| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1994:T101992.19940609 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 09 June 1994 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1019/92 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 86308866.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B60K 28/10 B60K 26/02 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Failsafe engine controller | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | General Motors Corporation | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Robert Bosch GmbH | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Late submitted material - late filed facts - late submission of public prior use (admitted) - no abuse of procedure - absence of evidence Notice of opposition - admissibility - objective basis - requirements - relevant date - substantiation of the grounds of opposition - sufficiency (yes) Enlarged Board - referral (no) Inventive step (no) Extent to which a patent is opposed No prior art material cited - dependent claims |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
I. If an opponent requests revocation of the patent in its entirety then the fact that no specific prior art material is cited against a dependent claim does not exclude that claim from the opposition (point 2.1 of the Reasons, paragraphs 3 and 4). II. The fact that an opponent after the end of the opposition period subsequently submits prior art material originating from himself does not constitute an abuse of the proceedings in the absence of evidence that this was done deliberately for tactical reasons (see point 2.2 of the Reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t921019eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021