T 0831/17 (Haar or Munich as venue for oral proceedings) vom 25.02.2019
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2019:T083117.20190225
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 25. Februar 2019
- Aktenzeichen
- T 0831/17
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 10182497.7
- Verfahrenssprache
- Deutsch
- Verteilung
- Nicht verteilt (D)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Deutsch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Keine AB-Links gefunden
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- T 0831/17 Haar oder München als Ort der mündlichen Verhandlung 2019-10-21
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- -
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- Verfahren zum Betreiben eines Mobilfunknetzes
- Name des Antragstellers
- IPCom GmbH & Co. KG
- Name des Einsprechenden
- -
- Kammer
- 3.5.03
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 112European Patent Convention Art 115European Patent Convention Art 116(1)European Patent Convention Art 6(2)
- Schlagwörter
- Right to be heard at the correct venue
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the board of appeal point of law of fundamental importance
Admissibility of appeal
Oral proceedings before the board
Right to oral proceedings - even if appeal obviously inadmissible? - Orientierungssatz
- Referred questions:
1. In appeal proceedings, is the right to oral proceedings under Article 116 EPC limited if the appeal is manifestly inadmissible?
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, is an appeal against the grant of a patent filed by a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC, relying on the argument that there is no alternative legal remedy under the EPC against the examining division's decision to disregard its observations concerning an alleged infringement of Article 84 EPC, such a case of an appeal which is manifestly inadmissible?
3. If the answer to either of the first two questions is no, can a board hold oral proceedings in Haar without infringing Article 116 EPC if the appellant objects to this site as not being in conformity with the EPC and requests that the oral proceedings be held in Munich instead? - Zitierte Akten
- G 0001/88G 0001/97G 0003/14J 0012/83J 0010/88J 0002/93J 0016/94J 0024/94J 0009/04J 0009/11J 0010/11J 0022/12J 0010/15T 0383/87T 0656/98T 0402/01T 0502/02T 1012/03T 0431/04T 0591/05T 0689/05T 1449/05T 0189/06T 0883/06T 0263/07T 1042/07T 1426/07T 1251/08T 1259/09T 1950/09T 0234/10T 1829/10T 0150/11T 0179/11T 1142/12T 0655/13T 2054/15T 0084/16T 0861/16T 1575/16T 2575/16T 0095/17T 1407/17T 2687/17T 1633/18
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 112(1)(a) EPC for decision:
1. In appeal proceedings, is the right to oral proceedings under Article 116 EPC limited if the appeal is manifestly inadmissible?
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, is an appeal against the grant of a patent filed by a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC, relying on the argument that there is no alternative legal remedy under the EPC against the examining division's decision to disregard its observations concerning an alleged infringement of Article 84 EPC, such a case of an appeal which is manifestly inadmissible?
3. If the answer to either of the first two questions is no, can a board hold oral proceedings in Haar without infringing Article 116 EPC if the appellant objects to this site as not being in conformity with the EPC and requests that the oral proceedings be held in Munich instead?