T 2434/09 du 22.11.2011
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T243409.20111122
- Date de la décision
- 22 novembre 2011
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 2434/09
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 02007071.0
- Classe de la CIB
- G11B 7/24
- 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
- Optical disk and recording/reproducing apparatus
- Nom du demandeur
- Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.5.04
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- Decision AC of 7 December 2006 amending the Implementing Regulations to the EPC 2000 Art 002Decision_AC of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under_Art_7of the EPC Revision Act_Art_1, No. 1EPC Revision Act of 29 November 2000 Art 7EPC1973_R_067_Sent_1European Patent Convention Art 110 1973European Patent Convention Art 113(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(2) 1973Rules 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 12(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)
- Mots-clés
- Examination of the appeal - yes
Admission of submissions made for the first time during oral proceedings - (no)
Substantial procedural violation - (no)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - (no) - Exergue
- If a European patent application is finally deemed to be withdrawn after an admissible appeal against a decision refusing it has been filed, the appeal can usually be considered disposed of, because there is no possibility of a European patent being granted for the application. (See points 4 and 5).
However, where, as in the present case, the sole aim of the appeal is to obtain a finding by the board of appeal that a substantial procedural violation occurred in the first-instance proceedings, such that the appealed decision is to be set aside and the appeal fee reimbursed, the appeal cannot be dealt with in this way. In these circumstances the appellant has a legitimate interest in receiving a decision on the merits of the appeal. Therefore the appeal must be examined and the appeal proceedings cannot be closed without a substantive decision on the case. (See points 6 to 9).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is refused.