European Patent Office

Latest documents

Judgment Nº T 1851/22 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-12-12
I. This appeal is against the examining division's decision to refuse European patent application No. 17 711 935.1.II. The application was refused on the ground of lack of inventive step of all claims of the main and the first auxiliary request in view of D1 (EP 1 785 856).III. In the statement setting out the grounds of appeal, the appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and a patent be granted on the basis of the main or the first to third auxiliary requests, filed or re-filed with the statement of grounds of appeal. It further requested oral proceedings. The main and the first auxiliary request are identical to those refused by the examining division. The second and third auxiliary requests are new on appeal.IV. In the communication accompanying the summons to oral proceedings, the Board informed the appellant that it was minded to dismiss the appeal for lack of inventive step of the independent claims of all requests in view of notoriously known computer means.V. In a letter dated 28 March 2025, the appellant informed the Board that it would not attend the oral proceedings, which were subsequently cancelled.VI. Claim 1 of the main request reads:A method for generating shipping documentation, the method comprising:receiving (201) user selection of an intelligent generation shipping processing mode of a shipping management system (111);suspending notification of one or more shipping management system advices for generation of the shipping documentation in the intelligent generation shipping processing mode;defaulting one or more configuration factors for generation of the shipping documentation in the intelligent generation shipping processing mode;receiving (205) user selection of one or more orders (303) for shipping documentation processing using the intelligent generation shipping processing mode of the shipping management system (111);populating a documentation queue (304) of the shipping management system (111) with an instance representing an intelligent generation subprocess adapted to autonomously generate the shipping documentation for the one or more orders (303); andspawning (206) the instance of the intelligent generation subprocess to autonomously generate (207) the shipping documentation for the one or more orders (303) using the defaulted one or more configuration factors, wherein operation of the instance of the intelligent generation subprocess comprises:determining (211) if a critical issue is present with respect to a suspended advice of the one or more shipping management system advices or a configuration factor for the shipping documentation;initiating failure state mitigation processing if the critical issue is determined to be present for the shipping documentation, wherein the failure state mitigation processing is configured to autonomously resolve the critical issue;generating the shipping documentation for the one or more orders (303) and updating (218) the instance of the intelligent generation subprocess to show a state for at least one documentation generation milestone if the critical issue is not present or the critical issue was autonomously resolved by the failure state mitigation processing; andupdating the instance of the intelligent generation subprocess to show a failure state for the intelligent generation subprocess and ending further processing to generate the shipping documentation by the instance of the intelligent generation subprocess when the critical issue is present and could not be autonomously resolved by the failure state mitigation processing.VII. Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the expression "one or more shipping management system advices" is replaced by "all shipping management system advices" and in that it is specified that the defaulting step takes place without user selection or input.VIII. Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the first auxiliary request by the addition of the expression "wherein the suspended shipping management system advices comprise a warning" in the suspending step and the addition of the expression "the critical issue indicating that shipping documentationprocessing should not or cannot be performed" in the critical-issue-determination step.IX. Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the second auxiliary request by the addition, in the critical-issue-determination step, of the expression "by analysing the suspended shipping management system advices to determine advices of a nature indicating that autonomous shipping documentation processing should not or cannot be performed and/or analysing the one or more configuration factors to determine if parameters for the generation of the shipping documentation are missing or otherwise incompatible with generation of shipping documentation" after "factor for the shipping documentation".
Urteil Nr T 1876/23 Beschwerdekammer des Europäischen Patentamts, 2025-12-10
I. Die Beschwerde der Patentinhaberin richtet sich gegen die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung, das Patent EP 3 031 103 (beruhend auf der europäischen Patentanmeldung Nr. EP 14 758 284) gemäß Artikel 100(c) EPÜ zu widerrufen. Die Patentinhaberin beantragt nun Aufhebung dieser Entscheidung und die Aufrechterhaltung des Patents.II. Gegen das Patent wurde in seiner Gesamtheit Einspruch erhoben wegen mangelnder Neuheit (Artikel 100(a) EPÜ in Verbindung mit Artikel 52(1), 54(1) und (2) EPÜ), wegen mangelnder erfinderischer Tätigkeit (Artikel 100(a) EPÜ in Verbindung mit Artikel 52 und 56 EPÜ) und unzureichender Offenbarung (Artikel 100 (b) EPÜin Verbindungmit Artikel 83 EPÜ) sowie wegen unerlaubter Erweiterung (Artikel 100(c) EPÜ in Verbindung mit Artikel 123(2) EPÜ).AnträgeIII. DieBeschwerdeführerin(Patentinhaberin) beantragt, die angefochtene Entscheidung aufzuheben und das Patent gemäß Hauptantrag, hilfsweise gemäß einem der Hilfsanträge B, B', B'', A, A', C oder 1 bis 9 aufrecht zu erhalten. Ferner wird beantragt, angesichts der substantiellen Verfahrensfehler und der Befangenheit der Einspruchsabteilung die Beschwerdegebühr zurückzuerstatten, das Verfahren an die erste Instanz zur Prüfung der Einwände unter Artikel 100(a) und (b) EPÜ zurückzuverweisen, und dass eine anders besetzte Einspruchsabteilung mit dem weiteren