T 0572/19 (Noise attenuation trim part / Autoneum Management AG) of 05.04.2024
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2024:T057219.20240405
- Date of decision
- 5 April 2024
- Case number
- T 0572/19
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 11709370.8
- IPC class
- G10K 11/168B60R 13/08
- 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
- Abstract on EPC2000 R 113(1)
- Application title
- AUTOMOTIVE NOISE ATTENUATING TRIM PART
- Applicant name
- Autoneum Management AG
- Opponent name
- Faurecia Automotive Industrie
International Automotive Components Group GmbH - Board
- 3.4.01
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 119European Patent Convention Art 125European Patent Convention Art 21(4)(b)European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)European Patent Convention R 113(1)European Patent Convention R 125European Patent Convention R 140Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 008(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 011Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 023Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 18(2)
- Keywords
- Signature requirement under Rule 113(1) EPC applies to written decision as a whole - (yes)
Missing signature is substantial procedural violation - (yes)
Remedy by retrospective signature on behalf, and written explanation - (no)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - (yes) - Catchword
- 1. The signature requirement under Rule 113(1) EPC applies to the written decision, including its substantiation (Reasons 4 to 8).
2. The purpose of the signature requirement under Rule 113(1) EPC is only achieved if there is an unbroken chain of manifest personal responsibility, taken by each member of the decision-making body who is assigned to the case, throughout the decision-making process, including for the written decision (Reasons 12).
3. The omission of a member's signature from the appealed decision was not retrospectively remedied by another member's signing on their behalf and providing a written explanation. In particular, this could not be seen as a correction under Rule 140 EPC. The omission was a substantial procedural violation, and the decision is invalid (Reasons 35 to 46). - Cited cases
- G 0001/97J 0016/17T 0390/86T 0243/87T 0212/88T 0225/96T 1170/05T 2076/11T 0989/19T 2348/19T 3071/19
- Citing cases
- T 0289/23
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the Opposition Division for further prosecution.