T 0281/03 (Teletext transmission/EDICO) of 17.5.2006

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T028103.20060517
Date of decision: 17 May 2006
Case number: T 0281/03
Application number: 92100124.4
IPC class: H04N 7/087
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: B
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 82 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished | Unpublished v2 | Unpublished v3
Title of application: Method and receiver for teletext transmission
Applicant name: EDICO S.r.l.
Opponent name: Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
Interessengemeinschaft für Rundfunkschutzrechte GmbH
Schutzrechtsverwertung & Co. KG
Board: 3.5.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 24(3)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 24(4)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 113(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 67
Keywords: Suspected partiality (no)
Novelty (yes)
Substantial procedural violation (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee (yes)
Catchwords:

1. Delaying detailed substantiation of the ground of inventive step raised in the notice of opposition to the last moment of opposition proceedings should be avoided if possible since it creates an unexpected situation for the other parties and the opposition division.

2. However, in the special case where an inventive step argument is based on the same document as the novelty argument, and the novelty of the features in question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, but depends on how the document is interpreted as a whole, it may be difficult if not impossible for an opponent to argue lack of inventive step without a precise statement of how the document is understood, and the features actually found to be different by the opposition division.

3. In order to guarantee the right to be heard (Article 113(1) EPC), there should in any case be an explicit step during oral proceedings, recorded in the minutes, giving an opponent an opportunity to comment on inventive step on the basis of the opposition division's finding with respect to novelty before deciding against the opponent.

(See points 13 to 15 of the reasons).

Cited decisions:
T 0131/01
Citing decisions:
T 0451/06
T 1943/07
T 1674/12

25 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

Offical Journal of the EPO

Case Law Book: III Amendments

Case Law Book: V Priority

Case Law of the Enlarged Board

General Case Law