Error message

Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of /home/patently/domains/xepc.eu/public_html/includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of /home/patently/domains/xepc.eu/public_html/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 /home/patently/domains/xepc.eu/public_html/includes/bootstrap.inc).

R.107 EPC Contents of the petition for review

(1)

The petition shall contain:

(a)

the name and the address of the petitioner as provided in Rule 41, paragraph 2(c);

(b)

an indication of the decision to be reviewed.

(2)

The petition shall indicate the reasons for setting aside the decision of the Board of Appeal, and the facts and evidence on which the petition is based.

(3)

Part III of the Implementing Regulations shall apply mutatis mutandis to the petition for review and the documents filed in the proceedings.

[ Art. 112a R. 2 ]

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/r107.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

65 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

EPC Implementing Rules

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

X R.2 EPC Filing of and formal requirements for documents

X R.3 EPC Language in written proceedings

X R.41 EPC Request for grant

X R.108 EPC Examination of the petition

Offical Journal of the EPO

X OJ EPO SE 1/2021, p78 - VI.1 - Transfer of tasks to the Registry of the Enlarged Board of Appeal

X OJ EPO SE 1/2020, p79 - VI.1 - Transfer of tasks to the Registry of the Enlarged Board of Appeal

X OJ EPO SE 1/2019, p61 - VI.1 - Transfer of tasks to the Registry of the Enlarged Board of Appeal

X OJ EPO SE 1/2018, p62 - VI.1 - Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal dated 12 November 2007 concerning the transfer of tasks to the Registry of the Enlarged Board of Appeal

X OJ EPO SE 1/2017, p63 - VI.1 - Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal dated 12 November 2007 concerning the transfer of tasks to the Registry of the Enlarged Board of Appeal

X OJ EPO 2010, 572 - Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal dated 16 February 2010 G 4/08

X OJ EPO 2009, 216 - Decision of the Legal Board of Appeal dated 8 December 2008 J 8/07 3.1.01

Case Law Book: V Priority

X CLR V B 3.7.1 Petition must be adequately substantiated

X CLR V B 3.7.2 Non-compliance with Rule 107 EPC and failure to remedy a deficiency

General Case Law

X R 0001/08 () of 15.7.2008

X R 0002/08 (Violation fondamentale de l'article 113/VSL International) of 11.9.2008

X R 0003/08 (Fundamental violation of Article 113/HPT SINERGY S.R.L.) of 25.9.2008

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 0008/08 () of 19.5.2009

X R 0009/08 (Fundamental violation of Article 113/SULZER) of 21.1.2009

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

X R 0003/09 () of 3.4.2009

X R 0004/09 () of 30.4.2010

X R 0006/09 (Fundamental width of Article 113 EPC/WATTEX) of 3.6.2009

X R 0007/09 () of 22.7.2009

X R 0009/09 () of 22.3.2010

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

X R 0019/09 (Fundamental violation of Article 113/UNAXIS) of 24.3.2010

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

X R 0006/10 (Occlusion apparatus/BOARD OF REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM) of 28.7.2010

X R 0009/10 (Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC/SONY) of 10.9.2010

X R 0013/10 () of 24.3.2011

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 0019/10 () of 16.3.2011

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

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

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

X R 0003/12 () of 29.8.2012

X R 0004/12 (Violation fondamentale allÃ©guÃ©e de l'article 113(1) CBE) of 20.12.2012

X R 0005/12 () of 20.12.2012

X R 0006/12 () of 18.1.2013

X R 0007/12 () of 6.12.2013

X R 0016/12 () of 15.11.2013

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

X R 0004/14 () of 6.6.2016

X R 0008/14 () of 28.7.2015

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

X R 0017/14 () of 15.12.2015

X R 0018/14 () of 22.5.2015

X R 0005/16 (Petition clearly unallowable) of 24.10.2016

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

X R 0004/17 (Fundamental violation of right to be heard/RHODIA CHIMIE) of 29.1.2018

X R 0008/17 (Violation of right to be heard/HOLLISTER) of 18.6.2018

X R 0003/18 () of 12.11.2018