T 1588/15 - Late re-establishment request

Key point

• In this case regarding whether a request for re-establishment was filed in time, the notice of loss or rights due to failure to pay the renewal fee was forwarded by the professional representative to the applicant, about one month after receipt. The applicant had arranged for the renewal fees to be paid through a third party service provider. The request for re-establishment was filed precisely after two months from the forwarding by the professional representative, and more than two months after notification of the notice of loss of rights to the professional representative. 
• An issue is whether the professional representative could assume, in case of non-payment of the renewal fee by the application without further information to the professional representative, abandonment was intended by the applicant.
• The Board finds that: " Even when a representative is explicitly exempted from looking after a fee payment, at least he can be expected to be informed at all times about the intention whether or not the application is to be maintained, as a minimum. Only in this manner is a professional representative capable of acting in the best interests of its client, which is his professional duty."

T 1588/15 - link

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. The decision under appeal found that the request for re-establishment of rights was inadmissible as it failed to meet the formal requirements of Rule 136(1) EPC, and refused the request on this basis. As a consequence of the refusal of the request the application was deemed to be withdrawn (Article 86(1) EPC, last sentence). In deciding this appeal it is incumbent on the Board to review the contested decision's finding in this regard.

T 1090/15 - Not adapting the description

Key points

• The Board finds that the specification of the patent as maintained in amended form does not need to be amended in order to reflect the objective technical problem identified by the Board. There is no legal basis for a requirement that a patent specification needs to be adapted in such a way.
• The Board in particular reasons that if claim 1 is clear, there is no ground to consult the description in establishing the scope of protection under Article 69 EPC.  

EPO T 1090/15 - link

Entscheidungsgründe

4. Anpassung der Beschreibung des Hilfsantrags 1

4.1 Es ist unstreitig, dass zur Gewährung der Rechtssicherheit der Schutzbereich eines europäischen Patents klar bestimmt sein muss. Dabei wird der Schutzbereich gemäß Artikel 69 (1) EPÜ durch die Patentansprüche bestimmt.

4.2 Die Kammer merkt zuerst an, dass Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 1 der Kombination der Ansprüche 1, 13 und 15 des Patents in der erteilten Fassung entspricht. Ein Klarheitseinwand gegenüber Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 1 wurde seitens der Einsprechenden allenfalls mittelbar erhoben, kann aber jedenfalls nach Maßgabe der Entscheidung der Großen Beschwerdekammer G 3/14 (a.a.O.) nicht zulässigerweise geprüft werden. Bei einem klaren Anspruch 1 ist auch entsprechend der Schutzbereich des europäischen Patents in klarer Weise bestimmt (Artikel 69 (1), Satz 1 EPÜ). In einem solchen Fall eines in sich klaren Anspruches bedarf es zu dessen Auslegung nicht eines Rückgriffs auf die Beschreibung gemäß Artikel 69 (1), Satz 2 EPÜ.

4.3 Auf entsprechende Nachfrage vermochte es die Einsprechende nicht, eine Basis für die von ihr vertretene andere Rechtsauffassung zu benennen, welche die Anpassung der in der ursprünglichen Beschreibung angegebenen zu lösenden Aufgabe auf der Basis der während der Diskussion der erfinderischen Tätigkeit mittels des Problem-Lösungsansatzes herangezogenen neuen Aufgabe verlangte. Eine solche, die von der Einsprechenden begehrte Rechtsfolge begründende Basis ist auch nicht ersichtlich.

T 0988/14 - Not waiting for the Board

Key points

• In this case, the opponents requested to present their arguments for inventive step during the oral proceedings before the Board, after a finding would have been announced on novelty of the claim over D5, the document also to be used as closest prior art. The proprietor had already defended  novelty of the claim over D5 with its Statement of response.
• The Board does not admit the inventive step attack, as being late filed. The Board does not assess prima facie relevance of the new argument.
• The Board: " The request of submitting a line of attack on inventive step starting from D5 and combining it with D6, not only constitutes a substantial amendment to the Opponent's case, which accordingly is only admissible at the Board's discretion pursuant to Article 13(1) RPBA, but also constitutes an unjustified belated response to the Patentee's arguments on novelty in respect of D5. In particular, it is not justified to wait for the Board to come to a conclusion on novelty, [] for amending the Opponent's case." 

T 0988/14 - link

Reasons for the Decision

8.1 The Opponent then requested that a new line of attack on inventive step be discussed, based on the combination of documents D5 and D6.

