T 2138/15 - The effect of a remittal

 Key points

• The board dismisses the appeal of the patentee against the decision of the OD to revoke the patent.
• The board finds the claims to be obvious.
• The interesting aspect is that the filing date was in 1998 as PCT application. EP entry in 1999. Grant in 2003. Opposition filed in 2004 (!). So this opposition took in total 17 years. The first OD decision was taken in 2008. An appeal was filed and the first appeal decision T 0621/08 was issued in 2012, remitting the claims after finding them to meet Art. 123(2) and to be novel. 
• So the remittal added more than 8 years (three years until the second decision of the OD in 2015, five years for the second appeal), extending the opposition procedure well after the expiry of the 20-year patent term.
• The Board in the first appeal decision: “The decision of the opposition division was based on the finding of lack of novelty over document D9. As the issue of inventive step has not yet been argued by the parties, the board considers it appropriate to remit the case to the department of first instance for further prosecution (Article 111(2) EPC). This was also the desire expressed by both parties.”
• The Board in the present second decision finds the claim at issue to be obvious in view of D9 and common general knowledge.

T 2138/15

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t152138eu1.html

(decision text omitted)

T 0924/17 - Authorizations under Rule 152

 Key points

• Somehow it seems have not yet posted about this decision from March 2020.
• If you as representative perform a procedural act and the EPO invites you to file an authorization under Rule 152(2), must the authorization be dated and signed before that invitation and/or prior to the procedural act?
• The Board says that this is not the case. “There is no requirement however, either in said "Decision" of the President of the EPO [Decision of the President of the European Patent Office (EPO) dated 12 July 2007 on the filing of authorisations, OJ 2007 SE3 L.1] or in Rule 152(2) EPC, for the signature's date to be prior to the filing date of the notice of appeal, let alone a requirement that any procedural step taken before the signature's date be explicitly approved in the signed authorisation. This would be tantamount to requiring proving the existence of a previous informal oral or written authorisation, which entitles the representative to act on behalf of a party ("Bevollmächtigung") and further, this would also be contrary to the intended purpose of Rule 152(2) EPC, which is clearly to allow to remedy the missing filing of the authorisation, as it appears implicit and evident that the authorisation generally relates to and encompasses any action by the new representative during specific ongoing proceedings before the EPO, as in the case in point.”
• The Board appears to suggest that T 1846/11 was specifically about the authorization to be filed by legal practitioners.

T 0924/17

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t170924eu1.html

The appeal is admissible since it complies with the requirements of Article 108 EPC and since a valid authorisation was filed by the representative on 6 June 2017, for the following reasons.

The President of the EPO determines under Rule 152(1) EPC the cases in which an authorisation shall be filed and may determine the form and the content of an authorisation (Rule 152(5)). According to Article 1(1) of the "Decision of the President of the European Patent Office (EPO) dated 12 July 2007 on the filing of authorisations" [OJ 2007 SE3 L.1] a professional representative (whose name appears in the list maintained by the European Patent Office) is required to file a signed authorisation only under the circumstances set out in Article 1(2), (3) of said "Decision" of the President.

Good luck to all EQE candidates!

If you are sitting the Pre-Exam or Main EQE this week: good luck! Both with the IT aspects and the patent law and practice aspects. 

T 1832/17 - Claiming the larger thing and Art. 123(3)

 Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the claim as granted is directed to a component. In the operative request, the claim is directed to the apparatus comprising that component. The opponent argues that this violates Article 123(3), because after the amendment third parties may be sued for indirect infringement regarding other components of the apparatus.
• The Board: “Im vorliegenden Fall betrifft die erteilte Fassung der Patentansprüche eine Druckhalteventilanordnung, während die geänderten Ansprüche des Hilfsantrags 3 auf ein Common-Rail-System mit dieser Druckhalteventilanordnung gerichtet sind. Da der erteilte Anspruch 1 eine Druckhalteventilanordnung in ihrer Allgemeinheit und der Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 3 diese angewandt in einer Kombination mit einem Common-Rail-System betreffen, ist der Schutzbereich von Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 3 nicht auf einen anderen Gegenstand erweitert, sondern auf diese spezifische Anwendung beschränkt worden. Insbesondere weist der unabhängige Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 3 sämtliche Merkmale des erteilten Anspruchs 1 auf, so dass keine Erweiterung des Schutzbereichs durch diese Änderung vorliegt”
• As to the argument based on indirect infringement, the Board recalls established case law: “Der Begriff "Schutzbereich" in Artikel 123(3) EPÜ ist kein Hinweis auf einen Streitgegenstand in einem möglichen nationalen Verletzungsverfahren. In G 2/88 [headnote i] wurde entschieden, dass das nationale Verletzungsrecht der Vertragsstaaten außer Betracht bleiben kann und für die Entscheidung über die Zulässigkeit einer Änderung nach Artikel 123(3) EPÜ nicht relevant ist. Daher verweist der Begriff "Schutzbereich" in Artikel 123(3) EPÜ auf den in Artikel 69 EPÜ definierten Schutzbereich des europäischen Patents und es erstreckt sich nicht auf jeden möglichen Gegenstand, der eine Verletzung der aus dem Patent nach nationalem Recht ableitbaren Rechte darstellen kann.”
• G 2/88, headnote 1: “A change of category of granted claims in opposition proceedings is not open to objection under Article 123(3) EPC, if it does not result in extension of the protection conferred by the claims as a whole, when they are interpreted in accordance with Article 69 EPC and its Protocol. In this context, the national laws of the Contracting States relating to infringement should not be considered.” Headnote 3 is the one about second non-medical use claims.
  
  
• The Board also touches on the case law that if as patentee you get " Main Request 3" from the OD, your appeal is inadmissible as you are not adversely affected because you got your final Main Request, even if those claims were restricted compared to the claims as granted. (“Die Beschwerde der Patentinhaberin scheint mangels Beschwer unzulässig zu sein. In der Entscheidung wurde dem geltenden Hauptantrag - in einer dritten, abgeänderten Fassung - stattgegeben”, the Board cites the preliminary opinion). Moreover, with an inadmissible appeal (of the patentee), the opponent (as sole appellant) benefits from the prohibition of reformatio in peius. 
• The patentee withdrew the appeal on 26.10.2020, i.e. before the decision was taken, and the appeal fee was already partially refunded before the decision of the Board. 

EPO T 1832/17 

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t171832du1.html

decision text omitted

T 0194/17 - Applying Rule 57a EPC 1973 under RPBA 2020

 Key points

• PCT application filed in 2005, EP entry 2007, Communication Examing Division 2009, some exchange of letters, a decision to grant 2014, decision rejecting the opposition in 2016 and that makes that the present Board applies Rule 57a EPC 1973 in this decision taken 03.12.2020.
• The Board provides a useful summary of the transitional provisions: “According to Articles 1(1) and 6, first sentence of the Decision of the Administrative Council of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under Article 7 of the Act revising the EPC of 29 November 2000 (Special edition No. 4, OJ EPO 2007, 217), Articles 54(2), 56, 87, 100, 111 and 113 EPC 1973 as well as Articles 52, 54(3) and 153 EPC (2000) apply. With respect to potentially colliding European applications pursuant to Article 54(3) EPC, however, the provisions of Article 54(4) EPC 1973 continue to apply. By analogy, with respect to potentially colliding Euro-PCT applications pursuant to Article 54(3) EPC, the provisions of Article 158(2) EPC 1973 and Rule 106 EPC 1973 continue to apply. Since Rules 57a and 67 EPC 1973 are linked respectively to Articles 100 and 111 EPC 1973, they are to be applied in the present case (by analogy with J 10/07, OJ EPO 2008, 567).”
• I'm not sure whether this is still EQE stuff, but it is useful in practice to be aware of it when working on long-running cases or litigation about old patents. 
• The main request is not inventive. Auxiliary requests were filed with the Statement of grounds. Admissibility is to be decided. 
• The Board: “In its provisional opinion, the Board explicitly drew the respondent's attention to the appellant's submission that the auxiliary requests failed to meet the requirements of Rule 57a EPC 1973 since they were not accompanied by any reasons as to why they overcome a ground of opposition”
• As a comment, the opponent’s objection actually was: “The appellant [opponent] requested that the first to fourth auxiliary requests not be admitted into the appeal proceedings, since although they essentially correspond to claims that had been filed during the opposition proceedings, the respondent [patentee] had never submitted any supporting argumentation to explain the amendments. In their view the claims were also not prima facie clearly allowable. However, it was not up to them to speculate on why the subject-matter of any of the requests might or might not comprise allowable subject-matter. Furthermore, several of the amendments appear to be merely changes to the reference signs and grammar and therefore do not meet the requirement of Rule 57a EPC 1973.”
• As a comment, that “auxiliary requests [not] accompanied by any reasons as to why they overcome a ground of opposition” are inadmissible, seems established case law to me, but not based on Rule 80. 
• “Such requests - which are not self-explanatory - are considered by the Board as being submitted only on the date of their substantiation, i.e. during the oral proceedings.”

