T 0989/15 of 05.03.2020

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T098915.20200305
Date of decision: 5 March 2020
Case number: T 0989/15
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 08836787.5
IPC class: B23K 26/08 B41F 31/26 B41F 31/02 B41N 7/06
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: Distributed to board chairmen (C)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case: -
Abstracts for this decision: -
Application title: A method for printing a substrate using an anilox roll, an anilox roll for a printing method and a printing apparatus
Applicant name: Apex Europe B.V.
Opponent name: Kurt Zecher GmbH
Applied Laser Engineering Ltd
Board: 3.2.05
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 104(1) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 123(2) (2007)European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a) (2007)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1) (2007)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1) (2020)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(2) (2020)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3) (2007)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 15(1) (2020)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 16 (2020)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 25 (2020)
Keywords: Late-filed requests filed after arrangement of oral proceedings
Late-filed request - admitted (main request, first to third auxiliary requests: no; fourth auxiliary request: yes)
Amendments - allowable (no)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - (no)
Apportionment of costs - (no)
Catchword: At the third level of the convergent approach applicable in appeal proceedings in accordance with the revised version of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA 2020), the boards of appeal are free to use or not use the criteria set out in Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 when deciding, in the exercise of their discretion in accordance with Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, whether to admit an amendment made at this stage of the proceedings. This also holds true when Article 13 RPBA 2007, rather than Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, is to be applied. (See section 16 of the Reasons)
Cited cases: J 0037/89 T 0032/16 T 0634/16
Citing cases: R 0018/24 R 0022/24 T 0709/16 T 0752/16 T 0764/16 T 1107/16 T 1291/16 T 1304/16 T 1614/16 T 1786/16 T 1797/16 T 2615/16 T 0590/17 T 0596/17 T 1440/17 T 1695/17 T 2272/17 T 2273/17 T 2461/17 T 2787/17 T 0129/18 T 0568/18 T 0995/18 T 1199/18 T 1433/18 T 0085/19 T 1134/19 T 1183/19 T 1590/19 T 1659/19 T 1698/19 T 2401/19 T 2795/19 T 0920/20 T 1581/20 T 0324/21 T 0953/21 T 2225/22

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee and the request for apportionment of costs are refused.