close icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-facebook icon-mail icon-google-plus icon-search icon-phone icon-instagram
What are you looking for?
bubbels
Case law 15 Jun 2021

Claims not supported by amended description

The Opposition Division decided to maintain EP2538794 in amended form on the basis that Auxiliary Request 1 was allowable and that the amended description complied with Art. 84 EPC. The claims as maintained were directed at dietary fat being a blend of natural fats, whereas the amended description did not. In appeal the Board found the Main Request violated Art 84 EPC. The Auxiliary Requests did not require that the dietary fat are a blend of natural fats and were thus broader than the Main Request thereby contravening the prohibition of reformatio in peius for the appealing opponents. The Auxiliary Requests were not admissible, the decision under appeal was set aside and the patent revoked.

An appeal was filed by two appellant-opponents against interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division [OD] to maintain EP2538794 in amended form requesting to set aside the decision and to revoke the patent. The OD decided claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 1 [AR1] filed during oral proceedings was allowable and that the amended description complied with Art. 84 EPC. The Patentee did not file an appeal.

Claim 1 of this request, the Main Request [MR] in appeal, is directed at a triglyceride-based dietary fat, wherein the dietary fat is a blend of natural fats. The term "natural fat" would neither exclude modified triglyceride molecules nor was relevant for the patentability of the claims.

The appellants found that the patent specification was incorrectly amended to reflect the added mandatory feature of claim 1 as maintained whereas the respondent (patentee) considered the amended description appropriate. The respondent filed an Auxiliary Request in reaction to the grounds of appeal filed by both appellant-opponents wherein the feature ‘’wherein said dietary fat is a blend of natural fats’’ has been deleted. Under Art. 15(1) RPBA the Board provided their preliminary opinion setting out it appeared the decision under appeal had to be set aside and the patent revoked.

dietary fat is a blend of natural fats

In reaction to the preliminary opinion the respondent withdrew the request for oral proceedings ‘’should the Board maintain its preliminary opinion’’, after which the appellants withdrew their requests for oral proceedings. The oral proceedings were cancelled and a decision was taken by the Board.

The Board found that the discrepancy between the claims of the MR and the description cast doubt on the scope of the claim. ‘’Art. 84 EPC requires that the claims be supported by the description. This also applies to claims which have been amended in opposition (Art 101(3)(a) EPC).’’ Consequently the Board found the description of the patent does not comply with the requirements of Art. 84 EPC and the MR was held not allowable.

Appellant-Opponent 2 objected to the AR wherein claim 1 is broader than claim 1 of the MR since this broadening contravenes the prohibition of reformatio in peius. Under G1/99 limited exceptions to the rule against reformatio in peius are expressed: As set out in chapter V. A. 3. 1. 8 of the 2019 Case Law of the Boards of Appeal

’the Enlarged Board considered it inequitable for the patent proprietor not to be given a fair opportunity to mitigate the consequences of errors of judgment made by the Opposition Division. The patent proprietor should thus be allowed to file requests in order to overcome this deficiency, as follows:

  • in the first place, for an amendment introducing one or more originally disclosed features which limited the scope of the patent as amended;
  • if such a limitation was not possible, for an amendment introducing one or more originally disclosed features which extended the scope of the patent as maintained, but within the limits of Art. 123(3) EPC 1973; 
  • finally, if such amendments were not possible, for deletion of the inadmissible amendment, but within the limits of Art. 123(3) EPC 1973, even if, as a result, the situation of the opponent was made worse.’’

The respondent did not bring forward any specific circumstances that may render such an AR allowable under G1/99. The Board as a consequence held the AR not admissible.

The decision under appeal was set aside and the patent revoked.

Read the full EPO decision via the link below

More Case Law

EPO Case Law team

Every month NLO provides its clients and contacts with a selection of case law from the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Would you like to receive this newsletter? Hit the subscribe button below: