J 0007/90 (Correction of designation) vom 08.08.1991
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:1991:J000790.19910808
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 8. August 1991
- Aktenzeichen
- J 0007/90
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 88305201.1
- IPC-Klasse
- -
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- Im Amtsblatt des EPA veröffentlicht (A)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- -
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- -
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- -
- Name des Antragstellers
- Toledo
- Name des Einsprechenden
- -
- Kammer
- 3.1.01
- Leitsatz
1. The Legal Board of Appeal upholds its case law under which the addition of a designation of a Contracting State by correction under Rule 88, first sentence, EPC is subject to a time limitation. Corrections can accordingly be made only if the request for correction is received by the EPO in sufficient time to enable publication of a warning together with the European patent application. This applies even where all other conditions to which such corrections are subject under Legal Board of Appeal case law have been met and, in particular, even where the applicant has requested correction immediately upon discovering his mistake (confirmation of past case law, e.g. in decisions J 12/80 (OJ EPO 1981, 143), J 3/81 (OJ EPO 1982, 100), J 21/84 (OJ EPO 1986, 75) and J 8/89 (1990 EPOR 57)).
2. However, the existing designation system and, in particular, the "precautionary designation" and Rule 85a EPC may give rise to legal problems. The system can only be developed further on the basis of legislation. The Convention gives competence to that end to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation.
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- EPC1973_R_088_Sent_1European Patent Convention Art 79 1973
- Schlagwörter
- Designations - correction of
Time limitation for corrections
Designation system: legal problems and potential development - Orientierungssatz
- -
- Zitierte Akten
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The request for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.