T 0809/21 of 05.07.2022
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T080921.20220705
- Date of decision
- 5 July 2022
- Case number
- T 0809/21
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 07831774.0
- IPC class
- G03G 21/18G03G 21/16H04L 25/49
- 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
- COMMUNICATION DEVICE, IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND CARTRIDGE
- Applicant name
- Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
- Opponent name
- Nickel, André
- Board
- 3.4.03
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 101(3)(a)European Patent Convention Art 106(2)European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 99(1)European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)European Patent Convention R 76(2)(c)European Patent Convention R 82(1)
- Keywords
- Extent of opposition
Reimbursement of appeal fee - substantial procedural violation (yes) - Catchword
- In a case where the patent is not opposed in its entirety, the opposition being directed at certain claims only, and where the Opposition Division decides that all of the proprietor's requests in relation to the opposed claims must fail, only the unopposed claims, which are not part of any opposition proceedings, are left standing.
Hence, provided the requirements of Rule 82(1) EPC are met (either during oral proceedings or, in a written procedure, by means of a separate communication), the patent may be maintained on the basis of the unopposed claims, irrespective of whether the proprietor has filed an explicit request for this during the proceedings. Such a request would, in fact, be superfluous, since the unopposed claims have been granted and are not the subject of any opposition. The unopposed claims of the granted patent are therefore always available to the proprietor as the minimum basis on which the patent may be maintained (Reasons, point 5.2). - 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 appeal fee is to be reimbursed in full.