| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1987:T023486.19871123 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 23 November 1987 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0234/86 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 78101805.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61N 1/32 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | DE | ||||||||
| Distribution: | |||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Somartec | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | I. The requirement of Rule 55(c) EPC regarding "an indication of ... the evidence" is fulfilled if the evidence concerned (in this case a citation) is clearly specified in the notice of opposition and if it is clearly stated which alleged facts it is intended to prove. Assessing the evidence (in this case determining whether the citation constitutes a prior publication) is part of the process of ascertaining whether the opposition is well founded in substance. 2. Without infringing Articles 102(3) or 113(2) or Rule 58 EPC the Opposition Division can - and in certain circumstances must - decide to maintain the patent on the basis of a subordinate auxiliary request by the patent proprietor if the latter pursues a main request plus non-allowable auxiliary requests which precede one which is allowable. 3. Where the EPC does not lay down unambiguously the procedure to be followed in a given situation (in this case when main and auxiliary requests have been submitted), use of an incorrect procedure does not, as long as no established case law exists on the matter, constitute a substantial procedural violation justifying reimbursement of the appeal fee.( cf. decision T 156/84, OJ EPO 1988, 372, point 3.13 of the Reasons). IV. Rejection of a request (in this case auxiliary requests 2.3 and 2.5) without any reason being given in the decision itself or at least in a preceding communication referred to therein (Rule 68(2) EPC) constitutes a substantial procedural violation justifying a reimbursement of the appeal fee (Rule 67 EPC). |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Inventive step (affirmed) Relevant state of the art/relevant and broader general techn. fields Admissibility of opposition -indication of evidence Admissibility of opposition - assessment of evidence Grant of patent on basis of auxiliary request when non-allowable main request pursued Reimbursement of appeal fee (affirmed) Procedural violation (substantial)/procedure not clearly laid down Procedural violation - rejection of reequest without reasons |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t860234ep1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
54 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.EPO Guidelines - D Opposition and Limitation/Revocation Procedures
EPO Guidelines - E General Procedural Matters
EPO Guidelines - H Amendments and Corrections
Offical Journal of the EPO
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)