T 0617/20 (Apportionment of costs occasioned by a withdrawal of an appeal) du 29.04.2025

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence: ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T061720.20250429
Date de la décision: 29 avril 2025
Numéro de l'affaire: T 0617/20
Requête en révision de: -
Numéro de la demande: 08798495.1
Classe de la CIB: C07C 21/18 C07C 17/04 C07C 17/21 C07C 19/10 C07C 19/08 C07C 17/25 C07C 17/087
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: Résumé de Article 104(1) EPC
Titre de la demande: METHOD FOR PRODUCING FLUORINATED OLEFINS
Nom du demandeur: Honeywell International Inc.
Nom de l'opposant: ARKEMA FRANCE
Mexichem Fluor S.A. de C.V.
Zhejiang Huanxin Fluoro Material Co., Ltd.
Sino-Resource Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.
Chambre: 3.3.10
Sommaire: -
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes: European Patent Convention Art 104(1)European Patent Convention Art 106(1)European Patent Convention Art 111(1)European Patent Convention Art 112a(4)European Patent Convention Art 122 European Patent Convention R 100(1)European Patent Convention R 103(3)European Patent Convention R 103(4)(a)European Patent Convention R 132(1)European Patent Convention R 136(1)European Patent Convention R 139 European Patent Convention R 88(1)European Patent Convention R 88(2)European Patent Convention R 88(3)European Patent Convention R 88(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 016Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 016(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 016(1)(c)
Mots-clés: Apportionment of costs - admissible (yes)
Apportionment of costs - allowable
Apportionment of costs - (no)
Exergue: 1. A request for apportionment of costs is not inadmissible for the sole reason that it had been filed after the closure of the appeal proceedings. Decision T 1556/14 is not followed. (Reasons 1.1 to 1.17)
2. A request for apportionment of costs after termination of the appeal proceedings can still open ancillary proceedings for deciding issues arising out of the original appeal proceedings, without re-opening the substantive appeal proceedings. (Reasons 1.6 to 1.7)
3. A reasonable time limit for filing a request for apportionment of costs where the appeal proceedings are terminated by a withdrawal of an appeal should correspond to the usual time limits applicable to proceedings before the EPO, namely the standard two months of Rule 132(1) EPC. Questions should be asked only if the request is submitted after a reasonable period of time. (Reasons 1.20 to 1.21)
4. Beyond the general obligation to inform the other parties as soon as possible, the parties have no formal obligation to take even more active steps merely to avoid the costs already foreseen by the other parties. At most, parties must seek to avoid additional costs. The recognition of such a formal obligation would place an unrealistic burden on parties to the proceedings before the EPO. (Reasons 2.6)
Affaires citées: R 0003/22 T 0765/89 T 0674/03 T 1556/14 T 0211/15 T 0695/18 T 1310/19 T 1484/19 T 1087/20 T 0433/21 T 1549/22
Affaires citantes: -

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The request of opponent 3 for a different apportionment of costs pursuant to Article 104(1) EPC is refused.