Key points
- “The appellant alleges that when recomposing the panel to deal with its first objection and again after the decision to replace the Chairman and a further member, Article 2(2) and 2(3) Business distribution scheme have not been applied correctly and the Enlarged Board is therefore not correctly composed. As a result the right of the appellant to have its case heard by lawfully designated judges and its right to be heard have been violated. ”
- “the provisions of [Article 2 of the Business distribution scheme of the Enlarged Board] do not indicate a competence for a panel as composed by the Chairman to change its own composition. Only the Chairman is given a role in changing a given composition of a panel. It would appear that an incorrect application of the provisions of the Business distribution scheme should thus be corrected by the Chairman of the Enlarged Board and not by the panel as composed by him. ”
- “For the reason of lack of competence the Enlarged Board as presently composed refrains from commenting on the alleged incorrect application of Article 2(2) and 2(3) of the Business distribution scheme of the Enlarged Board.”
- I prefer to refrain from commenting on the passage above.
34. With procedural requests 7 and 8 the appellant requests to change the composition of the Enlarged Board in this case. The appellant alleges that when recomposing the panel to deal with its first objection and again after the decision to replace the Chairman and a further member, Article 2(2) and 2(3) Business distribution scheme have not been applied correctly and the Enlarged Board is therefore not correctly composed. As a result the right of the appellant to have its case heard by lawfully designated judges and its right to be heard have been violated. This is a substantial procedural violation.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2021/08/g-121b-business-distribution-scheme.html
