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.104 EPC Further fundamental procedural defects

A fundamental procedural defect under Article 112a, paragraph 2(d), may have occurred where the Board of Appeal,

(a)

contrary to Article 116, failed to arrange for the holding of oral proceedings requested by the petitioner, or

(b)

decided on the appeal without deciding on a request relevant to that decision.

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/r104.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

69 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.112a EPC Article 112a Petition for review by the Enlarged Board of Appeal

X A.116 EPC Oral proceedings

EPC Implementing Rules

X Chapter II Petitions for review by the Enlarged Board of Appeal

Offical Journal of the EPO

X OJ EPO SE 3/2018, p2 - BOARDS OF APPEAL AND ENLARGED BOARD OF APPEAL CASE LAW 2017

Case Law Book: III Amendments

X CLR III B 3.4 Cases where the EPO is uncertain or mistaken about the approval of the text

X CLR III G 5.2.2 Cases in which the burden of proof was reversed

Case Law Book: V Priority

X CLR V A 2.2.4 Appeals against decisions of the boards of appeal

X CLR V B 3.4.1 ‍‍Article 112a(2) EPC – grounds for a petition for review

X CLR V B 3.4.2 Grounds listed exhaustively

X CLR V B 3.5 Petitions for review of an interlocutory decision

X CLR V B 4.4 ‍‍Article 112a(2)(d) EPC – any other fundamental procedural defect

X CLR V B 4.4.1 ‍‍Rule 104(a) EPC – failure to arrange requested oral proceedings

X CLR V B 4.4.2 ‍‍Rule 104(b) EPC – failure to decide on a party's request

X CLR V B 4.4.3 Successful petition under Rule 104(b) EPC

Case Law Book: VII Proceedings before the EPO

X CLR VII 1.2.2 Tribunals under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

General Case Law

X R 0001/08 () of 15.7.2008

X R 0004/08 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC/CANON) of 20.3.2009

X R 0005/08 () of 5.2.2009

X R 0007/08 () of 22.6.2009

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

X R 0011/08 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC and procedural defect under … of 6.4.2009

X R 0010/09 () of 22.6.2010

X R 0015/09 (Schwerwiegender VerstoÃ gegen Art. 113 EPÃ/GLAS PLATZ) of 5.7.2010

X R 0016/09 () of 19.5.2010

X R 0017/09 (Appeal deemed not filed/BASSI) of 1.10.2010

X R 0018/09 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC/JOHNSON) of 27.9.2010

X R 0020/09 (Schwerwiegender VerstoÃ gegen Art. 113 (1) EPÃ, sonstiger … of 7.9.2010

X R 0001/10 (Offensichtlich unzulÃ¤ssiger ÃberprÃ¼fungsantrag/Ahrweiler) of 22.2.2011

X R 0012/10 () of 14.12.2011

X R 0014/10 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 and R. 104(b) EPC) of 26.1.2011

X R 0017/10 () of 15.6.2011

X R 0018/10 () of 25.3.2011

X R 0019/10 () of 16.3.2011

X R 0020/10 (Grounds for review/BOREALIS TECHNOLOGY OY) of 25.8.2011

X R 0021/10 (Violation prÃ©tendue fondamentale de l'Art. 113(1)/BRIDGESTONE … of 16.3.2011

X R 0001/11 () of 27.6.2011

X R 0004/11 (Pour spout fitments/ELOPAK SYSTEMS) of 16.4.2012

X R 0006/11 (Petition for review/DU PONT) of 4.11.2011

X R 0008/11 () of 29.11.2011

X R 0009/11 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC/KUREHA CORPORATION) of 7.12.2012

X R 0013/11 (Petition for review/VECTURA) of 20.4.2012

X R 0014/11 (Objection under Rule 106 EPC/Celanese International) of 5.7.2012

X R 0017/11 () of 19.3.2012

X R 0019/11 () of 2.10.2012

X R 0020/11 (Nichtentscheiden Ã¼ber relevanten Antrag/Andawari GmbH) of 23.10.2012

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

X R 0002/12 () of 17.10.2012

X R 0003/12 () of 29.8.2012

X R 0006/12 () of 18.1.2013

X R 0008/13 () of 15.9.2015

X R 0015/13 (Petition for review/LADYBIRD) of 18.10.2013

X R 0003/14 () of 7.7.2014

X R 0007/14 () of 18.2.2016

X R 0009/14 (Fundamental violation of Art. 13(1) EPC) of 24.2.2015

X R 0010/14 (Antrag auf ÃberprÃ¼fung) of 29.5.2015

X R 0012/14 (Right to be heard/LG DISPLAY) of 7.10.2016

X R 0013/14 () of 15.1.2016

X R 0016/14 () of 21.10.2016

X R 0017/14 () of 15.12.2015

X R 0005/15 (Right to be heard II/EURO-CELTIQUE) of 29.5.2017

X R 0006/15 () of 25.4.2016

X R 0001/16 (Antrag auf ÃberprÃ¼fung) of 22.5.2017

X R 0008/16 (Petition partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly unallowable) of 10.7.2017

X R 0003/17 () of 24.5.2018

X T 0240/04 (Sensormatrix/PHILIPS) of 13.12.2007

X T 1698/08 (Taurolidine lock solution/ND PARTNERS) of 28.11.2012

X T 0160/09 (Layered Architecture/ERICSSON) of 20.6.2012

X T 0216/10 (siehe GrÃ¼nde 3 (RÃ¼ge)) of 21.1.2014

X T 0049/15 () of 9.3.2018