T 0642/12 (Reduced appeal fee/LELY ENTERPRISES AG) of 11.1.2013

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T064212.20130111
Date of decision: 11 January 2013
Case number: T 0642/12
Application number: 02077086.3
IPC class: A01J 5/007
A01J 5/017
A01K 1/12
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: B
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 186.876K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: A device for performing one or more animal related treatments on an animal
Applicant name: Lely Enterprises AG
Opponent name: WestfaliaSurge GmbH
DeLaval International AB
Board: 3.2.04
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 14(4)
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention Art 105a
European Patent Convention Art 112(1)
European Patent Convention Art 122
European Patent Convention Art 122(1)
European Patent Convention Art 122(2)
European Patent Convention R 6(3)
European Patent Convention R 136(1)
European Patent Convention R 136(2)
European Patent Convention R 139
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 14(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 14(4)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 6(3)
RFees Art 8, 14(1)
Art 2(1) of the Decision of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal dated 12 November 2007 concerning the transfer of functions to the Registrars of the Boards of Appeal
Keywords: Erroneously applied 20% fee reduction, small amount lacking (no), overlooking small amount justified (no), Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations (not applicable), request for re-establishment of rights setting out facts (no), referral to the Enlarged Board (no)

1. In case of an inter partes appeal case, completion of EPO Form 2701 by the Formalities Officer of the department of first instance does not establish the legitimate expectation that formal requirements of the appeal, such as the payment of the appeal fee, has already been checked by the EPO (point 9 of the Reasons)

2. A potential possibility of discovering the error is not sufficient to establish the legitimate expectation that a Registrar of the Boards of Appeal will warn an appellant within seven working days before the expiry of the time limit that a reduced appeal fee was relied on in error and therefore the appeal fee is deemed not to have been paid (points 6 to 8 of the Reasons)

3. "Small amounts lacking" in Art. 8 Rfees are to be read as "insignificant or negligible" amounts. The legislator presumed that a fee reduction of 20% pursuant to Rule 6(3) EPC is not merely a symbolic one, but will effectively alleviate the burden of having to prepare translations. Therefore the legislator could not have intended this fee reduction to be considered small in the sense of negligible or insignificant (point 20 of the Reasons).

Cited decisions:
G 0006/91
G 0002/97
J 0013/90
J 0012/94
J 0015/10
J 0019/15
T 0128/87
T 0014/89
T 0290/90
T 0905/90
T 0923/95
Citing decisions:
J 0013/14
T 0595/11
T 1037/11

26 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 of the Enlarged Board

General Case Law