T 1088/11 Enlarging and reducing the opposition division
Last January we discussed T 1254/11 dealing with
enlarging/reducing the opposition division. This also plays in this case where
the board takes the effort to thoroughly discuss whether (enlarging and later)
reducing of an opposition division is possible at all and the procedural
aspects for a valid reduction.
The board concludes that in principle, an opposition
division may set aside a decision to enlarge its composition pursuant to
Article 19(2) EPC (as is the current practice).
On the procedural aspects, the
Board decides that the legal validity of an enlargement or a reduction of an
opposition division may only be established on the basis of the evidence in the
publicly available file. In particular, where an opposition division has been
enlarged pursuant to Article 19(2) EPC, but the case is nevertheless decided in
a composition of three members, there should be clear evidence on the public
file that a decision to set aside the enlargement was taken by the opposition
division in its four member composition prior to the final decision.
This was
not the case, thus the board remits the case to the opposition division for
further prosecution.
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. This is an appeal by the opponent against the decision of
the opposition division rejecting the opposition against European patent EP 1
174 921.
II. In the letter dated 16 September 2015 the
appellant-opponent (hereinafter, the opponent) requested that:
- the impugned decision be set aside and the case be
remitted for a fresh decision to an opposition division in a composition of
three new members;
- the appeal fee be reimbursed.
The board interprets these requests as replacing the request
in the notice of appeal that the decision of the opposition division be set
aside and the patent revoked.
The respondent-proprietor (hereinafter, the proprietor)
requests that the appeal be dismissed so that the patent is maintained in
unamended form.
III. In the notice of opposition the patent was opposed in
its entirety on the grounds that its subject-matter was not new and did not
involve an inventive step. In the letter of 7 March 2011 an unallowable
extension of subject-matter contrary to Article 123(2) EPC was also alleged.
In the procedure before the opposition division, a summons
to attend oral proceedings pursuant to Rule 115(1) EPC was sent, bearing the
electronic signatures of the chairman, the 1st and 2nd examiners and a legally
qualified member, and the seal of the EPO pursuant to Rule 113(2) EPC (Rule
70(2) EPC 1973). Three annexes were mentioned in the summons, including a
"Communication (EPO Form 2906)". Under point 2 of this communication
it was stated: "The opposition division, which has been enlarged by a
legally qualified examiner (Art. 19(2) EPC), gives the following preliminary
opinion".
Both parties confirmed in writing that they would not be
represented at the oral proceedings, and in a communication bearing the phrase
"For the Opposition Division", but not referring to any individual
members, the parties were informed that the oral proceedings were cancelled and
that the procedure would be continued in writing.
A decision rejecting the opposition was issued, bearing the
seal of the EPO and the electronic signatures of the same chairman, 1st
examiner and 2nd examiner mentioned in the summons, but not that of the legally
qualified examiner. In the enclosed reasons, the opposition division stated the
following:
- "The opposition division has been enlarged by a
legally qualified examiner (Art. 19(2) EPC) in view of an offer to hear
witnesses. Since the hearing of the witnesses will not take place, the
enlargement of the division is no longer necessary and the decision for the
enlargement is set aside." (Reasons, point 3.2.)
IV. During the appeal, the board sent a summons to oral
proceedings accompanied by a communication under Article 15(1) RPBA setting out
its preliminary and non-binding opinion focusing mainly on the question of
admittance into the proceedings of a ground of opposition (Article 100(c) EPC)
and several documents (D9-D12) which the opponent had attempted to introduce
into the proceedings after the expiry of the 9 month period mentioned in
Article 99(1) EPC.
Both parties confirmed in writing that they would not be
represented at the oral proceedings before the board; the oral proceedings were
cancelled.
In a communication pursuant to Rule 100(2) EPC the board
informed the parties that in preparing the oral proceedings it had come to the
preliminary opinion that it was doubtful whether the opposition division had
taken the decision under appeal in the correct composition, and gave reasons
for this provisional conclusion. The parties were invited to comment on this
matter, if they so wished, particularly in relation to the enlargement and
reduction of the opposition division.
In a response dated 16 September 2015 the opponent argued
that the impugned decision had indeed been taken by the opposition division in
a wrong composition, and made the requests set out under point II, above. The
proprietor did not respond.
