EPO: Non-proven facts introduced ex officio
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

EPO: Non-proven facts introduced ex officio

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px.png
amy-humphries-2m-sdj-agvs-unsplash.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos P/S explains the findings of a recent decision by the EPO Board of Appeal, which permits the introduction of new facts and evidence in proceedings

In a recent decision of January 25 2021, T 1370/15, one of the EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal relied on common general knowledge introduced by the Board ex officio, for which there was no documentary evidence on file. According to the decision, an EPO Board of Appeal is allowed to introduce new common general knowledge without evidence of such knowledge that prejudices the maintenance of the patent, to the extent that the board is knowledgeable in the respective technical field from the experience of its members working on cases in this field.

In the case concerned, the patentee had brought an appeal against a first-instance decision in inter partes opposition proceedings revoking the patent concerned. The assessment of non-obviousness on appeal was carried out on the basis that a particular prior art document identified as “the closest prior art” failed to disclose certain features of a user interface (UI) of a broadcast processing apparatus, such as a digital TV.

The Board of Appeal held that these features contributed to increasing user convenience in selecting criteria for searching channels, and that the skilled person seeking to solve that problem would have provided an adequate UI on the basis of their knowledge of grid or drop-down menus as a matter of obviousness. The knowledge of the members of the Board of Appeal to the effect that grid or drop-down menus formed part of the skilled person’s knowledge was not proven by documentary evidence. Yet, the Board relied on such knowledge in holding the claimed subject-matter as non-inventive.

The Board of Appeal referred in its decision to a prior decision, T 1090/12 of 2017, in which another one of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal, in the context of ex partes proceedings, had laid down that there is no general obligation on a board to provide documentary evidence for the existence of a piece of common general knowledge. In line with that decision, the Board held in T 1370/15 that a board is not excluded outright from introducing new facts and evidence in inter partes proceedings.

Jakob Pade Frederiksen

Partner, Inspicos P/S

E:jpf@inspicos.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Managing IP’s senior reporter Rani Mehta interviewed attendees at the INTA Annual Meeting in Atlanta about how they made the most out of their first day
A team of lawyers who joined Norton Rose Fulbright from Polsinelli say they were drawn to the firm's global platform
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Lawyers say a ruling concerning liability for trademark infringement could give company directors an easy way out and create litigation uncertainty
The LMG Life Sciences Awards announces the winners for the 5th annual awards
Some US lawyers have strengthened their connections with European firms as they help clients determine whether the UPC will become a 'centre of gravity'
In the latest episode, the team discusses the battle to take control of listed company and IP business Qantm IP, and looks at some recent hiring trends
To mark Mental Health Awareness Week, lawyers explain how they manage their mental health, and how they pluck up the courage to ask themselves difficult questions
IP lawyers unpick a case heard at the CJEU’s Grand Chamber this week that could potentially create a new world for litigation in Europe
A lawyer who replied to a cease-and-desist letter with just two words has shown others how to deal with vexatious infringement allegations
Gift this article