EPO T 0194/17 - link

decision text omitted.

T 2284/15 - Solving a technical problem and Art.83

Key points

• This opposition appeal decision contains a number of interesting points. The patent was granted with claim 1 directed to an instrument and second independent claim 2 also directed to an instrument (same preamble, different characterizing feature) (translated English claims, see link). The Board finds claim 1 to be insufficiently disclosed. The amendment in claim 1 of AR-1 does not help

Sufficiency of disclosure

• The claim specifies an instrument characterized in that “a control circuit (17) controls the opening period of the valve (16) as a function of at least one or a combination of the following parameters, namely the parameters of working pressure, striking frequency or pressure in the back-pressure chamber (8).”
• The Board finds that the example in the specification is not according to the claim and that the specification does not provide a teaching of how to solve the technical problems mentioned in the specification. The patentee argues that the skilled person can still provide for a control circuit that controls the opening as some arbitrary function (‘Abhängigkeit’) of the parameters mentioned in claim 1, and that this still gives an instrument according to claim 1. In particular, claim 1 does not specify any technical effect of the control circuit.
• The opponent does not dispute that the skilled person can provide for some arbitrary ‘Abhängigkeit’ (so the skilled person had no difficulty to reduce the claimed subject-matter to practice). However, the opponent submits that the subject-matter does not solve the (a?) technical problem, which would violate Article 83 EPC.
• As a comment, I think this just boils down to an objection of lacking essential features, but the present Board does not discuss it in that way.
• The Board agrees with the opponent. “dass das Lösen einer technischen Aufgabe eine fundamentale Eigenschaft einer Erfindung ist.” “Dass die Fachperson auf Basis der Beschreibung oder ihres Fachwissens zu einer willkürlichen, beliebigen Ausführungsform des beanspruchten Gegenstands kommen kann, bedeutet daher nicht, dass ihr ein Weg zur Ausführung der Erfindung gezeigt wird, wenn damit die technische Aufgabe nicht gelöst wird.”
• The Board notes that G 1/03 stated that “If an effect is expressed in a claim, there is lack of sufficient disclosure. Otherwise, i.e. if the effect is not expressed in a claim but is part of the problem to be solved, there is a problem of inventive step”. According to the present Board, this remark in G1/03 was restricted to the context of disclaimers for chemical Markush formula's (paraphrasing the present decision). The present Board: “Diese Überlegungen der Großen Beschwerdekammer können nicht ohne weiteres auf den gegenständlichen Kontext übertragen werden. ”
• The present Board: “Dass ein technischer Effekt nicht im Anspruch definiert wird, bedeutet daher nicht zwangsläufig, dass kein Einwand unter Artikel 83 EPÜ erhoben werden kann.” (the objection being based on the patent’s alleged failure to teach how to achieve that effect).
• I'm not sure if this concerns the objective technical problem or the so-called subjective technical problem.
• The present Board: “Wird kein klarer Weg zur Ausführung der Erfindung aufgezeigt, der die technische Aufgabe löst, oder sind die Ansprüche oder Ausführungsformen unklar, so können eventuell unter Artikeln 83, 84, oder 100 b) EPÜ Einwände erhoben worden.”
• I note that there is also some case law stating that an unclarity in a claim does not automatically to an objection under Article 83 EPC.
• See e.g. also T1137/16.

