Key points
- “The [opponent] requested that the [patentees] submission based on decision T 1684/16 not be admitted as it had only been presented at the oral hearing and as it was hence late filed. In this case, the [patentee's] submission is a legal argument relating to the interpretation of Article 56 EPC, more specifically to the application of the problem/solution approach. ”
- " Since the [patentee's] submission is thus a legal argument, the board had no discretion to not admit it into the proceedings (T 1914/12, point 7.2.3 of the Reasons)."
- " This consideration is fully in line with, for instance: T 861/93, which held that "decisions relied on by a party in support of its arguments are never citations which can be rejected as late under the provision of Article 114(2) EPC. Arguments are not covered by that provision. Therefore, decisions to which a party refers in support of its arguments are to be considered part of those arguments and may not be rejected as late." (point 12 of the Reasons; translation provided by the current board)".
T 0325/16 - link after jump
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2022/01/t-032516-i-citing-case-law-is-no-case.html
