3. Petition for review under Article 112a EPC
  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. 3.7.6 Requirements of a valid dismissal of an objection
Print
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

3.7. Obligation to raise objections

Overview

3.7.6 Requirements of a valid dismissal of an objection

In R 6/22 the petitioner considered its "unequivocal statement" that failure to admit the auxiliary request would be a violation of its right to be heard an objection within the meaning of R. 106 EPC. The Enlarged Board pointed out that there was no trace of any explicit dismissal of the alleged objection on file and it was not convinced about the petitioner’s explanation, according to which the non-admittance of the auxiliary request had to be regarded as the implicit dismissal of its intended objection.

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