Introduction
The recent decision T2024/21 by the Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) addresses a critical procedural right under the European Patent Convention (EPC): the right to oral proceedings upon request. This decision involved the refusal of European patent application No. 15185751.3 filed by RTX Corporation. Central to the case were procedural issues, including violations of the applicant's right to be heard (Article 113(1) EPC) and the mandatory nature of oral proceedings (Article 116(1) EPC). The decision highlights the importance of adhering to procedural fairness during the patent examination process. The Board's conclusions led to the decision being set aside, the case remitted to the Examining Division, and the appeal fee reimbursed under Rule 103(1)(a) EPC.
Summary of the Invention
The patent application relates to a secondary flowpath system for a rotor assembly of a gas turbine engine. The system is designed to optimize airflow within the rotor, addressing thermal and mechanical stresses while improving efficiency. This innovative approach enhances secondary air circulation to achieve superior cooling and reduce wear on critical turbine components, providing both operational reliability and efficiency.
Key Points of the Decision
Opponent's Arguments (Examining Division):
Objections were raised under Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC, citing lack of clarity and added subject matter in the claims.
The Examining Division refused oral proceedings, arguing that they would increase workload and that the applicant failed to provide an EPC-compliant text.
Amendments submitted by the applicant were not admitted under Rule 137(3) EPC, leaving no agreed claim text for consideration.
Applicant’s Arguments (RTX Corporation):
RTX argued that objections under Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC were insufficiently explained.
RTX repeatedly requested oral proceedings to address the issues but was denied the opportunity.
Procedural deficiencies, including a lack of detailed reasoning for objections, deprived the applicant of a fair examination process.
Board's Findings:
The right to oral proceedings under Article 116(1) EPC is mandatory, and the Examining Division's refusal constituted a substantial procedural violation.
The denial of oral proceedings adversely affected the applicant’s ability to present arguments, violating Article 113(1) EPC (the right to be heard).
The Board set aside the decision, remitted the case for further prosecution, and ordered reimbursement of the appeal fee under Rule 103(1)(a) EPC.
Lessons to Be Learned
The Absolute Right to Oral Proceedings: Parties have an unequivocal right to oral proceedings under Article 116(1) EPC. This right must be respected, regardless of administrative or workload concerns.
Duty to Provide Reasoned Decisions: Objections raised during examination must be clearly explained to enable meaningful responses and foster procedural fairness.
Consideration of Amendments under Rule 137(3): Decisions regarding the admissibility of amendments must balance the applicant’s rights with procedural requirements and provide detailed reasoning.
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.