| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1992:T090590.19921113 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 13 November 1992 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0905/90 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 84301975.3 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C07F 9/38 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Albright | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Monsanto | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | 1. Rule 6(3) EPC must be narrowly construed so as to preclude fee reductions in cases where only inessential parts of the first act of the relevant proceedings had been filed in an authorised non- official language (cf. point 3, first paragraph, of the Reasons for the Decision). 2. The essential nature of the first act in the relevant proceedings is the decisive criterion for entitlement to fee reduction under Rule 6(3) EPC, and not the linguistic sensitivity of such an act (G 6/91, OJ EPO 1992, 491 followed; cf. point 3, second paragraph, of the Reasons for the Decision). Neither a request for fee reduction, nor a notification that only a reduced fee had been paid is an essential part of the first act of the relevant proceedings (cf. point 4 of the Reasons for the Decision). 3. Rule 6(3) EPC does not permit the advance withholding by a party of the amount provided for by Article 12(1) of the Rules relating to Fees (cf. points 6, last paragraph, and 7 of the Reasons for the Decision). 4. A 20% shortfall in any relevant fee, being the amount specified by Article 12(1) of the Rules relating to Fees is not "small" within the meaning of Article 9(1) of these Rules (deviation from T 290/90, OJ EPO 1992, 368; cf. point 10 of the Reasons for the Decision). 5. The legitimate expectation of parties as to the future conduct of organs of the EPO can arise not only from express statements made by duly authorised officials acting in a particular case, or from official EPO announcements, but also from a settled relevant EPO administrative practice (cf. point 5 of the Reasons for the Decision). All changes in these practices should be officially announced at the earliest possible moment in order to avoid misleading the parties (cf. point 7 of the Reasons for the Decision). |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Fee reduction - inessential parts of proceedings in non-official language Fee reduction - meaning "small" in Rules relating to Fees Good faith - relevance of general conduct of EPO Good faith - Need of timely announcement by EPO of changes in practice Good faith - EPO practice relaxed Good faith - appellant not mislead, opposition inadmissible Equality of treatment |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t900905ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
21 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.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)
Case Law Book: III Amendments
XCLR III A 5.2 Point in time from which a new decision which deviates from existing practice becomes generally applicable