T 1158/20 of 22.11.2022
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T115820.20221122
- Date of decision
- 22 November 2022
- Case number
- T 1158/20
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 11710578.3
- IPC class
- A24C 5/35
- 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 Art 116
- Application title
- METHOD OF MASS FLOW CONTROL AND DEVICE FOR MASS FLOW CONTROL
- Applicant name
- International Tobacco Machinery Poland Sp. z o.o.
- Opponent name
- G.D S.p.A
- Board
- 3.2.01
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 15a(1)
- Keywords
- Oral proceedings - before board of appeal
Oral proceedings - format by videoconference
Basis of decision - text submitted or agreed by patent proprietor (yes)
Amendments - allowable (no)
Amendments - broadening of claim (yes)
Novelty - auxiliary request (yes) - Catchword
- 1. Pursuant to Article 15a(1) RPBA 2021 the boards have a discretionary power to hold oral proceedings by videoconference without the consent of all parties. When exercising this discretion, the board must primarily assess whether the case is suitable to be dealt with by videoconference and/or whether there are reasons that require holding oral proceedings in person. Such reasons may be seen in the complexity of the case or a need to inspect models.
2. Holding oral proceedings by videoconference can meanwhile be often considered an equivalent alternative to oral proceedings in person because the boards and the parties have gained such extensive experience with videoconferencing and using the tools involved since G1/21. Holding oral proceedings by videoconference is hence no longer that disadvantageous as it was when the decision G1/21 was issued. - Cited cases
- G 0001/21
- 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 with the order to maintain the patent as amended in the following version:
Description:
Columns 1 to 5 filed during oral proceedings
Claims:
No. 1 to 3 of auxiliary request M-Alpha replacement II filed during oral proceedings.
Drawings:
1 to 10 of the patent specification