Verfahren befasst wird.IV. DieBeschwerdegegnerin(Einsprechende) beantragt in ihrer Beschwerdeerwiderung, dass die Beschwerde zurückgewiesen wird. Die Einsprechende hat mit Schreiben vom 26. März 2025 den Einspruch zurückgenommen und ist somit nicht mehr Partei in diesem Verfahren.V. Die ErfindungFORMEL/TABELLE/GRAPHIKStreitpatentDie zu lösende Aufgabe der Erfindung besteht darin, ein elektrisches Steckverbindermodul bereitzustellen, das eine einfache Kontaktierung und Übertragung einer Erdung auf ein Steckverbindergehäuse und/oder einen modularen Halterahmen ermöglicht. Dies wird gelöst durch ein elektrisches Kontaktmittel, welches die Erdung so überträgt, dass beim Einsetzen des Steckverbindermoduls in das Steckverbindergehäuse oder in den Halterahmen das elektrische Kontaktmittel ohne zusätzliches Zutun das Steckverbindergehäuse oder den Halterahmen kontaktiert.VI. Anspruch 1desHauptantrags(Patent wie erteilt)(Merkmalsbezeichnungen (1), (1.1),... von der Kammer in Anlehnung an die Merkmalsgliederung der angefochtenen Entscheidung eingefügt)(1) System aus mehreren elektrischen Steckverbindermodulen und einem elektrisch leitfähigen Halterahmen (7),(1.1) zur gemeinsamen Aufnahme in einem modularen Steckverbinder,(1.2) wobei die Steckverbindermodule zusammen in dem Halterahmen (7) aufnehmbar und fixierbar sind,(1.3) wobei der Halterahmen wiederum in ein Steckverbindergehäuse einsetzbar ist,(2) wobei eines der elektrischen Steckverbindermodule (1) aus einem isolierenden Gehäuse (2) gebildet ist und(3) zumindest einen elektrischen Kontakt (8) umfasst,(2.1) wobei das Gehäuse (2) Fixiermittel (3) aufweist, welche zur Aufnahme des elektrischen Steckverbindermodule [sic] (1) im modularen Steckverbinder dienen, und(3.1) wobei der elektrische Kontakt (8) in dem Gehäuse (2) aufgenommen ist und(3.2) eine Steckseite (9) sowie eine Anschlussseite (10) aufweist,(3.2.1) welche von einer Steckseite (6) bzw. Anschlussseite (5) des Gehäuses (2) zugänglich sind,dadurch gekennzeichnet, dass(4) das elektrische Steckverbindermodul (1) ein elektrisches Kontaktmittel (4) aufweist,(4.1) welches mit dem elektrischen Kontakt (8) elektrisch leitend verbunden ist und an die Außenseite des Gehäuses (2) geführt ist,(4.2) wobei das Kontaktmittel (4) an der Außenseite des Gehäuses (2) als Federbereich (11) ausgebildet ist, wobei der Federbereich (11) des Kontaktmittels (4) beim Einfügen des elektrischen Steckverbindermoduls (1) in den Halterahmen (7) den Halterahmen (7) elektrisch leitend kontaktiert.VII. Die Argumente der Beschwerdeführerin (Patentinhaberin), soweit sie für diese Entscheidung relevant sind, können folgendermaßen zusammengefasst werden:a) Der Einspruchsgrund unter Artikel 100(c) EPÜ wurde nicht ausreichend substantiiert.b) Die Seiten 1 und 2 der ursprünglich eingereichten Beschreibung offenbaren die Änderung der Merkmale (1.) und (1.1).c) Die Einspruchsabteilung habe sich nicht mit allen Argumenten der Patentinhaberin auseinandergesetzt und damit das rechtliche Gehör verletzt. Deshalb sei die Beschwerdegebühr zurückzuerstatten.d) Da die Einspruchsgründe unter 100(a) und 100(b) EPÜ in der angefochtenen Entscheidung nicht behandelt worden seien, sei die Angelegenheit an die Einspruchsabteilung zurückzuverweisen.e) Da die Einspruchsabteilung befangen gewesen sei, solle die Kammer anordnen, dass bei der Zurückverweisung eine neue Zusammensetzung der Einspruchsabteilung bestimmt werde. Durch die Befangenheit der Einspruchsabteilung wurde auch das rechtliche Gehör verletzt.
Judgment Nº T 1070/23 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-12-09
I. The appeal was filed by the proprietor against the decision of the opposition division to revoke European patent No. 2 963 762.II. In the statement setting out the grounds of appeal, the appellant requested that the opposition division's decision be set aside and that the patent be maintained as granted (main request) or in amended form according to auxiliary request 2 as filed during oral proceedings in opposition (auxiliary request).III. The appellant further requested that the case be remitted to the opposition division for a finding on inventive step "in the event that the Board of Appeal is unable to find for the Patentee on inventive step". It also requested oral proceedings.IV. The respondent (opponent) requested that the decision of the opposition division be confirmed and, on an auxiliary basis, that oral proceedings be held.V. In the communication accompanying the summons to oral proceedings, the Board informed the parties that it tended to consider claim 1 of the main request not novel over E1, DE 10 2011 121197 A1, and claim 1 of the auxiliary request not inventive over the same document. Therefore, it was minded to dismiss the appeal.VI. In a letter dated 26 May 2025, the appellant announced that it would not attend the oral proceedings, which were subsequently cancelled.VII. Claim 1 of the main request reads:A floating voltage suppression method applied to a multi-input multi-stage inverter, the multi-input multi-stage inverter comprising a plurality of first-stage power conversion circuits at an input side, the method comprising:determining a suspended branch of the multi-input multi-stage inverter, wherein the suspended branch is a branch for which an input voltage is less than a preset voltage, and the input voltage less than the preset voltage is a floating voltage; andsending continuously a driving signal for a switching device to a first-stage power conversion circuit of the multi-input multi-stage inverter connected to the suspended branch to drive the switching device of the first-stage power conversion circuit to operate on or off continuously for the first-stage power conversion circuit to pull down the floating voltage, until the suspended branch is connected to a photovoltaic cell panel to cause an input voltage not less than the preset voltage for the suspended branch.VIII. Claim 1 of the auxiliary request differs from the main request by the addition, before the "determining" step, of the following feature:before determining a suspended branch of the multi-input multi-stage inverter, determining that the multi-input multi-stage inverter is in a stand-alone input mode,wherein a plurality of branches is provided at the input side of the multi-input multistage inverter, and in the stand-alone input mode, the plurality of branches is independent from each other.
Judgment Nº T 0837/24 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-12-08
I. The appeal lies from the decision of the opposition division to maintain the patent in amended form in accordance with a "first auxiliary request". The opposition division found that the ground for opposition under Article 100(b) EPC prejudiced the maintenance of the opposed patent as granted.II. Oral proceedings before the board were held on 8 December 2025. The final requests of the parties were as follows:- The appellant-opponent ("opponent") requested that the appealed decision be set aside and that the patent be revoked.- The respondent-proprietor ("proprietor") requested that the appeal be dismissed (main request). Alternatively, it was requested to maintain the patent in amended form in accordance with one of auxiliary requests M-A or M-B, both filed with letter dated 14 November 2025, or auxiliary requests 1 to 5, filed with the written reply to the statement of grounds of appeal.At the end of the oral proceedings, the board's decision was announced.III. Claim 1 of the main request (patent as maintained) reads as follows:"A method of providing presence information for use in a personal communications system comprising a headset (2) and an interface unit (21), the interface unit (21) comprising:a computer interface (32) for connecting the interface unit (21) to a client computer (1);a first transceiver (34) configured to exchange radio signals between the interface unit (21) and a mobile telephone (22) according to a first wireless communication protocol;a telephone interface (35) for connecting the interface unit (21) to a desktop telephone (23);wherein the interface unit is a base station for the headset (2), the headset (2) being a wired or wireless headset, andwherein the method comprises the steps of:providing (101), based on signals from said first transceiver (34), a presence message indicating whether said mobile telephone (22) is involved in a phone call with or without using the headset, or providing (101), based on signals from said telephone interface (35), a presence message indicating whether said desktop telephone (23) is involved in a phone call with or without using the headset (2); andtransmitting (102) said presence message to said client computer (1) via said computer interface (32)."IV. Claim 1 of auxiliary request M-A differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the "providing" steps now read as follows (proprietor's underlining, deletions not shown):"providing (101), based on signals from said first transceiver (34), a presence message indicating whether said mobile telephone (22) is involved in a phone call, said mobile telephone (22) being involved in the phone call with or without using the headset (2), or providing (101), based on signals from said telephone interface (35), a presence message indicating whether said desktop telephone (23) is involved in a phone call, said desktop telephone (23) being involved in the phone call with or without using the headset".V. Claim 1 of auxiliary request M-B differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the "providing" steps now read as follows (proprietor's underlining, deletions not shown):"providing (101), based on signals from said first transceiver (34), a presence message indicating whether said mobile telephone (22) is involved in a phone call, the mobile telephone being involved in the phone call directly without using the headset (2), or providing (101), based on signals from said telephone interface (35), a presence message indicating whether said desktop telephone (23) is involved in a phone call, independently of whether the headset (2) is used for the phone call or not".VI. Claim 1 of each of auxiliary requests 1, 3 and 5 includes the same "providing" steps of claim 1 of the main request.VII. Claim 1 of each of auxiliary requests 2 and 4 differs from claim 1 of the main request in that, inter alia, the "providing steps" have been replaced with the following clause:"providing (101), based on signals from said first transceiver (34) or said telephone interface (35), a presence message indicating whether said mobile telephone (22) or said desktop telephone (23) is involved in a phone call with or without using the headset (2)".
Judgment Nº T 1424/23 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-11-24
I. The appeal is against the examining division's decision to refuse European patent application No. 17770763.5. The examining division found that all of the requests then on file comprised added subject-matter.II. In its statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of:- the main request as filed on 18 November 2022- the first auxiliary request as filed on 18 November 2022 or- the second or third auxiliary requests as filed during the oral proceedings before the examining divisionIII. The board scheduled oral proceedings.IV. The board issued a communication under Article 15(1) RPBA on 4 August 2025, providing its preliminary opinion and including the following points in particular.- The main request and the first auxiliary request contained added subject-matter.- The feature added to claim 1 of the second auxiliary request was disclosed in the published application.- There were special reasons to remit the case to the examining division.V. In a submission dated 28 October 2025, the appellant conditionally withdrew the main request and the first auxiliary request. The condition for the withdrawal was that the board cancel the oral proceedings and remit the case to the examining division for further prosecution on the basis of the second auxiliary request as the new main request.VI. The board subsequently cancelled the oral proceedings.VII. Given that the present decision is to remit the case to the examining division for further prosecution on the basis of what was previously the second auxiliary request, the appellant's conditional withdrawal of the main request and the first auxiliary request as filed on 18 November 2022 takes effect. Consequently, the request labelled "2**(nd) auxiliary request" is referred to below as the main request.VIII. Claim 1 of the main request (filed as "2**(nd) auxiliary request" during the oral proceedings before the examining division) reads as follows."A high-speed rotational atherectomy device, comprising:a guide wire (15);a flexible, elongated and rotatable drive shaft (120) advanceable over the guide wire (15), the drive shaft (120) having a rotational axis (A);an eccentric abrasive element (121E) disposed on the drive shaft (120) and spaced distally from an eccentric proximal counterweight (123E) and comprising a mass and a center of mass that is spaced radially away from the rotational axis (A) of the drive shaft (120) in a direction along a first longitudinal plane;the eccentric proximal counterweight (123E) disposed on the drive shaft (120) and comprising a mass and a center of mass that is spaced radially away from the rotational axis (A) along a second longitudinal plane that is rotationally spaced from the first longitudinal plane; andan eccentric distal counterweight (124E) disposed on the drive shaft (120) and spaced distally from the eccentric abrasive element (121E) and having a mass and a center of mass that is spaced radially away from the rotational axis (A) of the drive shaft (120) along a third longitudinal plane that is rotationally spaced away from the first longitudinal plane and from the second longitudinal plane;wherein the high-speed rotational atherectomy device comprises more than two counterweights."IX. The appellant's arguments, where relevant to the present decision, can be summarised as follows.Main request - added subject-matterThe feature of claim 1 of the main request that the device comprised more than two counterweights could be derived from the published application. Its inclusion in claim 1 did not violate Article 123(2) EPC.Paragraph [0079] of the published application described and defined a counterweight as referred to in the present application. It referred to "a system of an abrasive element with two or more counterweights", thus disclosing the possibility of having more than two counterweights. Furthermore, paragraph [0101] referred to "one or more counterweights" and paragraph [0107] disclosed "more than one proximal counterweight, and/or more than one distal counterweight".
