| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T024110.20140507 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 07 May 2014 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0241/10 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 03075061.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H04N 7/08 G06F 13/00 G06F 9/06 G06F 9/445 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Program reception/execution apparatus that can commence execution of a machine program having only received the program in part. | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Panasonic Corporation | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Interessengemeinschaft für Rundfunkschutzrechte e.V. (IGR e.V.) |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.04 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Admissibility of a document filed with the statement of grounds of appeal (yes) Inventive step - (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
The board has no power under Article 12(4) RPBA to hold a document filed with the statement of grounds of appeal inadmissible if the filing of that document was a legitimate reaction to the submission of amended claims by the patent proprietor shortly before the first-instance oral proceedings and the opponent could not have been reasonably expected to present that document in the proceedings before the opposition division (see points 2 to 7). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t100241eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021