| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1994:T095191.19940310 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 10 March 1994 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0951/91 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 84300759.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C08L 59/02 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Toughened polyoxymethylene compositions | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Degussa AG, Frankfurt | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.03 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | I. The discretionary power given to the departments of the EPO pursuant to Article 114(2) EPC serves to ensure that proceedings can be concluded switftly in the interests of the parties, the general public and the EPO, and to forestall tactical abuse. If a party fails to submit the facts, evidence and arguments relevant to their case as early and completely as possible, without adequate excuse, and admitting the same would lead to an excessive delay in the proceedings, the Boards of Appeal are fully justified in refusing to admit them in exercise of the discretion provided by Article 114(2) EPC (Reasons, point 5.15; T 0156/84, OJ EPO 1987, 372, qualified). II. The fact that the Opposition Division relies on the arguments presented by the Patentee to reject the opposition cannot be equated with a substantial procedural violation. When the content of the file does not reveal any basically and/or conspicuously wrong analysis, nor anything manifestly unreasonable in the reasoning, there is no ground to suspect bias (Reasons, point 14.1). III. Although an Opposition Division or Board of Appeal has the power under Article 104 EPC to make an award of costs against a party if it is equitable to do so, the Boards of Appeal have no power to make an award of costs against the EPO if (which did not arise) it regards the decision of an Opposition Division as unsatisfactory (Reasons, point 16). |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Novelty (confirmed) - implicit disclosure (no) Inventive step (confirmed) - non-obvious combination of known features Disclosure - sufficiency (yes) Announcement of late submission of unspecified experimental data - results not admitted Decision adverse to a party - bias (no) - incompetence (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: | |||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t910951ex1.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.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)