T 2719/19 (Prolongation of survival of an allograft/ALEXION) vom 28.01.2022
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T271919.20220128
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 28. Januar 2022
- Aktenzeichen
- T 2719/19
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 16160321.2
- IPC-Klasse
- C07K 16/18A61K 39/395
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- Im Amtsblatt des EPA veröffentlicht (A)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- T 2719/19 Allograft survival/ALEXION 2023-11-20
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- -
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- Prolongation of survival of an allograft by inhibiting complement activity
- Name des Antragstellers
- Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Name des Einsprechenden
- -
- Kammer
- 3.3.04
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- BGH 16 April 2013 case X ZR 49/12 (Fahrzeugscheibe)European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 118European Patent Convention Art 153(2)European Patent Convention Art 87(1)European Patent Convention R 139European Patent Convention R 99(2)Gerechtshof Den Haag 30 July 2019ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2019:1962KCI Licensing Inc and others v. Smith & Nephew PLC and otherscase HC09c02624 of 23 June 2010Paris Convention Art 004Patent Cooperation Treaty Art 11(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
- Schlagwörter
- Priority
Correction of error
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - Orientierungssatz
- The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
I. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC?
II. If question I is answered in the affirmative
Can a party B validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT-application for the purpose of claiming priority rights under Article 87(1) EPC
in the case where
1) a PCT-application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States, including regional European patent protection and
2) the PCT-application claims priority from an earlier patent application that designates party A as the applicant and
3) the priority claimed in the PCT-application is in compliance with Article 4 of the Paris Convention?
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
I. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC?
II. If question I is answered in the affirmative
Can a party B validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT-application for the purpose of claiming priority rights under Article 87(1) EPC
in the case where
1) a PCT-application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States, including regional European patent protection and
2) the PCT-application claims priority from an earlier patent application that designates party A as the applicant and
3) the priority claimed in the PCT-application is in compliance with Article 4 of the Paris Convention?