T 0649/92 (DNA for HSA/GENENTECH) vom 02.07.1996
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:1996:T064992.19960702
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 2. Juli 1996
- Aktenzeichen
- T 0649/92
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 82304478.9
- IPC-Klasse
- C12N 15/00
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- Im Amtsblatt des EPA veröffentlicht (A)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- T 0649/92 DNA for HSA/GENENTECH 1999-09-28
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- -
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- Préparation microbiologique de protéines, en particulier de sérum albumine humaine
- Name des Antragstellers
- GENENTECH, INC.
- Name des Einsprechenden
- Naohito Oohashi
Delta Biotech. Ltd.
Riatal GmbH - Kammer
- 3.3.04
- Leitsatz
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:
1. Is a respondent patentee entitled to challenge the admissibility of an opposition on grounds relating to the identity of an appellant opponent during the course of the appeal, where no such challenge to admissibility had been raised before the opposition division?
2. If the answer to Question 1 depends on the particular circumstances, what are the legal principles governing the circumstances that the Board of Appeal should take into account in assessing whether a challenge to the admissibility of the opposition is allowable at the appeal stage?
3. If the answer to Question 1 can be yes, how is the requirement of Article 99(1) EPC to the effect that any person may give notice of opposition to the European Patent to be interpreted, and in particular should it be interpreted to the effect that anybody may give notice of opposition in his own name, but not in the name of a nominal opponent, that is an opponent who merely lends his name for the proceedings while allowing the proceedings to be controlled by another?
4. If the answer to Question 3 means that Article 99 EPC precludes a nominal opponent, in what circumstances, if any, can a suspected nominal opponent be required to provide evidence to establish that the opposition is genuinely his own, and what evidence can such a suspected nominal opponent be required to give to prove that he is a genuine opponent? 5. If the answers to the above questions involve a restriction on the right to challenge admissibility, is such restrictive view to be applied immediately in all pending proceedings?
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 99 1973European Patent Convention R 55 1973European Patent Convention R 65 1973
- Schlagwörter
- Nominal opponent
Strawman
Referral to Enlargement Board (yes) - Orientierungssatz
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:
1. Is a respondent patentee entitled to challenge the admissibility of an opposition on grounds relating to the identity of an appellant opponent during the course of the appeal, where no such challenge to admissibility had been raised before the opposition division?
2. If the answer to Question 1 depends on the particular circumstances, what are the legal principles governing the circumstances that the Board of Appeal should take into account in assessing whether a challenge to the admissibility of the opposition is allowable at the appeal stage?
3. If the answer to Question 1 can be yes, how is the requirement of Article 99(1) EPC to the effect that any person may give notice of opposition to the European Patent to be interpreted, and in particular should it be interpreted to the effect that anybody may give notice of opposition in his own name, but not in the name of a nominal opponent, that is an opponent who merely lends his name for the proceedings while allowing the proceedings to be controlled by another?
4. If the answer to Question 3 means that Article 99 EPC precludes a nominal opponent, in what circumstances, if any, can a suspected nominal opponent be required to provide evidence to establish that the opposition is genuinely his own, and what evidence can such a suspected nominal opponent be required to give to prove that he is a genuine opponent?
5. If the answers to the above questions involve a restriction on the right to challenge admissibility, is such restrictive view to be applied immediately in all pending proceedings?