T 0014/89 (Re-establishmentof rights/deficiency) of 12.06.1989
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1989:T001489.19890612
- Date of decision
- 12 June 1989
- Case number
- T 0014/89
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 81106253.8
- IPC class
- B01J 20/34
- Language of proceedings
- German
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- -
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- -
- Applicant name
- Uhde
- Opponent name
- Schenck AG
- Board
- 3.3.02
- Headnote
1. The principle of good faith governing proceedings between the EPO and the parties involved (Reference to decision J 3/87, OJ EPO 1989, 3, and decision J 2/87, OJ EPO 1988, 330) requires that the applicant have his attention drawn to deficiencies in his application for re-establishment of rights which are obviously easy to correct (in this case: fee not paid and substantiation not supplied) if correction of the deficiencies can be expected within the two-month time limit for re-establishment of rights under Article 122(2) EPC.
2. If this communication is not sent by the EPO within the two-month time limit for re-establishment of rights laid down in Article 122(2) EPC, it must be sent subsequently and a new time limit set. Acts, the deficiencies of which are corrected within this set time limit, are deemed to have been performed in due time within the meaning of Article 122(2) EPC.
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 122(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 122(3) 1973
- Keywords
- Deficiencies in an application for re-establishment of rights
Re-establishment of rights - admissibility
Re-establishment of rights - fee not paid - no substantiation
Re-establishment of rights - deficiencies in the application not easy to correct easy to correct
Communication within the period specified in Article 122(2) EPC - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- -
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
1. The patent proprietor is granted re-establishment of rights to enable the omitted act - the filing of translations of the claims - to be deemed to have been completed within the time limit.
2. The impugned decision is set aside.
3. The case is remitted to the first instance for continuation of the proceedings.