tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post2697564191387244171..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 253/10 – Admission Problemsorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-10358950330532355472012-12-27T14:28:53.333+01:002012-12-27T14:28:53.333+01:00This case reminds me of the one in which I (repres...This case reminds me of the one in which I (representing Opponent) received a 17 page annex to the Summons to oral proceedings before the TBA. One month before the Hearing, the German attorney representing the patentee filed a bunch of auxiliary requests.<br /><br />At the hearing, I asked for them to be refused admission, pointing out that they could have been filed earlier. Pat's rep challenged that. He said he needed the 17 page Annex first, to see what the Board was thinking and only then could he formulate his auxiliaries efficiently.<br /><br />I then pointed out to the Chair the consequences (loads more work for the Board)of attaching an annex to a Summons. I suggested that it was an insult to the Board to hold back the patentee's case until after the Rapporteur has wasted his time writing 17 pages on a case that is not at all the patentee's case for maintenance of the patent.<br /><br />Against all my expectations, for it was a nice invention, the patent was revoked. there's a lesson in there somewhere.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.com