European Patent Office

T 1732/10 of 19.12.2013

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T173210.20131219
Date of decision
19 December 2013
Case number
T 1732/10
Petition for review of
-
Application number
03738853.5
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
Distributed to board chairmen and members (B)
OJ versions
No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
-
Application title
DEVICE FOR THE APPLICATION OF A FLUID
Applicant name
Eftec Europe Holding AG
Opponent name
ABB PATENT GmbH
Dürr Systems GmbH
Board
3.2.07
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(1)(b)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 15(6)
Keywords
Late-filed main and auxiliary requests 1 to 10 - not admitted
Reinstating a withdrawn request as late as at the oral proceedings-late amendment of the case, not admitted
Catchword
Not reacting in substance to the appeal of the opponent, but waiting for the Board's preliminary opinion before any substantive reaction is filed, is regarded as an abuse of procedure. It is contrary to the equal distribution of rights and obligations upon both sides in inter-partes proceedings and to the principle that both sides should set out their complete case at the outset of the proceedings. Both principles are clearly established by the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal.
This is all the more so if the substantiation for all the requests, which were filed after summons to oral proceedings have been sent, is filed only shortly before the oral proceedings before the Board. Such requests – which are not self-explanatory - are considered by the Board as submitted only on the date of their substantiation. Such very late requests are contrary to procedural economy, do not take account of the state of the proceedings and cannot be reasonably dealt with by the Board without adjournment of the proceedings or remittal to the department of first instance, contrary to Article 13(1) and 13(3) RPBA.
Where such very late requests take up subject-matter only available from the description, it cannot automatically be assumed that it was covered by the initial search, nor that it is automatically the responsibility of the opponent to perform such a search (see points 1.1 to 1.8).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.