T 1414/18 (Refund of a further search fee/HTC) du 15.07.2020
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T141418.20200715
- Date de la décision
- 15 juilliet 2020
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 1414/18
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 14178323.3
- Classe de la CIB
- H04W 72/04
- 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
- Method for configuring timing resource in device to device communication
- Nom du demandeur
- HTC Corporation
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.5.03
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 113(1) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 82 (2007)European Patent Convention Art 92 (2007)European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a) (2007)European Patent Convention R 64(2) (2007)Guidelines_(November 2017), F-VRules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 11 (2020)
- Mots-clés
- Unity of invention - (yes): single invention
Refund of further search fee - (yes)
Substantial procedural violation - (yes)
Remittal to the first instance for further prosecution - (yes)
Reimbursement of the appeal fee - (yes): ex officio - Exergue
- (1) As to unity of invention under Article 82 EPC, only if the application relates to more than one "invention", the notion of "a single general inventive concept" under Article 82 EPC and the concept of the "same or corresponding special technical features" under Rule 44(1) EPC have to be assessed for the purpose of deciding upon unity of invention (see Reasons, point 1).
(2) As to a refund of further search fees under Rule 64(2) EPC, the decision to refuse a patent application may be understood to implicitly contain the decision to refuse the refund of a further search fee, if the examining division's intent is clear (see Reasons, point 4).
(3) A statement such as "the next procedural step will be summons to oral proceedings during which the application will be refused" made prior to a final decision to refuse a patent application may infringe a party's right to be heard and thus may lead to a substantial procedural violation (see Reasons, point 5).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The refund of one further search fee is ordered.
3. The case is remitted to the examining division for further prosecution.
4. Reimbursement of the appeal fee is ordered.