T 1198/20 of 27.06.2023
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T119820.20230627
- Date of decision
- 27 June 2023
- Case number
- T 1198/20
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 16161403.7
- IPC class
- F22B 31/00F23C 10/10
- 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
- A FLUIDIZED BED HEAT EXCHANGER AND A CORRESPONDING INCINERATION APPARATUS
- Applicant name
- Doosan Lentjes GmbH
- Opponent name
- Sumitomo SHI FW Energia Oy
- Board
- 3.2.03
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 101(1)European Patent Convention Art 104(1)European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 116(1)European Patent Convention Art 52(1)European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention R 111(2)European Patent Convention R 116(1)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(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(6)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 016(1)
- Keywords
- Right to be heard - opportunity to comment (yes)
Right to be heard - obligation for the opposition division to communicate their preliminary opinion (no)
Right to be heard - appealed decision sufficiently reasoned (yes)
Right to be heard - substantial procedural violation (no)
Novelty - main request (no)
Late-filed request - auxiliary requests 1 to 13
Late-filed request - admissibly raised in first-instance proceedings (no)
Late-filed request - should have been submitted in first-instance proceedings (yes)
Late-filed request - circumstances of appeal case justify admittance (no)
Late-filed request - admitted (no)
Apportionment of costs - different apportionment of costs justified (no) - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- G 0012/91
- Citing cases
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The request for a different apportionment of costs is refused.