T 0831/17 (Haar or Munich as venue for oral proceedings) of 25.02.2019

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2019:T083117.20190225
Date of decision: 25 February 2019
Case number: T 0831/17
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 10182497.7
IPC class: H04W 28/06 H04W 80/04 H04L 29/06 H04W 80/00 H04W 80/02 H04W 88/18 H04L 29/08
Language of proceedings: German
Distribution: No distribution (D)
Download: Decision in German
OJ versions: No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case: T 0831/17 Haar oder München als Ort der mündlichen Verhandlung 2019-10-21
Abstracts for this decision: -
Application title: Verfahren zum Betreiben eines Mobilfunknetzes
Applicant name: IPCom GmbH & Co. KG
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.5.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 112 European Patent Convention Art 115 European Patent Convention Art 116(1)European Patent Convention Art 6(2)
Keywords: Right to be heard at the correct venue
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the board of appeal point of law of fundamental importance
Admissibility of appeal
Oral proceedings before the board
Right to oral proceedings - even if appeal obviously inadmissible?
Catchword: Referred questions:
1. In appeal proceedings, is the right to oral proceedings under Article 116 EPC limited if the appeal is manifestly inadmissible?
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, is an appeal against the grant of a patent filed by a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC, relying on the argument that there is no alternative legal remedy under the EPC against the examining division's decision to disregard its observations concerning an alleged infringement of Article 84 EPC, such a case of an appeal which is manifestly inadmissible?
3. If the answer to either of the first two questions is no, can a board hold oral proceedings in Haar without infringing Article 116 EPC if the appellant objects to this site as not being in conformity with the EPC and requests that the oral proceedings be held in Munich instead?
Cited cases: G 0001/88 G 0001/97 G 0003/14 J 0012/83 J 0010/88 J 0002/93 J 0016/94 J 0024/94 J 0009/04 J 0009/11 J 0010/11 J 0022/12 J 0010/15 T 0383/87 T 0656/98 T 0402/01 T 0502/02 T 1012/03 T 0431/04 T 0591/05 T 0689/05 T 1449/05 T 0189/06 T 0883/06 T 0263/07 T 1042/07 T 1426/07 T 1251/08 T 1259/09 T 1950/09 T 0234/10 T 1829/10 T 0150/11 T 0179/11 T 1142/12 T 0655/13 T 2054/15 T 0084/16 T 0861/16 T 1575/16 T 2575/16 T 0095/17 T 1407/17 T 2687/17 T 1633/18
Citing cases: T 0831/17 T 0660/19

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 112(1)(a) EPC for decision:

1. In appeal proceedings, is the right to oral proceedings under Article 116 EPC limited if the appeal is manifestly inadmissible?

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, is an appeal against the grant of a patent filed by a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC, relying on the argument that there is no alternative legal remedy under the EPC against the examining division's decision to disregard its observations concerning an alleged infringement of Article 84 EPC, such a case of an appeal which is manifestly inadmissible?

3. If the answer to either of the first two questions is no, can a board hold oral proceedings in Haar without infringing Article 116 EPC if the appellant objects to this site as not being in conformity with the EPC and requests that the oral proceedings be held in Munich instead?