G 0002/19 (Right to be heard and correct venue for oral proceedings) du 16.07.2019
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2019:G000219.20190716
- Date de la décision
- 16 juilliet 2019
- Numéro de l'affaire
- G 0002/19
- En ligne le
- 26 septembre 2019
- Requête en révision de
- T 0831/17 (Haar oder München als Ort der mündlichen Verhandlung) du 21.10.2019
- Numéro de la demande
- 10182497.7
- Langue de la procédure
- Allemand
- Distribution
- Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Verfahren zum Betreiben eines Mobilfunknetzes
- Nom du demandeur
- IPCom GmbH & Co. KG
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- -
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 6(2)European Patent Convention Art 15European Patent Convention Art 16European Patent Convention Art 17EPC2000 Art 084 Phrase 2European Patent Convention Art 106European Patent Convention Art 107European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 113European Patent Convention Art 115EPC2000 Art 116(1) Phrase 1European Patent Convention Art 6(2) 1973
- Mots-clés
- Right of a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC to oral proceedings on appeal against a lack of clarity in granted patent claims no
Examination by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the grounds for admissibility of a referral under Article 112(1)(a) EPC
Suspensive effect of an appeal filed by a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC against a lack of clarity in granted patent claims no
A means of redress is clearly inadmissible where a person without standing to file an appeal (here: a third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC) relies on a grievance not recognised under the EPC (here: a lack of clarity to be removed from the patent claims for the purposes of Article 84 EPC)
Oral proceedings before the boards of appeal in Haar permissible - Exergue
- 1. A third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC who has filed an appeal against a decision to grant a European patent has no right to have its request for an order that examination proceedings in respect of the European patent be reopened for the purpose of removing allegedly unclear claims (Article 84 EPC) heard at oral proceedings before a board of appeal of the European Patent Office. An appeal filed in such a way has no suspensive effect.
2. Oral proceedings before the boards of appeal at their site in Haar do not infringe Articles 113(1) and 116(1) EPC.
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. A third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC who has filed an appeal against a decision to grant a European patent has no right to have its request for an order that examination proceedings in respect of the European patent be reopened for the purpose of removing allegedly unclear claims (Article 84 EPC) heard at oral proceedings before a board of appeal of the European Patent Office.
An appeal filed in such a way has no suspensive effect.
2. Oral proceedings before the boards of appeal at their site in Haar do not infringe Articles 113(1) and 116(1) EPC