T 2124/21 of 25.01.2024
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2024:T212421.20240125
- Date of decision
- 25 January 2024
- Case number
- T 2124/21
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 08745942.6
- IPC class
- G01F 1/84
- 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
- Abstract on Art 13(2) RPBA 2020
- Application title
- DUAL-DRIVER VIBRATORY FLOWMETER
- Applicant name
- Micro Motion, Inc.
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.4.02
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)
- Keywords
- Amendment to the appeal case within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA - (yes)
Exceptional circumstances justified by cogent reasons - (no)
Amendment taken into account - (no) - Catchword
- On appeal, the sole request subject of the appealed decision was abandoned, and amended requests were filed instead. When later the sole request was submitted in reply to the board's communication, it constituted an "amendment" to the appeal case within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA.
The appellant's choice, on appeal, not to seek a review of the appealed decision prevented the board from pursuing the primary object of the appeal proceedings (cf. Article 12(1)(a) and (b) and (2) RPBA). Instead, the late submission of the sole request left its consideration to the board's discretion under Article 13(2) RPBA. - Cited cases
- -
- Citing cases
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is dismissed.