European Patent Office

J 0001/20 du 15.04.2021

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2021:J000120.20210415
Date de la décision
15 avril 2021
Numéro de l'affaire
J 0001/20
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
10826125.6
Classe de la CIB
F03D 1/00F03D 11/04
Langue de la procédure
Anglais
Distribution
Non distribuées (D)
Téléchargement
Décision en anglais
Versions JO
Aucun lien JO trouvé
Autres décisions pour cet affaire
-
Résumés pour cette décision
-
Titre de la demande
DEVICE FOR ESTABLISHING ADMITTANCE AND TRANSPORT OF CARGO TO AND FROM A WIND TURBINE CONSTRUCTION ABOVE GROUND LEVEL
Nom du demandeur
Liftra Aps
Nom de l'opposant
-
Chambre
3.1.01
Sommaire
-
Mots-clés
"Request for re-establishment of rights"
"Removal of the cause of non-compliance - no consideration of the due-care criterion"
"Error of law: due care only relevant for allowability - Excuse of error of law (no)"
"Principle of proportionality: application if conditions of Article 122 EPC are not met - (no)"
Exergue
1. The established approach of applying the due-care criterion to the question of removal of the cause of non-compliance under Rule 136 EPC leads to an additional admissibility requirement, by expanding the scope of the substantive due-care criterion, which has no basis in the EPC.
2. Removal of the cause of non-compliance is a question of fact which occurs on the date on which the person responsible for the application or patent actually became aware of an error (actual knowledge), rather than when this person ought to have noticed the error (presumption of knowledge).
3. Pursuant to Article 122(1) EPC, if failure to observe a time limit is due to an error of fact, the due-care criterion is to be assessed only in the context of the merits of a request for re-establishment of rights.
4. The same applies if failure to observe a time limit is based on an error of law. Thus, the due-care criterion is to be assessed only in the context of the merits of the request and removal of the cause of non-compliance occurs when the responsible person actually became aware of the error of law.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.