T 0843/91 (Photographic elements) du 05.08.1993
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1993:T084391.19930805
- Date de la décision
- 5 août 1993
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0843/91
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 82306197.3
- Classe de la CIB
- G03C 7/32
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
- Téléchargement
- -
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- T 0843/91 Partialité 1993-03-17T 0843/91 Partiality 1993-03-17T 0843/91 Partiality 1993-03-17T 0843/91 Befangenheit 1993-03-17
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Photographic elements containing aryloxy substituted photographic material
- Nom du demandeur
- Kodak
- Nom de l'opposant
- Fuji
- Chambre
- 3.3.01
- Sommaire
A decision remitting a case to the Opposition Division with the order to maintain a patent on the basis of amended claims is binding in the sense that neither the wording nor the patentability of these claims may be further challenged in subsequent proceedings before the EPO. A finding of fact upon which this decision rests, i.e. a finding which is conditio sine qua non for the decision, is equally binding. Such a finding of fact is therefore not open to reconsideration pursuant to Article 111(2) EPC (point 3.4.2 of the Reasons).
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 104 1973European Patent Convention Art 106 1973European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 111(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 112(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 125 1973European Patent Convention Art 133 1973European Patent Convention Art 134 1973European Patent Convention R 10 1973European Patent Convention R 9 1973
- Mots-clés
- Unauthorised representative (no)
Letter criticising appeal proceedings not added to the opposition file after remittal (no substantial procedural violation)
Binding effect of Board of Appeal decisions (res judicata; ratio decidendi)
Desirability of ending legal disputes (vexatious proceedings)
Revision of a Board of Appeal decision in application of Article 125 EPC (not decisive in the present case; insufficient evidence of generally accepted practice in all Contracting States)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no) - Exergue
- -
- Affaires citées
- -
- Affaires citantes
- G 0001/97G 0001/05J 0011/94J 0003/95J 0008/98T 0690/91T 0153/93T 0167/93T 0720/93T 0027/94T 0609/94T 0460/95T 0450/97T 0241/98T 0546/98T 0954/98T 0598/01T 0694/01T 0281/03T 0609/03T 1020/06T 1895/06T 0365/09T 1518/11T 2084/11T 2297/11T 0308/14T 1257/14T 0449/15T 2175/15T 1656/17T 2078/17T 0450/18T 0602/18T 2264/18T 2558/18T 0689/19T 0956/19T 1008/19T 1469/20T 0437/21T 2194/22T 1285/23
ORDER
For these reasons it it decided that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellant's petitions 2, 3 and 4 are dismissed.
3. The respondent's request for an award of costs under Article 104 EPC is dismissed.