T 2349/17 - Article 133(2) and party as of right

 Key points

• The opponent appeals. Opponent 2 (party to the proceedings as of right), did not make any submissions or filed any requests during the appeal proceedings.
• “[The] Board indicated to the parties that it had been informed by the former representatives of opponent 2 that they were no longer mandated in this matter and pointed to the stipulations of Article 133 (2) and (3) EPC regarding the representation of parties. No reaction from opponent 2 to that communication took place.” No one appeared for Opponent 2 at the oral proceedings.
• The Board finds claim 1 to be not inventive and revokes the patent.
• This case illustrates that there is no particular deficiency if a party as of right is no longer represented in the course of the appeal proceedings thereby no longer meeting the requirements of Article 133(2) EPC.
• Incidentally,  PCT application filed in 2002, Notice of opposition filed in 2009, this is the second appeal after remittal.

T 2349/17 -  

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t172349eu1.html

XI. With letter of 29 April 2021, the Board indicated to the parties that it had been informed by the former representatives of opponent 2 that they were no longer mandated in this matter and pointed to the stipulations of Article 133 (2) and (3) EPC regarding the representation of parties. No reaction from opponent 2 to that communication took place.

XII. Oral proceedings were held in Munich on 6 July 2021 in the presence of the appellant and the respondent. Although duly summoned, no one appeared for the party as of right. At the beginning of the oral proceedings the respondent withdrew its objection that the appeal be deemed not to have been filed.

T 1111/16 - OD did nothing for 8 years; remittal

 Key points

• This is an opposition case for a patent with filing date in 2000 (Euro-PCT application). Granted in 2005. The Board decides to remit the case (in April 2021). So after more than 15 years opposition, the proceedings will continue.
• Oppositions filed in 2006. Reply patentee in 2007. Next action: request for transfer/name change in 2014. Summons in 2015. OD revokes the patent: claims as granted not novel (for one of the independent claims), AR-1 lacks basis under Article 123(2). Patentee appeals. 
• The Boards finds the Auxiliary Request, filed with the appeal, to have basis in the application as filed, to be sufficiently disclosed and novel.
• Then, novelty of the other independent claims is to be examined, as well as inventive step.
• The Board decides to remit the case.
• “Die Kammer stellte zudem fest, dass die Diskussion der Neuheit in Hinblick auf die Ansprüche 16 und 24 einen völlig anderen Gegenstand und andere Dokumente betrifft als die obige Diskussion der Neuheit von Anspruch 1.”
• “Das Beschwerdeverfahren wurde daher unter Geltung der Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern 2007 begonnen und auf den in der angefochtenen Entscheidung diskutierten Gegenstand fokussiert. Dieses Vorgehen entspricht dem auf Überprüfung gerichteten Zweck des verwaltungsgerichtlichen Einspruchsbeschwerde-verfahrens, der von der neuen Verfahrensordnung noch weiter in den Vordergrund gestellt wird”
• “Auch wenn wie im vorliegenden Fall die Einsprüche gegen das Patent erst mehr als 8 Jahre nach Eingang der Einsprüche von der Einspruchsabteilung bearbeitet wurde und damit das Einspruchsverfahren unüblich lange dauerte, spricht dies nicht zwingend gegen die Zurückverweisung an die Einspruchsabteilung zur weiteren Entscheidung.”

T 1111/16 -

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t161111du1.html

11. Zurückverweisung an die Einspruchsabteilung

Gemäß Artikel 111(1) EPÜ kann die Beschwerdekammer entweder im Rahmen der Zuständigkeit des Organs tätig werden, das die angefochtene Entscheidung erlassen hat, oder die Angelegenheit zur weiteren Entscheidung an dieses Organ zurückverweisen.

In der Mitteilung nach Artikel 15(1) VOBK 2007 vom 9. Juli 2019 wies die Kammer verfahrensleitend darauf hin, dass die Beurteilung der Neuheit der unabhängigen Ansprüche 16 (Verfahren) und 24 (Vorrichtung) sowie der erfinderischen Tätigkeit nicht Gegenstand der angefochtenen Entscheidung und im Rahmen des Einspruchsverfahrens nicht abschließend erfolgt ist.

