European Patent Office

T 1138/20 (Reviewing findings of fact/VIASAT) of 25.04.2023

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T113820.20230425
Date of decision
25 April 2023
Case number
T 1138/20
Petition for review of
-
Application number
13168502.6
IPC class
H04B 7/185
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
Distributed to board chairmen (C)
OJ versions
No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
Abstract on EPC2000 Art 117
Application title
Improved spot beam satellite systems
Applicant name
ViaSat, Inc.
Opponent name
European Space Agency
Board
3.5.03
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Art 32, 41(4)Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 6(1)European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 117European Patent Convention Art 54(2)
Keywords
Document NPL1 valid state of the art - (yes): public availability sufficiently proven
Standard of proof - conviction of the deciding body
Errors in the opposition division's fact-finding process - (no)
Novelty over NPL1
Novelty - main request and 1st auxiliary request (no)
Allowability of 2nd auxiliary request - (yes): prohibition of
reformatio in peius
Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal2018
Catchword
1. There is only one standard of proof in the proceedings before the EPO: the deciding body, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the relevant evidence before it, must be convinced that the alleged fact has occurred (see point 1.2.1 of the Reasons).
2. The boards have the power, at any stage of the appeal proceedings, to establish the relevant facts of the case before them and thereby substitute the findings of fact of the departments of first instance. However, the boards have no obligation to establish facts de novo already established by the departments of first instance (see point 1.2.4 of the Reasons).
3. The board's review of a fact-finding process should not be conflated with the review of discretionary decisions within the meaning of the obiter dictum in G 7/93, Reasons 2.6 (see point 1.2.4 (a) of the Reasons).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.