European Patent Office

T 0015/01 (Mystery Swine Disease/SDLO) vom 17.06.2004

Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T001501.20040617
Datum der Entscheidung
17. Juni 2004
Aktenzeichen
T 0015/01
Antrag auf Überprüfung von
-
Anmeldenummer
92913710.7
IPC-Klasse
A61K 39/12
Verfahrenssprache
Englisch
Verteilung
Im Amtsblatt des EPA veröffentlicht (A)
Amtsblattfassungen
Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
-
Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
-
Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
Causative agent of the mystery swine disease, vaccine compositions and diagnostic kits
Name des Antragstellers
Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek
Name des Einsprechenden
Cyanamid Iberica
Akzo Nobel N.V.
Kammer
3.3.04
Leitsatz

1. The same priority right may be validly claimed in more than one European patent application; there is no exhaustion of priority rights (see points 25 to 41 of the reasons).

2. Rule 20(3) EPC does not apply in the context of universal successions in law. The universal successor of a patent applicant or patentee automatically acquires party status in proceedings pending before the European Patent Office (see points 4 to 12 of the reasons).

3. Neither Rule 57a nor Article 123(3) EPC is infringed if a patent proprietor files a separate set of claims for a specific contracting state in opposition proceedings in order to take into account that, due to a reservation made under Article 167(2)(a) EPC, product claims as granted would be considered invalid in this state (see points 17 to 21 of the reasons).

Schlagwörter
Admissibility of appeal (yes) - party status of universal successor of original patentee (yes) - correction of wrong designation of appellant (allowed)
Allowability of amendments: new set of claims for ES/GR (yes)
Broadening of scope of protection (no)
Priority (yes) - doctrine of exhaustion of priority (no)
Novelty and inventive step (yes)
Orientierungssatz
-

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appeal of appellant I is admissible.

2. The decision under appeal is set aside.

3. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of the claims of the new main request filed during oral proceedings, and a description to be adapted.