Die Kammer stellte zudem fest, dass die Diskussion der Neuheit in Hinblick auf die Ansprüche 16 und 24 einen völlig anderen Gegenstand und andere Dokumente betrifft als die obige Diskussion der Neuheit von Anspruch 1. Insbesondere sind andere Merkmale streitig, wie beispielsweise die Ausbildung eines longitudinalen Magnetfelds anstelle der in Hinblick auf den Schichtaufbau wichtigen Punkte der chemischen Zusammensetzung der Schichten und ihrer inhärenten Eigenschaften.

Da das Beschwerdeverfahren in erster Linie der Überprüfung der erstinstanzlichen Entscheidung dient, ist es gängige Praxis der Kammern, die Angelegenheit zurückzuverweisen, wenn wesentliche Fragen zur Patentierbarkeit des beanspruchten Gegenstands von der erstinstanzlichen Abteilung noch nicht geprüft und entschieden worden sind (Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern, a.a.O., Kapitel V.A.7.4).

Das Beschwerdeverfahren wurde daher unter Geltung der Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern 2007 begonnen und auf den in der angefochtenen Entscheidung diskutierten Gegenstand fokussiert. Dieses Vorgehen entspricht dem auf Überprüfung gerichteten Zweck des verwaltungsgerichtlichen Einspruchsbeschwerde-verfahrens, der von der neuen Verfahrensordnung noch weiter in den Vordergrund gestellt wird (vgl. Artikel 12(2) VOBK 2020).

Diese gängige Praxis wird durch die neue Verfahrensordnung nicht ausgeschlossen. Gemäß Artikel 11 VOBK 2020 sind zwar besondere Gründe für eine Zurückverweisung erforderlich. Diese Gründe sind gemäß dem Wortlaut des Artikels 11 VOBK 2020 aber nicht darauf beschränkt, dass ein Verfahrensfehler seitens der Einspruchsabteilung vorliegt. Insbesondere kann auch berücksichtigt werden, ob die Kammer alle relevanten Fragen mit angemessenem Aufwand entscheiden kann (vgl. Tabelle zu den Änderungen der VOBK mit Erläuterungen, Artikel 11, vom 3. Juli 2019), was vorliegend nicht der Fall ist.

Auch wenn wie im vorliegenden Fall die Einsprüche gegen das Patent erst mehr als 8 Jahre nach Eingang der Einsprüche von der Einspruchsabteilung bearbeitet wurde und damit das Einspruchsverfahren unüblich lange dauerte, spricht dies nicht zwingend gegen die Zurückverweisung an die Einspruchsabteilung zur weiteren Entscheidung.

Die Kammer vermag auch der Auffassung der Beschwerdegegnerin 1 nicht zu folgen, dass es sonst in der Hand der Beschwerdeführerin liege, das Verfahren beliebig zu verlängern. Dies ist weder unter der Geltung der alten noch der neuen Verfahrensordnung der Fall. Es handelt sich vielmehr um eine Ermessensentscheidung der Kammer unter Abwägung der hier diskutierten Argumente.

In Anbetracht der vorliegenden besonderen Gründe nach Artikel 11 VOBK 2020 ist eine Zurückverweisung der Angelegenheit an die Einspruchsabteilung in diesem Fall daher gerechtfertigt.

T 1836/18 - Inventive step of device claim

Key points

• Claim 1 is directed to a device (1) for on-site preparation and application of a bleach and/or disinfectant.
• The Board, regarding inventive step: “The board considers that the problem formulated by the patentee unduly relies on a specific use of a method for controlling the device. Apart from the fact that some of the required use and method features are not defined in claim 1, the problem solved by a device claim should not be based on method and/or use features but on features defining the device as such. The board can therefore not agree that the device of claim 1 solves the problem formulated by the patentee.”

