Key points
- In this opposition appeal, the appellant did not request oral proceedings and the respondent withdrew the request for oral proceedings within one month of notification of the preliminary opinion of the Board. The decision is issued without oral proceedings. Rule 103(4)(c) says "if any request for oral proceedings is withdrawn". Does this mean that the appellant benefits from a partial refund of the appeal fee because the respondent withdrew the request for oral proceedings?
- The present Board concludes that the partial refund is to be ordered, thereby expressly not following T0777/15.
- The present Board undertakes a detailed analysis of Rule 103(4)(c) but in the end appears to be persuaded by this remark in the Explanatory Notes: “The point at which the appellant – as well as the other parties to appeal proceedings – should be incentivised to withdraw the request for oral proceedings is upon being notified of the Board's communication under Article 15(1) RPBA, revised version.” (CA/80/19 para 84, italics added).
- As a comment, it remains unclear to me how e.g. the opponent as respondent is incentivised to withdraw its request for oral proceedings if that results in a financial benefit for the patentee (as appellant) only.
- The refund in the present case was indeed made to the patentee.
- The opponent/respondent also became insolvent in the course of the proceedings and an administrator was appointed. The Board notes that (under German law) the insolvency administrator becomes the party to the proceedings. However (also in light of specific circumstances) the professional representative remained appointed.
- The request for transfer of opponent status to the company buying the enterprise of opponent is refused for lack of evidence submitted.
- The opponent's request for interruption of the proceedings is refused first of all because Rule 142(1)(b) refers only to the patentee or applicant.
- The OD had revoked the patent based on a feature lacking basis in the application as filed. In appeal, requests are filed wherein the feature was omitted. The appeal is admissible because according to established case law it is not necessary to argue as appellant that the first instance decision was wrong; it may also be enough (for a patentee as appellant) to address the decisive point by amending the claims.
- The amended request is admitted. The opponent had raised the added subject matter attack for the first time during the oral proceedings before the opposition division which the patentee did not attend.
- “Nach Meinung der Kammer kann daher im vorliegenden Fall das Fernbleiben der Beschwerdeführerin von der mündlichen Verhandlung nicht zu ihren Ungunsten bewertet werden.”.
- Compare T2154/13, discussed in the present decision as well: “
- "Following the principle according to which the appellant should be prevented from seeking unjustified procedural advantages in disregard of procedural economy and to the disadvantage of other parties (nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans), the Board therefore decides not to admit auxiliary requests 1-3 into the appeal proceedings."”
- The present Board says that “Anders als im Fall T 2154/13 gab es jedoch im vorliegenden Fall für einen Einwand der unzulässigen Erweiterung gegen das Merkmal M8 im erstinstanzlichen Verfahren keinen Anhaltspunkt vor [i.e. prior to] der mündlichen Verhandlung.”
- In T 2154/13, an inventive step attack based on D6 had been raised prior to the oral proceedings before the OD, the OD found D6 to be novelty-destroying.
- As a comment, note that according to G4/92, “a decision against a party who has been duly summoned but who fails to appear at oral proceedings may not be based on facts put forward for the first time during those oral proceedings” (in inter partes proceedings) and according to T0748/17, an Art.123(2) objection is a 'fact' in the sense of at least Art.12(4) RPBA 2007.
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t180488du1.html
8. Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr in Höhe von 25% - Regel 103 (4) c) EPÜ
Die am 1. April 2020 in Kraft getretene neu gefasste Regel 103 EPÜ gilt für die vorliegende Beschwerde, da sie am Tag des Inkrafttretens bereits anhängig war (siehe Artikel 2 des Beschlusses des Verwaltungsrats CA/D 14/19 vom 12. Dezember 2019 (ABl. EPA 2020, A5)).
8.1 Regel 103 (4) c) EPÜ sieht die Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr in Höhe von 25 % vor, wenn "ein etwaiger Antrag auf mündliche Verhandlung innerhalb eines Monats ab Zustellung einer von der Beschwerdekammer zur Vorbereitung der mündlichen Verhandlung erlassenen Mitteilung zurückgenommen wird und keine mündliche Verhandlung stattfindet".
8.2 Im vorliegenden Fall stellte die damalige Beschwerdegegnerin in ihrer Beschwerdeerwiderung hilfsweise einen Antrag auf mündliche Verhandlung. Diesen Antrag nahm sie innerhalb eines Monats nach der Zustellung der zur Vorbereitung der mündlichen Verhandlung erlassenen Mitteilung der Kammer nach Artikel 15 (1) VOBK 2020 zurück. Daraufhin wurde der anberaumte Termin zur mündlichen Verhandlung aufgehoben. Die Beschwerdeführerin hat während des gesamten Beschwerdeverfahrens keinen Antrag auf mündliche Verhandlung gestellt.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2021/05/t-048818-withdrawal-request-oral.html
