J 0016/17 du 12.07.2018
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2018:J001617.20180712
- Date de la décision
- 12 juilliet 2018
- Numéro de l'affaire
- J 0016/17
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 12740277.4
- Classe de la CIB
- A47G 21/02A47J 43/28
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Distribuées aux présidents des chambres de recours (C)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- DOUBLE SERRATED FORK
- Nom du demandeur
- Elezi, Dashamir
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.1.01
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1)European Patent Convention Art 122European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)European Patent Convention R 113(1)European Patent Convention R 136(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 11
- Mots-clés
- Incorrect form of decision under appeal - missing name of responsible employee
Re-establishment of rights - request admissible (no)
Remittal to the department of first instance - special reasons for not remitting the case - Exergue
- The requirement laid down in Rule 113(1) EPC, according to which decisions from the European Patent Office must be signed by and state the name of the employee responsible, is not just a mere formality but an essential procedural step in the decision-taking process. The name and the signature serve to identify the decision's authors and express that they unconditionally assume responsibility for its content. This requirement is aimed at preventing arbitrariness and abuse and ensuring that it can be verified that the competent body has taken the decision. It therefore constitutes an embodiment of the rule of law. As a consequence, a violation of the requirement pursuant to Rule 113(1) EPC amounts to a substantial procedural violation and renders the decision erroneous (Reasons, point 2.3).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The request for re-establishment of rights is rejected.
3. The application is deemed to be withdrawn with effect as of 3 January 2017.
4. All fees paid after this date, with the exception of the fee for re-establishment of rights and the appeal fee, are refunded.