3.7. Obligation to raise objections
  1. Home
  2. Legal texts
  3. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
  4. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office
  5. V. Proceedings before the Boards of Appeal
  6. B. Proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal
  7. 3. Petition for review under Article 112a EPC
  8. 3.7. Obligation to raise objections
  9. 3.7.2 Requirements of a valid objection
  10. d) Board’s explicit reaction to an alleged objection
Print
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

3.7.2 Requirements of a valid objection

Overview

d) Board’s explicit reaction to an alleged objection

In R 6/22 the Enlarged Board pointed out that there was no trace of any explicit dismissal of an alleged objection on file. In the Enlarged Board's view it seemed likely that the board had not taken note of the intended objection. In this way, the absence of any discernible reaction from the board was a further indication that the board could not perceive the right to be heard argument as a recognisable objection within the meaning of R. 106 EPC. The Enlarged Board held that in a situation where the board does not react in a recognisable and explicit manner to an intended objection a diligent party should normally insist on a discernible response from the board. Failure to do so may leave the party with an indication that weighs against its case.

Previous
Next
Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility