=================
=================
R 0003/24; 2026-3-31; Petition for review

ORIGINAL-KEYWORDS:
Breach of secrecy of deliberation (Article 19(1) RPBA) a fundamental defect under Article 112a(2)(d) EPC or per se leading to violation of right to be heard (no)
Petition allowable (no) no violation of petitioner’s right to be heard

ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
1. A request to uphold an appeal on the basis of a specific piece of prior art is not a request in the meaning of Rule 104(b) EPC (point 3.1 of the Reasons).
2. Article 112a(2)(d) EPC is not a “catch-all clause” for procedural defects. It merely empowers the legislature to define defects in the Implementing Regulations in addition to the defects mentioned in Article 112a EPC. Rule 104 EPC exhaustively defines exactly two defects; a violation of any of the provisions of the RPBA is not among them. (R 12/23, point 3.1 affirmed.) (See point 3.2 of the Reasons).
This applies in particular to an asserted violation of Article 19(1), third sentence, RPBA according to which “[t]he deliberations shall be secret.” A remedy for the breach of the secrecy of the deliberation does exist: board members may be liable to disciplinary action by the Administrative Council. (See points 4.1.2 and 4.3.1 of the Reasons).

AI FEEDBACK:
– Rule 104(b) EPC concerns an actual request for an executable legal consequence, such as setting aside a decision or maintaining a patent. It does not require the board to issue a separate ruling on every argument or preferred route by which a party says that consequence should be reached.
– Article 112a(2)(d) EPC is not a general review ground for every procedural irregularity. Under the current Implementing Regulations, Rule 104 EPC exhaustively identifies the additional defects covered; a breach of an RPBA provision, including the secrecy of deliberations, is not automatically one of them.
– A secrecy issue also does not by itself establish a violation of the right to be heard. Article 113(1) EPC focuses on whether the party had an opportunity to comment on the essential legal and factual reasoning on which the decision was based.
– Example from the case: the proprietor argued that the appeal should have been upheld on the basis of D5/D9, whereas the Board assessed inventive step starting from D10. The Enlarged Board treated the D5/D9 route as an argument supporting the request to set aside the revocation, not as a separate request. In a separate “room incident”, the opponent’s representative entered the deliberation room and was asked to leave; this did not create a review ground under Article 112a(2)(d) EPC or establish a relevant denial of the proprietor’s right to be heard.
=================
=================
#actionable T 0101/22; 2026-2-27; Barillet/ROLEX

ORIGINAL-KEYWORDS:
Activité inventive – (non) – alternative évidente
Droit d’être entendu – procédure d’examen – possibilité de prendre position (oui)
Objection au titre de la règle 106 CBE – rejetée
Remboursement de la taxe de recours – équitable en raison d’un vice substantiel de procédure (non)

AI-TRANSLATED-KEYWORDS:
Inventive step – (no) – obvious alternative
Right to be heard – examination proceedings – opportunity to comment (yes)
Objection under Rule 106 EPC – rejected
Reimbursement of the appeal fee – equitable by reason of a substantial procedural violation (no)

ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
Un effet technique ne peut être pris en compte dans l’appréciation de l’activité inventive que s’il est obtenu sur essentiellement toute la portée revendiquée. Cette condition n’est pas remplie lorsque l’effet n’est obtenu qu’en comparant l’objet revendiqué à un élément de l’état de la technique sur la base de l’hypothèse supplémentaire selon laquelle d’autres caractéristiques ou paramètres non définis dans la revendication sont identiques (sophisme du „toutes choses inchangées par ailleurs“), voir motifs 2.4.2.
Il ne saurait raisonnablement être exigé de produire une preuve à l’appui d’une analyse selon laquelle certaines modifications de l’état de la technique auraient été évidentes. Une telle analyse ne constitue pas un fait susceptible de preuve, mais un argument. Une partie qui conteste les connaissances générales ne peut exiger une preuve que pour les faits qui sont présentés comme faisant partie de ces connaissances générales, voir motifs 12.9.

AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
A technical effect can be taken into account in the assessment of inventive step only if it is achieved over substantially the entire claimed scope. This condition is not fulfilled where the effect is obtained only by comparing the claimed subject-matter with an item of prior art on the additional assumption that other features or parameters not defined in the claim are identical (the “all other things being equal” fallacy), see Reasons 2.4.2.
It cannot reasonably be required to produce evidence in support of an analysis that certain modifications of the prior art would have been obvious. Such an analysis is not a fact capable of proof, but an argument. A party disputing common general knowledge may demand evidence only for facts presented as forming part of that knowledge, see Reasons 12.9.

