T 0955/20 (Query translation/GOOGLE) of 02.02.2022
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T095520.20220202
- Date of decision
- 2 February 2022
- Case number
- T 0955/20
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 09151235.0
- IPC class
- G06F 17/27
- 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
- Systems and methods for searching using queries written in a different character-set and/or language from the target pages
- Applicant name
- Google LLC
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.5.07
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 109(1)European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)European Patent Convention R 103(6)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 011Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules relating to fees Art 13(2)
- Keywords
- Inventive step - main request (no)
Interlocutory revision - substantial procedural violation (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - first appeal fee (no)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - second appeal fee (yes)
Remittal to the department of first instance
Remittal - (yes) - Catchword
- 1. A request for reimbursement of the appeal fee under Rule 103(1)(a) EPC can no longer be filed after the department of first instance has granted interlocutory revision (Reasons 2).
2. If the department of first instance grants interlocutory revision only to refine the written reasons which already complied with Rule 111(2) EPC, this may constitute a substantial procedural violation (Reasons 1).
3. Such a substantial procedural violation may justify the reimbursement under Rule 103(1)(a) of the appeal fee paid for a subsequent appeal (Reasons 3.1 and 3.2). - Cited cases
- G 0003/03T 0114/82T 0115/82T 0252/91T 0919/95T 0961/00T 0021/02T 0242/05T 1569/05T 0070/08T 0625/09T 0206/10T 1703/12T 0893/13T 0598/14T 2008/14T 2707/16
- Citing cases
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the examining division for further prosecution.
3. The request for reimbursement of the first appeal fee is rejected.
4. The request for reimbursement of the second appeal fee is allowed.