T 0689/15 - New line of reasoning is exceptional

 Key points

• In this examination appeal, an auxiliary request was filed after the preliminary opinion of the Board, after the summons, on 23 July, in advance of oral proceedings scheduled for 17 September.
• “Therefore the board is not convinced that the arguments set out in its [preliminary opinion] differ from the arguments set out in the decision under appeal to such an extent that they present a whole new line of reasoning […] Hence the board sees no exceptional circumstance leading to the amendment which would justify admitting the auxiliary request into the appeal proceedings. Therefore the auxiliary request is not admitted into the appeal proceedings (Article 13(2) RPBA 2020).” 
• emphasis added. 

EPO T 0689/15 - link

4. Admission of the auxiliary request into the appeal proceedings

4.1 According to Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, "[a]ny amendment to a party's appeal case made ... after notification of a summons to oral proceedings shall, in principle, not be taken into account unless there are exceptional circumstances, which have been justified with cogent reasons by the party concerned".

The following explanatory remarks are given with respect to Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 in Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal, Supplementary publication 2, OJ EPO 2020.

The basic principle of the third level of the convergent approach is that, at this stage of the appeal proceedings, amendments to a party's appeal case are not to be taken into consideration. However, a limited exception is provided for: it requires a party to present compelling reasons which justify clearly why the circumstances leading to the amendment are indeed exceptional in the particular appeal ("cogent reasons"). For example, if a party submits that the board raised an objection for the first time in a communication, it must explain precisely why this objection is new and does not fall under objections previously raised by the board or a party.

4.2 None of the arguments set out in the appellant's letter dated 23 July 2020 (see point XIII(f) above) is a cogent reason within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 since they do not relate to any exceptional circumstances.

4.3 The board is not persuaded that, in the present case, a redefinition of the problem to be solved constitutes an exceptional circumstance within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020.

The application was refused inter alia because the subject-matter of claim 1 of the then first auxiliary request lacked inventive step over the combined disclosures of documents D1 and D2 (Article 56 EPC 1973).

In its preliminary opinion, the board agreed with the examining division that document D1 was the closest prior art for the assessment of inventive step (see communication of the board under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020, point 3.1).

The board tended to share the appellant's view that D1 did not disclose: determining whether the client's stored content had reached the allocated storage limit; delivering content to the allocated storage space if the storage limit had not been reached; and delivering content from the allocated storage space to the client while continuing to deliver content to the storage space if the storage limit had been reached (see communication of the board under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020, point 3.3).

However, in contrast to the examining division and the appellant, the board was of the preliminary opinion that D1 disclosed that limited storage capacity was allocated to each (entitled) user (see communication of the board under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020, point 3.4). The examining division reasoned that the "circular buffer" known from document D2 by definition had a limited storage capacity (see decision under appeal, point 10.4). The board was of the preliminary opinion that this was also the case for rented storage capacity and hence document D1 implicitly disclosed limited storage capacity.

Thus the board identified one difference with respect to document D1 (see communication of the board under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020, point 3.3), whereas the examining division identified two differences: the limited storage capacity and the difference acknowledged by the board. As a result, the board defined an objective technical problem (how to find an alternative to deleting retained content "due to an expired term or time") which was not as broad as the objective technical problem defined by the examining division in point 10.3 of the decision under appeal ("How to prevent the storage requirement in the server to grow above the storage capacity").

In points 3.6 and 3.7 of its communication under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020, the board in essence confirmed the examining division's reasoning set out in point 10.4 of the decision under appeal that the person skilled in the art would implement the storage space management known from document D2 in the method known from document D1.

In summary, the board's assessment of inventive step in its preliminary opinion was based on the same documents as cited in the decision under appeal (documents D1 and D2), and the board identified the same closest prior art (document D1). While the board was of the preliminary opinion that document D1 implicitly disclosed limited storage capacity, the examining division was of the opinion that limited storage capacity was obvious in view of the disclosure of document D2. The board confirmed the examining division's assessment that the person skilled in the art would implement the storage space management known from document D2 in the method known from document D1.

4.4 Therefore the board is not convinced that the arguments set out in its communication under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 differ from the arguments set out in the decision under appeal to such an extent that they present a whole new line of reasoning (see point XIII(g) above). Hence the board sees no exceptional circumstance leading to the amendment which would justify admitting the auxiliary request into the appeal proceedings. Therefore the auxiliary request is not admitted into the appeal proceedings (Article 13(2) RPBA 2020).

5. Since neither of the appellant's requests is allowable, the appeal is to be dismissed.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

T 1610/15 - Withdrawal request oral proceedings

 Key points

• R. 103(4)(c) provides that the appeal fee is reimbursed at 25% "if any request for oral proceedings is withdrawn within one month of notification of the communication issued by the Board of Appeal in preparation for the oral proceedings, and no oral proceedings take place".
• In this case, the Board addresses the question whether this means that also the respondent must withdraw its request for oral proceedings within said time limit.
• The Board, in translation of the headnote: "According to the wording of Rule 103 (4) (c) EPC, it is not a prerequisite that all requests for oral proceedings must be withdrawn within one month of the notification of a communication issued by the Board of Appeal in preparation for the oral proceedings. Rather, it is sufficient that a request for oral proceedings is withdrawn in due time so that the first requirement for a partial reimbursement of the appeal fee under Rule 103 (4) c) EPC is met."
• As a comment, I think that it is required that the party benefiting from the partial reimbursement withdraws its own request for oral proceedings in due time
  
  
• The application was filed in 2006. The opposition was filed in 2010. The appeal decision was issued in October 2020 so more than 10 years after filing the opposition. The case is remitted because the OD had only dealt with Article 123(2). The Board sees a 'special reason' for remittal in this fact, in combination with the parties not having commented on novelty and inventive step in the appeal submissions. 
• 
  
• About Article 123(2): "nach Ansicht der Kammer [ist] die Frage, ob unter einen geänderten Anspruch denkbare, aber nicht ursprünglich offenbarte Ausführungsformen fallen, in der Regel kein geeigneter Maßstab für die Prüfung von Änderungen hinsichtlich der Erfordernisse des Artikels 123 (2) EPÜ"
• The Board also comments on admissibility of the appeal.
• About transitional provisions: "Für die Beurteilung der Zulässigkeit der vorliegenden Beschwerde gelten die Rechtsvorschriften des EPÜ, denn die Zulässigkeit einer Verfahrenshandlung ist auf der Grundlage des zum Zeitpunkt dieser Handlung herrschenden Rechts zu beurteilen".
• Which makes sense. However, note that the RPBA 2020 are also applied to submissions filed before 01.01.2020, arguably retroactively.  

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Anzuwendendes Recht

Die dem Streitpatent zugrundeliegende Anmeldung wurde am 14. März 2006 eingereicht. Deshalb sind im vorliegenden Fall in Anwendung von Artikel 7 der Akte zur Revision des EPÜ vom 29. November 2000 (ABl. EPA 2007, Sonderausgabe Nr. 1, S. 196) und des Beschlusses des Verwaltungsrats vom 28. Juni 2001 über die Übergangsbestimmungen nach Artikel 7 der Akte zur Revision des EPÜ vom 29. November 2000 (ABl. EPA 2007, Sonderausgabe Nr. 1, S. 197) die Artikel 54 (1) und (2), 56, 100, 111 und 113 EPÜ 1973 weiterhin anzuwenden.

Für die Beurteilung der Zulässigkeit der vorliegenden Beschwerde gelten die Rechtsvorschriften des EPÜ, denn die Zulässigkeit einer Verfahrenshandlung ist auf der Grundlage des zum Zeitpunkt dieser Handlung herrschenden Rechts zu beurteilen (vgl. J 10/07, T 1366/04, T 1279/05).

T 1953/16 - Reviewing the first instance procedure

 Key points

• The opponent files new documents with its Statement of grounds. The Board applies the 'should have been filed' rule of Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007 and reviews the first instance procedure in some detail.
• I think we will see this more often in the future.
• “The opponent's main justification for filing documents D15, D16 and D17 was that the patent proprietor with letter of 14 April 2016, of which the opponent was notified only on 3 May 2016, had introduced a new argument shortly before the oral proceedings before the opposition division which took place on 24 May 2016. According to the opponent, the new argument concerned the structure of the compressor as a whole of D1 and not the rotor in an isolated manner, as had previously been argued by the patent proprietor [].”
• The Board: “Irrespective of the question whether the available period before oral proceedings (21 days) could be regarded as sufficient for carrying out an additional search, the board does not agree with the opponent that the patent proprietor with letter of 14 April 2016 introduced a new argument, which justified the filing of documents D15, D16 and D17 for the first time in the appeal procedure. ”
• The Board cites the Rule 79 response "on page 3 in the fifth paragraph" and analyzes this in detail: "The mention of the compressor contained in the reply [of Patentee] is brief and the specific problems involved in implementing the invention in the compressor of D1 are indeed not further explained. Nevertheless, contrary to the opponent's allegation, the patent proprietor's argument was directed to the structure of the compressor as a whole, not only to the rotor, and the above statement was sufficient for the opponent to realise at the very beginning of opposition proceedings that the patent proprietor was thereby casting doubt on the suitability of document D1 in the assessment of an inventive step"
• It does not help that the OD's preliminary opinion was favorable for opponent.
• The Board leaves open whether the documents at issue are admissible in reply to AR-1 filed shortly before the oral proceedings before the OD, because the Main Request is considered to be inventive (disregarding D15, D16 and D17)
• This indicates that it does not make sense to decide on the admissibility of documents in advance. In other words, a document can be admissible only in connection with some but not all of the claim requests.

