L'opposition avait été rejetée et le brevet maintenu tel que délivré. L'opposant 3 a formé un recours. Le breveté est resté muet tout au long de la procédure écrite et ne s'est manifesté que très tard, le 9 septembre 2011, en indiquant simplement que le recours devait être rejeté, le brevet maintenu et, si nécessaire, qu'une procédure orale devrait être tenue. Le tout sans donner de raison.
La Chambre a, disons, moyennement apprécié cette attitude, allant même jusqu'à utiliser la police grasse dans les motifs de la décision (passages soulignés ci-dessous car le gras ne ressort pas)...
1.1 The Board establishes that the respondent did not file any reply to the appeals within the time limit of four months from receipt of the statements of grounds of appeal. Instead, it waited about nine months (until 9 September 2011) before filing its very brief reply requesting only that the appeal of appellant I be dismissed (the appeal and opposition of appellant II having by then been withdrawn), the patent be maintained as granted and, subsidiarily, oral proceedings be held. The respondent did not submit a single argument to substantiate why the grounds of both appeals should be regarded as unfounded.
La chambre rappelle ensuite que la réponse au mémoire de recours, qui doit être fournie dans les 4 mois, (soit le 21 mars 2011) doit contenir l'ensemble des moyens avancés par la défenderesse.
Le 15 octobre 2013, le breveté a soumis un jeu de revendications modifiées, et 5 requêtes auxiliaires, de nouveau sans explications. La motivation de ces requêtes est contenue dans une lettre du 16 décembre 2013.
L'unique soucis du breveté (du moins d'après ce que l'on peut lire dans la décision), et la motivation de son silence sont une économie de procédure. La Chambre n'est pas convaincue, et utilise de nouveau le gras :
1.4 The respondent argues that it has deliberately waited for the preliminary opinion of the Board before reacting as, otherwise, it would have had to file with its reply to the statements of grounds of appeals, as a precautionary measure, an extremely high number of new requests in view of the numerous new issues raised. This would have led to presenting the Board with an undue, possibly useless, burden. The respondent is of the opinion that it was entitled to wait for the Board's preliminary opinion before filing any reaction, exactly for reasons of procedural economy, because the requests would then be more focused.
The Board cannot, however, share this view of the respondent, since, as put forward by appellant I during the oral proceedings, it is totally contrary to the very meaning of the Rules of Procedure.
The Rules of Procedure, as a whole, make it clear that appeal proceedings are primarily written proceedings, with the emphasis on the early stages of such proceedings. Indeed, as set out in Article 12(2) RPBA, the case of the parties shall be complete at a very early stage of the proceedings, in order to ensure a fair judicial system for all parties involved and to the benefit of the efficiency of the Board, so that it can start its work on a complete case.
The position of the respondent does not reflect this at all, unilaterally drawing all procedural advantages into its own sphere.
[...]
Le point 1.4 était un festival, mais le point 1.5 n'est pas mal non plus. En plus de rappeler que la lettre contenant la motivation des modifications est arrivé très tard (3 jours avant la procédure orale), la Chambre souligne que tout cela aura du mal à être considéré comme une conduite efficace de la procédure... Extraits :
1.5 The respondent filed its main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 5 with letter dated 15 October 2013, without any substantiation with respect to novelty and inventive step of the claimed subject-matter, the main issues of both appeals. The corresponding substantiation came only with the letter of 16 December 2013, i.e. only three days before the oral proceedings.
The respondent argues in this respect that it reacted immediately upon receiving the Board's negative preliminary opinion. Regarding the even later filing of the substantiation with respect to novelty and inventive step, the respondent argues that it did not see the need to include any arguments with these requests since it considered them to be self-explanatory.
[...]
Such behaviour of the respondent can hardly be seen as conducive to procedural efficiency for the Board or for appellant I, nor does it take account of the current state of the proceedings, both being contrary to Article 13(1) RPBA
[...]
La Chambre rappelle ensuite que ce n'est pas parce que l'on a gagné en première instance qu'on part avec un avantage en appel, contrairement à ce que semble croire le breveté...
1.6 In order to justify the late filing of the requests and their subsequent substantiation, the respondent argues further that the impugned decision was in its favour and that such decisions have a general presumption of validity before the Boards of Appeal.[...]
Toutes les requêtes du breveté sont ensuite examinées et rejetées. Faute de requête valide encore en instance, le brevet est révoqué.1.8 In light of the preceding discussion it is clear that the present respondent's behaviour is not in compliance with the Rules of Procedure. It is considered by the Board as an abuse of the appeal procedure. For this reason, the main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 5 cannot be admitted in the proceedings (see T 888/02, not published in OJ EPO, points 5 and 6 of the reasons).
Le réveil a dû être difficile...
T 1732/10
Vous êtes un rapide....quelques jours d'avance sur le blog de Laurent Teyssèdre
RépondreSupprimerHasard, et sans doute des sources communes ;o)
SupprimerMais très loin de moi l'idée de faire une course !