T 0369/91 (Detergent composition) vom 15.05.1992
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:1992:T036991.19920515
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 15. Mai 1992
- Aktenzeichen
- T 0369/91
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 82200602.9
- IPC-Klasse
- C11D 3/37
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- Im Amtsblatt des EPA veröffentlicht (A)
- Download
- -
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- T 0369/91 Detergent compositions/PROCTER & GAMBLE 1992-10-07
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- -
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- Detergent composition containing performance additive and copolymeric compatibilizing agent therefor
- Name des Antragstellers
- Procter & Gamble
- Name des Einsprechenden
- Ciba-Geigy, Unilever, S.A. Camp
- Kammer
- 3.3.01
- Leitsatz
1. In the case of the maintenance of the patent according to an auxiliary request of the patentee, each party adversely affected by such decision of the Opposition Division may file an appeal against said decision (Art. 107, first sentence, EPC).
2. Parties as of right to appeal proceedings (Art. 107, second sentence, EPC) do not enjoy the same procedural rights as do parties who have lodged admissible appeals (following G 2/91, OJ EPO 1992, 206).
3. As a consequence, where the Opposition Division had maintained the patent in amended form, the patentee who was only a party as of right to the appeal, cannot request a broader claim than was allowed by the Opposition Division. For the same reason, such an opponent-respondent cannot request the revocation of the patent in its entirety.
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 107 1973European Patent Convention Art 108 1973European Patent Convention Art 122 1973
- Schlagwörter
- Cross-appeal
Late-filed statement of grounds of appeal
Re-establishment of rights refused
Cross-appellant's rights under Article 107 EPC to make requests considered in the light of G 2/91 (OJ EPO 1992,206) - Orientierungssatz
- -
- Zitierte Akten
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The application for restoration of rights is disallowed.
2. The applicant's (patentee's) cross-appeal is inadmissible.