Concernant les requête subsidiaires, l'Intimée (titulaire) s'était contentée, dans sa réponse au mémoire de recours, de faire référence à ses écritures de première instance, en citant trois courriers déposés devant la division d'opposition.
La Chambre rappelle qu'on ne peut attendre d'elle-même ou des autres parties qu'elles recherchent les arguments de l'Intimée pour 13 requêtes subsidiaires dans 3 courriers différents. La Chambre se doit d'être impartiale et ne peut donc agir activement en faveur d'une partie.
Il est de jurisprudence constante qu'une simple référence à des arguments présentés en première instance n'est en principe pas suffisante pour motiver (au sens de l'article 12(3) RPCR) aussi bien le mémoire de recours que la réponse. Dans le cas d'espèce, une simple référence ou répétition ne permet en effet pas de comprendre immédiatement en quoi les requêtes subsidiaires répondent aux objections soulevées dans le mémoire de recours de l'Opposante contre la requête principale. Le fait que la décision attaquée n'ait pas traité ces requêtes subsidiaires car elle a fait droit à une requête de rang supérieur n'y change rien. L'Intimée devait se préparer à défendre ses requêtes subsidiaires au cas où la requête principale serait rejetée.
La Chambre décide en conséquence de ne pas admettre les requêtes subsidiaires dans la procédure, en application du pouvoir discrétionnaire conféré par l'article 12(5) RPCR.
Cette décision n'est pas une violation du droit d'être entendu, contrairement à ce que prétendait l'Intimée. Le refus d'admettre des requêtes subsidiaires en raison d'un exercice erroné du pouvoir d'appréciation pourrait violer le droit d'une partie d'être entendue et donc constituer un motif de révision au titre de l'article 112bis(2)c) CBE, mais tel n'est pas le cas en l'espèce.
L'Intimée argumentait que comme la Chambre avait émis une opinion provisoire concernant certaines de ces requêtes, elle pouvait légitimement s'attendre à ce qu'elles fassent partie de la procédure. La Chambre fait toutefois remarquer qu'elle avait fait référence de manière globale à l'obligation de motiver ses arguments et que concernant les requêtes subsidiaires elle s'était contentée d'indiquer que les exigences de l'article 123(2) CBE semblaient remplies et que les parties n'avaient pas pris position sur le fond de ces requêtes.
3 comments:
To me, this decision illustrates that filing 13 auxiliary request is not the best way of defending your case. The principle of procedural economy applied by the Boards against multiple requests, means that the chances of survival is inversely proportional to the number of requests filed. Moreover, the volume of the alarming EPO backlog in dealing with examination and appeal procedures is a function of the length and irrelevance of arguments filed by European Patent Attorneys, also a function of the irrelevant or speculative objections raised by EPO. The EPC is shortly coming to a historic articulation point. The future success of the EPO depends on the productive collaboration of our profession and the EPO in making the procedure generate useless paperwork and wrong decisions. Some principles of interpretation need to be adjusted, some Rules of procedure need to be changed/updated and some Case Law decisions need to be left behind in the dustbin. I'll put forward my viewpoint in m planned book "Patent Exclusivity & Freedom - A Personal Viewpoint". It's publication is being delayed to end May (volume 1 on current theory and practice) and Volume 2 with proposals for the future (by October to coincide with the EPO's 50th year anniversary celebration).
@ Brian Cronin
The more AR filed before the OP, the less chances an applicant/proprietor will have to file further requests during the OP. One, may be two further AR can, in principle be filed during OP and have a chance to be admitted. More have little chance to be admitted, but they can be filed. The OD should not decide up front not to allow any further auxiliary requests after the first and two AR before any of these further requests have actually been filed. In T 470/20, the board held that such a decision of the OD constitutes a violation of the right to be heard within the meaning of Art 113(1).
It is difficult to agree with Brian Cronin that the volume of the alarming EPO backlog in dealing with examination and appeal procedures is a function of the length and irrelevance of arguments filed by European Patent Attorneys, also a function of the irrelevant or speculative objections raised by EPO.
It is manifest that the future success of the EPO depends on the productive collaboration of the profession and the EPO in not making the procedure generate useless paperwork and wrong decisions. In order to avoid wrong decisions, the EPO should take to heart the criticism raised by the IPQC and not deny reality.
It can also be agreed that some principles of interpretation need to be adjusted, especially the question whether the description should always be consulted when interpreting the claims.
That Art 15a(1) RPBA20 should be aligned with the reasons of G 1/21 and Art 15a(3) RPBA20 be deleted is also a point of agreement.
Which part of the case law should be left behind in the dustbin is not clear. Is it the strong definition of novelty or added-mater? I beg to disagree as the case law in this respect is coherent, cf. G 1/93, G 2/98, G 1/03, G 1/16 or G 2/10.
The case law about adaptation of the description to the claims should be kept.
@ Brian Cronin
Hoping that an OP will allow to turn the case in your favour, if as opponent you do not have the good prior art, or if as applicant/proprietor you have a badly drafted application/patent, is wishful thinking at its best.
Coming to OP with the intention of pulling the rabbit out of the hat is not the best way to prepare an OP. The OD has a certain discretion in admitting or not late filed submissions. If there is no change in the case, for instance new objections or new requests, the OD will not be inclined to admit late submissions from the opponent or late filed requests from the proprietor. Due to their RPBA, the boards are even less lenient.
What is nevertheless imperative is to come to the OP well prepared. If a representative is not well prepared it is quickly visible during the OP, irrespective of its form.
You cannot foresee all twists and turns susceptible to happen during OP, but you should rather expect the unexpected. Good preparation is an absolute must. This also applies to the deciding body.
One aspect which also often forgotten by representatives: as you want a positive decision for your client, do not start rubbing up the deciding body the wrong way.
In my experience, in around 80% of the OP summoned in examination, the OP does not take place. An agreement between representative and ED can be reached if the positions are not so far apart.
Enregistrer un commentaire