V. Claim 1 of the main request (granted patent) reads as
follows: […]
VI. The arguments of the opponent, insofar as they are
relevant to the present decision, may be summarised as follows:
The decision was taken in a wrong composition of the
opposition division which represented a grave procedural error, so that the
impugned decision was not lawful. Moreover, an appeal procedure required that
the contested decision be taken by an opposition division which was correctly
composed according to the EPC. As this was not the case, and as no special
reasons in the sense of Article 11 RPBA were apparent, a remittal could not be
dispensed with on grounds of procedural economy (T 990/06, Reasons, points 2.1,
2.2, 2.5, 3.2 and 4).
In the contested decision the opposition division was
particularly and verifiably wrong to conclude that the ground of opposition
according to Article 100(c) EPC and the documents D9-D12 were only introduced
after the time limit of Rule 116(1) EPC. As the opposition division was
demonstrably in error in this respect, in judging the question of admissibility
of the ground of opposition according to Article 100(c) EPC and the documents
D9-D12, it exercised its discretion on the wrong basis.
Following a remission for a fresh decision, the opposition
division would have to exercise its discretion anew. If the opposition division
were composed of members who had already taken part in the impugned decision,
there would be a corresponding danger that these members would be guided by
their previous decision, since they would be unable to erase from their
memories the result of their own earlier decision, which objectively was taken
on a wrong basis (T 433/93, and Case Law of the boards of Appeal, 7th Edition,
III.J.8.4). It was irrelevant whether the members concerned had been partial in
the previous procedure. What was decisive was whether a party could have a
well-founded apprehension that he would not receive fair treatment if the
remitted case were dealt with by the opposition division in the same
composition.
These considerations applied all the more in the present
case, since a decision involving discretion may normally no longer be reviewed
in a subsequent appeal procedure. Consequently the opponent had a legitimate
interest in a different composition for the opposition division.
An opposition division in a wrong composition represented a
grave procedural error. Hence, a full refund of the appeal fee according to
Rule 103(1)(a) EPC was appropriate.
VII. The proprietor did not respond to the invitation of the
board to comment on the whether the impugned decision was taken by the
opposition division in the correct composition. The arguments of the proprietor
which are relevant to the present decision, may be summarised as follows:
The decision of the opposition division was correct and
complete, as was the reasoning. In particular, the opposition division was
correct to conclude that the allegations of prior use made by the opponent were
insufficiently substantiated, and to decide not to conduct a hearing of
witnesses. It was also correct to conclude that independent claim 1 had novelty
and inventive step over the content of the documents filed with the notice of
opposition.
Furthermore the opposition division was correct to exercise
its discretion to refuse to admit the new ground of opposition (Article 100(c))
and the proprietor did not consent to the introduction of this ground into the
appeal proceedings.
The opposition division was also correct to exercise its
discretion to refuse to admit the new documents sent to the EPO with the letter
of 7 March 2011 as being "late-filed" and not relevant. These
documents were "late-filed" in the opposition regardless of whether
they were filed within a time limit set under Rule 116 or not. There was no
explanation from the opponent why the sending of these documents was delayed
until such a late stage of the proceedings.
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appeal is admissible.
2. The procedural issues
A decision taken in a wrong composition of the opposition
division is not legally valid (T 390/86, Reasons, points 7 and 8), and
according to Article 11 RPBA, a board shall remit a case to the department of
first instance if fundamental deficiencies are apparent in the first instance
proceedings, unless special reasons present themselves for doing otherwise. It
therefore falls to the board to determine whether the composition of the
opposition division indicated in the contested decision was correct at the time
the decision was taken.
3. The enlargement of the opposition division
3.1 According to Article 19(2) EPC, "An opposition
division shall consist of three technically qualified examiners". However,
"If the opposition division considers that the nature of the decision so
requires, it shall be enlarged by the addition of a legally qualified
examiner". Logically it is clear that the decision to enlarge must be
taken before enlargement, and hence, according to Article 19(2) EPC, the
decision to enlarge is to be taken by the opposition division in a composition
of three technically qualified examiners.
3.2 In the present case, therefore, it may be regarded as
procedurally odd that the parties were informed that the opposition division
had been enlarged (a decision to be taken in a three person composition) in an
annex to the summons to oral proceedings, the summons itself bearing the
electronic signatures of a four person opposition division, including a legally
qualified member (see point III, above).
3.3 The relevant question, however, is not whether there
might have been a clearer or more logical way of proceeding, but whether the
procedure actually followed was sufficient to meet the requirements of Article
19(2) EPC.
