Error message

Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Optional parameter $type declared before required parameter $nid is implicitly treated as a required parameter in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).

R 0019/11 () of 2.10.2012

European Case Law Identifier:

ECLI:EP:BA:2012:R001911.20121002

Date of decision:

02 October 2012

Case number:

R 0019/11

Petition for review of:

Application number:

IPC class:

Language of proceedings:

EN

Distribution:

B

Download and more information:

Decision text in EN (PDF, 143Â KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in:	EN
Versions:	Unpublished

Title of application:

Synchronous drive apparatus with non-circular drive elements

Applicant name:

Litens Automotive

Opponent name:

Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG
PEUGEOT CITROEN AUTOMOBILES SA
The Gates Corporation
Beetz & Partner

Board:

EBA

Headnote:

-

Relevant legal provisions:

European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)
European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(c)
European Patent Convention Art 113(1)
European Patent Convention R 104
European Patent Convention R 106

Keywords:

Petition for review not clearly inadmissible
No right to advance indication of reasons for decision
List of possible grounds for review in Article 112a(2) and Rule 104 - exhaustive" - "Adequacy of the reasoning of the board's decision; no ground" "Judicial ground of irrationality, known as Wednesbury unreasonableness, no ground
Petition for review clearly unallowable

Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:

R 0001/08
R 0010/09
R 0012/09
R 0015/09
R 0016/09
R 0018/09
R 0015/10
R 0020/10
R 0001/11

Citing decisions:

R 0005/13
R 0008/13
R 0009/13
R 0010/13
R 0011/13
R 0012/13
R 0013/13
R 0016/13
R 0007/14
R 0008/15
T 1691/15

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/r110019eu1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

29 references found.

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

EPC Articles

X A.112a EPC Article 112a Petition for review by the Enlarged Board of Appeal

X A.113 EPC Right to be heard and basis of decisions

EPC Implementing Rules

X R.104 EPC Further fundamental procedural defects

X R.106 EPC Obligation to raise objections

Offical Journal of the EPO

X OJ EPO 2017, A15 - Decision of Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.07 dated 27 July 2016 T 1691/15

Case Law Book: V Priority

X CLR V B 3.4.2 Grounds listed exhaustively

X CLR V B 3.4.3 No suspensory effect – review of substantive law excluded

X CLR V B 4.3.5 No obligation to provide detailed reasons for a decision in advance

X CLR V B 4.3.6 Boards' obligation to remain neutral

General Case Law

X R 0001/08 () of 15.7.2008

X R 0010/09 () of 22.6.2010

X R 0012/09 () of 15.1.2010

X R 0015/09 (Schwerwiegender VerstoÃ gegen Art. 113 EPÃ/GLAS PLATZ) of 5.7.2010

X R 0016/09 () of 19.5.2010

X R 0018/09 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC/JOHNSON) of 27.9.2010

X R 0015/10 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC/SEIKO) of 25.11.2010

X R 0020/10 (Grounds for review/BOREALIS TECHNOLOGY OY) of 25.8.2011

X R 0001/11 () of 27.6.2011

X R 0005/13 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC) of 10.2.2014

X R 0008/13 () of 15.9.2015

X R 0009/13 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC) of 10.2.2014

X R 0010/13 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC) of 10.2.2014

X R 0011/13 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC) of 10.2.2014

X R 0012/13 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC) of 10.2.2014

X R 0013/13 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC) of 10.2.2014

X R 0016/13 () of 8.12.2014

X R 0007/14 () of 18.2.2016

X R 0008/15 (Fundamental violation of the right to be heard) of 18.7.2016

X T 1691/15 () of 27.7.2016