T 1836/18 - 

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t181836eu1.html 

Decision text omitted.

G 1/19 - Inventive step of computer simulations

Key points

• In this decision 10.03.2021, the Enlarged Board confirmed that the Comvik-approach to the assessment of inventive step is also to be applied to claims directed to computer-implemented simulation methods.
• The Enlarged Board added that “for that assessment it is not a sufficient condition that the simulation is based, in whole or in part, on technical principles underlying the simulated system or process” (headnote 2). This headnote may be somewhat cryptic. 
• The case was remitted back* to the Technical Board of Appeal for a decision on inventive step of the claims at issue. The TBA has issued a preliminary opinion wherein the TBA concludes that the Enlarged Board's answer does not fully decide the case. Hence, the TBA still has to decide on inventive step. The TBA refers in particular to para. 128 of G 1/19 as giving guidance. 
• Therein the Enlarged Board said that in its view, “calculated numerical data reflecting the physical behaviour of a system modelled in a computer usually cannot establish the technical character of an invention in accordance with the COMVIK approach, even if the calculated behaviour adequately reflects the behaviour of a real system underlying the simulation. Only in exceptional cases may such calculated effects be considered implied technical effects (for example, if the potential use of such data is limited to technical purposes...)”
• * = strictly speaking, the appeal case is pending with the TBA during the time that the referral of questions is pending with the EBA, so the EBA's order does not include a remittal.
• I also highlight that the Enlarged Board in r.110 held that “Following the COMVIK approach, models underlying a simulation form constraints (technical or not) which are not technical for the purposes of the simulation itself. However, they may contribute to technicality if they are, for example, a reason for adapting the computer or the way in which the computer operates, or if they contribute to technical effects relating to the results of the simulation.”
  
  
• In AR-4, the simulation method is claimed as part of a design method. The TBA notes that the description makes clear that the step of revising the designed model in dependence upon the simulated movement of pedestrians through the modelled building structure, can be done by a human designer. Therefore, the design step feature is not technical and does not contribute to inventive step, in view of para. 143 and 144 of G 1/19, according to the preliminary opinion. For this it is also relevant that data representing a model of a building structure appears to have no implied technical use that can be the basis for an implied technical effect, referring to point 98 of G 1/19, because such data can be used for a variety of (technical and) non-technical purposes, for example in a video game. The claim also does not specify how the simulation results are used to modify the design model. 
  
  
• The whole decision G1/19 deserves careful reading and study.

 G 1/19  - G 0001/19

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g190001ex1.html

decision text omitted.

T 2218/16 - Gene therapy and result to be achieved

 Key points

• Claim 1 is a second medical use claim directed to basically an AAV vector comprising a therapeutic gene for use in a method for treating a motor neuron disorder in a subject. The AAV vector is further specified, as well as the mode of administration. The therapeutic gene is defined as “wherein the therapeutic gene is operably linked to a promoter specific or functional in motor neurons”. The claim further specifies a functional feature described below.
• Novelty over D2 is considered. “Document D2 discloses the same scAAV9 vector, therapeutic genes, motor neuron disorders to be treated ...  including the same mode of administration as referred to in claim 1 ... Document D2 further discloses ubiquitous promoters, like CMV ... which as shown in the patent, are functional in motor neurons too.”
• “It was contested between the parties whether or not document D2 discloses motor neurons transfected by the scAAV9 vector.”
• "The claim inter alia specifies that the administration of these vectors cause "infection of spinal cord motor neurons and expression of the gene in spinal cord motor neurons". Accordingly, the claimed use of the scAAV9 vectors is defined by a functional feature that indicates the desired result to be achieved, namely the transfection of spinal cord motor neurons as a necessary prerequisite to achieve a therapeutic effect. According to the case law, functional features are technical features of the claim (see Case Law, II.A.3.4., II.C.7.2.). As set out above, document D2 does not disclose the transfection of motor neurons. Thus, the "result-to-be-achieved" feature in claim 1 relates to a new technical effect."
• “ document D2 is silent on directly transfecting motor neurons, and relates to the transfection of other target cells that, after secretion of a therapeutic product, have an indirect effect on cells involved in the development of particular diseases, inter alia, SMA. The respondents did not dispute that a scAAV9-based therapy that did not directly transfect motor neurons was not suitable for treating SMA. In these circumstances document D2 provides a non-enabling disclosure for the treatment of SMA. Since for the reasons outlined above, the new mechanism of action creates a new clinical situation, the board concludes that the situation in the present case differs from that underlying the decisions T 433/14 and T 406/06.”
• The claims are found to be novel, inventive, and allowable.

