T 1198/20 du 27.06.2023
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T119820.20230627
- Date de la décision
- 27 juin 2023
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 1198/20
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 16161403.7
- Classe de la CIB
- F22B 31/00F23C 10/10
- 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
- A FLUIDIZED BED HEAT EXCHANGER AND A CORRESPONDING INCINERATION APPARATUS
- Nom du demandeur
- Doosan Lentjes GmbH
- Nom de l'opposant
- Sumitomo SHI FW Energia Oy
- Chambre
- 3.2.03
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 101(1)European Patent Convention Art 104(1)European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 116(1)European Patent Convention Art 52(1)European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention R 111(2)European Patent Convention R 116(1)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(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(6)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 016(1)
- Mots-clés
- Right to be heard - opportunity to comment (yes)
Right to be heard - obligation for the opposition division to communicate their preliminary opinion (no)
Right to be heard - appealed decision sufficiently reasoned (yes)
Right to be heard - substantial procedural violation (no)
Novelty - main request (no)
Late-filed request - auxiliary requests 1 to 13
Late-filed request - admissibly raised in first-instance proceedings (no)
Late-filed request - should have been submitted in first-instance proceedings (yes)
Late-filed request - circumstances of appeal case justify admittance (no)
Late-filed request - admitted (no)
Apportionment of costs - different apportionment of costs justified (no) - Exergue
- -
- Affaires citées
- G 0012/91
- Affaires citantes
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The request for a different apportionment of costs is refused.