Headnote
I. The discretionary power given to the departments of the EPO
pursuant to Article 114(2) EPC serves to ensure that proceedings
can be concluded switftly in the interests of the parties, the
general public and the EPO, and to forestall tactical abuse. If
a party fails to submit the facts, evidence and arguments
relevant to their case as early and completely as possible,
without adequate excuse, and admitting the same would lead to an
excessive delay in the proceedings, the Boards of Appeal are
fully justified in refusing to admit them in exercise of the
discretion provided by Article 114(2) EPC (Reasons, point 5.15;
T 0156/84, OJ EPO 1987, 372, qualified).
II. The fact that the Opposition Division relies on the
arguments presented by the Patentee to reject the opposition
cannot be equated with a substantial procedural violation. When
the content of the file does not reveal any basically and/or
conspicuously wrong analysis, nor anything manifestly
unreasonable in the reasoning, there is no ground to suspect
bias (Reasons, point 14.1).
III. Although an Opposition Division or Board of Appeal has the
power under Article 104 EPC to make an award of costs against a
party if it is equitable to do so, the Boards of Appeal have no
power to make an award of costs against the EPO if (which did
not arise) it regards the decision of an Opposition Division as
unsatisfactory (Reasons, point 16).
|
|
|
