European Patent Office

R 0006/22 (Petition clearly unallowable) du 06.11.2023

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2023:R000622.20231106
Date de la décision
6 novembre 2023
Numéro de l'affaire
R 0006/22
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
14824813.1
Classe de la CIB
H04W 8/18
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
Résumé de EPC2000 R 106
Titre de la demande
METHOD FOR ACCESSING A SERVICE AND A CORRESPONDING DEVICE
Nom du demandeur
Thales Dis France SAS
Nom de l'opposant
IDEMIA France
Giesecke+Devrient Mobile Security GmbH
Giesecke & Devrient GmbH
Chambre
-
Sommaire
-
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(c)European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(d)European Patent Convention Art 112a(5)European Patent Convention Art 113European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention R 100(2)European Patent Convention R 104(b)European Patent Convention R 106European Patent Convention R 107(1)European Patent Convention R 107(2)European Patent Convention R 108(1)European Patent Convention R 109(2)(a)European Patent Convention R 109(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 015(1)Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 12(1)Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 13Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 14(2)
Mots-clés
Petition for review - grounds clearly inadmissible and clearly unallowable
Petition for review - obligation to raise objection
Petition for review - dismissal of objection by the Board (no)
Petition for review - relevant request within the meaning of Rule 104(b) EPC (no)
Petition for review - fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC (no)
Exergue
In a situation such as the present case - where the board does not react in a recognisable and explicit manner to an intended objection under Rule 106 EPC - a diligent party should normally insist on a discernible response from the board. Failure to do so will leave the party with an indication that weighs against its case (Reasons 16).
Affaires citantes
T 2194/22

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The petition for review is unanimously rejected as being clearly unallowable.