T 1254/11 du 17.09.2015
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T125411.20150917
- Date de la décision
- 17 septembre 2015
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 1254/11
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 02000191.3
- Classe de la CIB
- G01G 19/393
- 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
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Combination weighing apparatus
- Nom du demandeur
- ISHIDA CO., Ltd.
- Nom de l'opposant
- Multipond Wägetechnik GmbH
- Chambre
- 3.4.02
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973European Patent Convention Art 19(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54 1973Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 11Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3)
- Mots-clés
- Remittal to the department of first instance - special reasons for not remitting the case
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no)
Novelty - main request (no)
Novelty - first and second auxiliary requests (no)
Admissibility - third auxiliary request (no)
Different apportionment of costs (no) - Exergue
- 1. An opposition division enlarged to four members pursuant to Article 19(2) EPC 1973 can in principle be reduced again to three members. It is for the four-person panel to decide on the reduction. In this respect the board concurs with T 990/06. In deciding on the reduction, the opposition division consisting of four members must properly exercise its discretion. (See point 1.4)
2. The board assumes arguendo that the fact that no decision to enlarge nor a decision to reduce the opposition division was added to the publicly available file and the fact that the appointment of the new chairman could only be traced from the internal register of the EPO both constitute fundamental deficiencies of the proceedings before the opposition division.
However, different from the situation in T 990/06, it is possible to determine from the file that the division was lawfully enlarged and, at a later stage, lawfully reduced again. (See points 1.6 and 1.7)
The board considers that these circumstances constitute special reasons for not remitting the case within the meaning of Article 11 RPBA. The aforementioned fundamental deficiencies assumed arguendo are of a formal nature. They would, in the board's view, not justify substantially delaying the proceedings. (See point 1.9) - Affaires citantes
- T 1088/11
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The request to remit the case to the department of first instance pursuant to Article 11 RPBA is refused.
2. The request for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.
3. The appeal is also dismissed for the remainder.
4. The request for apportionment of costs is refused.