Judgment Nº T 1396/23 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-11-13
I. The appeal was filed by the opponent against the opposition division's decision rejecting the opposition filed against the European patent.II. Claims 1 and 6 of the opposed patent read:"1. Composition comprising polysaccharides and whey protein micelles for use in the treatment or prevention of a disorder linked to an increase in plasma postprandial insulin selected from the group consisting of diabetes, for example gestational diabetes; impairment of glucose metabolism; hyperinsulinemia or insulin resistance, in a subject; wherein the polysaccharides have a negative zeta potential at a pH value in the range 2.5 to 4.5 and are selected from the group consisting of alginate, xanthan, pectin, gum karaya, gum Arabic and carrageenan; the weight ratio of whey protein micelles to polysaccharide is between 30:1 and 0.8:1; the whey protein micelles are obtainable by adjusting the pH of a demineralized native whey protein aqueous solution to a value between 5.8 and 6.6 and subjecting the aqueous solution to a temperature between 80 and 98°C for a period of between 10 seconds and 2 hours, and the polysaccharides and whey protein micelles are in the form of polysaccharide-whey protein micelle complexes.""6. Process for forming polysaccharide-whey protein micelle complexes comprising the steps of;a. forming whey protein micelles by adjusting the pH of a demineralized native whey protein aqueous solution to a value between 5.8 and 6.6 and subjecting the aqueous solution to a temperature between 80 and 98°C for a period of between 10 seconds and 2 hours.b. combining polysaccharides with an aqueous dispersion of whey protein micelles to form a composition comprising an aqueous dispersion of polysaccharides and whey protein micelles, wherein the polysaccharides have a negative zeta potential at a pH value in the range 2.5 to 4.5 and are selected from the group consisting of alginate, xanthan, pectin, gum karaya, gum Arabic and carrageenan; and the weight ratio of whey protein micelles to polysaccharide is between 30:1 and 0.8:1c. if the pH of the composition comprising an aqueous dispersion of polysaccharides and whey protein micelles is not already between 2.5 and 4.5, then adjusting the pH of the composition to between 2.5 and 4.5 to form polysaccharide-whey protein micelle complexes."III. With its notice of opposition, the opponent had requested revocation of the patent in its entirety on the grounds under Article 100(a) (lack of inventive step) and 100(b) (lack of sufficiency).IV. The documents submitted during the opposition proceedings included:D1: |EP 1839492 A1 |D3: |WO 2013/057232 A1 |D4: |WO 2010/112430 A1 |D5: |The British Nutrition Foundation, 1990, p. 37-40 |D6: |E. Dickinson, Soft Matter, 2008, vol. 4, p. 932-942 |D7: |US 6,355,612 B1 |D8: |J. Mouecoucou et al., J. Dairy Sci., 2003, vol. 86, No. 12, p. 3857-3865 |D9: |S. Zhang et al., Food Funct., 2014, vol. 5, p. 102-110 |D10:|S. Zhang et al., J. Anim. Sci, 2014, vol. 92, E-Suppl. 2 / J. Dairy Sci. vol. 97, E-Suppl. 1, 0329, p. 163|D11:|S. Zhang et al., Food Funct., 2014, vol. 5, No. 8, p. 1829-38 |D12:|R. Tuinier et al., Biomacromolecules 2002, vol. 3, p. 632-638 |D13:|C.G. de Kruif et al., Food New Zeeland, May/June 2005, p. 23-30 |D14:|EP 2074891 A1 |D15:|AU 2014253468 |V. In its decision, the opposition division found inter alia the following.- The claimed invention was sufficiently disclosed. The lower insulin levels observed when administering the claimed whey protein complexes, as compared with whey protein isolates, made it credible that the claimed compositions improved insulin sensitivity and preserved pancreatic function. The patent provided sufficient information to enable a skilled person to prepare compositions suitable for achieving the stated therapeutic effects.- The claimed subject-matter involved an inventive step over the cited prior-art documents. D3, which, like the opposed patent, related to the use of whey protein micelles to decrease plasma postprandial insulin, was the closest prior art. D7, D13 and D14 related to different effects and were not suitable starting points. The claimed subject-matter differed from the teaching of D3 in that the whey protein micelles (WPM) were in complex form with the carbohydrate. The tests in the patent made it credible that the claimed complex reduced postprandial insulin to a greater extent than uncomplexed whey protein isolate (uncomplexed WPI) and uncomplexed whey protein micelles. The objective technical problem was "the provision of an improved whey protein micelle-containing composition for treating diabetes, impaired glucose metabolism, hyperinsulinemia, or insulin resistance by yielding a lower postprandial insulin response". D3 did not suggest preparing the claimed complexes to solve this problem, either alone or in combination with the other cited documents.VI. The appellant's arguments which are relevant for the decision may be summarised as follows.- The invention was insufficiently disclosed. Claim 1 was formulated in the second medical use format under Article 54(5) EPC. However, it did not specify the patients for which treatment was intended, the form of the composition or the nature and minimum amount of the micellar whey protein-polysaccharide complex in the composition. The claimed complex was a nutritional ingredient, not a therapeutically active agent. Since it could not reach the bloodstream, it could not lower the postprandial insulin response induced by a meal. No test was provided in which a pathologic insulin response was induced after ingestion of a meal, nor one containing a slow protein such as casein that caused a moderate insulin release. The observed effects were only observed in minipigs and could have been induced merely by delayed gastric emptying. The effective doses were not specified. For these reasons, the claimed therapeutic effect could not be achieved and the claimed invention could not be carried out.