In the opinion of the board, the communication can only be
reasonably read as meaning that the opposition division in its initial
composition of three technically qualified members decided to enlarge the
division, that the opposition division was duly enlarged by the addition of a
legally qualified member and that the provisional views on substantive matters
were those of the enlarged division. The board can therefore accept that the
opposition division was validly enlarged to a four member composition.
4. The reduction of the opposition division
4.1 Despite the opposition division having been enlarged,
the impugned decision rejecting the opposition did not bear the electronic
signature of the legally qualified examiner, but only those of the chairman,
1st examiner and 2nd examiner mentioned in the summons. In the enclosed reasons,
the opposition division stated that:
- "the enlargement of the division is no longer
necessary and the decision for the enlargement is set aside." (see point
III, above).
4.2 The impugned decision, electronically signed by three
examiners, can only be considered to have been taken in the correct composition
if the decision to set aside the enlargement of the opposition division was
valid and had legal effect.
4.3 Determining whether this was the case raises a number of
questions.
- In particular, is it in principle possible to set aside a decision to enlarge the opposition division?
- If so, was it possible under the circumstances of this particular case?
- If the answer to both of these questions is yes, did the procedure followed by the opposition division have the legal effect of setting aside the decision to enlarge the opposition division?
5. Is it possible in principle to set aside a decision to
enlarge the opposition division?
5.1 The patent in suit was granted before the entry into
force of EPC 2000, and hence the provisions of Article 19(2) EPC 1973 apply.
Article 19(2) EPC 1973 (which differs only in minor editorial details from
Article 19(2) EPC 2000) reads as follows:
"An opposition division shall consist of three
technical examiners, at least two of whom shall not have taken part in the
proceedings for grant of the patent to which the opposition relates. An
examiner who has taken part in the proceedings for the grant of the European
patent shall not be the Chairman. Prior to the taking of a final decision on
the opposition, the opposition division may entrust the examination of the
opposition to one of its members. Oral proceedings shall be before the
opposition division itself. If the opposition division considers that the
nature of the decision so requires, it shall be enlarged by the addition of a
legally qualified examiner who shall not have taken part in the proceedings for
grant of the patent. In the event of parity of votes, the vote of the Chairman
of the Division shall be decisive."
Article 19(2) EPC does not therefore contain any explicit
indication whether a subsequent reduction of an enlarged division is permitted
or not permitted; it is simply silent on the matter. In the following, the
board sets out some of the views expressed on this matter which have been found
in various sources.
5.2 Case law of the boards
5.2.1 To the board's knowledge, the earliest decision which
is directly relevant to the present question is T 990/06. In this decision the
possibility of reduction from four to three members was accepted, and the board
went into considerable detail on the procedure to be followed (see point 14,
below). However, the board did not explain why it concluded that such a
reduction was possible - this seems to have been simply an assumption (see
Reasons, points 2.1 and 2.4).
5.2.2 The case was remitted to the opposition division and
was subject to a second appeal (T 2106/09) dealt with by the same board in a
different composition. The question whether the setting aside of the decision
to enlarge was done in a procedurally acceptable manner was again discussed
(see point 15, below), but the possibility of reduction from four to three
members was, again, accepted without question.
5.2.3 As far as the board is aware, the only other case
dealing with reduction of the composition of an opposition division is T
1254/11, and this also appears to be the only case addressing the question
(raised by the appellant-proprietor in that case) whether such a reduction is
possible at all.
The deciding board in T 1254/11 concluded that an opposition
division enlarged to four members can be reduced again to three members
(Reasons, Point 1.4), the reasons being summarised as follows:
Reference was made to decisions T-251/00 of 20 November 2002
and T-488/09 of 12 May 2011 handed down by the General Court of the European
Union (formerly referred to as Court of First Instance). The board cited the
following passage from point 130 of T-251/00, which was confirmed under point
106 of T-488/09:
- "in accordance with a general principle of law that,
in principle, a body which has power to adopt a particular legal measure also
has power to abrogate or amend it by adopting an actus contrarius, unless such
power is expressly conferred upon another body."
The board held that this principle also applied in European
patent law, and hence derived that an opposition division enlarged to four
members pursuant to Article 19(2) EPC 1973 can be reduced again to three
members.
In addition, the board considered that the cited principle
is also a principle of procedural law generally recognised in the Contracting
States to the EPC pursuant to Article 125 EPC 1973.
The possibility of a reduction was also justified on grounds
of procedural efficiency.
