EP 3 212 341 B1 relates to a high-pressure cleaning system and a method for operating a high-pressure cleaning system.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided maintenance according to AR1. The proprietor appealed.
The proprietor challenged the admissibility of the opposition.
The board decided maintenance over a new MR.
The proprietor’s view on the admissibility of the opposition
The proprietor contended that the opposition should be rejected as inadmissible, as the requirements of R 76(2,c) were not fulfilled. The notice of opposition contained statements on the state of the art and also a reference to the features in the English translation of the claims.
However, there was no link whatsoever between these features and the claim features and it was not clear whether the arguments relating to the features in English were at all relevant to the claim features in German.
The board’s decision on the admissibility of the opposition
R 76(2,c) requires a statement of the facts and evidence adduced in support of the opposition. According to the case law of the BA, the statement must be sufficiently substantiated to enable the proprietor and the OD to clearly recognise the precise manner in which and the evidence with which the patent is challenged.
To this end, the relevant circumstances of the case must be dealt with to such an extent that the proprietor and the OD can form a conclusive opinion on at least one ground for opposition raised without further investigation, see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th edition, 2022, IV.C.2.2.8 b.
This requirement is not to be understood so formally that the notice of opposition must expressly establish a link between the evidence submitted and the original wording of the claims. It is sufficient if this connection is recognisable without any particular obstacles.
In any event, the mere fact that the opponent in the statement of grounds for opposition to claim 1 merely put forward arguments with regard to an English translation of the claim is not in itself sufficient to call into question the admissibility of the opposition.
Contrary to the proprietor’s assertion, which is not further substantiated, it appears to the board that the OD correctly found that the features submitted in English in the grounds of opposition correspond to the English translation in B1, so that there is no doubt that there is a recognisable connection between them and the original claim 1.
The board agreed with the OD that the opposition is sufficiently substantiated with respect to claim 1.
Comments
It is highly tempting for a proprietor to bring purely formal grounds in order to allege the inadmissibility of the opposition.
Claiming that the opposition is not admissible merely because the opponent used the English version of the claims of the patent is far fechted.
Any document can be filed at the EPO in one of its the three official languages, or at least in a translation in one of thess languages. The opponent could have filed its opposition in Danish and subsequently a translation in English.
The translation of the claims before grant is not checked by the EPO, and those translations are the responsibility of applicant/proprietor.
There is nothing new in the board’s statement that the grounds for opposition have to be understood by the OD and the proprietor without further investigation. This is enough, even if it is better to establish a link between the evidence submitted and the original wording of the claims.
It should also not be forgotten, that the admissibility of one ground is sufficient to render the opposition admissible. This does however not mean that all grounds of opposition brought forward by the opponent are automatically admissible. Each ground of opposition has to be sufficiently substantiated as stated in the decision.
T 179/23https://www.epo.org/de/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t230179du1
Comments
Leave a comment