T 1414/18 (Refund of a further search fee/HTC) of 15.07.2020
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T141418.20200715
- Date of decision
- 15 July 2020
- Case number
- T 1414/18
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 14178323.3
- IPC class
- H04W 72/04
- 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
- Method for configuring timing resource in device to device communication
- Applicant name
- HTC Corporation
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.5.03
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 113(1) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 82 (2007)European Patent Convention Art 92 (2007)European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a) (2007)European Patent Convention R 64(2) (2007)Guidelines_(November 2017), F-VRules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 11 (2020)
- Keywords
- Unity of invention - (yes): single invention
Refund of further search fee - (yes)
Substantial procedural violation - (yes)
Remittal to the first instance for further prosecution - (yes)
Reimbursement of the appeal fee - (yes): ex officio - Catchword
- (1) As to unity of invention under Article 82 EPC, only if the application relates to more than one "invention", the notion of "a single general inventive concept" under Article 82 EPC and the concept of the "same or corresponding special technical features" under Rule 44(1) EPC have to be assessed for the purpose of deciding upon unity of invention (see Reasons, point 1).
(2) As to a refund of further search fees under Rule 64(2) EPC, the decision to refuse a patent application may be understood to implicitly contain the decision to refuse the refund of a further search fee, if the examining division's intent is clear (see Reasons, point 4).
(3) A statement such as "the next procedural step will be summons to oral proceedings during which the application will be refused" made prior to a final decision to refuse a patent application may infringe a party's right to be heard and thus may lead to a substantial procedural violation (see Reasons, point 5).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The refund of one further search fee is ordered.
3. The case is remitted to the examining division for further prosecution.
4. Reimbursement of the appeal fee is ordered.