Wednesday, December 11, 2019 President says no to President

epi Information 4/2019, just published, comprises epi’s letter to the EPO "Request for Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal – Selection Inventions” and the Corresponding Response Letter of the EPO. Unfortunately, the President of the EPO said no to the President of the epi. The uncertainty will thus continue, now that the first instance has made a switch due to the purposive selection criterion being deleted from the novelty test for sub-ranges in the Guidelines as in force since 1 Nov 2019, the Boards having given different decisions over the last few years and the President of the EPO accepting that this may continue for a while, while the Case Law Book from this July refers to the test including purposive selection as established case law and does not identify a clear development of law, towards abandoning it even though it does identify conflicting decisions.

Tuesday, March 26, 2019 T 0403/18 - Ad hoc move of oral proceedings from Haar to Munich

As reported earlier on this blog, the Enlarged Board of Appeal will have to decide whether or not the Boards of Appeal may properly summon parties to oral proceedings at their premises in Haar.

Alluding to this pending referral, in the present case T 0403/18 one of the parties present at an oral hearing in Haar requested that this hearing be held in Munich. As can be inferred from the minutes of this hearing (the written decision has not been published yet), with agreement of all parties the oral proceedings were indeed relocated to the former home of the Boards of Appeal in Munich, i.e. the Isar building at the Bob-van-Benthem-Platz:

"At the beginning of the oral proceedings at 09:00 hrs in the premises of Haar, the respondents relied on decision T 0831/17 of 25 February 2019 referring a question of law regarding the proper venue of oral proceedings and requested that the oral proceedings in case T 0403/18 be held in Munich. The matter was discussed with the parties. With the agreement of all parties the oral proceedings were postponed to take place in Room 111 in the EPO venue of oral proceedings and requested that the oral proceedings in case T 0403/18 be held in Munich. The matter was discussed with the parties. With the agreement of all parties the oral proceedings were postponed to take place in Room 111 in the EPO's building at Bob-van-Benthem-Platz 1 (formerly Erhardtstrasse 27) in Munich starting at 13:00 hrs on the same date."

It will be interesting to see whether pending the referral to the Enlarged Board more Boards (possibly as a precautionary measure) will adopt the same approach.

Tuesday, March 05, 2019 T 0831/17 - Haar? Referral. [G 2/19]

A highly intriguing referral to the Enlarged Board, for multiple reasons: it concerns questions regarding the extent of the right to be heard (by a third party) and regarding the proper venue of oral proceedings (in the light of the much-debated relocation of the Boards of Appeal to Haar).

In the present case, during examination proceedings of EP2378735 third party observations (containing objections under Art. 84 EPC) had been filed by private practice firm Jostarndt Patentanwalts-AG. The patent was nevertheless granted. Jostarndt then lodged an appeal against the decision to grant, essentially arguing that, since clarity is not a ground for opposition, it felt deprived of its opportunity to object under Art. 84.

However, the Board found itself bound by the EPC - which only allows an adversely affected party to the proceedings to appeal, the author of third party observations according to Art. 115 EPC not being a party to the proceedings - and deemed the appeal inadmissible.

The appellant saw an unacceptable hiatus in legal protection and demanded clarification of this fundamental question by a decision. It therefore requested oral proceedings on the above question of admissibility.

Surprisingly, after having been summoned on 25 January 2019 for a hearing in the premises of the Board of Appeal in Haar, the appellant then requested transfer of these oral proceedings to Munich, arguing that the European Patent Office is headquartered there and, unlike The Hague, Haar is "not evidently intended as a place for acts or proceedings" in the European Patent Convention.

The move in 2017 of the Boards of Appeal from the Munich Isar building to the municipality of Haar - in a manifest attempt to increase the perceived independence of the Boards of Appeal - was met with dismay and criticism from both the Boards themselves and the public. 

The present Board (3.5.03) considered in particular the question of the right venue of the Boards of fundamental importance for ensuring a uniform application of the law in all appeal proceedings, and decided to refer the following questions (loosely translated from the original German wording) to the Enlarged Board:

(1) In appeal proceedings, is the right to oral proceedings under Article 116 EPC restricted if the appeal is prima facie inadmissible?