- The claimed invention did not involve an inventive step starting from D3, the closest prior art. The claimed subject-matter differed from the teaching of D3 in that the whey protein micelles were in complexed form. The test with meal C showed that complexation was not associated with the purported effect. The problem could be regarded, at most, as the "reduction of postprandial insulin response of a specific composition comprising WPM". The claimed solution was obvious. D5 to D15 showed that polysaccharides slowed gastric emptying by increasing viscosity, and that they formed complexes with proteins, including whey proteins, slowing down their digestion. As a consequence, they also decreased postprandial insulinaemia. It would thus have been obvious to add polysaccharides to the compositions of D3 to obtain this effect. The micellar whey proteins of D3 could be expected to behave like known non-micellar whey proteins.VII. The respondent's arguments which are relevant for the decision may be summarised as follows.- The claimed invention was sufficiently disclosed. Claim 1 was in the second medical use format. It defined the patients to be treated, complexes of whey protein micelles and how to prepare them. The tests in the patent confirmed that complexes were formed. More than one protein could bind to a single polysaccharide chain. Claim 1 excluded an excess of polysaccharide which could induce thickening and gelation. The patent showed that the claimed complexes induced a lower insulin response than isocaloric compositions comprising whey protein isolates and uncomplexed whey protein micelles (uncomplexed WPM). Thus, less insulin was required to clear the same amount of glucose. A cornerstone of diabetes therapy was reducing the insulin response to avoid insulin resistance. Healthy minipigs were suitable models for human responses. Thus, the claimed therapeutic effect was credible. The patent showed how to carry out the invention. There was no need to explicitly mention the effective amount of complex in the claim or to exclude additional ingredients.- The claimed invention involved an inventive step over D3, the closest prior art. It differed from the teaching of D3 in that the whey protein micelles were complexed with polysaccharides, in the specified ratio. The complexation reduced the postprandial insulin release required to clear the same amount of glucose. Since glycaemia remained unaffected, the observed effect could not be attributed to gelation or delayed gastric emptying. Moreover, there was no evidence that polysaccharides induced gelation in the tested compositions. In the case of meal C, the complexation occurred during digestion. The objective technical problem was providing an improved whey-based composition for treating diabetes by reducing postprandial plasma insulin levels. None of the cited documents suggested replacing whey protein micelles with their complexes to achieve this effect. Only D3 and D15 disclosed whey protein micelles, but not in complex form. The known effects of polysaccharides on gastric emptying, insulinaemia and protein digestion could not be expected to apply to compositions comprising complexes of whey protein micelles.RequestsVIII. The opponent (appellant) requested that the decision be set aside and that the patent be revoked in its entirety.IX. The patent proprietor (respondent) requested that the appeal be dismissed or, alternatively, that the patent be maintained on the basis of one of the auxiliary requests MRa, AR 1 to AR 22 or the corresponding requests AR 1a to AR 22a, filed with the reply to the statement of grounds of appeal.
Judgment Nº T 1469/24 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-11-06
I. The appeal concerns the interlocutory decision of the opposition division to maintain European patent no. EP 3812870 B1 in amended form according to the then main request of the proprietor, filed with letter dated 18 September 2024.II. Notices of appeal were filed in time by both the proprietor (16 December 2024) and the opponent Mr. N.N., a private person (19 December 2024).III. The opponent withdrew its appeal with letter dated 20 March 2025. The proprietor is thus the sole appellant and the opponent is a party as of right to the appeal proceedings.IV. The appellant-proprietor submitted its statement setting out the grounds for appeal with letter dated 3 April 2025. It requested that the decision of the opposition division "concerning the admissibility of the opposition" be set aside, that the opposition filed by Mr. N.N. be declared inadmissible because it did not meet the requirements of Articles 99(1) EPC and that the patent be maintained as granted.Should the board consider that the opposition was admissibly filed, the appellant requested that the patent be maintained in amended form based on the main request which was allowed by the opposition division.V. The board issued a preliminary opinion under Article 15(1) RPBA dated 30 June 2025, indicating that the appeal was likely to be dismissed, for reasons essentially corresponding to the reasons of the present decision.VI. The opponent-respondent requested with letter dated 30 July 2025 to dismiss the appeal of the proprietor. In case the board deviated from its preliminary opinion (as expressed in the board's communication), the opponent requested a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal on certain procedural issues raised in the board's communication.VII. With letter dated 27 October 2025, the appellant indicated that they would not attend the oral proceedings before the board scheduled on 27 November 2025. The board thereafter cancelled the oral proceedings.VIII. The submissions of both the appellant and the respondent essentially relate to whether filing an opposition by a "straw man" would be admissible in this case. The detailed arguments are set out below.