T 2218/16 - 

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t162218eu1.html

Claim 1 of the main request reads:

"1. An AAV vector comprising a therapeutic gene for use in a method for treating a motor neuron disorder in a subject, wherein said AAV vector is administered by by intraperitoneal (i.p.), intramuscular (i.m.) or intravenous (i.v.) injection, preferably intravenous injection, to said subject, said administration causing infection of spinal cord motor neurons and expression of the gene in spinal cord motor neurons, wherein said AAV vector is:

- a double-stranded self-complementary AAV9 vector, or

- a pseudotyped AAV vector comprising a double-stranded self-complementary AAV genome derived from an AAV serotype different from the AAV9 serotype and a capsid derived from an AAV9 capsid; and

wherein the therapeutic gene is operably linked to a promoter specific or functional in motor neurons".

Reasons for the Decision

Novelty

40. In a first line of argument, the appellant submitted that the subject-matter of claim 1 lacked novelty over documents D1 and D2. Since, as the appellant further submitted, the disclosure of both documents is "very similar, if not identical", in the following reference will be made to relevant passages in document D2 only.

40.1 Document D2 discloses the same scAAV9 vector, therapeutic genes, motor neuron disorders to be treated (e.g. SMA, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or Kennedy's disease), including the same mode of administration as referred to in claim 1 (see for example page 1, first paragraph; page 6, lines 1 to 3, 17 to 19; page 12, lines 3 to 10 and 15 to 23). Document D2 further discloses ubiquitous promoters, like CMV (see page 9, lines 17, 27 and 28), which as shown in the patent, are functional in motor neurons too. The board is therefore not convinced by the respondents' argument, that document D2 discloses a promoter subset that is different from the "functional" promoters cited in claim 1.

T 0518/17 - Solubilising subtilisin

 Key points

• The method of claim 1 specifies (after claim construction) as step a) diluting a fermentation broth that comprises subtilisin crystals and/or subtilisin precipitate. The opponent submits that the patent provides no enabling disclosure of providing such a fermentation broth.
• The Board: “the provision of a fermentation broth comprising subtilisin crystals and/or subtilisin precipitate is a feature of the claim that has to be taken into consideration when assessing whether or not the claimed invention is sufficiently disclosed. The board considers it irrelevant in this context that the claim does not explicitly require the provision of such a fermentation broth, since such requirement is a necessary consequence of the express language of the claim and thus implied.”
• Accordingly, the patentee's argument “that it was enough for sufficiency of disclosure that the skilled person could determine whether or not crystals were present in the fermentation broth and that the claimed invention started at the point where the skilled person was faced with the recovery of subtilisin from a fermentation broth in which it was present in crystalline or precipitated form must fail.”
• “ The board concludes from the above that it is a verifiable fact that neither the patent nor the state of the art cited therein provide any guidance for the skilled person with respect to the technical measures to be applied in the fermentation process of subtilisin proteases to achieve such high yields that subtilisin crystallises spontaneously in the fermentation broth during fermentation.”
• “The board concurs with the appellant that it can be inferred from paragraph [0002] of the patent that the claimed method is to be applied in particular in circumstances in which the presence of subtilisin crystals in the fermentation broth is the result of a "dramatic" increase in the fermentation yield.”
• “Notably, the [patentee] had themselves submitted that the "dramatic" increases referred to in paragraph [0002] of the patent "had arisen as a result of years of optimisation and improvement in the production process and production microorganism". However, evidence that the skilled person was aware of the concrete measures of optimisation and improvement to be taken to reliably reach such high yields in fermentation resulting in subtilisin crystals had not been provided by the respondent.”
• As a comment, we are talking about fermentation, so quite likely the patentee, as well as the opponent, has a few closely guarded trade secrets. Quite possibly every industrial company in the field of fermentation production of the compound at issue is able to achieve highly concentrated fermentation broths, but the various secret tricks (and microorganisms) used by them are nowhere to be found in the prior art.

