2. Einlegung und Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde
Overview
2. Einlegung und Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde
Nach Art. 108 EPÜ ist die Beschwerde nach Maßgabe der Ausführungsordnung innerhalb von zwei Monaten nach Zustellung der Entscheidung beim EPA einzulegen. Die Beschwerde gilt erst als eingelegt, wenn die Beschwerdegebühr entrichtet worden ist. Innerhalb von vier Monaten nach Zustellung der Entscheidung ist die Beschwerde nach Maßgabe der Ausführungsordnung zu begründen. Der Inhalt der Beschwerdeschrift und der Beschwerdebegründung ist in R. 99 EPÜ festgelegt.
Die Zulässigkeit einer Beschwerde kann nur in ihrer Gesamtheit beurteilt werden (T 382/96, T 1763/06, T 509/07, T 23/10, T 2001/14). Das EPÜ bietet keinerlei Grundlage für die "teilweise Zulässigkeit" einer Beschwerde (T 774/97, T 509/07).
S. auch Kapitel V.A.11.3. "Beschwerde, die als nicht eingelegt gilt".
- T 682/22
Catchword:
Different interpretation of Article 109(1) EPC from that provided for in the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO - application of Article 20(2) RPBA 2020 (see point 2.4.3 of the Reasons).
- T 1678/21
Catchword:
1. From the company name of an appellant alone it can generally not be derived that the appellant does not meet the conditions of Rule 6(4,5) EPC in conjunction with European Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 for payment of the reduced appeal fee. This applies even where a company name is well-known. 2. Where it is not clear from the file at the end of the appeal period whether or not an appellant at the point in time of payment of the reduced fee meets the conditions of Rule 6(4,5) EPC, no clear intention to pay the regular appeal fee can be detected that under the principles of T 152/82 would entitle the EPO to ex officio debit the amount of the regular fee. 3. An appellant who gives a debit order for payment of the reduced appeal fee even though it clearly does not meet the conditions of Rule 6(4,5) EPC commits an obvious mistake in the meaning of J 8/80 and G 1/12. Such an appellant is imputed to have had the clear intention to pay the regular fee, reason why no evidence to prove this intention is required. 4. The exhaustive criteria to assess Rule 139 EPC are "principles" (a) to (c) of G 1/12, i.e. essentially those of J 8/80, points 4 and 6: (a) The correction must introduce what was originally intended. (b) Where the original intention is not immediately apparent, the requester bears the burden of proof, which must be a heavy one. The same applies, pursuant to J 8/80, point 6, where the making of the mistake is not self-evident. (c) The error to be remedied may be an incorrect statement or an omission. complemented by criterion (d) balancing of the public interest in legal certainty with the interest of the party requesting correction, with the factors (i.e. sub-criteria of this criterion) relevant to the specific case.
- T 71/21
Catchword:
Berichtigung der Erklärung betreffend die Methode für die Entrichtung der Beschwerdegebühr im Formblatt 1038 - Ermittelung der ursprünglichen Absicht bei der Auswahl der Zahlungsmethode, siehe Entscheidungsgründe 6.4
- T 955/20
Catchword:
1. A request for reimbursement of the appeal fee under Rule 103(1)(a) EPC can no longer be filed after the department of first instance has granted interlocutory revision (Reasons 2).
2. If the department of first instance grants interlocutory revision only to refine the written reasons which already complied with Rule 111(2) EPC, this may constitute a substantial procedural violation (Reasons 1).
- T 1474/19
Catchword:
I. A debit order has to be interpreted on its substance, according to the (objectively) clear intention of the appellant expressed therein to pay a fee in the applicable amount.
II. Under the Arrangements for deposit accounts valid as from 1 December 2017 (ADA 2017), a debit order having the clear purpose of paying a particular fee (here: the appeal fee) authorises the EPO to debit that fee in the applicable amount.
- T 84/19
Catchword:
Eligibility requirements for paying a reduced appeal fee by an appellant - opponent in case of opposition filed as a straw man (Reasons 1 to 9.2).
- Jahresbericht: Rechtsprechung 2022
- Zusammenfassungen der Entscheidungen in der Verfahrensprache