European Patent Office

T 1732/10 du 19.12.2013

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T173210.20131219
Date de la décision
19 décembre 2013
Numéro de l'affaire
T 1732/10
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
03738853.5
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
DEVICE FOR THE APPLICATION OF A FLUID
Nom du demandeur
Eftec Europe Holding AG
Nom de l'opposant
ABB PATENT GmbH
Dürr Systems GmbH
Chambre
3.2.07
Sommaire
-
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(1)(b)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(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 15(6)
Mots-clés
Late-filed main and auxiliary requests 1 to 10 - not admitted
Reinstating a withdrawn request as late as at the oral proceedings-late amendment of the case, not admitted
Exergue
Not reacting in substance to the appeal of the opponent, but waiting for the Board's preliminary opinion before any substantive reaction is filed, is regarded as an abuse of procedure. It is contrary to the equal distribution of rights and obligations upon both sides in inter-partes proceedings and to the principle that both sides should set out their complete case at the outset of the proceedings. Both principles are clearly established by the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal.
This is all the more so if the substantiation for all the requests, which were filed after summons to oral proceedings have been sent, is filed only shortly before the oral proceedings before the Board. Such requests – which are not self-explanatory - are considered by the Board as submitted only on the date of their substantiation. Such very late requests are contrary to procedural economy, do not take account of the state of the proceedings and cannot be reasonably dealt with by the Board without adjournment of the proceedings or remittal to the department of first instance, contrary to Article 13(1) and 13(3) RPBA.
Where such very late requests take up subject-matter only available from the description, it cannot automatically be assumed that it was covered by the initial search, nor that it is automatically the responsibility of the opponent to perform such a search (see points 1.1 to 1.8).
Affaires citées
T 0888/02T 1621/09

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.