and Article 15(3) RPBA.

Main request and auxiliary request 1

3. Sufficiency of disclosure (Article 100(b) EPC).

3.1 Claim 1 of the main request is directed to the use of dasatinib in the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).

3.2 Article 83 EPC stipulates that the patent shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.

T 0268/13 - Preamble limiting for production method

Key points

• The Board considers the identification of the product in the preamble of a claim for a production method, to be limiting. Hence, even if the method steps are disclosed, the claim can still be novel by virtue of the feature " Verfahren zur Herstellung eines mehrlagigen Dekorbandes" .
• The Board indicates that it can  not follow the Guidelines F-IV 4.13 (2016), in particular the paragraph based on T 304/08. 
• " [T 304/08]  beschäftigte sich mit der Angabe einer bestimmten Wirkung (Verringerung von üblem Geruch) in einem Verfahrensanspruch. Merkmale, die die Herstellung eines bestimmten Gegenstands betreffen, sind aber von Wirkungsangaben zu unterscheiden" .
• The paragraph of the Guidelines at issue is changed in the 2017 version, although I can not say if the present decision indicates the same as the new wording of the Guidelines. 

Changes in Guidelines F-IV 4.13
A distinction does however have to be made where theA claim which is directed to a method or process aiming at a certain purpose, when it comprises physical steps which result infor the production of a product ("method of manufacture") (i.e. the claim is in fact directed towards the production of a product). In this case, the indication of the intended purpose of the method (production of a product) ishas to be understood in the sense that the method or process has to be merely suitable for that usethe production of the product, rather than comprising the use as an integral method step. Consequently, a prior disclosure of the same method, which is suitable for producing said specific product but does not indicate that the specific product is produced with it, anticipates without an indication of the particular purpose (product production), although the method is nevertheless suitable for it, would anticipate a claim to the method for that particular purpose (see T 304/08)the production of that specific product.

V. Antrag 1 des Hauptantrags lautet wie folgt (die von der Kammer benützte Merkmalsgliederung ist in eckigen Klammern angegeben):

"[A] Verfahren zur Herstellung eines mehrlagigen Dekorbandes [B] mit reliefartiger Struktur [C] aus Text oder graphischem Symbol, umfassend [D] eine Oberlage (12) [E] aus Metall, vorzugsweise Aluminium, wobei das Verfahren die folgenden Schritte umfasst:

Entscheidungsgründe

2.8 Bedeutung der Produktmerkmale für die Auslegung des Verfahrensanspruchs

Die Kammer kann sich dem Argument der Beschwerdeführerin, dass das Verfahren gemäß Anspruch 1 nur durch die Verfahrensschritte definiert wird, nicht aber von dem herzustellenden Produkt, nicht anschließen. Laut Oberbegriff betrifft Anspruch 1 ein Verfahren zur Herstellung eines mehrlagigen Dekorbandes mit reliefartiger Struktur aus Text oder graphischem Symbol, das eine Oberlage umfasst. Nur solche Verfahren werden vom Anspruch erfasst, und nur Verfahren, die zur Herstellung eines solchermaßen definierten Dekorbandes führen, können - wenn sie auch die eigentlichen Verfahrensschritte umfassen - den Anspruch neuheitsschädlich treffen. Die Rechtsprechung betreffend Produkte für einen bestimmten Zweck lässt sich insofern in der Regel nicht auf Verfahren zur Herstellung von Produkten anwenden.

In diesem Zusammenhang kann sich die Kammer den Ausführungen in den "Richtlinien für die Prüfung", Abschnitt F-IV 4.13 (Fassung vom November 2016) und insbesondere ihrer Auslegung der Entscheidung T 304/08 nicht anschließen. Diese Entscheidung beschäftigte sich mit der Angabe einer bestimmten Wirkung (Verringerung von üblem Geruch) in einem Verfahrensanspruch. Merkmale, die die Herstellung eines bestimmten Gegenstands betreffen, sind aber von Wirkungsangaben zu unterscheiden (siehe auch die Entscheidungen T 1384/08 vom 16. Dezember 2010, Punkte 5.1.3-4 der Entscheidungsgründe, und T 2111/13 vom 22. Juli 2014, Punkt 3 der Entscheidungsgründe).

