T 0022/09 (Party status/Fischer-Tropsch Catalysts/SASOL TECHNOLOGY) vom 21.06.2013
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T002209.20130621
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 21. Juni 2013
- Aktenzeichen
- T 0022/09
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 99906328.2
- IPC-Klasse
- B01J 23/75C07C 1/04B01J 33/00B01J 37/02
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- Im Amtsblatt des EPA veröffentlicht (A)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- T 0022/09 Fischer-Tropsch Catalysts/ Sasol 2016-02-05
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- -
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- PROCESS FOR PRODUCING FISCHER-TROPSCH CATALYSTS
- Name des Antragstellers
- Sasol Technology (Proprietary) Limited
- Name des Einsprechenden
- Formalities Bureau Limited
- Kammer
- 3.3.07
- Leitsatz
Questions
1. Where an opposition is filed by a company which is dissolved before the Opposition Division issues a decision maintaining the opposed patent in amended form, but that company is subsequently restored to the register of companies under a provision of the national law governing the company, by virtue of which the company is deemed to have continued in existence as if it had not been dissolved, must the European Patent Office recognize the retroactive effect of that provision of national law and allow the opposition proceedings to be continued by the restored company?
2. Where an appeal is filed in the name of the dissolved company against the decision maintaining the patent in amended form, and the restoration of the company to the register of companies, with retroactive effect as described in question 1, takes place after the filing of the appeal and after the expiry of the time limit for filing the appeal under Article 108 EPC, must the Board of Appeal treat the appeal as admissible?
3. If either of questions 1 and 2 is answered in the negative, does that mean that the decision of the Opposition Division maintaining the opposed patent in amended form automatically ceases to have effect, with the result that the patent is to be maintained as granted?
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 107European Patent Convention Art 108European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention R 101(1)
- Schlagwörter
- Opponent company dissolved before decision of Opposition Division was issued - dissolved company restored to register of companies under national law after filing of appeal - retroactive effect under national law
Point of law of fundamental importance - no case law on that point - legal uncertainty about party status (yes) - necessity to refer questions to Enlarged Board (yes) - Orientierungssatz
- -
- Zitierte Akten
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
1. Where an opposition is filed by a company which is dissolved before the Opposition Division issues a decision maintaining the opposed patent in amended form, but that company is subsequently restored to the register of companies under a provision of the national law governing the company, by virtue of which the company is deemed to have continued in existence as if it had not been dissolved, must the European Patent Office recognize the retroactive effect of that provision of national law and allow the opposition proceedings to be continued by the restored company?
2. Where an appeal is filed in the name of the dissolved company against the decision maintaining the patent in amended form, and the restoration of the company to the register of companies, with retroactive effect as described in question 1, takes place after the filing of the appeal and after the expiry of the time limit for filing the appeal under Article 108 EPC, must the Board of Appeal treat the appeal as admissible?
3. If either of questions 1 and 2 is answered in the negative, does that mean that the decision of the Opposition Division maintaining the opposed patent in amended form automatically ceases to have effect, with the result that the patent is to be maintained as granted?