Urteil Nr T 0077/23 Beschwerdekammer des Europäischen Patentamts, 2025-10-21
I. Die Beschwerde der Einsprechenden richtet sich gegen die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung, den Einspruch gegen das europäische Patent Nr. 3 158 325 B1 zurückzuweisen.II. Die Einspruchsabteilung war der Auffassung, dass das Patent wie erteilt den Erfordernissen des EPÜ genüge, insbesondere gehe der in den Ansprüchen definierte Gegenstand nicht über den Inhalt der Anmeldung in der ursprünglich eingereichten Fassung hinaus (Artikel 100 c) EPÜ), sei neu und weise eine erfinderische Tätigkeit auf (Artikel 100 a), 52 (1), 54 und 56 EPÜ).III. In Antwort auf die Mitteilung der Beschwerdekammer gemäß Artikel 15 (1) VOBK teilte die Beschwerdegegnerin (Patentinhaberin) mit, dass sie nicht an der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Kammer teilnehmen werde und den Antrag auf mündliche Verhandlung zurücknehme.Die mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Kammer fand folglich in Abwesenheit der Beschwerdegegnerin statt.IV. Am Ende der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Kammer beantragte die Beschwerdeführerin (Einsprechende), die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung aufzuheben und das Patent zu widerrufen.Die Beschwerdegegnerin (Patentinhaberin) hatte schriftlich beantragt, die Beschwerde zurückzuweisen und damit die angefochtene Entscheidung über die Zurückweisung des Einspruchs zu bestätigen und das Patent wie erteilt aufrechtzuerhalten (Hauptantrag). Hilfsweise hatte sie beantragt, das Verfahren zur Behandlung der Hilfsanträge 2, 4 und 6 bis 8 an die Einspruchsabteilung zurückzuverweisen. Weiter hilfsweise hatte sie beantragt, das Patent in geänderter Fassung auf der Grundlage der Ansprüche eines der Hilfsanträge 1 bis 8 aufrechtzuerhalten, eingereicht mit der Beschwerdeerwiderung vom 17. Juli 2023. Des Weiteren hatte sie die Nichtzulassung von Dokument E9 beantragt.V. Folgende Dokumente werden in dieser Entscheidung genannt:E1: US 3 581 190 AE9: Römpp Chemie Lexikon, Hrsg.: Prof. Dr. J. Falbe und Prof. Dr. M. Regitz, Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart - New York, 9. erweiterte und neu bearbeitete Auflage, 1995, Seiten 1197 und 2645VI. Anspruch 1 des Patents wie erteilt hat folgenden Wortlaut (Merkmalsnummerierung von der Kammer hinzugefügt):"M1.1 Mikrowellenmessvorrichtung (20, 120, 220, 320) einer Anordnung zur Überprüfung von stabförmigen Artikeln (5) oder eines Materialstrangs der Tabak verarbeitenden Industrie,M1.1' insbesondere zur Überprüfung von flüssigkeitsgefüllten Kapseln (8) in Filtern (7) von längs- oder queraxial geförderten Filterzigaretten oder in einem längsaxial geförderten Filterstrang (9),M1.2 umfassend wenigstens einen Mikrowellenresonator (21, 121, 221, 321), dadurch gekennzeichnet, dassM1.3 der Mikrowellenresonator (21, 121, 221, 321) als Reflexionsresonator mit einem Resonatorhohlraum (24, 124, 224, 324) ausgebildet ist,M1.3.1 der an einer Seite eine MikrowelleneinkopplungM1.3.2 und einer der Mikrowelleneinkopplung gegenüber angeordneten Seite eine Reflexionsfläche (32) aufweist,M1.3.3 wobei der Resonatorhohlraum (24, 124, 224, 324) einen Durchtrittskanal (40) für die Artikel (5) oder den Materialstrang aufweist, der den Resonatorhohlraum (24, 124, 224, 324) in mehrere Resonatorhohlraumabschnitte (25, 25', 25"; 125, 125', 125"; 225, 225', 225"; 325, 325', 325") aufteilt,M1.4 wobei der Mikrowellenresonator (21, 121, 221, 321) ein Einkopplungselement zwischen der Mikrowelleneinkopplung und dem Resonatorhohlraum (24, 124, 224, 324) umfasst,M1.4.1 wobei das Einkopplungselement als Blende (34), die wenigstens eine, insbesondere ovale oder runde, Öffnung aufweist, ausgebildet ist,M1.4.2 wobei die Reflexionsfläche (32) der Blende (34) gegenüberliegt."VII. Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 1 basiert auf Anspruch 1 des erteilten Patents, wobei das Merkmal M1.3.3 wie folgt geändert wurde (Unterstreichung kennzeichnet eine Hinzufügung, Durchstreichen eine Streichung; diese Markierungen werden auch im Weiteren so beibehalten):"M1.3.31 wobei der Resonatorhohlraum (24, 124, 224, 324) die Form eines Hohlleiters hat, der durch die Reflexionsfläche (32) abgeschlossen ist und einen Durchtrittskanal (40) für die Artikel (5) oder den Materialstrang aufweist, ... aufteilt,"VIII. Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 2 basiert auf Anspruch 1 des erteilten Patents, wobei das Merkmal M1.1' wie folgt geändert wurde:"M1.1'2 [deleted: insbesondere]nämlich zur Überprüfung von ... Filterstrang (9),"IX. Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 3 ist eine Kombination der Ansprüche 1 der Hilfsanträge 1 und 2.X. Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 4 wurde gegenüber Anspruch 1 des erteilten Patents wie folgt geändert:"M1.14 Mikrowellenmessvorrichtung (20, 120, 220, 320) einer Anordnung zur Überprüfung von stabförmigen Artikeln (5) [deleted: oder eines Materialstrangs ]der Tabak verarbeitenden Industrie,M1.1'4 insbesondere zur Überprüfung von flüssigkeitsgefüllten Kapseln (8) in Filtern (7) von [deleted: längs- oder ]queraxial geförderten Filterzigaretten[deleted: oder in einem längsaxial geförderten Filterstrang (9)],M1.3.34 wobei der Resonatorhohlraum (24, 124, 224, 324) einen Durchtrittskanal (40) für die Artikel (5) [deleted: oder den Materialstrang ]aufweist, der den Resonatorhohlraum (24, 124, 224, 324) in mehrere Resonatorhohlraumabschnitte (25, 25', 25"; 125, 125', 125"; 225, 225', 225"; 325, 325', 325") aufteilt,"XI. Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 5 ist eine Kombination des Anspruchs 1 der Hilfsanträge 1 und 4.XII. Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 6 basiert auf Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 5 mit folgenden Änderungen:"M1.3.36 wobei der Resonatorhohlraum (24, 124, 224, 324) die Form eines Hohlleiters hat, der durch die Reflexionsfläche (32) abgeschlossen ist und dessen Länge größer als seine Ausdehnung in Querrichtung, also in Richtung der Längserstreckung der stabförmigen Artikel und des Förderwegs der stabförmigen Artikel ist, wobei der Resonatorhohlraum (24, 124, 224, 324) einen Durchtrittskanal (40) für die Artikel (5) aufweist, ... aufteilt,"XIII. Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 7 basiert auf Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 6, wobei am Ende des Anspruchs folgendes Merkmal hinzugefügt wurde:"M1.5 wobei der Durchtrittskanal (40) als Gabel oder im Querschnitt ,,U"-förmig ausgebildet ist und/oder Wandungen (44, 46) des Durchtrittskanals (40) in wenigstens einer Richtung über den Resonatorhohlraum (24, 124, 224, 324) hinausragen."XIV. Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 8 basiert auf Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 6, wobei das Merkmal M1.3.36 wie folgt geändert wurde:"M1.3.38 wobei der Resonatorhohlraum (24, 124, 224, 324) ... einen Durchtrittskanal (40) für die Artikel (5) aufweist, der den Resonatorhohlraum (24, 124, 224, 324) in drei Resonatorhohlraumabschnitte (25, 25', 25"; 125, 125', 125"; 225, 225', 225"; 325, 325', 325") aufteilt, die miteinander fluchten und von denen zwei Resonatorhohlraumabschnitte (25, 25'; 125, 125'; 225, 225', 325, 325') abseits des Durchtrittskanals (40) innerhalb eines Gehäuses des Resonators liegen, wobei ein zwischen den beiden anderen Resonatorhohlraumabschnitten (25, 25'; 125, 125'; 225, 225', 325, 325') und mit diesen fluchtend angeordneter Bereich des Durchtrittskanals (40) den dritten Resonatorhohlraumabschnitt (25", 125", 225", 325") bildet,"XV. Das von den Parteien vorgetragene und für die Entscheidung wesentliche Vorbringen kann wie folgt zusammengefasst werden:Die Beschwerdeführerin (Einsprechende) ist der Ansicht, dass der gemäß Hauptantrag und Hilfsanträgen beanspruchte Gegenstand gegenüber Dokument E1 nicht neu ist.Die Beschwerdegegnerin (Patentinhaberin) ist der Auffassung, dass der gemäß Hauptantrag und Hilfsanträgen beanspruchte Gegenstand gegenüber Dokument E1 neu ist.
Judgment Nº T 0691/24 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-10-21
I. The appeal was filed by the proprietor against the decision of the opposition division to revoke the opposed patent under Article 101(3)(b) EPC for non-admissibility of the claim requests on file.II. Oral proceedings before the board were held on 21 October 2025. The final requests of the parties were:- The proprietor (appellant) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of one of five claim requests, i.e. a main request (former "auxiliary request 9a1"), an auxiliary request 9a2, a first auxiliary request (former "auxiliary request 9b"), a second auxiliary request (former "auxiliary request 10a") and a third auxiliary request (former "auxiliary request 9").- The opponents (respondents) requested that the appeal be dismissed.At the end of those oral proceedings, the board announced its decision.III. Claim 1 of the main request (labelled "AUXILIARY REQUEST 9a1") reads as follows:"A method comprising:at a computing platform (110) comprising at least one processor (204), memory (206), and communication interface (208, 210):receiving (400), via the communication interface, a plurality of Internet Protocol, IP, packets, wherein each packet of the plurality of packets comprises an IP packet header and an application packet, wherein each IP packet header comprises a plurality of IP packet header field values, and wherein each application packet comprises a plurality of application header field values within an application header;determining (402), by the processor, that at least a portion of the plurality of IP packets have IP packet header field values corresponding to a packet filtering rule of a plurality of packet filtering rules stored in the memory;responsive to the determining that the at least a portion of the plurality of IP packets have IP packet header field values corresponding to the packet filtering rule stored in the memory, forwarding (404) the at least a portion of the plurality of IP packets to an operator (220, 222, 224) specified by the packet filtering rule, wherein the operator specifies one or more application header field value criteria;determining (406), by the operator, whether one or more of the at least a portion of the plurality of IP packets have one or more application header field values corresponding to the one or more application header field value criteria specified by the operator;responsive to the determining that the one or more of the at least a portion of the plurality of IP packets have one or more application header field values corresponding to the one or more application header field criteria specified by the operator, applying (408), by the operator, at least one packet transformation function specified by the operator to the one or more of the at least a portion of the plurality of IP packets; andresponsive to the determining that the one or more of the at least a portion of the plurality of IP packets have one or more application header field values not corresponding to the one or more application header field criteria specified by the operator, applying one or more additional packet filtering rules of the plurality of packet filtering rules to the one or more of the at least a portion of the plurality of IP packets having one or more application header field values not corresponding to the one or more application header field criteria specified by the operator."Claim 1 of auxiliary request 9a2 (labelled "AUXILIARY REQUEST 9a2") differs from claim 1 of the main request in:- the replacement of "whether" by "that",- the insertion of the word "first" right before each of the first three occurrences of the phrase "one or more of the at least a portion",- the insertion of the wording "determining (406), by the operator, that the second one or more of the at least a portion of the plurality of IP packets have one or more application header field values not corresponding to the one or more application header field value criteria specified by the operator;" right before the phrase "and responsive to determining",- the insertion of the word "second" before the last two occurrences of the phrase "one or more of the at least a portion".Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request (labelled "AUXILIARY REQUEST 9b") differs from claim 1 of the main request in the insertion of the wording", and wherein the operator is separate from the packet filtering rule so that the operator can be specified by multiple packet filtering rules of the plurality of packet filtering rules stored in the memory"right after the phrase "wherein the operator specifies one or more application header field value criteria".Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request (labelled "AUXILIARY REQUEST 10a") differs from claim 1 of the main request in the deletion of the clause"; and responsive to the determining that the one or more of the at least a portion of the plurality of IP packets have one or more application header field values not corresponding to the one or more application header field criteria specified by the operator, applying one or more additional packet filtering rules of the plurality of packet filtering rules to the one or more of the at least a portion of the plurality of IP packets having one or more application header field values not corresponding to the one or more application header field criteria specified by the operator"and the insertion of the term "only" right before the expression "to the determining that the one or more of the at least a portion".Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request (labelled "9**(TH) AUXILIARY REQUEST") differs from claim 1 of the main request in the deletion of the phrase"to the one or more of the at least a portion of the plurality of IP packets having one or more application header field values not corresponding to the one or more application header field criteria specified by the operator"at the end of the claim.
Judgment Nº T 1719/21 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-10-16
I. The appeal lies from the interlocutory decision of the opposition division according to which European patent No. 2 833 415 as amended according to the claims of the Main Request submitted with letter of 23 April 2021 and a description adapted thereto met the requirements of the EPC.II. The decision was taken having regard inter alia to the following documentary evidence:D3: US 2005/0215737 AlD4: WO 2008/036708 A2D7: ENGAGE(TM) 8400, technical information, Dow, Rev. 7 September 2011D7a: ENGAGE(TM) 8407, technical information, Dow, Rev. 17 May 2011D7b: ENGAGE(TM) polyolefin elastomer, Product Information, DuPont Dow Elastomers, published August 2015D8: US 5,986,028D9: WO 2010/140343 A1 and its English translation US 2012/073631 A1 (D9')D10a: Analysis report, 26 December 2013, F content of ENGAGE(TM) 8407 and ENGAGE(TM) 8200D10d: Attestation on test and analysis, 18 May 2016, fluorine and aluminium contents of ENGAGE(TM) 8400 and 8407D11: JP 2012-38856 A and Patent Translate translation thereof D11'D12: BS EN 1122:2001 Plastics - Determination of cadmium - Wet deposition methodD13: E. Wieteska et al, The Role of Sample Pre-Treatment in Analysis of Aluminium Traces in Food by GFAAS, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies Vol. 8, No. 3 (1999), 189-196III. As far as relevant to the present case, the following conclusions were reached in the decision under appeal:(a) Sufficiency of disclosure was acknowledged.(b) Novelty over each of Example II and Comparative Example VI of D3 was acknowledged. ENGAGE® 8200, 8400/8407 as used in D4 were, even in the light of D8, not reproducible and thus were not considered as made available to the public.(c) D11 was considered to be the closest prior art and the subject-matter of claim 1 differed therefrom by a content of F in the copolymer to be below 10 ppm. That content had been shown to be associated with a reduction of the volume resistivity of the encapsulating material, which effect was not derivable from the cited prior art. An inventive step was therefore acknowledged.IV. An appeal against that decision was lodged by the opponent (appellant). Written submissions including a statement of grounds of appeal and a reply thereto by the patent proprietor (respondent) were filed by the parties, Auxiliary Requests 1 to 11 being filed with the reply to the statement of grounds of appeal. Additional submissions regarding the substance of the case were filed by both parties after issuance of decision G 1/23 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, whereby the additional submissions of the respondent included new auxiliary requests.V. In preparation of the oral proceedings, a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA conveying the Board's provisional opinion was issued.VI. During the oral proceedings held on 16 October 2025 with the participation of both parties the respondent withdrew all claim requets, except for Auxiliary Request 2 submitted with the rejoinder.VII. The final requests of the parties were as follows:The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be revoked.The respondent requested that that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of Auxiliary Request 2 filed with the reply to the statement of grounds of appeal.VIII. The claims of Auxiliary Request 2 which are relevant for the present decision are claims 1 and 2 which read as follows:"1. An encapsulating material for solar cell comprising:an ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymer,wherein the ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymer contains a fluorine element, andthe content of the fluorine element in the ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymer, which is determined using a combustion method and an ion chromatograph method, is equal to or less than 3.0 ppm.2. The encapsulating material for solar cell according to claim 1,wherein a content of an aluminum element in the ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymer, which is determined using an ICP emission analysis, is equal to or less than 20 ppm."IX. The parties' arguments, in so far as they are pertinent for the present decision, may be derived from the reasons for the decision below. They were directed to the following issues:(a) Sufficiency of disclosure of the encapsulating material according to claims 1 and 2.(b) Inventive step of the encapsulating material of claim 1 starting from the encapsulating material exemplified in the experimental part of D11.(c) Inventive step of the encapsulating material of claim 1 starting from Example 3 of D4 and admittance of that objection.