In TÂ 789/95 the file contained no indication that a copy of the opponent's observations had been forwarded to the patent proprietor. It was therefore to be assumed that the communication of the observations to the patent proprietor had been omitted, in contravention of the Guidelines. In the board's view, this constituted a substantial procedural violation, as it infringed the principle that all parties to proceedings must be accorded the same procedural rights.
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2019/e/clr_v_a_9_5_17_e.htm
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
3 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.Case Law Book: V Priority
XCLR V A 9.5.17 Cases concerning documentation and communications passing between the EPO and the parties