T 1807/15 of 02.12.2022
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T180715.20221202
- Date of decision
- 2 December 2022
- Case number
- T 1807/15
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 04758381.0
- IPC class
- H03F 1/02
- 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
- T 1807/15 Oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference 2021-03-12T 1807/15 Mündliche Verhandlung in Form einer Videokonferenz 2021-03-12T 1807/15 Procédure orale sous forme de visioconférence 2021-03-12
- Abstracts for this decision
- Abstract on EPC2000 Art 104(1)Abstract on Art 13(2) RPBA 2020
- Application title
- Doherty Amplifier with Output Hybrid Coupler
- Applicant name
- Andrew AG
- Opponent name
- Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co KG
- Board
- 3.5.02
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 104European Patent Convention Art 123(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)
- Keywords
- Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)
Amendments - added subject-matter (yes)
Apportionment of costs - (no) - Catchword
- If more than one summons are issued in appeal proceedings, both after the entry into force of the revised version of the Rules of Procedure, the first of these summons are the summons referred to in Article 13(2) RPBA 2020. Summons represent a predictable and objectively determinable trigger for the third level of convergence. This trigger function is independent of any subsequent procedural development, see reasons 2.
The postponement of oral proceedings due to a request for a referral of a question of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal which was not announced in advance by the party making the request normally does not justify apportionment of costs. Since there is no guarantee that such a request will be successful, all parties will normally have to prepare for a discussion of the substance of the case irrespective of whether the request is announced in advance or not, see reasons 8. - Cited cases
- T 2279/16
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.