R 0002/14 (Objections to the Chairman and Members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal) du 17.02.2015
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2015:R000214.20150217
- Date de la décision
- 17 février 2015
- Numéro de l'affaire
- R 0002/14
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 99965105.2
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Distribuées aux présidents et aux membres des chambres de recours (B)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- R 0002/14 Fundamental violation of the right to be heard 2016-04-22
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Desaturases and methods of using them for synthesis of polyunsaturated fatty acids
- Nom du demandeur
- Washington State University
- Nom de l'opposant
- E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company
- Chambre
- -
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- Business Distribution Scheme EBA 2014 Art 1, 5, 6Business Distribution Scheme of the Boards of Appeal 2014 Art . 2(1)Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 6(1)ECHR De Cubber v. Belgium (no. 9186/80), ETTL v. Austria (no. 9273/81), Hauschildt v. Denmark (no. 10486/83), Academy Trading Ltd et al. v. Greece (no. 30342/96), Pfeiffer v. Austria (no. 12556/03), Micallef v. Malta (no. 17056/06)European Patent Convention Art 10(2)European Patent Convention Art 10(3)European Patent Convention Art 11European Patent Convention Art 111European Patent Convention Art 112European Patent Convention Art 112aEuropean Patent Convention Art 113European Patent Convention Art 114European Patent Convention Art 116(4)European Patent Convention Art 128(4)European Patent Convention Art 131European Patent Convention Art 21(3)European Patent Convention Art 23(1)European Patent Convention Art 23(3)European Patent Convention Art 24European Patent Convention R 109(2)European Patent Convention R 12(4)European Patent Convention R 13(1)European Patent Convention R 144(a)European Patent Convention R 9(2)RPBEA_004(1)RPBEA_004(2)RPBEA_005RPBEA_013RPBEA_014(2)RPBEA_014(6)RPBEA_014(7)Service Regulation EPO Art 1(5), 15, 93
- Mots-clés
- Suspicion of partiality against all members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
institutional/functional conflict
normative conflict between Art. 10(2)(f), (3) and Art. 23(3) EPC as equal-ranking rules
normative concordance
suspicion partly not admissible
suspicion not justified
obligation of the party to prepare its case before trial
obligation of the party to present its complete case at the outset of the proceedings
submissions and requests after the closure of the oral proceedings re-opening of the oral proceedings and the debate (not admitted)
request to initiate new proceedings pursuant to Article 24 EPC (rejected)
request to consider late submissions and requests of a party to proceedings as amicus curiae brief (rejected) - Exergue
- 1. The simultaneous entrustment of the Chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal with judicial tasks in his capacity as judge appointed in accordance with Article 11(3) EPC and with executive tasks in his capacity as Vice-President Appeals appointed pursuant to Article 11(2) EPC causes an inherent "normative conflict" between the institutional provisions of Article 10(2)(f)and (3) EPC and Article 23(3) EPC, which cannot be completely resolved without changes to the current institutional structure of the European Patent Organisation. However, in the meantime, its impact can and must be mitigated by a continuous balancing of these potentially conflicting duties ("normative concordance") (points 36 to 40).
2. The factual scope of an objection pursuant to Article 24(3) EPC is defined in the statement of grounds of objection initiating the interlocutory proceedings under Article 24(4) EPC. Apart from a subsequent elaboration of said objection by supporting facts, evidence and arguments, the subject-matter of the proceedings, in principle, cannot be extended or changed, whether by new facts or by a new objection (points 56.3 to 56.6).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The requests of the petitioner to replace Mr ... and Mr ... as members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in case R 2/14 in its composition pursuant to Rule 109(2)(a) EPC are rejected as inadmissible.
2. The request of the petitioner to replace Mr ... as chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in case R 2/14 in its composition pursuant to Rule 109(2)(a) EPC is rejected as unjustified.
3. Mr ..., Mr ... and Mr ... remain members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in case R 2/14 in its composition pursuant to Rule 109(2)(a) EPC.