T 1841/23 (Intervention during parallel UPC proceedings/KPN) vom 11.12.2024
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2024:T184123.20241211
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 11. Dezember 2024
- Aktenzeichen
- T 1841/23
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 10700814.6
- 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 105 EPC
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- Managing associated sessions in a network
- Name des Antragstellers
- Koninklijke KPN N.V.
- Name des Einsprechenden
- (1) Beijing Xiaomi Software Co., Ltd ("opponent 1")
(2) Orope Germany GmbH ("opponent 2") - Kammer
- 3.5.05
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 105(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 112a(1)European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention R 106European Patent Convention R 76European Patent Convention R 76(2)(c)European Patent Convention R 77European Patent Convention R 89Explanatory remarks to RPBA 2020 (EPO OJ, Suppl. 2/2020)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 010(5)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 010(6)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(1)(c)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 014Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 015(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 015(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 015(2)(b)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 015(2)(c)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 015(6)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 017(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 023
- Schlagwörter
- Postponement of oral proceedings - (no): no "serious reasons"
Postponement of decision on appeal - (no): no "serious reasons"
Added subject-matter (yes)
Objection under Rule 106 EPC - dismissed - Orientierungssatz
- 1. While an admissible intervention is to be treated as an
opposition (Article 105(2) EPC), its filing shortly prior
to the oral proceedings before a board does not generally
excuse the proprietor (or the other parties), and in
particular it does not hand them a voucher for more time.
Its concrete implications for opposition appeal proceedings
are rather to be determined on a case-by-case basis, under
the provisions of the EPC and the RPBA (see Reasons 4.5).
2. Nor are opposition appeal proceedings designed to serve as
a placeholder for tactical considerations in parallel
proceedings for infringement. They are rather an
existential challenge to the title, on the basis of which
enforcement is pursued in the infringement proceedings,
and parameters such as legal certainty and procedural
economy are also involved. Any difficulties for the
proprietor in drafting auxiliary requests that also provide
the best scope of protection, considering the ongoing
infringement proceedings, are not a reason to delay the
opposition appeal proceedings (see Reasons 4.6). - Zitierende Akten
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The objection under Rule 106 EPC is dismissed.
2. The decision under appeal is set aside.
3. The patent is revoked.