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 R 2.1.2 Late submission was justified

CLR III R 2.1.1.B No different apportionment of costs ordered – no disadvantage

In T 28/91 three documents which had already been submitted to the opposition division were re-submitted at a later stage in the appeal proceedings. The board ruled that the late submission was not disadvantageous as no new arguments had been introduced, and therefore no additional work had been necessary (see also T 133/06).

CLR III R 2.1.1.A Different apportionment of costs ordered

CLR III R 2.1.1 Late submission was unjustified

a) Different apportionment of costs ordered

b) No different apportionment of costs ordered – no disadvantage

CLR III R 2.1 Late submission of documents and/or requests

CLR III R 2 Equity of a different apportionment of costs – case groups

CLR III R 1 Principle that each party must bear its own costs

CLR III R Apportionment of costs

Principle that each party must bear its own costs

CLR III Q 3.3 Effect of withdrawal on opposition appeal proceedings

The discretionary nature of an opposition division's decision whether or not to continue the proceedings pursuant to R. 84(2) EPC has to be distinguished from the much more narrow framework within which the boards of appeal decide on the effect of a withdrawal of an opposition. The effect of a withdrawal on the opposition appeal proceedings depends on whether or not the opponent is the sole appellant.

CLR III Q 3.2 Effect of withdrawal on opposition proceedings before the departments of first instance