CLR III C 4.2.2 Wording not constituting a request

In T 528/96, the final paragraph of the patentee's response to the opposition – the last document on the file before the opposition division took its decision – read as follows: "Should the opposition division feel that further information is required, the patentee will be pleased to respond in due course, either in writing or during the oral hearing". The statement did not constitute a formal request for oral proceedings.

CLR III C 4.2.1 Wording constituting a request

In T 19/87 (OJ 1988, 268) the board considered that the request for "an interview as a preliminary to oral proceedings" could only be construed as both a request for an interview (which might or might not be granted) and request for oral proceedings.

In T 668/89 the phrase "applicant's representative claims his right to appear and argue the case orally" was deemed to be a valid request for oral proceedings.

CLR III C 3.3 Effects of withdrawal of a request for oral proceedings in case of oral proceedings at the instance of the EPO

The withdrawal by a party of its request for oral proceedings, with its further request for continuation of the proceedings in writing have no effect in a case where the oral proceedings are held at the instance of the EPO (T 556/07, T 1578/05).

Pages

Subscribe to XEPC: EPC and PCT resource RSS