European Patent Office

T 1961/09 of 26.06.2013

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T196109.20130626
Date of decision
26 June 2013
Case number
T 1961/09
Petition for review of
-
Application number
03812253.7
IPC class
B23C 5/22
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
Distributed to board chairmen and members (B)
OJ versions
No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
-
Application title
TANGENTIAL CUTTING INSERT AND MILLING CUTTER
Applicant name
Iscar Ltd.
Opponent name
Kennametal Inc.
Sandvik Intellectual Property AB
PALBIT S.A.
Board
3.2.06
Headnote
-
Keywords
Admissibility of appeal - notice of appeal
Admissibility of appeal - name and address of appellant
Admissibility of appeal - after remedy of deficiencies
Novelty - main request (no)
Late-filed auxiliary requests - change of subject-matter
Late-filed auxiliary requests - adjournment of oral proceedings would have been required (yes)
Intervention of the assumed infringer - admissible (yes)
Catchword
1. Where there is objectively a deficiency in the notice of appeal indicating a genuine error as regards the identity of the appellant and there is objective evidence in the file indicating with a sufficient degree of probability who the appellant should be, then the notice of appeal may be corrected under Rule 101(2) EPC (see point 1.9 of the Reasons). The reference to the Enlarged Board in G 0001/12 by the Board in T 0445/08 does not bring into doubt the jurisdiction to correct an error in the notice of appeal in circumstances such as those in T 0097/98 (see point 1.14 of the Reasons).
2. While an intervention under Article 105 EPC shortly before oral proceedings in an appeal, raising new issues, will normally require the oral proceedings to be adjourned if not the remittal of the case altogether (G 0001/94), the oral proceedings may be continued if and so far as this can be done without unfairness to the other parties, in particular the proprietor (see points 2.2. and 2.3 of the Reasons).
Citing cases
T 1841/23

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.