| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1998:T041494.19980514 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 14 May 1998 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0414/94 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 88100066.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G03G 15/01 G03G 15/00 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Image duplicating apparatus | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Minolta Co., Ltd. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Avabridge Limited | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Claims - clarity (no) Amendments - inadmissible selection (yes) Basis of decisions - right to comment for absent party |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
There is no general prohibition of amending requests during a party's absence from oral proceedings as requested by the respondent. An absent party must expect reactions of the opposing party within the legal and factual framework of the case established prior to oral proceedings, and the possibility of decisions taking account of, and being based on, such reactions (see reasons 2). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t940414eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021