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 0003/10 (Right to be heard in oral proceedings/SALMON BRANDS AS) of 29.9.2011

European Case Law Identifier:

ECLI:EP:BA:2011:R000310.20110929

Date of decision:

29 September 2011

Case number:

R 0003/10

Petition for review of:

Application number:

IPC class:

Language of proceedings:

EN

Distribution:

B

Download and more information:

Decision text in EN (PDF, 46Â KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in:	EN
Versions:	Unpublished

Title of application:

Improved method for the manufacture of raw fish products

Applicant name:

Salmon Brands AS

Opponent name:

Trio Fish Processing Machinery
Pan Fish
Fjord Seafood
Marine Harvest International
AsociaciÃ³n de la Industria del Salmon de Chile AG

Board:

EBA

Headnote:

-

Relevant legal provisions:

European Patent Convention Art 100(a)
European Patent Convention Art 100(b)
European Patent Convention Art 100(c)
European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(c)
European Patent Convention Art 113(1)
European Patent Convention Art 116(1)
European Patent Convention Art 116(2)
European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)
European Patent Convention R 106
European Patent Convention R 108(3)
European Patent Convention R 109(2)(a)
European Patent Convention R 109(2)(b)
European Patent Convention R 110
European Patent Convention 1973 R 67

Keywords:

Petition for review - admissible - yes
Objection raised after decision was given - Rule 106 complied with - yes - could not be raised earlier
Petition for review - allowable - yes - fundamental violation of petitioner's right to be heard in oral proceedings - yes - rejection of request on a ground not heard on
Presence of fundamental violation - to be determined on an objective basis - not relevant that no fault of the Board
Likelihood of success of potential oral submissions - whether submissions were already presented in writing - not relevant
Reimbursement of fee for petition - yes

Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:

J 0007/83
J 0032/95
R 0010/08
T 0125/89
T 0405/96
T 0400/02

Citing decisions:

R 0021/11
R 0011/12
R 0012/12
R 0001/13
R 0005/13
R 0009/13
R 0010/13
R 0011/13
R 0012/13
R 0013/13
R 0002/14
R 0016/14
R 0003/15
R 0004/16
R 0006/16
R 0005/17
R 0001/19
T 0049/13
T 0763/15
T 2475/17

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/r100003eu1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

42 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.100 EPC Grounds for opposition

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

X A.116 EPC Oral proceedings

EPC Implementing Rules

X R.103 EPC Reimbursement of appeal fees

X R.106 EPC Obligation to raise objections

X R.108 EPC Examination of the petition

X R.109 EPC Procedure in dealing with petitions for review

X R.110 EPC Reimbursement of the fee for petitions for review

Case Law Book: III Amendments

X CLR III B 1 Introduction

X CLR III B 2.5.1 Decision could not be expected

X CLR III G 2.3.1 Sworn statements and affidavits

Case Law Book: V Priority

X CLR V B 3.1 General

X CLR V B 3.6.5 Objection could not have been raised

X CLR V B 3.11 Factual bases for the review – minutes and grounds for the decision

X CLR V B 4.3.3 No prior assessment of the merits of a submission

X CLR V B 4.3.4 Objective approach – board's intention irrelevant

X CLR V B 4.3.8.A No opportunity to comment, surprising reasons

X CLR V B 4.3.9 Timing of a decision allegedly surprising

X CLR V B 4.3.19 Successful petitions under Article 112a(2)(c) EPC

General Case Law

X J 0007/83 (Interruption of proceedings) of 2.12.1983

X J 0032/95 (Power of Exam. Div.to refuse reimbursement of appeal fee) of 24.3.1999

X R 0010/08 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC and procedural defect under … of 13.3.2009

X R 0021/11 (Relevanter Antrag nicht entschieden/BAYER) of 15.6.2012

X R 0011/12 (Right to be heard in oral proceedings) of 19.7.2013

X R 0012/12 (Antrag auf ÃberprÃ¼fung/DEUTSCHE SISI-WERKE) of 14.1.2013

X R 0001/13 (Petition for review/NTT) of 17.6.2013

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

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 0002/14 (Objections to the Chairman and Members of the Enlarged Board of … of 17.2.2015

X R 0016/14 () of 21.10.2016

X R 0003/15 (Verletzung des rechtlichen GehÃ¶rs) of 28.11.2017

X R 0004/16 () of 16.4.2018

X R 0006/16 (Right to be heard/CELANESE) of 29.9.2017

X T 0125/89 () of 10.1.1991

X T 0405/96 () of 8.11.1996

X T 0049/13 (Method of manufacturing a peritoneal dialysis solution/BAXTER … of 1.6.2018

X T 0763/15 () of 28.9.2017