European Patent Office

T 1138/20 (Reviewing findings of fact/VIASAT) du 25.04.2023

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T113820.20230425
Date de la décision
25 avril 2023
Numéro de l'affaire
T 1138/20
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
13168502.6
Classe de la CIB
H04B 7/185
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
Résumé de EPC2000 Art 117
Titre de la demande
Improved spot beam satellite systems
Nom du demandeur
ViaSat, Inc.
Nom de l'opposant
European Space Agency
Chambre
3.5.03
Sommaire
-
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Art 32, 41(4)Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 6(1)European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 117European Patent Convention Art 54(2)
Mots-clés
Document NPL1 valid state of the art - (yes): public availability sufficiently proven
Standard of proof - conviction of the deciding body
Errors in the opposition division's fact-finding process - (no)
Novelty over NPL1
Novelty - main request and 1st auxiliary request (no)
Allowability of 2nd auxiliary request - (yes): prohibition of
reformatio in peius
Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal2018
Exergue
1. There is only one standard of proof in the proceedings before the EPO: the deciding body, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the relevant evidence before it, must be convinced that the alleged fact has occurred (see point 1.2.1 of the Reasons).
2. The boards have the power, at any stage of the appeal proceedings, to establish the relevant facts of the case before them and thereby substitute the findings of fact of the departments of first instance. However, the boards have no obligation to establish facts de novo already established by the departments of first instance (see point 1.2.4 of the Reasons).
3. The board's review of a fact-finding process should not be conflated with the review of discretionary decisions within the meaning of the obiter dictum in G 7/93, Reasons 2.6 (see point 1.2.4 (a) of the Reasons).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.