Finally, in deciding whether to reduce an opposition
division, the opposition division must use its discretion properly: there may
be circumstances where such a reduction would be inappropriate (See reasons,
point 1.4, last three paragraphs).
5.3 Commentaries on the EPC
5.3.1 References to the question under discussion (often in
relation to an analogous reduction of an examining division, following
enlargement under Article 18(2) EPC) occur in several well-known commentaries
on the EPC.
5.3.2 In Singer: European Patent Convention, revised English
Edition by Raph Lunzer, London 1995, point 18.09, the following view was taken:
- "If the Examining Division avails itself of the
option provided in Article 18(2) of including a legally qualified examiner, he
then remains part of that Division for the rest of the procedure, until there
is a decision to grant or refuse."
A decision to enlarge was therefore seen as irrevocable.
5.3.3 In earlier editions of the corresponding German
publication, a similar view was taken, albeit more tentatively:
"Die in Abs 2 Satz 4 vorgesehene Ergänzung der
Prüfungsabteilung durch einen rechtskundigen Prüfer dürfte, wenn sie einmal
vorgenommen ist, für das ganze Prüfungsverfahren gelten." (Singer/Stauder,
"Europäisches Patentübereinkommen", 2nd edition, Köln: Heymanns,
2000, Art. 18, note 27.)
The board translates this as follows:
The enlargement of the examining division by a legally
qualified member provided for in paragraph 2, sentence 4, once carried out
would seem to apply for the entire examination procedure.
5.3.4 However, in the current version of this work
(Singer/Stauder, Europäisches Patentübereinkommen, 7. Auflage 2016, Carl Heymanns
Verlag) under point 17 relating to Article 18(2) EPC, the view is taken that if
the reason for enlargement no longer applies, then:
- it appears for reasons of procedural economy
["Verfahrensökonomie"] not appropriate to retain the legally
qualified member. It is not objectionable if the relationship of the legally
qualified member is rescinded by a decision of the Division. (Translation by
the board.)
There is also a reference to a footnote which (again
translated by the board) reads "c.f. T 990/06 from 8 June 2009, Reasons
No. 2.1".
5.3.5 Hence, in the cited commentaries, prior to the
issuance of T 990/06, enlargement of the division was seen as permanent and not
capable of being set aside. Subsequently, under the influence of T 990/06, the
contrary position was taken.
5.4 Guidelines
Although not binding on the boards, the board has
nevertheless looked into the Guidelines to see what, if anything, is said there
of relevance to the question. In the current (November 2015) version of the
Guidelines for Examination the principal references to enlargement of a
division appear to be C-VIII, 7 and D-II, 2.2, with mention also being made in
C-VIII, 4; E-II, 5; E-III, 1.3 and E-III, 1.6.1. Although advice is given on
when to enlarge a division and other general issues in relation to enlargement,
the question of a possible reduction of a division back to a three person
composition is nowhere mentioned.
6. The view of the board
6.1 As noted above, Article 19(2) EPC is absolutely silent
on whether, following a decision to enlarge an opposition division to a four
member composition, the division may subsequently be reduced to a three member
composition.
The silence of Article 19(2) EPC on this matter does not, by
itself, allow any definitive conclusion to be drawn either way.
On the one hand, the absence of any explicit prohibition is
not sufficient to conclude that a reduction back to three members is permitted.
While the principle that "everything which is not forbidden is
allowed" may have application in certain legal systems in relation to the
freedom of the individual before the law, the board is not aware of it having
any application to public authorities such as the EPO, the actions of which
should generally be grounded on a legal basis, not on the mere absence of a
contrary provision.
On the other hand, the absence of any explicit provision for
a reversal of enlargement does not necessarily mean that it is prohibited.
Certain generally accepted procedural practices exist despite the lack of any
explicit basis in the EPC, for example telephone calls or interviews between
members of an examining division and the applicant, or the cancellation of oral
proceedings when it is no longer expedient to hold them.
6.2 Moreover, the board does not believe that procedural
economy or efficiency can be the sole, or even the main, consideration. It
cannot be the case that any conceivable procedural act should be available to
an opposition division merely because it simplifies or expedites the case,
despite having no legal basis.
A similar conclusion was reached in J 2/08. While accepting
that the principle of economy of procedure could be taken into account when
interpreting procedural provisions, the deciding board went on to state the
following:
"Even if a point of law which is qualified as being of
fundamental importance should concern procedural issues only, economy of
procedure could probably not be chosen as the decisive factor when deciding on
the point."
(J 2/08, Reasons, point 50.)