(2) If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is an appeal against the decision to grant a patent prima facie inadmissible in this sense, which Appeal has been filed by a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC and which has been substantiated by arguing that there is no alternative remedy under the EPC against a decision of the Examining Division not to consider the third party’s objections concerning the alleged contravention of Article 84 EPC?

(3) If the answer to one of the first two questions is no, can the Board hold oral proceedings in Haar without violating Article 116 EPC, if the appellant complains that this location is not in conformity with the EPC and requests that the oral proceedings be moved to Munich?

Questions 1 and 2 are interesting for querying the extent of the right to be heard in proceedings before the EPO. Question 3 is likely to have the greatest impact, as it boils down to whether the President or the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation had the power to relocate the Boards (or departments of the Office within the meaning of Article 15 EPC in general) outside the locations mentioned in Art. 6(2) EPC or to whether "Munich" in Art. 6(2) should be interpreted merely as the city with that name (not including Haar) or a (not well-defined) greater Munich area. It would appear that the referring Board favors a more a strict interpretation of “Munich”.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016 T 437/14 - New Questions on Disclaimers referred to Enlarged Board

Is this still the same apple?

The disclaimer case G 1/03 seems to allow exceptions to Article 123(2) that 'Gold-standard' case G 2/10 does not allow. This board does not like it one bit:

"If one takes a bite out of an apple, what remains is recognisably no longer the same apple as the original one. Even though it is still an apple, the apple with the bite taken out of it cannot be regarded as explicitly or implicitly, but directly and unambiguously, "disclosed" in the original apple." (Reasons 8.1)

Claim 1 in this case includes two disclaimers to restore novelty against an accidental anticipation. This would be allowed under G 1/03. Is it also allowed under the more recent G 2/10? We will soon have a new enlarged board decision on disclaimers, joining the ranks of G 1/03 and G 2/10, because the following questions have been referred:

1. Is the standard referred to in G 2/10 for the allowability of disclosed disclaimers under Article 123(2) EPC, i.e. whether the skilled person would, using common general knowledge, regard the subject-matter remaining in the claim after the introduction of the disclaimer as explicitly or implicitly, but directly and unambiguously, disclosed in the application as filed, also to be applied to claims containing undisclosed disclaimers?

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, is G 1/03 set aside as regards the exceptions relating to undisclosed disclaimers defined in its answer 2.1?

3. If the answer to the second question is no, i.e. if the exceptions relating to undisclosed disclaimers defined in answer 2.1 of G 1/03 apply in addition to the standard referred to in G 2/10, may this standard be modified in view of these exceptions?

Wednesday, December 09, 2015 T 2477/12 - Priority (yes); Priority application incorporated by reference (no)

The EPO does not like the 'herein incorporated by reference' statement in applications, which is once again made clear in this Board of Appeal decision in which an applicant filed a divisional application without a sequence listing and relied on the fact that the priority document did contain the specified sequences, and that the priority document was referred to in the specification of the divisional as 'herein incorporated by reference'. The Board states that "in view of the degenerate nature of the genetic code, a mere verbal reference to a nucleic acid sequence encoding canine pre-proBMP-7 cannot be regarded as an implicit disclosure of a particular nucleic acid sequence encoding said gene. As far as protein sequences are concerned, a mere verbal reference to an amino acid sequence of canine pre-proBMP-7 does not necessarily disclose a particular amino acid sequence, as more than one such sequence may be known."
The Board cites T 689/90 and T 1497/06 for particular conditions that need to be satisfied to allow the incorporation of subject matter from a cited document. If the applicant would have indicated particular sequences that were presented in the priority application, then the Board might have reached a different conclusion but here the applicant could only rely on a general reference to the priority document, and it did not make it unambiguously clear that the sequences relied on were the ones specifically described in the priority application.

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies against the decision of the examining division posted on 4 July 2012, whereby European patent application No. 10150052.8 was refused because it did not comply with the requirements laid down in Articles 76(1) and 83 EPC.

