T 0018/09 (Neutrokine/HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES) vom 21.10.2009
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T001809.20091021
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 21. Oktober 2009
- Aktenzeichen
- T 0018/09
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 96939612.6
- IPC-Klasse
- C12N 15/12
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- An die Kammervorsitzenden verteilt (C)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Keine AB-Links gefunden
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- -
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- -
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- NEUTROKINE alpha
- Name des Antragstellers
- HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES, INC.
- Name des Einsprechenden
- ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
- Kammer
- 3.3.08
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 123(3)European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 57European Patent Convention Art 83European Patent Convention Art 84
- Schlagwörter
- Main request - added subject-matter (no); extension of protection (no); clarity (yes); sufficiency of disclosure (yes); industrial application (yes); novelty (yes); inventive step (yes).
- Orientierungssatz
- (1) In case of parallel proceedings before a national court and the Boards of Appeal, parties should inform both tribunals of the position as early as possible and ask the appropriate tribunal for acceleration in order to avoid duplication of proceedings. Whether acceleration is requested by one party, or both or all parties in agreement, or by a national court, all parties must accept a strict procedural framework including short time limits. It must also be understood that acceleration can have no effect on the equal treatment of all parties and cannot confer any advantage on any one party (see points 1 to 3 of the Reasons).
(2) An objection of lack of industrial application (Article 57 EPC) requires the same standard of proof as an objection of insufficient disclosure (Article 83 EPC), namely serious doubts substantiated by verifiable facts (see points 31 to 33 of the Reasons).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of claims 1 to 19 of the main request filed during the oral proceedings and a description and figures to be adapted thereto.