| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2015:G000114.20151119 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 19 November 2015 | ||||||||
| Case number: | G 0001/14 | ||||||||
| Referral: | T 1553/13 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 08716627.8 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | F01N 3/035 F01N 3/28 F01N 13/18 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | DE | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Tenneco GmbH | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | J. EBERSPÃCHER GMBH & CO. KG | ||||||||
| Board: | EBA | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Admissibility of the referral of a point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal [no] Rule 126(1) (as in force until 31Â March 2015) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
1. If a board of appeal refers a point of law to the Enlarged Board under Article 112(1)(a) EPC, it is primarily up to the former to explain, in its referral decision, that  and why  it believes it needs an Enlarged Board ruling on the point arising in the case before it. This is also clear from Article 22(2), second sentence, RPBA, requiring the referring board to state the context in which the point originated. 2. In any event, the Enlarged Board must examine whether the referral fulfils the criteria of Article 112(1)(a) EPC (including that a "decision is required") and is thus admissible. 3. But if the referral is clearly the result of misapplying the law, and on a correct application an answer from the Enlarged Board is no longer necessary for the decision in the appeal proceedings, it is to be dismissed as inadmissible. |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g140001ep1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021