T 2044/16 × View decision
Einer Rückzahlung nach Regel 103(4)(c) EPÜ steht nicht entgegen, dass die Kammer bereits zu einem früheren Zeitpunkt einen ausführlicheren Vorbereitungsbescheid gemäß Artikel 15(1) VOBK 2020 erlassen hatte. Die Frist nach Regel 103(4)(c) EPÜ wird durch jede weitere vorbereitende Mitteilung der Kammer erneut ausgelöst, auch wenn diese im wesentlichen organisatorischen Inhalt hat und erst einen Monat vor der mündlichen Verhandlung ergeht. Die zum Rückzahlungstatbestand der Regel 103(2)(b) EPÜ (nun Regel 103(3)(b) EPÜ) in T 265/14 diskutierten Erwägungen sind auch auf die vorliegende Fallkonstellation übertragbar. Entscheidend ist der mit der Regelung beabsichtigte Arbeitszeitgewinn, der durch die auf die Mitteilung erklärte Antragsrücknahme und die dadurch ermöglichte effiziente Verfahrensbeendigung im schriftlichen Verfahren erreicht wird. (siehe Gründe, Ziffern 5 bis 5.6)
In T 683/14 the examining division had implemented its erroneous position that the confidentiality document submitted on 1 August 2013 could not be taken into account because the debate had been closed and a "decision" had been taken during the oral proceedings of 10 December 2012. The board stated that the examining division had erred in two respects. Firstly, the oral proceedings were not terminated by a formal decision. Secondly, even if the debate had been formally closed, it could have been reopened. The board cited T 595/90: "Observations submitted [after the closing of the debate] could only be taken into account if the Board reopened the debate (Art. 113 EPC) which depends on its discretion." The board was of the view that analogous considerations applied to the EPO departments of first instance. The board found that the examining division did commit an error, but a substantive and not an (independent) procedural one. The procedural consequences were caused exclusively by the implementation of the division's erroneous substantive position. After the applicant filed an appeal against the decision to refuse the European patent, the examining division rectified their decision to refuse. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee at 50% under R. 103(2) EPC was refused on the grounds that by rectifying the decision the examining division had set the decision under appeal aside and had allowed the appeal. As such the applicant's request for the withdrawal of its appeal had no object and in the absence of a pending appeal that might be withdrawn, R. 103(2) EPC did not apply.
9.8. Withdrawal of appeal
You are viewing the 9th edition (2019) of this publication; for the 10th edition (2022) see here |