T 0154/90 (Apportionment of costs) of 19.12.1991
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1991:T015490.19911219
- Date of decision
- 19 December 1991
- Case number
- T 0154/90
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 84308814.7
- IPC class
- B65B 69/00
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in English
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- -
- Applicant name
- De la Rue Systems
- Opponent name
- GAO
- Board
- 3.2.04
- Headnote
1. If the appeal relating to the revocation of a patent is rejected as inadmissible and there is no other admissible request, an appeal relating to apportionment of costs is inadmissible, it being the sole subject of an appeal (Article 106(4) EPC).
2. If, however, the impugned decision did not take into account the withdrawal of the request for oral proceedings and was, therefore, based on a substantial procedural violation, the part of the impugned decision relating to apportionment of costs is to be set aside.
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 106(4) 1973European Patent Convention Art 108 1973European Patent Convention Art 116 1973European Patent Convention R 63 1973European Patent Convention R 65 1973
- Keywords
- Admissibility of appeal
Withdrawal of request for oral proceedings - in time
Apportionment of costs - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- -
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
1. The subject of appeal relating to the revocation of the patent is rejected as inadmissible.
2. The subjects of appeal relating to the cancellation of the impugned interlocutory decision on the ground that the EPO did not consider the withdrawal of the request for oral proceedings, and to the apportionment of costs are both admissible.
3. The part of the impugned interlocutory decision relating to the apportionment of costs is set aside.
4. The patent is maintained on the basis of the documents accompanying the impugned interlocutory decision.
5. The Patentee's costs incurred as a result of the oral proceedings held before the Opposition Division are not to be borne by the Opponent.