T 0178/23 (Re-establishment of rights/Light-Med) of 11.10.2024
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2024:T017823.20241011
- Date of decision
- 11 October 2024
- Case number
- T 0178/23
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 19768992.0
- 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 Article 122 EPC
- Application title
- SILVER-INDIUM TRANSIENT LIQUID PHASE METHOD OF BONDING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND HEAT-SPREADING MOUNT AND SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE HAVING SILVER-INDIUM TRANSIENT LIQUID PHASE BONDING JOINT
- Applicant name
- Light-Med (USA), Inc.
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.4.03
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 108European Patent Convention Art 122(1)European Patent Convention Art 122(2)European Patent Convention R 136(1)European Patent Convention R 136(2)
- Keywords
- Re-establishment of rights - missed time limit for filing notice of appeal and for paying appeal fee
Re-establishment of rights - missed time limit for filing statement of grounds of appeal
Re-establishment of rights - one or two re-establishment fees due (left undecided)
Re-establishment of rights - request duly substantiated (no)
Re-establishment of rights - inability to observe a time limit (no)
Re-establishment of rights - request admissible (no)
Admissibility of appeal - appeal deemed not to have been filed - Catchword
- A party is not unable to observe a time limit vis- -vis the EPO within the meaning of Article 122(1) EPC if the obstacle relied on by the party does not relate to an error in the carrying out of the party's actual intention to meet a specific time limit, but only to a previous error as to motive in relation to the intention to use a legal remedy entailing a time limit (see section 5.3.5).
- Citing cases
- T 1874/23
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The request for re-establishment of rights is refused as inadmissible.
2. The appeal is deemed not to have been filed.