Regel 116 EPÜ: der maßgebliche Zeitpunkt vor der mündlichen Verhandlung

There is no established principle that submissions filed before the date set under Rule 116 EPC are generally admissible, just as there is no principle saying that a submission filed after that date is automatically inadmissible. It is rather established case law that the opposition division has a discretion (not) to admit amendments filed after the period specified in the communication under Rule 79(1) EPC (see the Case Law Book, 11th edition, IV-C 5.1.4.a) and b)). (See point 12 of the reasons)

As to the applicability of the criteria of "late-filed" and "lack of convergence" to admittance decisions in opposition proceedings, see points 1.1.3 to 1.1.6 of the Reasons.

Wird die Neuheit eines beanspruchten Gegenstands infolge eines von der Einsprechenden am letzten Tag der Frist gemäß Regel 116(1) EPÜ erhobenen Einwandes mangelnder Neuheit in Bezug auf ein in diesem Zusammenhang erstmals erwähntes Dokument vorweggenommen, so ist der Patentinhaberin spätestens in der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Einspruchsabteilung Gelegenheit zu geben, auf diesen neuen Einwand mit einem neuen, noch nicht im Verfahren diskutierten Anspruchssatz zu reagieren. In diesem Fall liegt die Zulassung eines neuen Anspruchssatzes nicht im Ermessen der Einspruchsabteilung. Siehe Entscheidungsgründe, Punkt 2.3.5.

1. The rationale of the Enlarged Board of Appeal's decisions G 2/88 and G 6/88 is limited to claims directed to (new) non-medical uses of a known compound for a particular purpose, rather than to processes for production within the meaning of Article 64(2) EPC. In order to be a limiting technical feature of the claim, the (new) purpose must relate to the use rather than to a property of the product (see Reasons 15). 2. Claims which when correctly construed are directed to processes resulting in products referred to in Article 64(2) EPC are not subject to the special treatment established under G 2/88 and G 6/88, even if they contain the word "use" (see Reasons 9). 3. Where an invention relates to a new technical effect of a physical entity that can only occur as part of a process for the production or manufacture of a product, such that it is inextricably linked to and cannot occur in isolation from the production process, a claim directed to the "use" of the physical entity to achieve that effect must be regarded as directed to the production process per se (see Reasons 23). 4. For the criteria to be used in deciding whether auxiliary requests were admissibly raised in opposition proceedings, in the sense of Article 12(4) RPBA, see Reasons 38 to 52.

Ein von der Einspruchsabteilung nicht zugelassenes Dokument kann in der Beschwerde durchaus zugelassen werden, wenn die Vorinstanz verkannt hat, dass der beanspruchten Erfindung nur eine Teilpriorität zukommt und das erstinstanzlich nicht zugelassene Dokument als Stand der Technik für die Frage der erfinderischen Tätigkeit der nicht prioritätsberechtigten Alternativen des unabhängigen Anspruchs relevant ist.

To judge whether a claim request was admissibly raised in opposition proceedings within the meaning of Article 12(4) RPBA 2020, a board has to decide whether the opposition division should have admitted the claim request, had a decision on admittance been required. If so, the claim request was admissibly raised (reasons, point 7). As a rule, claim requests filed in reply to the notice of opposition within the time limit set under Rule 79(1) EPC should have been admitted by the opposition division and were thus admissibly raised. Not admitting these claim requests and thus considering them not to have been admissibly raised must be limited to truly exceptional situations (reasons, points 7.1.2 and 7.1.3). Whether or not a claim request filed after the expiry of the time limit set under Rule 79(1) EPC and before the expiry of the time limit set under Rule 116(1) EPC is to be considered filed in due time depends on whether this request was submitted in direct and timely response to a change to the subject of the proceedings introduced by the opponent or the opposition division. Opposition divisions have the discretion to not admit any late-filed claim request and therefore the board has the discretion to consider a late-filed claim request not to have been admissibly raised (reasons, points 7.2.4 and 7.2.6). The criteria generally used by the boards of appeal when exercising their discretion to admit or not a party's submission in appeal under the Rules of Procedure 2020 may also be considered when deciding whether or not a late-filed claim request submitted after the expiry of the time limit set under Rule 79(1) EPC and before the expiry of the time limit set under Rule 116(1) EPC should have been admitted by the opposition division and was thus admissibly raised. However, when taking this decision, in view of the administrative character of opposition proceedings, these criteria should be used by the boards in a more lenient way than for a party's submission filed during appeal proceedings. In fact, to properly defend its patent, a patent proprietor must in principle be permitted to redefine its fallback positions in terms of auxiliary claim requests also at a late stage of opposition proceedings (reasons, points 7.2.7 and 7.2.10).

The principles expressed in Article 12(6) RPBA 2020 for the admittance of non-maintained or non-admitted requests may be considered in the exercise of discretion to admit amendments based on such requests under Article 12(4) RPBA 2020.

1.) Article 114(2) EPC provides a legal basis for disregarding claim requests which are not submitted in due time (Reasons 4.5.1-4.5.11). 2.) A claim request which is filed in opposition proceedings after the date set under Rule 116(1) EPC is not submitted in due time within the meaning of Article 114(2) EPC (Reasons 4.6.1-4.6.10). 3.) Rule 116(2) EPC does not limit the Opposition Division's discretionary power under Article 114(2) EPC and Rule 116(1) EPC. As a rule, this discretionary power does not depend on the contents of the Opposition Division's communication under Rule 116(1) EPC. However, if the Opposition Division invites the patent proprietor to file an amended claim request to address a specific objection and the patent proprietor complies with this invitation by filing the required amendments by the date set under Rule 116(1) EPC, the Opposition Division's discretion not to admit that claim request may effectively be reduced to zero (Reasons 4.7.1-4.7.8).