R 0008/16 (Petition partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly unallowable) of 10.07.2017
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2017:R000816.20170710
- Date of decision
- 10 July 2017
- Case number
- R 0008/16
- Petition for review of
- T 1659/14 2016-07-08
- Application number
- 05708580.5
- IPC class
- B21C 47/14F16C 17/03
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Distributed to board chairmen and members (B)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- LAYING HEAD WITH A VIBRATION DAMPING DEVICE
- Applicant name
- Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche S.p.A.
- Opponent name
- Siemens Industry, Inc.
SMS group GmbH - Board
- -
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100(c)European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(c)European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(d)European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 113(2)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 125European Patent Convention Art 4(3)European Patent Convention R 104(b)European Patent Convention R 106European Patent Convention R 109(2)(a)European Patent Convention R 109(3)European Patent Convention R 124(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(2)Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 12(1)
- Keywords
- Fundamental violation of the right to be heard (no)
Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC (no)
Fundamental procedural defect (no) - Catchword
- 1. Only parties adversely affected by a decision may resort to a procedure under Article 112a EPC. The term fundamental violation in Article 112a(2)(c) EPC also must be read in this light. An alleged violation cannot be fundamental, in the sense of intolerable, if it does not cause an adverse effect. (Reasons, point 23).
2. The principle of party disposition expressed in Article 113(2) EPC does not extend so as to permit a party to dictate how and in which order a deciding body of the EPO may examine the subject-matter before it. The only obligation on the EPO is not to overlook any still pending request in the final decision. A Board has no particular duty to give reasons why it chose to proceed as it did (Reasons, point 25).
3. A Board has no obligation to peruse the whole file of the first instance proceedings. It is the duty of the parties to raise issues again in the appeal proceedings, to the extent necessary, as stipulated by Articles 12(1) and (2) RPBA: Appeal proceedings shall be based on [the submissions of the parties filed in the appeal proceedings, which] ... should specify expressly all the facts, arguments and evidence relied on (Reasons, point 38).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The petition for review is rejected as partly clearly inadmissible and as partly clearly unallowable.