R 0016/23 (Petition for review) of 21.11.2025

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2025:R001623.20251121
Date of decision: 21 November 2025
Case number: R 0016/23
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 14811009.1
IPC class: H01M 4/36 H01G 11/38 H01M 4/62 H01G 11/50 H01M 4/58
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: BIO-MINERALIZED CATHODE AND ANODE MATERIALS FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL
Applicant name: Upreti, Shailesh
Opponent name: -
Board: -
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) Art 6(1), 53EPC2000_Art_108_(2007)_Sent_3European Patent Convention Art 112a(1)European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(c)European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(d)European Patent Convention Art 112a(4)European Patent Convention Art 112a(5)European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 116(1)European Patent Convention Art 116(2)European Patent Convention Art 122 European Patent Convention Art 125 European Patent Convention Art 15 European Patent Convention R 101(1)European Patent Convention R 104(a)European Patent Convention R 106 European Patent Convention R 108(3)European Patent Convention R 109(2)(a)European Patent Convention R 109(2)(b)European Patent Convention R 109(3)European Patent Convention R 127(2)European Patent Convention R 131(2)European Patent Convention R 131(4)European Patent Convention R 136 European Patent Convention R 88(4)Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 13Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 14(2)Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) Art 31, 32
Keywords: Petition for review - failure to arrange oral proceedings
Petition for review - decision under review set aside
Petition for review - re-opening of proceedings
Catchword: 1. As oral proceedings had been requested by the appellant-applicant in the event that an adverse decision on the request for re-establishment of rights and on the appeal were taken, the Board should have arranged for the holding of oral proceedings pursuant to Article 116(1) EPC before taking any such adverse decision.
2. The failure to arrange oral proceedings constitutes a fundamental procedural defect within the meaning of Article 112a(2)(d) and Rule 104(a) EPC since, as a result, the appellant-applicant did not have the opportunity to present the case orally on the decisive issues of re-establishment of rights and the admissibility of the appeal.
3. As a consequence, the decision is to be set aside, proceedings before the Board are to be re-opened and the fee for the petition for review is to be reimbursed.
Cited cases: G 0001/97 G 0003/98 G 0002/19 G 0001/21 R 0003/10 R 0012/12 R 0008/13 R 0004/22 J 0012/15 T 0383/87 T 0093/88 T 0125/89 T 0766/90 T 0686/92 T 0556/95 T 0400/02 T 1544/06 T 2300/08 T 0663/10 T 0671/12 T 1824/15 T 2707/16 T 0166/17 T 1790/17 T 2687/17 T 3258/19
Citing cases: -

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under review is set aside.

2. The proceedings before the Legal Board of Appeal are re-opened.

3. The fee for the petition for review is reimbursed.