T 0617/20 (Apportionment of costs occasioned by a withdrawal of an appeal) vom 29.04.2025
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T061720.20250429
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 29. April 2025
- Aktenzeichen
- T 0617/20
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 08798495.1
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- An die Kammervorsitzenden und -mitglieder verteilt (B)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Keine AB-Links gefunden
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- -
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- Zusammenfassung von Article 104(1) EPC
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- METHOD FOR PRODUCING FLUORINATED OLEFINS
- Name des Antragstellers
- Honeywell International Inc.
- Name des Einsprechenden
- ARKEMA FRANCE
Mexichem Fluor S.A. de C.V.
Zhejiang Huanxin Fluoro Material Co., Ltd.
Sino-Resource Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. - Kammer
- 3.3.10
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 104(1)European Patent Convention Art 106(1)European Patent Convention Art 111(1)European Patent Convention Art 112a(4)European Patent Convention Art 122European Patent Convention R 100(1)European Patent Convention R 103(3)European Patent Convention R 103(4)(a)European Patent Convention R 132(1)European Patent Convention R 136(1)European Patent Convention R 139European Patent Convention R 88(1)European Patent Convention R 88(2)European Patent Convention R 88(3)European Patent Convention R 88(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 016Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 016(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 016(1)(c)
- Schlagwörter
- Apportionment of costs - admissible (yes)
Apportionment of costs - allowable
Apportionment of costs - (no) - Orientierungssatz
- 1. A request for apportionment of costs is not inadmissible for the sole reason that it had been filed after the closure of the appeal proceedings. Decision T 1556/14 is not followed. (Reasons 1.1 to 1.17)
2. A request for apportionment of costs after termination of the appeal proceedings can still open ancillary proceedings for deciding issues arising out of the original appeal proceedings, without re-opening the substantive appeal proceedings. (Reasons 1.6 to 1.7)
3. A reasonable time limit for filing a request for apportionment of costs where the appeal proceedings are terminated by a withdrawal of an appeal should correspond to the usual time limits applicable to proceedings before the EPO, namely the standard two months of Rule 132(1) EPC. Questions should be asked only if the request is submitted after a reasonable period of time. (Reasons 1.20 to 1.21)
4. Beyond the general obligation to inform the other parties as soon as possible, the parties have no formal obligation to take even more active steps merely to avoid the costs already foreseen by the other parties. At most, parties must seek to avoid additional costs. The recognition of such a formal obligation would place an unrealistic burden on parties to the proceedings before the EPO. (Reasons 2.6) - Zitierte Akten
- R 0003/22T 0765/89T 0674/03T 1556/14T 0211/15T 0695/18T 1310/19T 1484/19T 1087/20T 0433/21T 1549/22
- Zitierende Akten
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The request of opponent 3 for a different apportionment of costs pursuant to Article 104(1) EPC is refused.