T 1138/20 (Reviewing findings of fact/VIASAT) vom 25.04.2023
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T113820.20230425
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 25. April 2023
- Aktenzeichen
- T 1138/20
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 13168502.6
- IPC-Klasse
- H04B 7/185
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- An die Kammervorsitzenden verteilt (C)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Keine AB-Links gefunden
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- -
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- Zusammenfassung von EPC2000 Art 117
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- Improved spot beam satellite systems
- Name des Antragstellers
- ViaSat, Inc.
- Name des Einsprechenden
- European Space Agency
- Kammer
- 3.5.03
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Art 32, 41(4)Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 6(1)European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 117European Patent Convention Art 54(2)
- Schlagwörter
- Document NPL1 valid state of the art - (yes): public availability sufficiently proven
Standard of proof - conviction of the deciding body
Errors in the opposition division's fact-finding process - (no)
Novelty over NPL1
Novelty - main request and 1st auxiliary request (no)
Allowability of 2nd auxiliary request - (yes): prohibition of
reformatio in peius
Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal2018 - Orientierungssatz
- 1. There is only one standard of proof in the proceedings before the EPO: the deciding body, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the relevant evidence before it, must be convinced that the alleged fact has occurred (see point 1.2.1 of the Reasons).
2. The boards have the power, at any stage of the appeal proceedings, to establish the relevant facts of the case before them and thereby substitute the findings of fact of the departments of first instance. However, the boards have no obligation to establish facts de novo already established by the departments of first instance (see point 1.2.4 of the Reasons).
3. The board's review of a fact-finding process should not be conflated with the review of discretionary decisions within the meaning of the obiter dictum in G 7/93, Reasons 2.6 (see point 1.2.4 (a) of the Reasons).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is dismissed.