T 0290/90 (Fee reduction) of 09.10.1990
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1990:T029090.19901009
- Date of decision
- 9 October 1990
- Case number
- T 0290/90
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 83301259.4
- IPC class
- H05F 3/02
- 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
- DACA
- Opponent name
- Savio Plastica
- Board
- 3.4.01
- Headnote
1. If infringement proceedings in a designated State have been commenced or are contemplated by the patentee (here, commenced and thereafter stayed pending decision in an opposition before the EPO), it is justified to give priority to an appeal in opposition proceedings and to decide it in advance of other pending appeals.
2. In a multiple opposition, where an appeal has been filed concerning the existence or admissibility of one of the oppositions, the examination stage of the opposition proceedings should be prepared and processed in parallel with the appeal with the participation of all the opponents up to the point when it is ready to be decided: as soon as the appeal is decided, the opposition may also be decided.
3. To be granted the benefit of a 20% reduction of the opposition fee under Rule 6(3) EPC, that part of a notice of opposition which is governed by Rule 55(c) EPC should always be filed in a non-official authorised language. See also the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of 6 March 1992, G 6/91 (to be published).
4. Whether or not it may be considered justified to overlook a small amount of a fee which is lacking, under Article 9(1) Rules relating to Fees, must be decided on an objective, not a subjective, basis.
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 14(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 99(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 55(c) 1973European Patent Convention R 56(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 6(3) 1973Rules relating to fees Art 9(1)
- Keywords
- Accelerated processing of appeal
Admissibility of opposition (yes)
Fee reduction/Non-official authorised language
Lacking of a small amount of a fee - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The decision of the Formalities Officer dated 29 January 1990 is set aside.
3. The opposition fee is deemed to have been paid and the notice of opposition of the appellant filed, in due time.