T 0967/18 (Cancer therapy/BIOTEMPUS) vom 14.03.2023
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T096718.20230314
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 14. März 2023
- Aktenzeichen
- T 0967/18
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 09007539.1
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- Nicht verteilt (D)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Keine AB-Links gefunden
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- -
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- Zusammenfassung von EPC2000 Art 104(1)Zusammenfassung von EPC2000 R 142
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- Cancer therapy
- Name des Antragstellers
- Biotempus Pty Ltd
- Name des Einsprechenden
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
- Kammer
- 3.3.04
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 104(1)European Patent Convention Art 106(1)European Patent Convention R 115(2)European Patent Convention R 142(1)(b)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 015(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 016
- Schlagwörter
- Admissibility of appeal - (no)
Apportionment of costs - severe negligence (no)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (yes) - Orientierungssatz
- Where opposition proceedings have been interrupted under Rule 142(1)(b) EPC, acts done by the parties or the competent body of the EPO during the period of interruption are considered invalid.
An appeal against a decision taken during the interruption is inadmissible, because it has no valid subject eligible for a judicial review.
The RPBA also apply to requests for apportionment of costs under Article 104(1) EPC.
A negligent behaviour may also justify apportionment of costs. However, the negligence must be serious enough to be considered equivalent to wilful misconduct. - Zitierende Akten
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
- The appeal is inadmissible.
- The requests of the respondent (opponent) and the appellant (patent proprietor) for a different apportionment of costs under Article 104 EPC are refused.