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: |
|
||||||||
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: |
|
||||||||
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) | ||||||||
Catchwords: |
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: |
|
||||||||
Citing decisions: |
|
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t120642eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021