R 0006/20 (Fundamental violation of the right to be heard) du 10.07.2023
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2023:R000620.20230710
- Date de la décision
- 10 juilliet 2023
- Numéro de l'affaire
- R 0006/20
- Requête en révision de
- T 2227/15 2020-01-29
- Numéro de la demande
- 09251666.5
- Classe de la CIB
- B26B 19/38B26B 19/06B26B 19/20
- 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
- R 0006/20 2023-07-09
- Résumés pour cette décision
- Résumé de EPC2000 Art 112a(2)(c)
- Titre de la demande
- Blade assembly
- Nom du demandeur
- Andis Company
- Nom de l'opposant
- Wahl GmbH
- Chambre
- -
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(c)European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 114(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
- Mots-clés
- Compliance of Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007 with Art. 114(1) and 113(1) EPC (yes)
Petition allowable (no) no violation of petitioner's right to be heard - Exergue
- 1. The Enlarged Board of Appeal affirms its previous decisions R 8/15 and R 10/18.
2. Catchword 1, second paragraph, of R 10/18 reading: "Article 113(1) EPC is infringed if the board does not address submissions that, in its view, are relevant for the decision in a manner adequate to show that the parties were heard on them, i.e. that the board substantively considered those submissions..." is complemented as follows:
the requirement that "the Board substantively considered those submissions" should be given the meaning that "the Board considered the contents of those submissions", with this consideration comprising matters
- pertaining to admittance of facts, evidence and requests, and/or
- relating to substantive law, i.e. the merits of a case.
(See Reasons, point 2).
3. Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 is in line with Articles 114(1) and 113(1) EPC. (See Reasons, point 3.2.2(a) in fine.)
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The petition for review is unanimously rejected as being clearly unallowable.