European Patent Office

T 0290/90 (Fee reduction) du 09.10.1990

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:1990:T029090.19901009
Date de la décision
9 octobre 1990
Numéro de l'affaire
T 0290/90
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
83301259.4
Classe de la CIB
H05F 3/02
Langue de la procédure
Anglais
Distribution
Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
Téléchargement
Décision en anglais
Autres décisions pour cet affaire
-
Résumés pour cette décision
-
Titre de la demande
-
Nom du demandeur
DACA
Nom de l'opposant
Savio Plastica
Chambre
3.4.01
Sommaire

1. If infringement proceedings in a designated State have been commenced or are contemplated by the patentee (here, commenced and thereafter stayed pending decision in an opposition before the EPO), it is justified to give priority to an appeal in opposition proceedings and to decide it in advance of other pending appeals.

2. In a multiple opposition, where an appeal has been filed concerning the existence or admissibility of one of the oppositions, the examination stage of the opposition proceedings should be prepared and processed in parallel with the appeal with the participation of all the opponents up to the point when it is ready to be decided: as soon as the appeal is decided, the opposition may also be decided.

3. To be granted the benefit of a 20% reduction of the opposition fee under Rule 6(3) EPC, that part of a notice of opposition which is governed by Rule 55(c) EPC should always be filed in a non-official authorised language. See also the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of 6 March 1992, G 6/91 (to be published).

4. Whether or not it may be considered justified to overlook a small amount of a fee which is lacking, under Article 9(1) Rules relating to Fees, must be decided on an objective, not a subjective, basis.

Mots-clés
Accelerated processing of appeal
Admissibility of opposition (yes)
Fee reduction/Non-official authorised language
Lacking of a small amount of a fee
Exergue
-
Affaires citées
-

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The decision of the Formalities Officer dated 29 January 1990 is set aside.

3. The opposition fee is deemed to have been paid and the notice of opposition of the appellant filed, in due time.