T 0097/94 (Procedural timetable) du 15.07.1997
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1997:T009794.19970715
- Date de la décision
- 15 juilliet 1997
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0097/94
- En ligne le
- 6 novembre 1997
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 86402042.5
- Classe de la CIB
- C08G 18/08
- Langue de la procédure
- Français
- 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
- Perfectionnements pour polyurethanes à deux composants
- Nom du demandeur
- CECA S.A.
- Nom de l'opposant
- Bayer AG
Grace GmbH zern - Chambre
- 3.3.03
- Sommaire
1. If, in accordance with decision G 6/95, Rule 71a(1) EPC is not binding on the boards of appeal in the sense that it gives them full scope in the preparation of oral proceedings, it is nevertheless binding on the parties. Thus, when a board of appeal decides to send the parties a communication under Rule 71a(1) EPC, the latter are obliged to comply with it, in particular as far as the final date for reply is concerned (reasons, 3.5.1).
2. If an attorney is replaced at a late stage in the proceedings for reasons other than force majeure, the new representative is obliged to continue the proceedings from the stage they had reached when he took over from his predecessor. This change may not be used by a party, in the present instance a respondent/opponent, as an opportunity to adopt a new defence strategy based on a hearing of witnesses which was unforeseeable in the light of the arguments and requests previously submitted (reasons, 3.5.3).
3. Where public prior use is cited, the assessment of probability which normally underlies the boards' opinion must cede to a stricter criterion close to absolute conviction. In other words, there should be a degree of certainty which is beyond all reasonable doubt (reasons, 5.1).
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 54 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 117(1)(d) 1973European Patent Convention R 71a(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 72(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 72(2) 1973
- Mots-clés
- Late designation of witnesses - request for hearing refused
Public prior use (no) - insufficient probative value of evidence submitted - missing links in the chain of evidence submitted - Exergue
- -
- Affaires citées
- G 0001/92G 0004/95G 0006/95T 0194/86T 0093/89T 0270/90T 0939/90T 0207/91T 0685/91T 0713/91T 0141/92T 0472/92T 0848/94
- Affaires citantes
- T 0249/93T 0048/96T 0494/96T 0785/96T 0611/97T 0037/98T 0176/98T 0552/98T 0895/98T 1029/98T 0012/00T 0505/00T 0805/00T 0019/01T 0284/01T 0060/02T 0339/02T 0972/02T 0225/03T 0120/04T 0442/04T 0738/04T 0313/05T 0736/05T 1210/05T 1335/05T 1600/06T 1469/08T 0071/09T 0918/11T 2451/13T 0057/14T 1646/16T 1570/19T 0778/21T 1758/22
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The impugned decision is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution.