| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T024608.20080814 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 14 August 2008 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0246/08 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 04737285.9 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G01V 1/16 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Coupling aid for seismic cable | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Services Pétroliers Schlumberger | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.03 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Substantial procedural violations (yes) | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
To safeguard a party's right to be heard pursuant to Article 113(1) EPC a decision must show that all potentially refutative arguments adduced by a party are actually refutable; reasons 2. A refusal of consent to amend made in advance of any amendment being submitted cannot be a reasonable exercise of discretion pursuant to Rule 137(3) EPC (former Rule 86(3) EPC 1973) and is ipso facto a substantial procedural violation; reasons 3. The substantive legal requirement for the continued presence of claims in an application is expressed in Article 78(1)(c) EPC not in Article 113(2) EPC; reasons 5. |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t080246eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
35 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.EPC Articles
EPC Implementing Rules
EPO Guidelines - H Amendments and Corrections
Offical Journal of the EPO
Case Law Book: III Amendments
Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications
XCLR IV B 3.3.3 Criteria for admitting amendments filed in reply to the Rule 71(3) EPC communication