Error message

Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Optional parameter $type declared before required parameter $nid is implicitly treated as a required parameter in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).

CLR III B 2.7.2 Non-attendance at oral proceedings before the boards – case law on G 4/92

CLR III B 2.7.1 Facts and evidence put forward for the first time during oral proceedings in inter partes cases – G 4/92

CLR III B 2.7 The right to be heard in case of the non-attendance of oral proceedings

The proceedings may continue without the duly summoned but non-attending party (R. 115(2) EPC, R. 71(2) EPC 1973). The case law of the boards demonstrates, however, that the non-attending party's right to be heard under Art. 113 EPC must not be ignored.

CLR III B 2.6.5 Oral submissions of an accompanying person

For the denial of a request for an accompanying person to present oral submissions see chapter V.B.4.3.18 "Further examples of unsuccessful petitions". See also chapter III.V.5. "Oral submissions by an accompanying person".

CLR III B 2.6.4 Hearing witnesses

CLR III B 2.6.3 Introduction of a new ground of opposition by the opposition division

CLR III B 2.6.2 Introduction of new arguments

CLR III B 2.6.1.C Cases where no new claims or relevant documents were introduced

In T 195/84 (OJ 1986, 121) the appellant (patentee) objected at the oral proceedings that new grounds on inventive step were presented to which he had not had an opportunity to reply. The board did not share this opinion as the appellant had been aware that such prior art existed, and had thus had sufficient time to consider it in full. Furthermore, he had not requested any additional time and had not asked for an adjournment.

CLR III B 2.6.1.B Cases in which Article 113(1) EPC was not violated even though new claims or relevant documents were introduced

CLR III B 2.6.1.A Cases in which Article 113(1) EPC was violated in relation to the introduction of new claims or relevant documents