AI FEEDBACK:
– The first headnote requires a causal link between the relied-on technical effect and the claimed features across substantially the full scope of the claim. Unclaimed conditions cannot silently be held constant to manufacture an advantage over the prior art.
– In this case, the claim to the watch barrel did not define the available installation volume or the presence and properties of the mainspring. The alleged increase in power reserve therefore depended on additional, unclaimed assumptions. The objective technical problem was consequently reduced to providing an alternative shape for the barrel-cover and drum walls, and the claimed alternative was considered obvious.
– The second headnote separates facts from argument. Evidence may be requested for a factual assertion said to form part of common general knowledge, but not for the evaluative reasoning that a particular modification or trade-off would have been obvious.
– Example from the case: Rolex compared the claimed barrel with a hypothetical prior-art barrel that was identical except for the distinguishing wall geometry. The Board rejected that comparison because the claim did not require the same surrounding volume or the same mainspring. It also treated the examining division’s assessment that reducing thickness to 0.18 mm or using a gradual thickness involved predictable trade-offs as argument, not as facts requiring separate proof.
=================
=================
#actionable T 0558/21; 2025-12-15; Calcul cryptographique sur courbe elliptique/IDEMIA

ORIGINAL-KEYWORDS:
Procédure orale – requête de tenue de la procédure orale par visioconférence (refusée)
Vice substantiel de procédure – violation du droit d’être entendu (non)
Modifications – admises (oui)
Interprétation de la revendication 1 – sous-étape mentionnée dans la revendication n’est pas limitative
Exclusion de la brevetabilité – (non)
Activité inventive – effet technique (oui) – non-évidence au regard de l’état de la technique documenté pas contestée en recours

AI-TRANSLATED-KEYWORDS:
Oral proceedings – request to hold the oral proceedings by videoconference (refused)
Substantial procedural violation – violation of the right to be heard (no)
Amendments – admitted (yes)
Interpretation of claim 1 – sub-step mentioned in the claim is not limiting
Exclusion from patentability – (no)
Inventive step – technical effect (yes) – non-obviousness over documented prior art not contested on appeal

ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
1. Sur la pertinence de l’appartenance d’une invention à un « domaine technique » pour son caractère technique et pour l’identification des caractéristiques qui y contribuent, cf. points 29 et 42.
2. Sur la contribution technique d’une méthode mathématique de génération d’un point sur une courbe elliptique utilisé dans une application cryptographique, cf. point 40.
3. Sur la détermination des caractéristiques d’une invention qui contribuent à son caractère technique dans le cadre de l’approche COMVIK, cf. point 41.

AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
1. On the relevance of an invention’s belonging to a “technical field” for its technical character and for identifying the features that contribute to that character, see points 29 and 42.
2. On the technical contribution of a mathematical method for generating a point on an elliptic curve used in a cryptographic application, see point 40.
3. On determining the features of an invention that contribute to its technical character under the COMVIK approach, see point 41.

AI FEEDBACK:
– Merely classifying cryptography as a “technical field” does not make every feature of a cryptographic invention technical. The decisive question is whether a feature contributes to producing a technical effect that solves a technical problem.
– A mathematical method for generating an elliptic-curve point is non-technical as such. In the claimed context, however, the secret parameter t was transformed by an electronic component into point P efficiently while reducing the risk that the secret could be recovered through a timing attack. That functional integration into the cryptographic application gave the combined steps a technical contribution.
– Under COMVIK, the relevant features are those that contribute to the invention’s technical character. The Board may recognise a technical contribution by the mathematical steps as a whole without deciding immediately that every mathematical detail contributes; arbitrary details can still be identified later, including through comparison with the prior art.
– Example from the case: in the disclosed PACE password-authentication embodiment, t was derived from the user’s password and therefore represented a secret. The claimed operation pattern generated the elliptic-curve point used in the protocol while keeping the number and type of important operations sufficiently uniform to resist timing analysis.
=================
=================
R 0016/23; 2025-11-21; Petition for review

ORIGINAL-KEYWORDS:
Petition for review – failure to arrange oral proceedings – decision under review set aside – re-opening of proceedings

ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
1. As oral proceedings had been requested by the appellant-applicant in the event that an adverse decision on the request for re-establishment of rights and on the appeal were taken, the Board should have arranged for the holding of oral proceedings pursuant to Article 116(1) EPC before taking any such adverse decision.
2. The failure to arrange oral proceedings constitutes a fundamental procedural defect within the meaning of Article 112a(2)(d) and Rule 104(a) EPC since, as a result, the appellant-applicant did not have the opportunity to present the case orally on the decisive issues of re-establishment of rights and the admissibility of the appeal.
3. As a consequence, the decision is to be set aside, proceedings before the Board are to be re-opened and the fee for the petition for review is to be reimbursed.