EPO T 1953/16 -  link

3. Admittance of documents D15, D16 and D17 into the appeal procedure (Article 12(4) RPBA 2007)

3.1 Documents D15, D16 and D17 were filed for the first time with the opponent's statement setting out the grounds of appeal on 27 October 2016. The patent proprietor has requested that the new documents under Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 not be admitted into the proceedings.

3.2 According to Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 the board has the discretionary power to hold inadmissible evidence which could (and should) have been presented or was not admitted in the first instance proceedings. The provision expresses the principle that each party should submit all facts, evidence, arguments and requests that appear relevant as early as possible so as to ensure a fair, speedy and efficient procedure (e.g. T 162/09, point 7 of the reasons and T 724/08, point 3.4 of the reasons). According to the established case law of the Boards of Appeal, the filing of new documents for the first time in the appeal proceedings requires a sound and plausible reason in the specific case, in particular exceptional circumstances that justify the late filing of the respective documents. It follows that, in principle, documents could be admitted in the case of e.g. a normal reaction to a late turn of events in the opposition (oral) proceedings, an exceptional interpretation by the opposition division at a late stage or in the decision, or evident non-allowability in view of the newly cited documents and/or objections (see the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 9th edition 2019, V.A.4.11.3).

T 0100/18 - What's an appeal case amendment?

 Key points

• The patentee submits a letter as respondent after the period for filing its Appeal Reply Brief (I'm just making up a word for 'the response under Art. 12(1)(c) RPBA 2020'). The question is whether this letter is admissible under Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020. The letter contains new arguments but does not extend beyond the requests, facts, arguments and evidence 'die der angefochtenen Entscheidung zugrunde liegen'. Therefore it is not a change of the basis of the appeal proceedings ('nicht um eine Änderung des dem Verfahren zugrunde liegenden Sachverhalts'). The Board admits the letter observing that Article 12(3) RPBA 2020 sets out requirements for the Statement of grounds and the Appeal Reply Brief, but does not define the term 'amendment of a party's appeal case'.
• As a comment, it seems that if this line of reasoning is followed, the initial appeal submissions do not limit the appeal case for what is covered by Art. 12(2) but not included in the initial appeal submissions.
• As an example, the OD considers the claims as granted to be novel over D1 and over D2 and rejects the opposition. The opponent appeals and discusses only D1 in the SoG. Under the present decision, the opponent can re-introduce the novelty attack based on D2 after the SoG but before the summons without running the risk that the attack based on D2 is inadmissible under Art. 13(1) RPBA. I'm not sure if this is correct.
• Nevertheless, I expect we will see quite some case law about what the term 'amendment to a party’s appeal case'amendment to a party’s appeal case’ in Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020 means.
  The present Board takes an interesting position.
  
  
  

EPO T 0100/18 - https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t180100du1.html

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Änderungen des Vorbringens der Beschwerdegegnerin [patentee]

Artikel 12(1) VOBK 2020 listet die dem Beschwerdeverfahren zugrunde liegenden Elemente auf. Darunter befindet sich insbesondere die angefochtene Entscheidung.

Der Brief vom 18. August 2020 wurde nach der Frist zur Erwiderung auf die Beschwerde eingereicht. Er ist daher nicht Teil des Beschwerdeverfahrens gemäß Artikel 12(1)c) VOBK 2020. Da jedoch sein Inhalt nicht über die Anträge, Tatsachen, Argumente und Beweismittel hinausgeht, die der angefochtenen Entscheidung zugrunde liegen, erfüllt das dortige Vorbringen die Erfordernisse nach Artikel 12(2) VOBK und ist auf das vorrangige Ziel des Beschwerdeverfahrens, nämlich die gerichtliche Überprüfung der angefochtenen Entscheidung, gerichtet. Es handelt sich bei dem im Schreiben vom 18. August 2020 enthaltenen Vortrag somit nicht um eine Änderung des dem Verfahren zugrunde liegenden Sachverhalts. Der von der Beschwerdeführerin genannte Artikel 12(3) VOBK 2020 nennt zwar Anforderungen an Beschwerdebegründung und Beschwerdeerwiderung, er definiert jedoch nicht, was als Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens anzusehen ist. Der im Schreiben vom 18. August 2020 enthaltene Vortrag wird daher zugelassen.

