T 1052/20 of 23.02.2022
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T105220.20220223
- Date of decision
- 23 February 2022
- Case number
- T 1052/20
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 12862132.3
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- No distribution (D)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- APPARATUSES FOR CUTTING FOOD PRODUCTS
- Applicant name
- URSCHEL LABORATORIES, INC.
Frito-Lay North America, Inc. - Opponent name
- FAM
- Board
- 3.2.07
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 104(1)European Patent Convention Art 108European Patent Convention Art 111(1)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 83European Patent Convention R 99(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 011Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(1)(a)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(6)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 016(1)
- Keywords
- Admissibility of appeal - appeal sufficiently substantiated (yes)
Admissibility of appeal - directed to requests on which the decision under appeal was based (yes)
Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (no)
Amendments - added subject-matter (no)
Amendments - allowable (yes)
Amendment after summons - objection
Amendment after summons - cogent reasons (no)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)
Remittal - special reasons for remittal
Remittal - (yes)
Apportionment of costs - (no) - Catchword
- -
- 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 opposition division for further prosecution.
3. The request for apportionment of costs is refused.