T 501/09 - Ca manque de substance !

A l'issue de la procédure d'opposition, le brevet a été maintenu sous forme modifié.

Tant le breveté que l'opposant ont formé un recours contre cette décision.

Petite originalité : les deux recours ont été considérés irrecevables !

Le cas du breveté est rapidement traité : il n'a pas soumis de mémoire exposant les motifs du recours.

Le  cas de l'opposant est traité plus en détails par la chambre. En effet, celui-ci a choisi de baser son argumentation sur de nouveaux documents au lieu d'analyser en quoi, selon lui, la décision rendue en première instance sur la base des documents produits alors était erronée. Il convient donc d'analyser si le mémoire du recours est correctement motivé (art.108 CBE et R.99(2) CBE) et si les documents nouvellement produits n'auraient pas pu l'être en première instance.

7. Documents (D11) to (D15) were not part of the first instance opposition proceedings but were filed by the appellant-opponent with its statement of the grounds of appeal (see section VI above). The appellant-opponent thus chose to base its argumentation on appeal on new evidence instead of providing reasons why the conclusions of the opposition division as regards Article 100(a) EPC (novelty and inventive step) vis-à-vis the documents on file in the first instance proceedings were considered incorrect.

En effet, en aucun cas une procédure de recours ne peut devenir une "deuxième première instance", c'est à dire basée sur des faits nouveaux et des arguments nouveaux.

10. [...] Given that the aim of opposition-appeal proceedings is to obtain a judicial review of the opposition decision, it follows that the board must as a rule take its decision on the basis of the issues in dispute before the opposition division. It can be directly inferred from the above that the parties have only limited scope to amend the subject of the dispute in second-instance proceedings and this principle is reflected in Article 12(4) RPBA. The appeal proceedings are not about bringing an entirely fresh case [...].

12. [...] Therefore the claims of auxiliary request 2 relate to subject-matter for which the appellant-opponent could have been expected to substantiate any ground of opposition relied upon within the nine months period referred to in Article 99(1) EPC. Accordingly, the filing of documents (D11) to (D15) cannot be regarded as being justified by the amendments made by the appellant-patentee before the opposition division.

15. If the appellant-opponent was surprised by the decision of the opposition division, such surprise may be an understandable subjective reaction but such subjective surprise cannot change the fact that the line of reasoning relied on by the opposition division was in the proceedings and was known to the appellant-opponent. Indeed, if the decision under appeal had been based on a line of reasoning unknown to the appellant-opponent, it should have argued that its right to be heard had been violated - which it did not. Moreover, the appellant-opponent did not state that it was surprised by the decision of the opposition division when it filed its grounds of appeal, but only when the admissibility of the documents was challenged by the appellant-patentee. [...].

17. The new documents (D11) to (D15) and arguments based thereon do not address the reasons underlying the impugned decision, in particular the issue that a claim relating to a pharmaceutical composition comprising an antibody that per se was considered not to be inventive, could be considered inventive, but bring about a fresh case, tantamount to a new opposition by attacking subject-matter which was present in the claims as granted on the basis of new evidence under Article 54 EPC and 56 EPC. [...]

Après analyse, aucun des documents (D11) à (D15) n'est considéré comme étant prima facie très pertinent, ce qui prive le mémoire de recours de sa base factuelle et évidente (ouh, le vilain anglicisme...)

Et au final, ce que l'on sentait arriver arrive :

51. The board notes that appellant-opponent's submission corresponds in essence to its submission made in its notice of opposition (see paragraphs VI.3. and VI.4.) but fails to provide any arguments why the decision under appeal is incorrect on this point, contrary to the provisions of Rule 99(2) EPC.

52. The board concludes from points 45 to 51 above, that none of the passages on pages 2, 12 and 16 of the grounds of appeal, separate or together, explain why the conclusions of the opposition division were wrong.

53. The board concludes that the appellant-opponent's case on appeal is not substantiated contrary to the requirements of Article 108 EPC, third sentence, in conjunction with Rule 99(2) EPC and therefore it has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).

T 501/09