6.3 In contrast to proceedings before the boards of appeal,
"the opposition procedure is a purely administrative procedure" (G
8/91, Reasons, point 7), and the board can accept that the opposition division
should have a certain degree of procedural flexibility proper to an
administrative body. In deciding whether reversing a decision to enlarge an
opposition division goes beyond the proper limits of such flexibility, the
board considers it pertinent to ask whether any reasonable objection could be
raised against such a procedural act. In particular, the board will consider
whether a reduction in the composition of the opposition division could be
reasonably objected to on the grounds that:
a) it is implicitly prohibited by the EPC;
b) it is incompatible with the jurisprudence of the boards
of appeal;
c) it is incompatible with generally acknowledged legal
principles such as the principle of equal treatment or the principle of good
faith, or with other accepted sources of interpretation of the EPC such as
those mentioned under point 5 of the Reasons of G 5/83; or
d) it adversely affects a party to the proceedings.
7. Is a reduction of the opposition division implicitly
prohibited by the EPC?
7.1 Certain procedural acts, even if not mentioned in the
EPC, might nevertheless be judged to be implicitly prohibited, in particular
where the act would be clearly incompatible with provisions of the EPC.
7.2 However, the board cannot identify any provision of the
EPC which would rule out setting aside a decision to enlarge an opposition
division pursuant to Article 19(2) EPC, or any other reason to suppose that it
is implicit in the EPC that such a measure is not permitted.
8. Is a reduction of the opposition division compatible with
the jurisprudence of the boards?
8.1 In T 990/06, T 2106/09 and T 1254/11 the possibility, in
principle, of reducing the opposition division from four to three examiners was
either tacitly accepted or explicitly endorsed, which obviously speaks in
favour of the practice.
8.2 On the other hand, the jurisprudence of the boards may place
limitations on, for example, the point in the procedure at which such a
reduction can take place.
In particular, the names of the members appearing on a
written decision of an opposition division should correspond to those examiners
who actually personally took the decision (see e.g. T 390/86, points 7 and 8),
and hence if a legally qualified examiner was involved in taking the decision
on substantive matters (for example, at oral proceedings), the decision to
enlarge clearly cannot be set aside subsequently.
8.3 This is not an issue in the present case, as it appears
from the file that the legally qualified member was involved only in preparing
the annex to the summons to oral proceedings, in which it was clearly stated
that provisional opinions only were being offered (see points 2, 2.2.4 etc.),
and not in drawing up the final decision.
9. Is a reduction of the opposition division compatible with
generally acknowledged legal principles?
9.1 It is not necessary for the board to decide whether
there could ever be circumstances in which a decision to set aside enlargement
could be held to be incompatible with the principle of equal treatment of the
parties (impartiality), the principle of good faith (protection of legitimate
expectations) and similar generally accepted principles. It is sufficient to
note that no such incompatibility can be seen in the present case.
9.2 The same is true in relation to other sources of
interpretation generally used in the interpretation of the EPC, such as the
travaux préparatoires (see G 5/83, Reasons, point 5).
10. Did reducing the opposition division adversely affect a
party to the proceedings?
10.1 It would not be tolerable for a party to the
proceedings to be adversely affected by a procedural act of the opposition
division for which there is no basis in the EPC. For example, it would not be
acceptable if an additional administrative or financial burden were to be
imposed on a party by an act of the opposition division lacking a legal basis.
10.2 Again, it is unnecessary for the board to decide the
general case of whether a party could ever be adversely affected by a reduction
of the opposition division. It is sufficient to note that in the present case,
the setting aside of the decision to enlarge the opposition division did not
impose any additional burden on the parties, nor can it be seen that it
resulted in any infringement of the parties rights or had any other negative
consequences for the parties.
It is true that the decision of the opposition division to
reject the opposition adversely affected the opponent, but there is no causal
link between this and the decision to reduce the composition of the opposition
division.
11. Conclusion
11.1 No reasonable objection could be raised against the
reduction of the opposition division based on the above considerations, nor on
any other considerations which are apparent to the Board. Where no reasonable
objection arises, it would be appear to be a somewhat perverse interpretation
of the EPC to insist nevertheless on a senseless prohibition.
For example, it is common practice, as noted above, for duly
appointed oral proceedings which are no longer necessary to be cancelled, even
though no basis exists for such a procedure in the EPC. Procedural economy may
be the motivation, but it does not provide the justification, since many
procedural acts could be envisaged which would shorten the procedure, but which
would nevertheless be unacceptable. In the judgement of the board, the
justification is that no reasonable objection could possibly be raised against
cancelling oral proceedings that neither the EPO nor the parties considered
necessary or desirable.
