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

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2017:R000816.20170710
Date of decision: 10 July 2017
Case number: R 0008/16
Petition for review of: T 1659/14
Application number: 05708580.5
IPC class: F16C 17/03
B21C 47/14
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: B
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 49 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: LAYING HEAD WITH A VIBRATION DAMPING DEVICE
Applicant name: Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche S.p.A.
Opponent name: Siemens Industry, Inc.
SMS group GmbH
Board: EBA
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 4(3)
European Patent Convention Art 100(c)
European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)
European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(c)
European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(d)
European Patent Convention Art 113(1)
European Patent Convention Art 113(2)
European Patent Convention Art 123(2)
European Patent Convention Art 125
European Patent Convention R 104(b)
European Patent Convention R 106
European Patent Convention R 109(2)(a)
European Patent Convention R 109(3)
European Patent Convention R 124(1)
Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 12(1)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(1)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(2)
Keywords: Fundamental violation of the right to be heard (no)
Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC (no)
Fundamental procedural defect (no)
Catchwords:

1. Only parties adversely affected by a decision may resort to a procedure under Article 112a EPC. The term “fundamental violation” in Article 112a(2)(c) EPC also must be read in this light. An alleged violation cannot be fundamental, in the sense of “intolerable”, if it does not cause an adverse effect. (Reasons, point 23).

2. The principle of party disposition expressed in Article 113(2) EPC does not extend so as to permit a party to dictate how and in which order a deciding body of the EPO may examine the subject-matter before it. The only obligation on the EPO is not to overlook any still pending request in the final decision. A Board has no particular duty to give reasons why it chose to proceed as it did (Reasons, point 25).

3. A Board has no obligation to peruse the whole file of the first instance proceedings. It is the duty of the parties to raise issues again in the appeal proceedings, to the extent necessary, as stipulated by Articles 12(1) and (2) RPBA: “Appeal proceedings shall be based on [the submissions of the parties filed in the appeal proceedings, which] ... should specify expressly all the facts, arguments and evidence relied on” (Reasons, point 38).

Cited decisions:
R 0006/11
R 0013/12
R 0006/14
Citing decisions:
R 0007/19
T 2482/12
T 0016/14
T 2093/14
T 2148/14

27 references found.

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

EPC Articles

EPC Implementing Rules

Offical Journal of the EPO

Case Law Book: III Amendments

Case Law Book: V Priority

General Case Law