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
- Classe de la CIB
- A01K 1/12A01J 5/017A01J 5/007
- 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
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- Art 2(1) of the Decision of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal dated 12 November 2007 concerning the transfer of functions to the Registrars of the Boards of AppealEuropean Patent Convention Art 105aEuropean Patent Convention Art 108European Patent Convention Art 112(1)European Patent Convention Art 122European Patent Convention Art 122(1)European Patent Convention Art 122(2)European Patent Convention Art 14(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 14(4)European Patent Convention Art 14(4) 1973European Patent Convention R 136(1)European Patent Convention R 136(2)European Patent Convention R 139European Patent Convention R 6(3)European Patent Convention R 6(3) 1973RFees_Art 8, 14(1)
- 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.