Similarly, other than in exceptional cases alluded to above,
a reduction of the opposition division is justified by the fact that no
reasonable objection can be raised against it.
11.2 The Board therefore answers the first two questions
posed under point 4.3, above, as follows: In principle, an opposition division
may set aside a decision to enlarge its composition pursuant to Article 19(2)
EPC. While there may be particular cases where such a procedure would be
inappropriate, no exceptional considerations are apparent in the present case
which would limit the discretion of the opposition division in this regard.
11.3 The opposition division was therefore lawfully entitled
to reduce the enlarged opposition division from four members back to three. The
Board now turns to the questions of procedure.
12. Competence to set aside enlargement
12.1 According to Article 19(2) EPC it is the opposition
division which decides on enlargement, and by analogy the board has no doubt
that it must be the opposition division which decides on any subsequent
reduction. Furthermore the term "opposition division" can only mean
the opposition division in its correct composition at the time of taking the
decision. Hence a decision on enlargement must be taken by the opposition
division in a three person composition, and a decision on reduction must be
taken by the opposition division in a four person composition.
12.2 The same conclusion was reached in T 990/06 (Reasons,
point 2.4), and explicitly confirmed in T 1254/11 (Reasons, point 1.4, page 16,
second paragraph). In T 2106/09 it appears to have been tacitly assumed.
13. T 990/06: Formal requirements for a valid reduction
13.1 Among the three decisions mentioned above, the
strictest view on the formal requirements was taken in T 990/06.
13.2 The board found that where an opposition division was
enlarged by a legally qualified member, the file would have to include a
respective decision signed by the three members of the opposition division, and
where the enlargement had subsequently been set aside, then the file would also
need to include a respective decision, signed by all four members (Reasons,
point 2.4).
14. T 2106/09: Formal requirements for a valid reduction
14.1 Following remittal in T 990/06, the opposition division
issued a second interlocutory decision dated 18 August 2009, which was subject
to a second appeal (T 2106/09) dealt with by the same board in a different
composition.
14.2 The interlocutory decision which was sent to the
parties was signed by the three technical members only, while the version
available in online file inspection carried the name of a fourth member.
Under point 8.1 of second interlocutory decision, the
opposition division stated the following:
"It is to be noted that with an internal decision of 3
May 2005 the opposition division was enlarged, and with an internal decision of
15 November 2005 the enlargement of the opposition division by a legally
qualified member was rescinded" (translation by the board).
It was further declared that that since 15 November 2005 the
opposition division had been composed of three members.
14.3 The board judged that the appearance of four members on
the version available in online file inspection was an obvious error, but it
was not justified to regard it as a grave procedural error.
The procedure used to reduce the composition of the
opposition division appears to fall short of the requirement of T 990/06 that a
decision to set aside enlargement signed by all four members should be in the
public file, but it was nevertheless apparently accepted by the board.
15. T 1254/11: Formal requirements for a valid reduction
15.1 In case T 1254/11, the summons to oral proceedings
before the opposition division bore the names of three technically qualified
examiners and a legally qualified examiner, and the accompanying communication
included the statement: "The opposition division, which has been enlarged
by a legally qualified examiner (Article 19(2) EPC)...".
15.2 The decision to revoke the patent dated 31 March 2011
bore the names of three technically qualified members only, and included at
point 8 of the "Facts and Submissions" the following statement:
"The enlargement of the division by a legally qualified
examiner has been set aside on 22.03.2011 since no witness need to be heard
anymore."
15.3 The board noted that:
"different from the situation in T 990/06, it is
possible to determine from the file that the division was lawfully enlarged
and, at a later stage, lawfully reduced again" (Reasons, point 1.9).
Although it was accepted that there was no explicit
indication who took the decision to reduce the composition, the board
nevertheless concluded that:
"absent any indication to the contrary, it must be
assumed that the decision was adopted in a lawful manner, i.e. that the whole
of the panel comprising four persons took it" (Reasons, point 1.6).
16. EPO practice
16.1 It is certainly the case that opposition divisions from
time to time set aside decisions to enlarge their compositions. However, it is
doubtful whether any harmonised procedure exists for so doing, and - as
mentioned above - the Guidelines are silent on the matter.