3. Klarheit

Die Kammer teilt die Auffassung der Beschwerdeführerin, dass es fast unmöglich ist, allgemein festzulegen, was als Text oder graphisches Symbol gelten kann [see the wording of claim 1 above]. Diese Schwierigkeit wurde von der Beschwerdeführerin mit mehreren Beispielen belegt. Sie rührt unter anderem davon her, dass der Symbolwert eines Zeichens von gesellschaftlichen Konventionen, technischen Normen, usw. abhängig ist. Ein Zeichen, dem kein symbolischer Wert beizumessen ist, kann zum Beispiel durch Festlegung einer Norm plötzlich Symbolwert erlangen. Ebenso kann ein Zeichen, das in einer Kultur ohne jeden Zweifel Symbolcharakter trägt, in einer anderen Kultur nicht als Symbol wahrgenommen werden.

Dennoch macht dieses Merkmal den Anspruch nicht völlig unklar. Zwar lässt sich nicht ganz allgemein und universell feststellen, was ein Symbol darstellt, aber im konkreten Anwendungsfall ist dennoch klar, ob ein bestimmtes Zeichen im gegebenen kulturellen, linguistischen oder technischen Kontext ein Symbol ist oder nicht. Der Anspruch stellt also weder die Person, die eine Patentverletzung vermeiden will, noch den Verletzungsrichter vor unlösbare Aufgaben, da sie sich ja des relevanten Kontexts bewusst bzw. Teil davon sind.

Daher ist die Kammer zum Schluss gelangt, dass das Merkmal den Erfordernissen von Artikel 84 EPÜ 1973 genügt.

T 0219/15 - Transfer opposition refused

Key points

• In this case, a request for transfer of the opposition was filed, but the Board refuses this because of lack of evidence that the relevant business assets were transferred. The original opponent remained opponent and is also appellant. His submissions remain valid in the appeal.
• " The representative of the opponent submitted information after commencement of the appeal proceedings to show the alleged transfer of the business relating to the opposed patent and had been at the same time authorised representative of the alleged new opponent. In agreement with T 423/11 [4], the board concludes that even if the situation were unclear this had no impact on the overall procedure, i.e. the appeal proceedings." 
• There is also an issue about inventive step, boiling down to "the unusual position of the opponent during oral proceedings before the opposition division in not commenting on inventive step". The Board sees no procedural violation in how the OD dealt with this. 

EPO T 0219/15 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

1. Party status and admissibility of the appeal of appellant I

The appeal was filed by the opponent Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH of Lenbachplatz 6 in Munich. A request for transfer of the opposition to Johnson Matthey PLC was filed by letter of 30 March 2015. The evidence provided does not conclusively establish that the entire rights and obligations relating to the appeal were transferred to Johnson Matthey PLC.

An opposition pending before the EPO may "be transferred or assigned to a third party as part of the opponent's business assets together with the assets in the interests of which the opposition was filed" (G 4/88 [order], G 2/04 [2.2.2]).

T 2416/12 - 17 years pending, remittal

Key points

• This is an examination appeal. 17 years after the filing date (Euro-PCT, not a divisional), the case is remitted back to the Examining Division.
• Filing date 12.02.1999, entry into the European phase 11.09.2000 , first Communication in 2006, second in 2008, summons in 2012, Notice of appeal also in 2012. Board remits the case. 
• The Examining Division has meanwhile issued an Intention to grant within a few months from the remittal. 
• " In the further prosecution of the case, the Examining Division may want to take into account the observations made in the Board's communication with regard to the prior art cited in the first-instance proceedings. The Board further notes that minor corrections of the claims may be required (e.g. "dependent" rather than "dependant" in claim 1)." The ED issued the Rule 71(3) directly  after the remittal, with the typographic error in claim 1. 

EPO T 2416/12 - link

Reasons for the Decision 
[...] 

Further prosecution

7. For the reasons given above, the Board does not uphold the clarity objections raised in the decision under appeal. Moreover, the Board is satisfied that the claims of the main request overcome the objections raised under Article 84 EPC in the appeal proceedings, fulfil the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC and define subject-matter which is new over document D1. It follows that the grounds on which the decision under appeal was based do not apply.

8. The Board further concludes from the above discussion that the Examining Division incorrectly mapped the tracking and storage at the search engine to features of a browser or client. As a consequence, it did not take into account important features of the claimed invention, which have been further clarified in the appeal proceedings.

9. Under those circumstances, and in spite of the long duration of the proceedings thus far, the Board is not minded to assess inventive step in the appeal proceedings.

In accordance with Article 111(1) EPC, the case is therefore to be remitted for further prosecution by the first-instance department. This is in accordance with the procedural suggestion made by the Board in its communication and accepted by the appellant (see sections III and IV above). The decision can therefore be taken without oral proceedings.

10. In the further prosecution of the case, the Examining Division may want to take into account the observations made in the Board's communication with regard to the prior art cited in the first-instance proceedings. The Board further notes that minor corrections of the claims may be required (e.g. "dependent" rather than "dependant" in claim 1).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

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