R 0006/22 (Petition clearly unallowable) of 06.11.2023
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2023:R000622.20231106
- Date of decision
- 6 November 2023
- Case number
- R 0006/22
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 14824813.1
- IPC class
- H04W 8/18
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- No distribution (D)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- Abstract on EPC2000 R 106
- Application title
- METHOD FOR ACCESSING A SERVICE AND A CORRESPONDING DEVICE
- Applicant name
- Thales Dis France SAS
- Opponent name
- IDEMIA France
Giesecke+Devrient Mobile Security GmbH
Giesecke & Devrient GmbH - Board
- -
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(c)European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(d)European Patent Convention Art 112a(5)European Patent Convention Art 113European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention R 100(2)European Patent Convention R 104(b)European Patent Convention R 106European Patent Convention R 107(1)European Patent Convention R 107(2)European Patent Convention R 108(1)European Patent Convention R 109(2)(a)European Patent Convention R 109(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 015(1)Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 12(1)Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 13Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 14(2)
- Keywords
- Petition for review - grounds clearly inadmissible and clearly unallowable
Petition for review - obligation to raise objection
Petition for review - dismissal of objection by the Board (no)
Petition for review - relevant request within the meaning of Rule 104(b) EPC (no)
Petition for review - fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC (no) - Catchword
- In a situation such as the present case - where the board does not react in a recognisable and explicit manner to an intended objection under Rule 106 EPC - a diligent party should normally insist on a discernible response from the board. Failure to do so will leave the party with an indication that weighs against its case (Reasons 16).
- Citing cases
- T 2194/22
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The petition for review is unanimously rejected as being clearly unallowable.