• Article 123(2)
  
• In AR-2, the patentee cancels claim 1 entirely. The Board finds this request to prima facie violate Article 123(2) because claim 5 as filed was directed to “The instrument of claim 1 to 4”. According to the Board, the instrument of claim 5 therefore has the features of each and every of claims 1 - 4 as filed (claims as filed). By cancelling independent claim 1, the (renumbered and adapted)  claim 5 would specify fewer features, i.e. involve an unallowable intermediate generalization. The request is therefore not admitted under Article 12(4) RPBA 2007.
• “Die Streichung des Anspruchs 1 stellt zudem, prima facie, eine unzulässige Verallgemeinerung dar. Die unmittelbare Bedeutung von nach Anspruch 1 bis 4 (Anspruch 5 in der ursprünglichen Fassung) muss so verstanden werden, dass alle in den Ansprüchen 1 bis 4 definierten Merkmale zu Anspruch 5 gehören; andernfalls hätte die gleiche Formulierung wie bei den anderen ursprünglichen Ansprüchen verwendet werden sollen, d.h. nach einem der Ansprüche ... [e.g. claim 6 as filed recited “Instrument nach einem der Ansprüche 1 bis 5”]. Die nunmehrige Fassung des Anspruchs 4 (nach Anspruch 1 bis 3, also ursprüngliche Ansprüche 2 bis 4) definiert nicht mehr die Merkmale des ursprünglichen Anspruchs 1. Die Berücksichtigung dieses Antrags verbietet sich auch unter diesem Gesichtspunkt.”
  
  
• Scope of opposition
• Only claim 1 was opposed, independent claim 2 was not opposed (scope of opposition). According to established case law, the Board is not competent to examine claim 2 at all.
• However, the patentee's request AR-3 restricting to claim 2 and deleting the offending dependent claim is not admitted under Article 13(2) RPBA because there are no special circumstances.
• In connection with AR-2, which was also not admitted as being prima facie lacking basis in the application as filed, the Board observes “Dass dieser Teil des Patents nicht angegriffen wurde, ändert nichts an der Tatsache, dass der Antrag - in einer der Rechtssicherheit zuwiderlaufenden Weise - verspätet gestellt worden ist.”

T 2284/15 - link

Entscheidungsgründe

Berücksichtigung des letzten Schriftsatzes der Patentinhaberin

1. In diesem Schriftsatz wird lediglich die Position der Beschwerdeführerin unter anderen Gesichtspunkten zusammengefasst. Neues, zu überprüfendes Tatsachenvorbringen enthält er nicht. Es handelt sich also nicht um Änderungen des Beschwerdevorbringens, dessen Zulassung im Ermessen der Kammer stünde (Artikel 13 VOBK 2020), sondern um Argumente, die auch in der mündlichen Verhandlung hätten vorgetragen werden können (vgl. T 1794/12).

2. Die Kammer schließt sich auch der Ansicht der Beschwerdeführerin an, wonach die Beschwerdegegnerin ausreichend Vorbereitungszeit hatte, zum Inhalt des Schriftsatzes angemessen Stellung zu nehmen.

T 1809/17 - Essential features and Art. 100(b)

 Key points

• This is an opposition appeal. The opponent argues that claim 1 is insufficiently disclosed by not specifying all essential features.
• The  Board considers claim 1 to be sufficiently disclosed: “Maßgeblich ist hierbei nicht, ob der unabhängige Anspruch alle wesentlichen Merkmale definiert, sondern ob die gesamte Patentschrift dem Fachmann wenigstens ein gangbares Ausführungsbeispiel aufzeigt, wie die in Anspruch 1 definierte Erfindung umsetzbar ist.” (emphasis added)
• The patent teaches at least one way for “Umsetzung der Erfindung” (German original) so that the invention is sufficiently disclosed, Article 100(b) EPC.

EPO T 1809/17

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t171809du1.html

decision text omitted