European Patent Office

T 0642/12 (Reduced appeal fee/LELY ENTERPRISES AG) du 11.01.2013

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T064212.20130111
Date de la décision
11 janvier 2013
Numéro de l'affaire
T 0642/12
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
02077086.3
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
A device for performing one or more animal related treatments on an animal
Nom du demandeur
Lely Enterprises AG
Nom de l'opposant
WestfaliaSurge GmbH
DeLaval International AB
Chambre
3.2.04
Sommaire
-
Mots-clés
Erroneously applied 20% fee reduction, small amount lacking (no), overlooking small amount justified (no), Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations (not applicable), request for re-establishment of rights setting out facts (no), referral to the Enlarged Board (no)
Exergue
1. In case of an inter partes appeal case, completion of EPO Form 2701 by the Formalities Officer of the department of first instance does not establish the legitimate expectation that formal requirements of the appeal, such as the payment of the appeal fee, has already been checked by the EPO (point 9 of the Reasons)
2. A potential possibility of discovering the error is not sufficient to establish the legitimate expectation that a Registrar of the Boards of Appeal will warn an appellant within seven working days before the expiry of the time limit that a reduced appeal fee was relied on in error and therefore the appeal fee is deemed not to have been paid (points 6 to 8 of the Reasons)
3. "Small amounts lacking" in Art. 8 Rfees are to be read as "insignificant or negligible" amounts. The legislator presumed that a fee reduction of 20% pursuant to Rule 6(3) EPC is not merely a symbolic one, but will effectively alleviate the burden of having to prepare translations. Therefore the legislator could not have intended this fee reduction to be considered small in the sense of negligible or insignificant (point 20 of the Reasons).

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The request for a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is rejected.

2. The request for re-establishment of rights is rejected.

3. The appeal is deemed not to have been filed.