T 0842/24 du 21.05.2026
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2026:T084224.20260521
- Date de la décision
- 21 mai 2026
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0842/24
- En ligne le
- 22 mai 2026
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 19751764.2
- 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
- CELLULOSE ACETATE PARTICLES, COSMETIC COMPOSITION, AND METHOD OF PRODUCING CELLULOSE ACETATE PARTICLES
- Nom du demandeur
- Daicel Corporation
- Nom de l'opposant
- Cerdia International GmbH
- Chambre
- 3.3.03
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 114(2)European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)European Patent Convention R 103(4)(c)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 011Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(2)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 013
- Mots-clés
- Sufficiency of disclosure objection submitted in writing and not taken into account by the opposition division while maintaining the patent in amended form -
susbtantial procedural violation (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - equitable by reason of a substantial procedural violation
Evidence and new objection admitted into the proceedings forming the basis for the contested decision are part of the appeal proceedings (yes)
New document submitted on appeal in reply to evidence submitted shortly before the oral proceeding before the opposition division on the basis of which novelty was denied
admitted (yes) - fresh case on novelty
Remittal to the opposition division - Exergue
- There is no legal basis for reversing in appeal a decision by the opposition division to admit new evidence into the opposition proceedings and thus to retroactively reject in appeal specific facts which had been admitted into the appeal proceedings if that evidence formed the basis of the decision taken on substantive grounds. It cannot be derived from G 7/93 that the criteria stated therein for overruling the way in which a department of first instance has exercised its discretion also apply to the case where evidence was admitted and the decision taken on substantive grounds was based thereon. (see Reasons 4.1 to 4.6)
- Affaires citées
- G 0007/93G 0004/95G 0001/21R 0017/11T 0640/91T 1209/05T 1549/07T 0467/08T 1485/08T 1652/08T 1253/09T 1852/11T 2513/11T 1568/12T 1883/12T 1271/13T 1690/15T 1711/16T 2730/16T 0776/17T 0879/18T 0526/21T 0989/23
- 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 of the opponent is to be reimbursed. The appeal fee of the patent proprietor is to be reimbursed at 25% in accordance with Rule 103(4)(c) EPC.