Page 175

ANNEXES

ANNEXE 3

SOMMAIRES des DÉCISIONS publiées (ou prévues pour publication) des années 2012 et 2013 ; les décisions de saisine se trouvent dans l'annexe 41

Case Number: G 1/10, OJ EPO 2013, 194

Applicant: Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc.

Headword: Request to correct patent/FISHER-ROSEMOUNT

Date: 23.07.12

Headnote

The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:

1. Since Rule 140 EPC is not available to correct the text of a patent, a patent proprietor's request for such a correction is inadmissible whenever made, including after the initiation of opposition proceedings.

2. In view of the answer to the first referred question, the second referred question requires no answer.

Aktenzeichen: G 1/11, ABl. EPA 2014, ***

Beschwerde-Aktenzeichen: J 21/09 - 3.1.01

Anmelder: BAUER Maschinen GmbH

Bezeichnung der Erfindung: Bodenabtragsvorrichtung

Datum: 19.03.2014

Leitsatz:

Ist für die Behandlung einer Beschwerde gegen eine Entscheidung der Prüfungsabteilung über die Nichtrückzahlung von Recherchengebühren gemäß Regel 64 (2) EPÜ, die nicht zusammen mit einer Entscheidung über die Erteilung eines europäischen Patents oder die Zurückweisung einer europäischen Patentanmeldung erlassen worden ist, eine Technische Beschwerdekammer oder die Juristische Beschwerdekammer zuständig?"

Case Number: T 1843/09, OJ EPO 2013, 502

Applicant: TORAY INDUSTRIES, INC

Date: 06.06.2012

Headnote:

The prohibition of reformatio in peius as far as it entails a procedural limitation of the proprietor's liberty to change by way of amendments the scope of protection sought prevails "in principle" (G 4/93) until the final settlement of the opposition case and, therefore, also in any proceedings, including further appeal proceedings, subsequent to a remittal under Article 111 EPC (point 2.3.1 of the reasons).

It is clear from G 1/99 that exceptions from the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in peius are a matter of equity in order to protect the non-appealing proprietor against procedural discrimination in circumstances where that prohibition would impair the legitimate defence of its patent. Therefore, exceptions from the prohibition of reformatio in peius are not limited to the situation specifically dealt with in G 1/99, where an error of judgment by the opposition division occurred concerning an amendment introduced into the version of the patent as maintained by the decision under appeal (point 2.4.4 of the reasons).