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).

In T 1020/13 the board held that, if a substantial procedural violation is alleged and adequately substantiated in the statement of grounds of appeal, it is irrelevant for the decision on admissibility of the appeal whether the challenge to the substantive reasons for the decision can likewise be regarded as adequately substantiated.

CLR V A 2.6.7.B Patent proprietor requests revocation

An opponent's appeal is admissible when the written statement of grounds is based solely on the fact that the patent proprietor himself filed the request for revocation of the patent after the appeal was filed (T 459/88, OJ 1990, 425 and T 961/93).

CLR V A 2.6.7.A Immediately apparent the contested decision cannot be supported

CLR V A 2.6.7 Exceptional circumstances warranting admissibility of appeal

a) Immediately apparent the contested decision cannot be supported

b) Patent proprietor requests revocation

c) Substantial procedural violation

CLR V A 2.6.6 Arguments need not be new or relevant

Whether the appellant's arguments are convincing or likely to be successful is irrelevant for the purposes of determining the admissibility of the appeal (T 1668/14).

CLR V A 2.9.1 General

CLR V A 2.9 Interlocutory revision

CLR V A 2.8 Cases where admissibility of appeal need not be considered

CLR V A 2.7 Admissibility of appeal to be checked in every phase of appeal proceedings

CLR V A 2.6.8 No partial admissibility of appeal

CLR V A 2.6.7.C Substantial procedural violation