Tuesday, October 06, 2015 T 0083/05 - Broccoli III the final

This decision concerns the patent application directed to a broccoli plant with elevated levels of anticarcinogenic glucosinolate derivatives, that was the result of crossing different known broccoli plants and using genetic markers that indicated elevated levels of such glucosinolate derivatives. It is the final of a long lasting case going through two rounds of Enlarged Board of Appeal decisions: Broccoli I (G2/07) and Broccoli II (G2/13, case law blog: here). See also the Tomatoes I and II decisions that concerned similar issues and that were co-decided by the Enlarged Board. 
In this particular decision (which was named Broccoli III) the Board of Appeal reacts to the ruling of the Enlarged Board in G2/13 and of course adapted to that ruling by finding that the claims directed to 'an edible Brassica plant produced according to a method for the production of Brassica oleracea with... etc.'  fulfills the requirements of the EPC. The exclusion of essentially biological processes for the production of plants in Article 53(b) EPC does not have a negative effect on the allowability of a product claim directed to plants or plant material such as plant parts. There is nothing unexpected about this particular decision, but it is important because it generated such important case law.

Smmary of Facts and Submissions

I. Both opponent 01 (appellant I) and opponent 02 (appellant II) filed appeals against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division maintaining European patent No. 1 069 819 in amended form.

II. The appellants submitted that the patent as amended and the invention to which it related did not meet the requirements of the EPC. They relied in particular on the opposition grounds of added subject-matter, lack of enabling disclosure, lack of novelty, lack of inventive step and that the subject-matter of the method claims was not patentable pursuant to Article 53(b) EPC.

III. During the first oral proceedings before this board (albeit in a different composition), the patent proprietor (respondent) submitted a new main and auxiliary request. Claims 1 to 4 of the main request were directed to a method for the production of Brassica oleracea with elevated levels of particular glucosinolates comprising a number of steps of crossing, selecting and backcrossing.

The other claims of the main request were all independent and read as follows:

"5. An edible Brassica plant produced according to the method of any one of claims 1 to 4.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015 T 1580/13 - Catch-up growth without risk of obesity

Here, the Board sets aside the decision of the opposition division by indicating that no inventive step could be recognized because the prior art that showed that 'catch-up growth' could be achieved using the compounds of the claimed invention. The term 'catch-up growth' was well defined in the specification and could therefore not be taken from other documents. Catch-up growth was in fact defined as a sudden spurt of growth that would result in catching up with subjects having a normal growth, although it may be that the subject would never attain the physical state that it would have reached had the stress not been suffered. Despite the arguments from the proprietor, the Board held that the problem of catch-up growth without an increase in caloric intake, with equilibrated lean and fat body mass and without promoting obesity had not been solved, because such could not be derived from the data in the specification.

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This decision concerns the appeal filed by opponent 1 (The IAMS Company), opponent 2 (Abbott Laboratories) and opponent 3 (N.V. Nutricia) against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division that European patent No. 1 940 248 as amended meets the requirements of the EPC.

II. The opponents had requested revocation of the patent in its entirety on the grounds under Article 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty and inventive step), Article 100(b) EPC and Article 100(c) EPC. [...]

Sunday, August 23, 2015 T 557/13 - Referral: Mother poisonous for child?

This case refers five questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal with respect to what is often referred to as partial priority, poisonous divisionals and poisonous priorities. This case has been discussed earlier in this blog, see our post "T 557/13 - Poisonous or nothing wrong?". 
The opposition decision under appeal relates to a patent that is a divisional from  D1 (which is an EP patent enjoying priority from D16). The divisional also claims priority from D16. The Opposition Division decided that claim 1 of the patent of this appeal case does not enjoy the priority from D16 and, thus, the filing date of D1 is the effective date of claim 1. It may be that the opinion of the Opposition Division is now summarized too much, but, according to the Opposition Division is D1 is an Art. 54(3) EPC document because the effective date of D1 is the priority date of D16, and D1 is published after the effective date of claim 1. 
An additional complication in this case is that claim 1 of the divisional application is a so-termed "generic 'OR'-claim" (see point 8.2.2 of this decision for a definition). Subsequently one could argue that a first portion of claim 1 enjoys priority from D16 and D1 is not an Art. 54(3) EPC document for this first portion, while another second portion of claim 1 does not enjoy priority from D1 and, consequently, the novelty of this second portion must be examined over D1 as an Art. 54(3) EPC document. 
Furthermore, the parties to the appeal proceedings had a diverging opinion about "Can a parent application of a divisional application be a novelty destroying Art. 54(3) EPC document?".
The Board of Appeal could not decide on these subjects because, as extensively discussed in the decision, the case law diverges in different directions. Therefore the Board formulated five questions for the Enlarged Board of Appeal.