T 0809/21 du 05.07.2022
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T080921.20220705
- Date de la décision
- 5 juilliet 2022
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0809/21
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 07831774.0
- Classe de la CIB
- G03G 21/18G03G 21/16H04L 25/49
- 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
- COMMUNICATION DEVICE, IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND CARTRIDGE
- Nom du demandeur
- Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
- Nom de l'opposant
- Nickel, André
- Chambre
- 3.4.03
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 101(3)(a)European Patent Convention Art 106(2)European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 99(1)European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)European Patent Convention R 76(2)(c)European Patent Convention R 82(1)
- Mots-clés
- Extent of opposition
Reimbursement of appeal fee - substantial procedural violation (yes) - Exergue
- In a case where the patent is not opposed in its entirety, the opposition being directed at certain claims only, and where the Opposition Division decides that all of the proprietor's requests in relation to the opposed claims must fail, only the unopposed claims, which are not part of any opposition proceedings, are left standing.
Hence, provided the requirements of Rule 82(1) EPC are met (either during oral proceedings or, in a written procedure, by means of a separate communication), the patent may be maintained on the basis of the unopposed claims, irrespective of whether the proprietor has filed an explicit request for this during the proceedings. Such a request would, in fact, be superfluous, since the unopposed claims have been granted and are not the subject of any opposition. The unopposed claims of the granted patent are therefore always available to the proprietor as the minimum basis on which the patent may be maintained (Reasons, point 5.2). - 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 appeal fee is to be reimbursed in full.