OJ EPO SE 5/2014, p175 - ANNEX 3

HEADNOTES to published DECISIONS (or to be published) delivered in 2012 and 2013; referring decisions can be found in Annex 4[ 1 ]

Case Number: G 1/10, OJ EPO 2013, 194

Applicant: Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc.

Headword: Request to correct patent/FISHER-ROSEMOUNT

Date: 23.07.12


The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:

1. Since Rule 140 EPC is not available to correct the text of a patent, a patent proprietor's request for such a correction is inadmissible whenever made, including after the initiation of opposition proceedings.

2. In view of the answer to the first referred question, the second referred question requires no answer.

Aktenzeichen: G 1/11, ABl. EPA 2014, ***

Beschwerde-Aktenzeichen: J 21/09 - 3.1.01

Anmelder: BAUER Maschinen GmbH

Bezeichnung der Erfindung: Bodenabtragsvorrichtung

Datum: 19.03.2014


Ist für die Behandlung einer Beschwerde gegen eine Entscheidung der Prüfungsabteilung über die Nichtrückzahlung von Recherchengebühren gemäß Regel Rule 64 (2) EPC EPÜ, die nicht zusammen mit einer Entscheidung über die Erteilung eines europäischen Patents oder die Zurückweisung einer europäischen Patentanmeldung erlassen worden ist, eine Technische Beschwerdekammer oder die Juristische Beschwerdekammer zuständig?"

Case Number: T 1843/09, OJ EPO 2013, 502


Date: 06.06.2012


The prohibition of reformatio in peius as far as it entails a procedural limitation of the proprietor's liberty to change by way of amendments the scope of protection sought prevails "in principle" (G 4/93) until the final settlement of the opposition case and, therefore, also in any proceedings, including further appeal proceedings, subsequent to a remittal under Article 111 EPC (point 2.3.1 of the reasons).

It is clear from G 1/99 that exceptions from the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in peius are a matter of equity in order to protect the non-appealing proprietor against procedural discrimination in circumstances where that prohibition would impair the legitimate defence of its patent. Therefore, exceptions from the prohibition of reformatio in peius are not limited to the situation specifically dealt with in G 1/99, where an error of judgment by the opposition division occurred concerning an amendment introduced into the version of the patent as maintained by the decision under appeal (point 2.4.4 of the reasons).


[ 1 ] These headnotes are published in Annex 3 in the language of the proceedings only.

5 references found.

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

Case Law of the Enlarged Board

General Case Law