The formal procedure advocated in T 990/06, requiring a
decision signed by all four members to be in the public file, was not followed
by the opposition division in that case, nor in the cases leading to decisions
T 2106/09 and T 1254/11, nor in the present case. In T 2106/09 there are
explicit mentions of "internal" decisions (see point 14.2, above).
16.2 There is evidence, however, that at least some
opposition divisions have adhered to the transparent procedure set out in T
990/06. For example, in the opposition to European patent EP 1 493 324
(application number 04 015 480) the opposition division sent a decision
rejecting the opposition dated 5 January 2011 bearing the names of three
members, and the public file also contains a separate decision of the
opposition division signed by four members formally setting aside the
enlargement (bearing an EPO date stamp of 5 January 2011 and apparently sent to
the parties).
17. The view of the board on procedural requirements
17.1 Decisions of opposition divisions must not only be
taken in the correct composition, but must be seen to have been taken in the
correct composition, both by the parties and by the public (see T 390/86, point
7, fifth paragraph).
17.2 It follows that the legal validity of an enlargement or
a reduction of an opposition division may only be established on the basis of
the evidence in the publicly available file.
17.3 In particular, where an opposition division has been
enlarged pursuant to Article 19(2) EPC, but the case is nevertheless decided in
a composition of three members, there should be clear evidence on the public
file that a decision to set aside enlargement was taken by the opposition
division in its four member composition prior to the final decision.
It is not for the board to lay down a specific procedure to
be followed. Certainly, the procedure advocated in T 990/06 of including in the
file a decision to set aside enlargement signed by all four members (according
to Rule 113 (1) or (2) EPC) would be one way of providing such evidence.
However, other possibilities might be envisaged.
18. Procedure followed in the present case
18.1 In the present case, the only indication on file that
the decision to enlarge the opposition division had been set aside is the
following statement in the reasoning of the final decision taken in a
composition of three examiners:
"the enlargement of the division is no longer necessary
and the decision for the enlargement is set aside" (Reasons, point 3.2).
18.2 There is therefore no evidence on the public file that
the purported setting aside of enlargement had been decided in a four member
composition, or any indication of a separate decision on this matter. Whether a
prior "internal decision" on the reduction of the opposition division
took place is irrelevant. The correctness of the composition of the opposition
division which took the contested decision must be judged on the basis of the
publicly available file.
18.3 The only publicly available reference to the reduction
of the opposition division is found in the impugned decision itself. In
contrast to cases T 2106/09 and T 1254/11 there is no hint that the decision to
reduce took place at any other point in the procedure. The board therefore
judges that the contested decision must be taken at face value, and that the
part of it dealing with the reduction of the opposition division represents the
decision to set aside enlargement, a decision taken by the opposition division
in a composition of the three technically qualified examiners whose electronic
signatures appear on it. The decision to set aside enlargement was therefore
taken by the opposition division in the wrong composition.
19. The requests of the opponent
The requests of the opponent in the letter dated 16
September 2015 will be dealt with in the following order:
a) that the impugned decision be set aside and the case be
remitted for a fresh decision to an opposition division;
b) that the appeal fee be reimbursed; and
c) that the opposition division be in a composition of three
new members in the remitted procedure.
20. Request to set aside the decision and remit the case
20.1 The decision to set aside enlargement was taken by the
opposition division in the wrong composition and therefore must be considered
void and without legal effect. Consequently, at the time of issuing the
impugned decision the correct composition de jure of the opposition division
was one of four members, but the public file shows that the decision was taken
by, and bore the signatures of, only three members. The decision to reject the
opposition must therefore be regarded as having been taken in the wrong
composition.
20.2 Article 11 RPBA states the following:
- "A board shall remit a case to the department of
first instance if fundamental deficiencies are apparent in the first instance
proceedings, unless special reasons present themselves for doing
otherwise."
One such fundamental deficiency is where a decision cannot
be considered to be legally valid by virtue of a "wrong composition of the
examiners who signed it" (see T 390/86, Reasons, point 8).
The board accepts that a remittal to the department of first
instance would introduce considerable procedural delay, but this cannot be
regarded as one of the "special reasons" referred to in Article 11
RPBA. Where there are good grounds for supposing that the impugned decision was
taken in an incorrect composition, calling into question the legal validity of
that decision, the case should be remitted to the department of first instance.
The board concurs with the finding in T 990/06 (Reasons, point 3.2) that under
these circumstances considerations of procedural economy can play no role.