AI FEEDBACK:
– A conditional request for oral proceedings becomes operative when the Board is considering the adverse outcome specified in the condition. Once such a request exists and has not been withdrawn, Article 116(1) EPC generally leaves no discretion to replace the requested hearing with a written decision.
– The defect is fundamental when the issues on which oral proceedings were requested are the same decisive issues on which the proceedings are terminated. The petitioner need not additionally prove that oral argument would probably have changed the result; the loss of the requested opportunity to present the case orally is itself decisive.
– The procedural consequence is restoration of the opportunity that was denied: the adverse decision is set aside, the appeal proceedings are reopened, and the petition fee is reimbursed.
– Example from the case: the applicant requested oral proceedings if its request for re-establishment of the time limit for filing the grounds of appeal was to be rejected. The Legal Board nevertheless rejected re-establishment and then rejected the appeal as inadmissible in written proceedings. The Enlarged Board held that the requested hearing should have taken place before those linked adverse findings were made.
=================
=================
R 0010/24; 2025-10-6; Antrag auf Überprüfung

ORIGINAL-KEYWORDS:
Verletzung des rechtlichen Gehörs (nein)

AI-TRANSLATED-KEYWORDS:
Violation of the right to be heard (no)

ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
Wegen der Intensität des Eingriffs einer Nichtzulassung geänderten Vorbringens durch Vorschriften der VOBK, d.h. deren Artikel 12 und 13, sind Auslegung und Anwendung dieser das rechtliche Gehör qualifizierenden Vorschriften einer inhaltlichen Kontrolle nicht lediglich auf Willkür zu unterziehen. Insoweit ist das Recht auf rechtliches Gehör etwa auch bei einer offenkundig unrichtigen Anwendung solcher Vorschriften verletzt. (Siehe Entscheidungsgründe, Nr. B.II.3.2.)

AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
Because of the intensity of the interference caused by the non-admission of amended submissions under provisions of the RPBA, namely Articles 12 and 13, the interpretation and application of those provisions, which qualify the right to be heard, are subject to substantive review and not merely to review for arbitrariness. In this respect, the right to be heard is also infringed, for example, where such provisions are applied manifestly incorrectly. (See Reasons B.II.3.2.)

AI FEEDBACK:
– Non-admission of amended submissions can remove a party’s ability to rely on material that may decide the case. For that reason, review of the application of Articles 12 and 13 RPBA is not confined to asking whether the board acted arbitrarily; a manifestly incorrect application can also amount to a violation of the right to be heard.
– This remains a limited procedural review. The Enlarged Board does not become a third instance and does not substitute its own assessment of the substantive law or repeat the board’s discretionary decision. It asks whether the governing admission rules were applied in a way that was manifestly incorrect and relevant to the opportunity to be heard.
– The standard did not assist the petitioner here because the late amendment responded to an issue that was already identifiable from the file and the opposing party’s submissions. Applying the prevailing Article 13(2) RPBA practice to refuse the late auxiliary request was therefore not manifestly incorrect.
– Example from the case: claim 1 covered synthesis gas with more than 12 vol.% methane but had no upper limit, while insufficiency for methane contents around 20-25 vol.% had already been raised. The proprietor added an upper limit only during the appeal hearing after the main request failed. The Board did not admit that auxiliary request, and the Enlarged Board found no surprising new factual issue and no violation of the right to be heard.
=================
=================
#actionable T 0035/20; 2024-5-17; Double press to pay/APPLE

ORIGINAL-KEYWORDS:
Inventive step – double press on button with integrated fingerprint sensor to pay with phone – (yes – not a mere user requirement)

ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
The term „user requirement“ is often used when assessing the technicality of features of user interfaces. The Board understands the term to refer to needs and preferences defined by the end user of a system, who does not possess any technical understanding of the system. Under the Comvik approach (T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK), such user requirements may appear in the formulation of the technical problem as they do not make any technical contribution. It was confirmed in T 1463/11 – Universal merchant platform/CardinalCommerce that non-technical (user) requirements cannot normally specify any technical matter or be based on technical considerations. That is not to say that they cannot refer to the underlying technical system at all. Just like the technically skilled person, the user starts from the technical system of the prior art; user requirements do not appear in a vacuum. Thus, if the user uses software on a computer, he may formulate non-technical requirements relating to this software (see e.g. T 2019/12 – Angabe einer Order/Lacqua). Analogously, if, as in the present case, the system is a mobile phone, the user may formulate requirements relating to the use of the phone, as long as they do not involve technical considerations or require technical understanding.
(See point 8 of the reasons)

AI FEEDBACK:
– A “user requirement” is a goal or preference that a non-technical end user can formulate, such as making payment faster, reducing the number of steps, or allowing payment while the rest of the phone remains locked. Such a requirement can be included in the technical problem under COMVIK but cannot itself support inventive step.
– The boundary is crossed when the supposed requirement already embodies technical considerations that the skilled person must investigate. A simple mapping such as pressing a known “pay” button may remain non-technical, whereas coordinating a timed double press with a fingerprint sensor that already performs the phone-unlock function is a technical design choice.
– The Board therefore assessed the concrete interaction and implementation rather than treating every user action as non-technical. It found no prior-art suggestion for the claimed dual use of the home button and integrated biometric sensor and considered the solution inventive.
– Example from the case: on the iPhone 6, the user first unlocked the device and then opened the payment app, authenticating again with the fingerprint sensor. The claimed method instead detected a second press within a predetermined interval, such as 300 ms, and used the integrated fingerprint reading to enable payment directly from the lock screen; without the second press, the device merely unlocked.
=================
=================