G 0003/97 (Opposition on behalf of a third party) of 21.01.1999

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:1999:G000397.19990121

Date of decision

21 January 1999

Case number

G 0003/97

Petition for review of

T 0301/95 1997-06-27

Application number

88112875.5

IPC class

B29C 47/10

Language of proceedings

German

Distribution

Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)

Download

Decision in German

OJ versions

Other decisions for this case

Abstracts for this decision

Application title

Vorrichtung zum Aufbereiten thermoplastischer Kunststoffgüter

Applicant name

INDUPACK AG

Opponent name

Hartdegen Emmerich Ing.

Board

Headnote

1(a): An opposition is not inadmissible purely because the person named as opponent according to Rule 55(a) EPC is acting on behalf of a third party.

1(b): Such an opposition is, however, inadmissible if the involvement of the opponent is to be regarded as circumventing the law by abuse of process.

1(c): Such a circumvention of the law arises, in particular, if:

- the opponent is acting on behalf of the patent proprietor;

- the opponent is acting on behalf of a client in the context of activities which, taken as a whole, are typically associated with professional representatives, without possessing the relevant qualifications required by Article 134 EPC.

1(d): However, a circumvention of the law by abuse of process does not arise purely because:

- a professional representative is acting in his own name on behalf of a client;

- an opponent with either a residence or principal place of business in one of the EPC contracting states is acting on behalf of a third party who does not meet this requirement. 2: In determining whether the law has been circumvented by abuse of process, the principle of the free evaluation of evidence is to be applied. The burden of proof is to be borne by the person alleging that the opposition is inadmissible. The deciding body has to be satisfied on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that the law has been circumvented by abuse of process.

Relevant legal provisions

European Patent Convention Art 99 1973 European Patent Convention R 55 1973

Keywords

Admissibility of opposition - acting on behalf of a third party
Circumvention of the law by abuse of process

Catchword

Cited cases

G 0001/84 G 0009/93 T 0010/82 T 0635/88 T 0290/90 T 0649/92 T 0798/93

Citing cases

G 0003/99 G 0002/04 G 0001/12 G 0001/13 G 0002/21 R 0010/18 J 0006/22 T 0303/94 T 0272/95 T 1204/97 T 0598/98 T 0711/99 T 0147/00 T 0136/01 T 0379/01 T 0475/01 T 0788/01 T 1200/01 T 1284/01 T 1091/02 T 0315/03 T 0324/03 T 0983/03 T 1165/03 T 0474/04 T 1178/04 T 0004/05 T 0163/05 T 0190/05 T 0373/05 T 1421/05 T 0003/06 T 1206/06 T 1553/06 T 1895/06 T 0993/07 T 0305/08 T 0384/08 T 0545/08 T 1588/08 T 1698/08 T 1729/08 T 1838/08 T 0002/09 T 0284/10 T 1032/10 T 2365/11 T 0001/12 T 2357/12 T 0335/13 T 1363/14 T 2256/14 T 0384/15 T 1924/15 T 2238/15 T 1604/16 T 0007/17 T 0882/17 T 1418/17 T 2558/17 T 2717/17 T 0116/18 T 1063/18 T 1078/18 T 1839/18 T 2951/18 T 0084/19 T 0239/20 T 1138/20 T 1371/20 T 1720/20 T 1891/20 T 0778/21 T 0953/21 T 1731/21 T 1808/21 T 1894/21 T 1908/21 T 2036/21 T 2095/21 T 0846/22 T 1893/22 T 1677/23 T 1874/23 T 0412/24 T 1403/24 T 1469/24

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

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

1(a): An opposition is not inadmissible purely because the person named as opponent according to Rule 55(a) EPC is acting on behalf of a third party.

1(b): Such an opposition is, however, inadmissible if the involvement of the opponent is to be regarded as circumventing the law by abuse of process.

1(c): Such a circumvention of the law arises, in particular, if:

- the opponent is acting on behalf of the patent proprietor;

1(d): However, a circumvention of the law by abuse of process does not arise purely because:

- a professional representative is acting in his own name on behalf of a client;

- an opponent with either a residence or principal place of business in one of the EPC contracting states is acting on behalf of a third party who does not meet this requirement.

2: In determining whether the law has been circumvented by abuse of process, the principle of the free evaluation of evidence is to be applied. The burden of proof is to be borne by the person alleging that the opposition is inadmissible. The deciding body has to be satisfied on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that the law has been circumvented by abuse of process.