T 1621/09 du 22.09.2011
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T162109.20110922
- Date de la décision
- 22 septembre 2011
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 1621/09
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 02754043.4
- Classe de la CIB
- B22D 18/04
- 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
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Method for low pressure casting metal foam
- Nom du demandeur
- Cymat Corp.
- Nom de l'opposant
- Hütte Klein-Reichenbach Gesellschaft m.b.H.
- Chambre
- 3.2.03
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 114(1)European Patent Convention Art 114(2)European Patent Convention R 116(1)European Patent Convention R 71a(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 99(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 15(3)
- Mots-clés
- Admission of late-filed arguments in appeal proceedings having the effect of amending the party's case (no)
Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes) - Exergue
- (a) A new argument brought forward in appeal proceedings by a party which would have the effect of amending its case, even if the argument is based on evidence and facts already in the proceedings, can only be introduced into the proceedings at the discretion of the Board of Appeal by way of an amendment under Article 13 RPBA (Point 37(a) of the Reasons).
(b) To the extent that the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 4/92 deals with the general admissibility of new arguments in appeal proceedings, it must be taken to have been modified in accordance with (a) above by the amendments to the RPBA introduced with effect from 1 May 2003 (Point 37(b) of the Reasons).
(c) Article 13(2) RPBA must be read subject to Article 15(3) RPBA, with the result that the absence of a duly summoned party does not prevent a Board from allowing an amendment to another party's case and reaching a decision on the basis of the amended case. The absence of the party is nevertheless a factor to be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion (Points 43 and 44 of the Reasons).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is dismissed.