Die in der mündlichen Verhandlung vorgelegten Fotos stellen dagegen eine Änderung des Vorbringens der Beschwerdegegnerin dar, die gemäß Artikel 13(2) VOBK 2020 grundsätzlich unberücksichtigt bleiben, es sei denn, der betreffende Beteiligte hätte stichhaltige Gründe dafür aufgezeigt, dass außergewöhnliche Umstände vorlägen. Der Wunsch die bereits im Patent bzw. im Stand der Technik durch Zeichnungen offenbarte Lehre zusätzlich durch Fotos zu illustrieren, stellt jedoch keine derartigen außergewöhnlichen Umstände dar, so dass die Kammer die Fotos nicht in das Beschwerdeverfahren zulässt.

T 2422/18 - The SME appeal fee rate trap

 Key points

• The appellant-opponent pays the appeal fee at the reduced rate for SME's by mistake on 27.09.2018. On 13.12.2019, the Board enquires about the missing SME declaration. 
• Fact is that the appellant is not an SME and does not qualify for the reduced appeal fee rate. 
• The appellant/opponent submits the following about re-establishment: " Ein Antrag auf Wiedereinsetzung könne nicht gestellt werden, da dies aufgrund des Ablaufs der einjährigen Ausschlussfrist gemäß Regel 136 (1) EPÜ ausgeschlossen sei." 
• This is not untrue of course, but re-establishment is in any case excluded for the filing of  a Notice of appeal by an opponent, Art. 122(1) and G 1/86.
• The appellant tries to invoke the principle of legitimate expectations.
• The Board does not accept this, because the debit order in Form 1038E was for the reduced appal fee. " Darüber hinaus war die nicht ausreichende Gebührenzahlung im vorliegenden Fall nicht als Mangel ersichtlich, da sowohl der Betrag als auch der unter der Rubrik ,,Gebühren" aufgeführte Text im Begleitschreiben für nachgereichte Unterlagen darauf hindeuteten, dass es sich bei der Beschwerdeführerin um eine natürliche Person oder eine in Regel 6 (4) EPÜ genannte Einheit handelte. Allein schon aus diesem Grund kann sich die Beschwerdeführerin nicht auf den Grundsatz des Vertrauensschutzes stützen."
• I note that the reduced amount of EUR  1880 was also mentioned in the Notice of appeal.
• Moreover, because the SME declaration can be late-filed in appeal, there was no clear error in the debit order that the EPO should have noticed.
• I note that in view of T 0160/19, the 'SME Declaration' for the reduced appeal fee appears to lack any legal basis in the EPC or in the Rfees although so far the Boards have stopped short of saying that.
• The Bord confirms that the underpayment is also not a small amount in the sense of Rfees8 following T 3023/18.
• As a comment, note that in case of a fee increase and the old amount is paid within six months from the fee increase, the deficit can be made up within two months from an invitation by the EPO; EUR 1880 was the amount of the appeal fee until 01.04.2018 (OJ 2016 SE2; OJ 2018 A4 Art.3(5).

EPO T 2422/18 -  link

Sachverhalt und Anträge

I. Die Beschwerde der Einsprechenden richtet sich gegen die am 20. Juli 2018 zur Post gegebenen Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung, gemäß derer das Patent in geändertem Umfang den Erfordernissen des Übereinkommens genügt.

II. Die Beschwerdeschrift wurde am 27. September 2018 eingereicht. An demselben Tag entrichtete die Beschwerdeführerin eine Beschwerdegebühr in Höhe von 1880 EUR. Dies entsprach einer reduzierten Gebühr, die für natürliche Personen und Einheiten im Sinne der Regel 6 (4) und 6 (5) EPÜ i.V.m. Artikel 2 (1) Nr. 11 der Gebührenordnung (Amtsblatt EPA 2018, A4)) zutrifft. Derjenige, der eine solche Gebührenermäßigung in Anspruch nehmen möchte, muss erklären, dass er eine natürliche Person oder eine Einheit im Sinne von Regel 6 (4) EPÜ ist (Mitteilung des EPA vom 18. Dezember 2017 über die ermäßigte Beschwerdegebühr (Artikel 108 EPÜ) für eine Beschwerde, die von einer natürlichen Person oder einer in Regel 6 (4) EPÜ genannten Einheit eingelegt wird, Amtsblatt EPA 2018, A5) . Die Beschwerdeführerin hatte solch eine Erklärung (nachfolgend "die Erklärung") nicht eingereicht.

