European Patent Office

T 1052/20 du 23.02.2022

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T105220.20220223
Date de la décision
23 février 2022
Numéro de l'affaire
T 1052/20
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
12862132.3
Langue de la procédure
Anglais
Distribution
Non distribuées (D)
Téléchargement
Décision en anglais
Versions JO
Aucun lien JO trouvé
Autres décisions pour cet affaire
-
Résumés pour cette décision
-
Titre de la demande
APPARATUSES FOR CUTTING FOOD PRODUCTS
Nom du demandeur
URSCHEL LABORATORIES, INC.
Frito-Lay North America, Inc.
Nom de l'opposant
FAM
Chambre
3.2.07
Sommaire
-
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
European Patent Convention Art 104(1)European Patent Convention Art 108European Patent Convention Art 111(1)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 83European Patent Convention R 99(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 011Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(1)(a)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(6)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 016(1)
Mots-clés
Admissibility of appeal - appeal sufficiently substantiated (yes)
Admissibility of appeal - directed to requests on which the decision under appeal was based (yes)
Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (no)
Amendments - added subject-matter (no)
Amendments - allowable (yes)
Amendment after summons - objection
Amendment after summons - cogent reasons (no)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)
Remittal - special reasons for remittal
Remittal - (yes)
Apportionment of costs - (no)
Exergue
-
Affaires citantes
-

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the opposition division for further prosecution.

3. The request for apportionment of costs is refused.