T 0843/91 (Photographic elements) of 05.08.1993

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1993:T084391.19930805
Date of decision: 5 August 1993
Case number: T 0843/91
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 82306197.3
IPC class: G03C 7/32
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: German
English
French
Other decisions for this case: T 0843/91 Partialité 1993-03-17 T 0843/91 Partiality 1993-03-17 T 0843/91 Partiality 1993-03-17 T 0843/91 Befangenheit 1993-03-17
Abstracts for this decision: -
Application title: Photographic elements containing aryloxy substituted photographic material
Applicant name: Kodak
Opponent name: Fuji
Board: 3.3.01
Headnote: A decision remitting a case to the Opposition Division with the order to maintain a patent on the basis of amended claims is binding in the sense that neither the wording nor the patentability of these claims may be further challenged in subsequent proceedings before the EPO. A finding of fact upon which this decision rests, i.e. a finding which is conditio sine qua non for the decision, is equally binding. Such a finding of fact is therefore not open to reconsideration pursuant to Article 111(2) EPC (point 3.4.2 of the Reasons).
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 104 1973 European Patent Convention Art 106 1973 European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 111(2) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 112(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 125 1973 European Patent Convention Art 133 1973 European Patent Convention Art 134 1973 European Patent Convention R 10 1973 European Patent Convention R 9 1973
Keywords: Unauthorised representative (no)
Letter critisising appeal proceedings not added to the opposition file after remittal (no substantial procedural violation)
Binding effect of Board of Appeal decisions (res iudicata; ratio decidendi)
Desirability of ending legal disputes (vexatious proceedings)
Revision of a Board of Appeal decision in application of Art. 125 EPC not decisive in the present case; insufficient evidence of generally accepted practice in all Contracting States)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no)
Catchword: -
Cited cases: -
Citing cases: G 0001/97 G 0001/05 J 0011/94 J 0003/95 J 0008/98 T 0690/91 T 0153/93 T 0167/93 T 0720/93 T 0027/94 T 0609/94 T 0460/95 T 0450/97 T 0241/98 T 0546/98 T 0954/98 T 0598/01 T 0694/01 T 0281/03 T 0609/03 T 1020/06 T 1895/06 T 0365/09 T 1518/11 T 2084/11 T 2297/11 T 0308/14 T 1257/14 T 0449/15 T 2175/15 T 1656/17 T 2078/17 T 0450/18 T 0602/18 T 2264/18 T 2558/18 T 0689/19 T 0956/19 T 1008/19 T 1469/20 T 0437/21 T 2194/22 T 1285/23

ORDER

For these reasons it it decided that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Appellant's petitions 2, 3 and 4 are dismissed.

3. The Respondent's request for an award of costs under Article 104 EPC is dismissed.