III. Am 13. Dezember 2019 wurde die Beschwerdeführerin von der Geschäftsstellenbeamtin der Beschwerdekammer über die reduzierte Beschwerdegebühr und das Fehlen der Erklärung informiert. In ihrem Schriftsatz vom 17. Dezember 2019 erklärte die Beschwerdeführerin, dass es sich bei der Einsprechenden nicht um eine Einheit im Sinne der Regel 6 (4) EPÜ handele und die Erklärung daher nicht nachgereicht werden könne. Bei der Entrichtung der reduzierten Gebühr habe es sich um ein Versehen gehandelt, und der Restbetrag von 375 ¤ werde per beiliegender Einzugsermächtigung eingezahlt. Die Beschwerdeführerin beantragte mit Verweis auf den Vertrauensschutz, dass die Beschwerde als zulässig erachtet werden solle. Ein Antrag auf Wiedereinsetzung könne nicht gestellt werden, da dies aufgrund des Ablaufs der einjährigen Ausschlussfrist gemäß Regel 136 (1) EPÜ ausgeschlossen sei.

T 2415/16 - Withdrawal appeal during oral proceedings

 Key points

• Both the opponent and the patentee appeals. In the course of the oral proceedings, the Board indicates that the patentee's appeal is not allowable. The patentee then withdraws its appeal. The Board revokes the patent (as requested by the opponent as appellant) and orders the 25% refund of the appeal fee for the patentee.

EPO T 2415/16 -   link

IX. Verfahrensabschließend beantragte die Einsprechende 
die Aufhebung der angefochtenen Entscheidung und den Widerruf des Streitpatents. 
Das Begehren der Patentinhaberin beschränkte sich nach der Rücknahme ihrer Beschwerde im Termin zur mündlichen Verhandlung auf die Zurückweisung der Beschwerde der Einsprechenden, hilfsweise, bei Aufhebung der angefochtenen Entscheidung, die Aufrechterhaltung des Patents in geänderter Fassung auf der Basis eines der Anspruchssätze, eingereicht mit ihrer Beschwerdebegründung als Hilfsantrag 1 und mit Schriftsatz vom 9. Juli 2020 als Hilfsanträge 2 und 3.

4. Die Beschwerde der Einsprechenden ist begründet, da das Streitpatent nach keinem der Anträge der Patentinhaberin aufrechterhalten werden kann.

5. Nach Rücknahme der Beschwerde durch die Patentinhaberin im Termin zur mündlichen Verhandlung vor Verkündung der Entscheidung ist nach Regel 103 (4) a) EPÜ die von der Patentinhaberin gezahlte Beschwerdegebühr in Höhe von 25 % zurückzuzahlen.

Entscheidungsformel

Aus diesen Gründen wird entschieden:

1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben.

2. Das Patent wird widerrufen.

3. Die von der Patentinhaberin gezahlte Beschwerdegebühr wird zu 25% zurückgezahlt.

T 0241/18 - Losing an attack in the Statement of grounds

 Key point

• The opponent - appellant submitted an inventive step attack in a letter filed shortly before the hearing before the Board. The attack had been advanced in the notice of opposition and was pursued at the oral proceedings before the OD. However, the attack was not invoked in the Statement of grounds, such that submitting it with said letter is a change of the opponent's appeal case under Art. 13 RPBA 2020.
• The attack is not admitted because "has not been shown, nor even been argued that there are any exceptional circumstances which would occasion or justify the new - in the appeal proceedings - attack on inventive step." 

EPO T 0241/18 - link

1.2 In the letter of 25 August 2020 the appellant attacked inventive step on the basis of a combination of D3 and D4. This attack had been advanced in the notice of opposition (page 7, last two paragraphs) and was pursued at the oral proceedings before the opposition division (minutes, paragraph 8.2; Reasons for the Decision, section 4, page 8 second-fifth paragraphs).

However this objection was not invoked in the statement of grounds of appeal. Indeed, D4 was not invoked in any manner in the submissions on inventive step.

Raising this objection therefore constitutes an amendment to the appellant's case, made after issue of the summons to the oral proceedings on 15 January 2020. This is after entry into force of RPBA 2020, meaning that pursuant to Article 25(1) and (3) RPBA 2020, Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 applies.

It has not been shown, nor even been argued that there are any exceptional circumstances which would occasion or justify the new - in the appeal proceedings - attack on inventive step.

Accordingly pursuant to Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 the amendment to the appellant's case represented by the new attack on inventive step is not taken into account.