Introduction
In Decision R 0006/20, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) addressed an opponent’s petition based on a claimed violation of the right to be heard under Article 113(1) EPC. This decision, concerning European Patent No. 2140987 for a blade assembly, particularly centers on the admissibility of late-filed evidence and the Board’s responsibility to substantively consider a party's arguments. The ruling underscores key principles in European patent law regarding procedural rights and evidence admission during appeal.
Summary of the Invention
The patent in question, European Patent No. 2140987, owned by Andis Company, covers a specialized blade assembly design intended for various grooming and cutting applications. The invention includes specific improvements in blade configuration, allowing for enhanced cutting efficiency and durability, which has made it advantageous over traditional blade assemblies in the market.
Key Points of the Decision
The opponent, Wahl GmbH, argued that the blade assembly patent lacked novelty based on prior use evidence introduced during the appeal. Wahl GmbH’s submissions included new documents (referred to as D7) intended to support a novelty-destroying public prior use. However, these documents were filed for the first time in appeal proceedings, and Wahl GmbH claimed it was unable to locate them earlier due to operational limitations and lost records.
- Arguments by the Opponent:Wahl GmbH contended that the appeal should consider these late-filed documents due to their critical impact on assessing novelty. They argued that failing to admit this evidence would violate Article 114(1) EPC, requiring Boards to examine relevant facts ex officio. Additionally, the opponent maintained that the documents' delayed submission was justified by logistical issues, such as obsolete software and unarchived records.
- Arguments by the Patentee:Andis Company, the patentee, did not actively participate in the appeal proceedings or present counterarguments regarding the opponent's claims about public prior use.
- Board's Assessment and Final Decision:The Board decided against admitting the documents on grounds of procedural economy and emphasized that the opponent’s late submission did not meet the requirements of Article 12(4) RPBA, which discourages introducing new facts that could have been presented earlier. The Board upheld its discretion to limit procedural matters by dismissing Wahl GmbH’s submission, noting that Article 12(4) RPBA aligns with Articles 113(1) and 114(1) EPC, focusing on ensuring that all parties have adequate opportunities to be heard, without obligating the Board to reassess each late-filed claim in detail.
Lessons
This decision highlights the necessity for thorough preparation during the first instance proceedings in opposition cases. Parties must submit all pertinent evidence as early as possible to avoid procedural rejection at the appeal stage. Moreover, the ruling clarifies that while the right to be heard is fundamental, it does not guarantee the admission of all late-filed submissions. The Enlarged Board’s decision upholds procedural efficiency, stressing that evidence should be both timely and justified under specific conditions to ensure a fair and expedient appeal process.
Contact
If you have any questions concerning intellectual property issuesor need assistance with patent applications, oppositions, or appeals, please do not hesitate to contact us at Novitech IP. Our team of experienced professionals is here to provide you with expert guidance and support. Reach out to us today to discuss how we can help protect your innovations and navigate the complexities of IP law.
To stay informed about the latest reviewsand updates in IP law, subscribe to our blog. Join our community and receive notifications whenever we publish new reviews and insights on important case law and developments in the field of intellectual property.
Legal Disclaimer
The information provided in this blog post is for generalinformational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary and analysis of the EPO case are based on publicly available information and are intended to offer insights into the decision and its implications. This content should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances. For advice related to any specific legal matters, you should consult a qualified attorney.