The Board, after having heard the respective arguments of the parties, in particular after discussion of the patent proprietor's objection not to admit the new line of attack because filed late, decided to exercise its discretionary power according to Article 13(1) RPBA (Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal) not to admit the Opponent's new line of attack on inventive step against claim 1 of auxiliary request 5 based on D5 and D6.

8.2 It is firstly noted that auxiliary requests 4 and 5 were already submitted during opposition proceedings and D5 was already submitted with the notice of opposition. In opposition proceedings, however, the Opponent never relied on D5 to attack novelty of the claimed subject-matter, or as the starting point for an attack on inventive step. In fact, the objection of lack of novelty of claim 1 of auxiliary request 4 (this claim being, as stated above, identical to claim 1 of auxiliary request 5) over D5 was only submitted with the Opponent's statement of grounds of appeal. In its reply thereto, the Patentee submitted related arguments on novelty over D5. The Opponent, however, did not submit in response any arguments in writing, in case D5 would not be prejudicial to the novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1, but requested to submit its case on inventive step starting from D5, and combining it with D6, only during the oral proceedings, after the Chairman had ascertained that everything in respect of novelty and inventive step of claim 1 had been said and after the Board had come to a conclusion on novelty over D5. 

Under these circumstances, the request of submitting a line of attack on inventive step starting from D5 and combining it with D6, not only constitutes a substantial amendment to the Opponent's case, which accordingly is only admissible at the Board's discretion pursuant to Article 13(1) RPBA, but also constitutes an unjustified belated response to the Patentee's arguments on novelty in respect of D5. In particular, it is not justified to wait for the Board to come to a conclusion on novelty, based exclusively on the Patentee's arguments that were already presented in writing and thoroughly discussed, for amending the Opponent's case. This rather amounts in finding a belated way of tackling with the conclusion of the Board.

T 1018/12 - Added matter and inventive step

Key points

• In this brief decision in an examination appeal, the Board first finds that claim 1 involves added matter because of an added feature.
• The Board then examines inventive step of the claims without that feature, finding the claim to be obvious.
• As a comment, the legal basis for doing so is not immediately clear to me. 

EPO T 1018/12 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Article 123(2) EPC

The board agrees with the decision under appeal that the wording "...the channel quality indicator output of the correlator being independent of a rate at which a symbol is repeated in the sequence of received symbols", present in the independent claims, has no support, explicit or even implicit, in the application documents as originally filed.

3. Article 56 EPC

3.1 For the following assessment of inventive step, the added feature mentioned in section 2 has not been taken into consideration. Moreover, the term "indirectly" added in the independent claims for defining the type of channel quality measurement is vague and could equally be applied to the quality measurement disclosed in D1 and D2.

T 0567/14 - Obvious over priority document

Key points

• The patent is revoked as obvious over its own priority document, which was a German utility model P2. These are dangerous as priority document, because they are made public quickly (by file inspection), well before the 18 months period generally used for publications of patent applications.
• Claim 1 lacked priority from P2, but was still obvious over P2.
• See decision R 1482/2009-3 of the (then) OHIM BoA bout registered Community design No 150917-0004 claiming priority from the same documents.

EPO T 0567/14 - link

Entscheidungsgründe

Hauptantrag (Ansprüche wie erteilt)

1. Priorität

Das streitige Patent hatte die Priorität der P1 vom 20. Januar 2003 und der P2 [DE 203 07 608 U1] vom 15. Mai 2003 in Anspruch genommen. Die Einspruchsabteilung hat aber entschieden, dass weder P1 noch P2 als prioritätsbegründende Dokumente herangezogen werden konnten, wodurch der Anmeldetag der 2. Oktober 2003 ist (siehe Punkt 3.2 der Entscheidungsgründe). Die Beschwerdegegnerin hat diese Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung nicht angegriffen.

2. Dokument P2

P2 ist eine deutsche Gebrauchsmusterschrift mit Eintragungstag in das Gebrauchsmusterregister vom 28. August 2003. Nach §8(5) des deutschen Gebrauchmustergesetzes betreffend die Registereinsicht steht das registrierte Gebrauchsmuster ab diesem Datum zur freien Einsichtsnahme zur Verfügung und ist daher öffentlich zugänglich (siehe auch Richtlinien G-IV,1).

Da das Streitpatent den 2. Oktober 2003 als Anmeldetag hat, ist die am 28. August 2003 öffentlich zugänglich gemachte P2 Stand der Technik gemäß Artikel 54(2) EPÜ.

3. Neuheit

Die Einspruchsabteilung hat sich mit der Frage der Neuheit nicht befasst und das Patent wegen mangelnder erfinderischer Tätigkeit widerrufen. Auch die Kammer hat die Diskussion der Neuheit in der mündlichen Verhandlung zurückgestellt. Da letztendlich der Widerruf des Patents wegen mangelnder erfinderischer Tätigkeit bestätigt wurde, hat sich die Neuheitsfrage erübrigt.

4. Erfinderische Tätigkeit

4.1 Nächstliegender Stand der Technik

4.1.1 Alle Parteien haben P2 als nächstliegenden Stand der Technik betrachtet.

4.3.4 Damit ist der Gegenstand von Anspruchs 1 des Hauptantrags durch P2 allein oder durch P2 in Kombination mit D4 nahegelegt.

T 0579/16 - Request correction and undue delay

Key points

• In this case, an opposition was rejected as inadmissible because in the Form 2300, the opponent was identified as BYK Chemie, whereas in the annexed statement, the opponent was identified as BASF Coatings. 
• The Board finds that this inconsistency is a deficiency of the notice of opposition, which could render the opposition inadmissible under Rule 76(2)(a) EPC. However, the request for correction under Rule 139 EPC of the mention of BASF as opponent is admissible.
• The request was supported by emails from BYK showing the instructions to file an opposition against the patent. However, these emails were only filed during the oral proceedings before the OD. The OD did not admit them, the Board admits the emails which were submitted again with the Statement of grounds. 
• The Board then reviews whether the request for correction was filed "without undue delay", as required by G 1/12. The present Board understands this as subjectively undue delay, taking into account the knowledge of the party requesting the correction. The Board decides that the request was timely filed, namely within two months from a communication from the OD raising the issue of the identity of the opponent and the admissibility of the opposition under Rule 77(2) EPC.

EPO T 0579/16 - link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Die Beschwerde ist zulässig. Einwände gegen die Zulässigkeit der im Namen der BYK-Chemie GmbH eingelegten Beschwerde wurden nicht erhoben.

Feststellung der Identität des Einsprechenden nach Artikel 99(1) in Verbindung mit Regel 76(2)(a) EPÜ

2. Die Einspruchsabteilung hat in der angefochtenen Entscheidung den Einspruch nach Artikel 99(1), Regel 77(1) EPÜ verworfen, weil die Identität der Einsprechenden aus den bis zum Ablauf der Einspruchsfrist vorgelegten Dokumenten nicht eindeutig feststellbar sei. Die Beschwerdeführerin hat in ihrer Beschwerdebegründung ihre zu dem hier relevanten Punkt bereits im Verfahren vor der Einspruchsabteilung angeführten Argumente lediglich wiederholt, jedoch insoweit keine neuen Gründe für die Zulässigkeit des Einspruchs vorgebracht.

T 1693/13 - UPS Tracking information again

Key points

• The appellant relied on the 10 days period for the Notice of appeal. However, the written decision was sent by the EPO using UPS. 
• [clarified and corrected:] The Board notes that this raises the question whether UPS delivery is with "registered letter with advice of delivery". The Enlarged Board in G 1/14 had held essentially that this is not the case. If it was not, the written decision was not notified according to Rule 126(1), in the then applicable version, and therefore the 10 day rule would not not apply. Hence, the notification would then be on the actual date of receipt, which was earlier and on the basis of Rule 126, the appeal would be filed late.
• The Board observes that the EPO had started using UPS before Rule 126 EPC was changed to accommodate expressly for using UPS rather than the post, and invokes the principle of legitimate expectations to deem the appeal to be timely filed. 

EPO T 1693/13 - link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde

Die Zwischenentscheidung wurde am 27. Mai 2013 an den UPS-Dienst übergeben. Der Empfang der Zwischenentscheidung wurde per "UPS Tracking Information" und Empfangsbescheinigung (EPA-Form 2933) jeweils am 28. Mai 2013 bestätigt. Die Beschwerde wurde am 1. August 2013 eingelegt.

Die Beschwerdegegnerin hat argumentiert, dass die Beschwerde nicht bis spätestens dem 29. Juli 2013 (Montag), d.h. nicht innerhalb der Zweimonatsfrist gemäß Artikel 108 EPÜ eingelegt worden war und damit als unzulässig zu verwerfen sei. Die Beschwerdeführerin hat diesem Argument unter Hinweis auf Regel 126(1) und (2) EPÜ widersprochen.