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).

"Grounds or evidence" under Art. 113(1) EPC is understood as the essential legal and factual reasoning on which a decision is based (see chapter III.B.2.3.2 "The meaning of 'grounds or evidence'").

CLR V B 4.3.8 Reasons for a decision allegedly surprising

a) No opportunity to comment, surprising reasons

b) Grounds not emanating from the board

c) Subjective surprise

d) Reasoning formed part of the proceedings

CLR V B 4.3.7 Parties' obligation to participate actively in the appeal proceedings

CLR V B 4.3.6 Boards' obligation to remain neutral

CLR V B 4.3.5 No obligation to provide detailed reasons for a decision in advance

CLR V B 4.3.4 Objective approach – board's intention irrelevant

In R 3/10 the Enlarged Board held that when determining whether a fundamental violation of the petitioner's right to be heard had occurred, an objective approach must be applied. It is therefore not relevant that it was not the deciding board's intention in any way to deprive the petitioner of its right to be heard orally on the issue of inventive step.

CLR V B 4.3.3 No prior assessment of the merits of a submission

CLR V B 4.3.2 "Fundamental" violation of Article 113 EPC – causal link and adverse effect

CLR V B 4.3.8.C Subjective surprise

CLR V B 4.3.8.B Grounds not emanating from the board

CLR V B 4.3.8.A No opportunity to comment, surprising reasons