T 0518/17 - 

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t170518eu1.html

Main request (patent as granted) - claim 1

Claimed invention - claim construction

11. The claim is directed to a method of solubilising subtilisin crystals and/or subtilisin precipitate in a fermentation broth. The method comprises three explicit steps, denoted a), b) and c). In step a), the fermentation broth is diluted 100-2000% (w/w).

12. The fermentation broth is not characterised further in the claim. However, the parties concurred that, as a consequence of the purpose indicated in the claim ("solubilizing protease crystals and/or protease precipitate ... wherein the protease is a subtilisin") the skilled person will understand that the fermentation broth referred to in method step a) has to comprise subtilisin crystals and/or subtilisin precipitate. The board concurs with this claim construction. Accordingly, the claimed method comprises as step a) diluting a fermentation broth that comprises subtilisin crystals and/or subtilisin precipitate.

Sufficiency of disclosure (Article 100(b) EPC)

13. In the decision under appeal, the opposition division had held that "the formation of crystals and/or precipitates cannot be considered as a technical step of the method claimed, and thus the points raised by the O's [appellant] in respect of the alleged inability to obtain at least such crystals are of no relevance to sufficiency of disclosure, since these steps do not have to be carried out as part of the claimed invention."

T 0222/21 - Rule 71(6) and Rule 137(3)

Key points

• The applicant filed amended claims under Rule 71(6) EPC. The ED did not admit these requests under Rule 137(3) EPC.
• The Board: “It follows from points H-II, 2.4 and H-II, 2.5.1 read in conjunction, correctly in the Board's view, that what matters for the exercise of the discretion to admit or not to admit [amended claims under Rule 71(6) EPC], if the text was "extensively revised", is the content of the amendments and the consequential amount of time for examination that the amendments prima facie require. It is this amount of time that determines whether the amendments are extensive. The Board is of the view that, for instance, where a request is prima facie allowable, the amount of time needed will generally be quite limited so that the amendments will not appreciably delay the preparations for grant of the patent. Admittance of the request into the proceedings under Rule 137(3) EPC may then be justified. On the other hand, if an Examining Division comes to the conclusion that a request is not prima facie allowable but introduces new deficiencies, it is justified for the division to refuse the request under Rule 137(3) EPC (cf. T 1399/10, point 1.3, of this Board in a different composition).”
• The ED had not considered the factor of prima facie allowability. The impugned decision is set aside and the case is remitted to the ED to decide on the admissibility of the amended claims.

T 0222/21 - 

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t210222eu1.html

Reasons for the Decision

1. In the decision under appeal the Examining Division stated that it decided not to admit the Main Request dated 11 October 2018 under Rule 137(3) EPC. It exercised its discretion under Rule 137(3) as it did not consent to the amendments filed by the applicant in accordance with Rules 71(3) and 71(6) EPC.

2. The Board notes that, in response to a communication pursuant to Rules 70(2) and 70a(2) EPC dated 24 April 2014, with a letter dated 4 November 2014, the applicant filed amendments and requested further examination on the basis thereof. This was in line with Rule 137(2) EPC. Subsequently, in a response of 10 April 2018 to a telephone consultation with the examiner of 2 October 2017, the applicant requested further examination on the basis of another amended set of claims.