20.3 This conclusion is not inconsistent with T 1254/11, as
the factual situation in the present case is different. In T 1254/11 there was
an indication at point 8 of the "Facts and Submissions" of the
decision under appeal that the enlargement of the division by a legally
qualified examiner had been set aside prior to the final decision, and the
board decided that it was satisfied that "it is possible to determine from
the file that the division was lawfully enlarged and, at a later stage,
lawfully reduced again". Furthermore, the board considered that
"these circumstances constitute special reasons for not remitting the case
within the meaning of Article 11 RPBA (Reasons, point 1.9).
Whether, confronted with the same facts, the present board
would or would not have reached the same conclusion is irrelevant. What is
important is that the facts in the present case are different, as there is no
reference to or hint of any prior decision to reduce the division.
20.4 As the board sees no "special reasons" within
the meaning Article 11 RPBA, the case is to be remitted to the department of
first instance for further prosecution. Since no lawful reduction of the
opposition division took place, the board considers the opposition division to
be currently composed of four members. Hence, any decision of the opposition
division in the remitted procedure should be taken in either its current four
person composition, or in a three person composition following a lawful
decision to set aside enlargement in accordance with the principles set out
above.
20.5 Since the impugned decision has been found to have no
legal effect, the board considers that it would be inappropriate in the present
decision to comment on matters other than the formal issues dealt with above. A
new formally correct decision must be issued, and it is entirely a matter for
the opposition division to determine whether the substance of the new decision
should be the same as, or different from, the impugned decision.
21. Request for the appeal fee to be reimbursed
21.1 According to Rule 103(1)(a) EPC, reimbursement of the
appeal fee shall be ordered "if such reimbursement is equitable by reason
of a substantial procedural violation."
21.2 A decision signed by the opposition division in a wrong
composition is a substantial procedural violation (see point 20.2, above).
Moreover, in the event that the opposition division, in the remitted procedure,
were to issue a decision adversely affecting the opponent based essentially on
the reasoning of the impugned decision, the opponent would have to pay a second
appeal fee to challenge this decision. It would not be equitable for the
opponent to be obliged to pay two appeal fees in relation to essentially the
same issues as a result of a procedural error. Consequently, reimbursement of
the appeal fee is appropriate.
22. Request to change the composition of the opposition
division
22.1 According to Article 111(1) EPC, a board of appeal
"may either exercise any power within the competence of the department
which was responsible for the decision appealed or remit the case to that
department for further prosecution."
In remitting a case to the department of first instance, it
is questionable whether a board of appeal has the power to order replacement of
members of an examining or opposition division in the case of a substantial
procedural violation (see e.g. T 285/11, Reasons, point 7). However, this is
not a question which needs to be considered in the present case, since the
board sees no reasons which would warrant ordering or even suggesting such
replacement.
22.2 Firstly, to the extent that the opponent's request
concerns the refusal to admit the documents D9-D12 into the procedure, the
board has already indicated above that the present decision will focus only on
the question of the correctness of the composition of the opposition division
at the time of issuing the decision. It is for the opposition division in the
remitted procedure to decide on other matters.
22.3 Secondly, in relation to the taking of the decision in
the wrong composition, although it is considered that a substantial procedural
violation was committed, the present decision should not be interpreted as
implying criticism of the members of the opposition division.
22.4 Decisions setting aside enlargement of opposition
divisions are clearly part of opposition procedure at the EPO (see point 16,
above), but the board is unable to identify any instructions either in the
Guidelines for Examination (see point 5.4, above) or elsewhere setting out a
procedure to be followed. The opposition division cannot be blamed for failing
to follow instructions and official procedures which (apparently) do not exist.
23. Composition of the board
23.1 According to Article 21(4) EPC,
"For appeals from a decision of an opposition division,
a board of Appeal shall consist of:
(a) two technically qualified members and one legally
qualified member, when the decision was taken by an opposition division
consisting of three members;
(b) three technically and two legally qualified members,
when the decision was taken by an opposition division consisting of four
members, or when the board of Appeal considers that the nature of the appeal so
requires."
23.2 Although a point at issue in the present appeal is
whether the impugned decision should have been taken by an opposition division
in a composition of four examiners, it is a matter of fact that the decision
was taken by an opposition division consisting of three members, and hence the
deciding board consists of two technically qualified members and one legally
qualified member pursuant to Article 21(4)(a) EPC.
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance
for further prosecution.
3. The appeal fee shall be reimbursed.
Comments
Post a Comment